Is Theistic Evolution Heresy?

[bsd058]

You can choose to agree or disagree with me. If you do, I would invite you to utilize the Bible as the means through which we can come to an agreement on whether or not Theistic Evolution compromises the message of the Gospel and is therefore heresy.

We should start with the debate over definition of the term Theistic Evolution and what we mean by this.

Then, we may move toward the understanding of whether or not this is compromises the gospel of Jesus Christ.

To preface this post, I would like to let it be known that I understand that some of those who hold to the doctrine of Theistic Evolution have not thought through their position completely and conclusively and therefore, while I feel they are in dangerous error, I do not believe they are entirely cut off from the chance of salvation. If the doctrine is heresy, and someone understands the implications of said heresy, it stands to reason that they probably stand condemned already, since after learning of error, a true believer would be expected to repent and adjust themselves to God's truth.

So to start, I have a few agreeable definitions:

Definition 1 - "Theistic evolution contends that abiogenesis (the spontaneous formation of life from chemicals) and evolution (amoeba to many through eons) have occurred, but a creator was instrumental in forming the initial matter and laws, and more or less guided the whole process." (Inquiry Press, East Lansing, Michigan, 1976, p 63)

PS - I cannot post websites I've looked at until I hit 50 posts, so if you find these definitions from some websites, the reason is that I probably pulled them from there. Thanks.
[FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]
Definition 2 -[/FONT] Many Christians, including men of science as well as theologians, accommodate the discoveries of science in their religion by suggesting that God did not create the world (in its present form) supernaturally. Rather, He used natural processes as His “method of creation,” and guided evolution to the final realization of man. In this view, Adam’s body was produced as a result of the process of evolution, and God then completed His “creation” of man by giving him an eternal soul. The creation of life as described in Genesis is thus recognized to be essentially poetic, or at least to be flexible enough to permit God a wide latitude in His method of creation. This interpretation is generally referred to as “theistic evolution” (Young, 1985, p. 46, emp. and parenthetical item in orig.).

Definition 3 - The theistic evolutionist holds a position somewhat between that of the absolute evolutionist and the creationist. He believes that God created the materials of our universe and then guided and superintended the process by which all life has evolved from the very simplest one-celled form on up to the sophisticated forms which we know today. Evolution was God’s method of bringing about the present development, though originally the materials were created by God (Baxter, 1971, p. 159).
Definition 4 - What is theistic evolution? Believers in God generally take the position that God made the universe, including the laws of nature, so that the universe moves along in response to these laws. If one drops an object to earth, it is expected to behave in accordance with the law of gravitation as formulated by scientists as a result of their observation. Both theists (believers in God) and atheists (disbelievers in God) believe that there are natural laws by which the universe operates. The atheist believes that there was no FIRST CAUSE but that this system has gone on for eternity, so that prior to each effect there has existed a totally adequate natural cause. When a natural effect occurs for which there was not a totally adequate natural cause, then supernatural INTERVENTION has occurred. Theistic evolution postulates that such intervention accounts for some actions in evolution (Camp, 1972, p. 192, emp. and parenthetical items in orig.)

These last three definitions come from Apologetics Press and are cited, but not confirmed or fact checked. I assume the citations are accurate for the sake of this post.

Definition 5 - Theistic evolution or evolutionary creation is a concept that asserts that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life. (Wikipedia)

I've included Definition 5 since, while Wikipedia is not a good academic resource, it is a good resource in the sense that it is a website that expresses a collective understanding of popular topics. While the definition may fall short of the desired definition, it gives an idea of what people in general believe about this topic, and therefore expresses the belief of the "general populace," so to speak.

I believe that the proper definition can be found in the common ground expressed by all of these definitions. That is, all theistic evolutionists believe in one way or another that "God, in His providence, desired to create man by the process of Darwinian Evolution."

Darwinian Evolution is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory.

I believe that the process of natural selection developed by Darwin and others implies the death of the unfit (as opposed to the fit who survive and pass on their genetics to generation after generation). Again, I take the Wikipedia definition, not because it is the easiest to find, but because it is the general consensus of the people we come into contact with on a normal basis. It is the most common definition we will run into when talking with the general public.

According to the website, Natural selection is the gradual, non-random process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers.

This method implies that certain biological traits become more or less common within a population, because the ones who have these traits which make them more fit to survive and pass on these biological traits actually do so through the ones who do not pass on their traits dying off.

Therefore, while the process of natural selection within Darwinian Evolution is useful in a wide variety of sciences such as economics, medical theory biology, etc., today, and the Christian has no problem with using these ideas today in order to explain these sciences, they should have difficulty with this theory as it pertains to the origin of life and species.

I contend, as with others I'm sure, that the acceptance of Darwinian Evolution as the means by which mankind and the species were created by God leads to the conclusion that death was a matter of fact before the fall of Adam.

Christians believe that death entered into the world through the fall of Adam (Romans 5:12), and therefore death, in a sense, is proof that sin has entered into the world and has not been eradicated yet.

Yet, if death existed before Adam existed then we must believe that death did not enter the world through sin.

If death is not the penalty of sin, which it is (Rom 6:23), then Christ did not take the penalty for our sin by dying on our behalf.

But, Christ died for our sin on our behalf (1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10 Rom 3:25). He was therefore our substitute which turned the wrath of God away from us.

My present conclusion: The belief in theistic evolution implies the belief that Christ did not die in order to be the substitute for sinners since death is not the consequence of sin (but rather a natural occurrence) and therefore Christ's death did not pay for the consequence of sin (which was death). This shows it to be heresy.

Try to not attack me, but rather my conclusion and arguments. If you agree, please feel free to say so. It is best if people who agree together stick together. If you disagree with my conclusion based upon my argumentation or exegesis, then don't be afraid to post. As long as your exegesis is not an attempt to twist the Scripture, there is really nothing to fear anyways.

I look forward to responses.

Only Christians allowed in this debate. Sorry. This is a debate of whether or not to accept a doctrine in theology called theistic evolution. This is not a debate about whether the worldview of Christians is accurate.

Thank you.

 

[Papias]

bsd wrote:

My present conclusion: The belief in theistic evolution implies the belief that Christ did not die in order to be the substitute for sinners since death is not the consequence of sin (but rather a natural occurrence) and therefore Christ's death did not pay for the consequence of sin (which was death). This shows it to be heresy.

Before we start, could you clear something up here? By "death", do you mean "physcial death" or "spiritual death"? From your statement above, it seems you mean "spiritual death", because if you meant "physical death", then you'd be saying that Christians today must not experience physical death, (so that all people who are Christians would not be seen to die, ever), and there would be no funerals, burial, etc. It seems that if you meant "physical death", then you are saying that Jesus' sacrifice didn't work (becuase there is clearly still physical death, no exceptions), which would seem to be heresy.

Also - And are you talking about humans only or all animals.

Thanks-

In Christ's name-

Papias

 

[bsd058]

bsd wrote:





Before we start, could you clear something up here? By "death", do you mean "physcial death" or "spiritual death"? From your statement above, it seems you mean "spiritual death", because if you meant "physical death", then you'd be saying that Christians today must not experience physical death, (so that all people who are Christians would not be seen to die, ever), and there would be no funerals, burial, etc. It seems that if you meant "physical death", then you are saying that Jesus' sacrifice didn't work (because there is clearly still physical death, no exceptions), which would seem to be heresy.

I mean both spiritual and physical. I believe in a resurrection to both physical and spiritual life. I also believe that had Adam not fell, people would not die physically nor would they have died spiritually in Adam. While we experience death (spiritual before we are born again, and physical before the resurrection) right now, it is generally understood in Christendom (as far as I know) that both physical and spiritual death is a result of the fall of Adam. Therefore, Christ needed to taste both for us in our place.

Also - And are you talking about humans only or all animals.

Thanks-

In Christ's name-

Papias

I would be talking of death in general; therefore, of humans and animals.

Hmm I never thought of trying to understand in light of the Roman Catholic view of Scripture and Tradition. Since I'm a protestant, I hold to the Scripture as the tradition of the apostles. Perhaps, we could use Scripture as the Prolegomena? I'm not assuming you don't, I just don't want to get too off topic if we don't hold to the same basic assumptions.

Is that okay? Or would you be willing to forego the apostolic succession assumption?

I know it's asking a lot.

 

[Papias]

bsd wrote:

Hmm I never thought of trying to understand in light of the Roman Catholic view of Scripture and Tradition. Since I'm a protestant, I hold to the Scripture as the tradition of the apostles. Perhaps, we could use Scripture as the Prolegomena? I'm not assuming you don't, I just don't want to get too off topic if we don't hold to the same basic assumptions.

Is that okay? Or would you be willing to forego the apostolic succession assumption?

I know it's asking a lot

It's a good idea to get our starting point figured out first, so thanks for bringing all that up. I'm willing, for the sake of this discussion, to temporarily suspend my Catholic-specific doctrinal points, such as:

• Apostolic succession gives the Pope divine authority as the Vicar of Christ on earth
• the Protestant Bibles are corrupted by humans and mistranslate, cut out from, and add to, the Catholic Bible
• Catholic Tradition is an authoritative source

Let me know if I missed any.

Luckily, while large parts of our Bibles differ, the parts I think are most relevant for this discussion are pretty similar. So yes, I'm fine with using the scripture as the Prolegomena. I hope we can discuss this on grounds that we can both agree on, outside of our sectarian differences.

I mean both spiritual and physical. I believe in a resurrection to both physical and spiritual life. I also believe that had Adam not fell, people would not die physically nor would they have died spiritually in Adam. While we experience death (spiritual before we are born again, and physical before the resurrection) right now,

OK, so just to clarify, your position is that the initial creation had no death at all, then Adam's fall caused the start of both physical and spiritual death, in all humans and all other animals, and then Jesus' sacrifice offered an option to remove spiritual death, but not physical death (in humans and animals).

Similarly, to clarify my position, the initial creation was created including a natural, normal, functional physical death. That Adam (who I see as a real, single first human, the father of us all) was granted the first soul, making spiritual life (and death) possible. Adam's fall allowed spiritual death to enter the world, and Jesus' sacrifice offered the option to avoid this spiritual death. Only human animals are involved in any of this - non-human animals have always had physical death, and never had spiritual anything (because God didn't give them souls).

Have I accurately stated you position? That is, after all, the first step in any rational discussion.

it is generally understood in Christendom (as far as I know) that both physical and spiritual death is a result of the fall of Adam. Therefore, Christ needed to taste both for us in our place.

I don't think that's correct. First, Christendom is majority Roman Catholic, which doesn't hold that view at all, so right there the view above is already a minority position. Next, all the other forms of Christianity (Eastern - which is pretty big, Lutheran, Mormon, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, etc.), may or may not hold that view. Most mainstream Protestant groups (ECLA, PCUSA, UMC) do not hold that view, I wouldn't count Mormons because their framwork around that (who God is) is too different for it to be considered the same story, leaving many conservative Protestants - such as many Baptists, and the Jehovah's Witnesses.

It's an estimate only to try to put numbers on that, but I'd guess from 100% we go down to bout 48% at the Catholic split, to maybe 35 to 40% taking off the eastern orthodox churches, and take roughtly have of that (which may be generous) for the mainstream vs fundamentalist split, leaving very roughly around 18 to 20% of Christendom with your view.


Are we on the same page so far?

In Jesus' name-

Papias

 

[elopez]

All five of those definitions are compatible with one another. Though I would say that is a fairly accurate description of TE, it's just really one big definition that is sort of redudant.

On another note, evolution is not meant to explain the origin of life, so there's no difficulty at all there.

Under the assumption of TE there was biological death pre - fall. That is, animal and plant death, since there would have been no humans pre - fall or at least untill A&E were endowed with souls. So human death entered the world through sin, both physical and spiritual. That verse would only make sense if it was referenced only to humans, since plants nor animals sin or have souls.

Human death entered the world by Adam, and that is the only relevant death, as there seems to be no issue with animal and plant death pre - fall, as such an explanation is at the most absent from your argument. This would ultimately turn your conclusion on it's head.

 

[bsd058]

bsd wrote:



It's a good idea to get our starting point figured out first, so thanks for bringing all that up. I'm willing, for the sake of this discussion, to temporarily suspend my Catholic-specific doctrinal points, such as:

• Apostolic succession gives the Pope divine authority as the Vicar of Christ on earth
• the Protestant Bibles are corrupted by humans and mistranslate, cut out from, and add to, the Catholic Bible
• Catholic Tradition is an authoritative source

Let me know if I missed any.

Luckily, while large parts of our Bibles differ, the parts I think are most relevant for this discussion are pretty similar. So yes, I'm fine with using the scripture as the Prolegomena. I hope we can discuss this on grounds that we can both agree on, outside of our sectarian differences.





OK, so just to clarify, your position is that the initial creation had no death at all, then Adam's fall caused the start of both physical and spiritual death, in all humans and all other animals, and then Jesus' sacrifice offered an option to remove spiritual death, but not physical death (in humans and animals).

Similarly, to clarify my position, the initial creation was created including a natural, normal, functional physical death. That Adam (who I see as a real, single first human, the father of us all) was granted the first soul, making spiritual life (and death) possible. Adam's fall allowed spiritual death to enter the world, and Jesus' sacrifice offered the option to avoid this spiritual death. Only human animals are involved in any of this - non-human animals have always had physical death, and never had spiritual anything (because God didn't give them souls).

Have I accurately stated you position? That is, after all, the first step in any rational discussion.




I don't think that's correct. First, Christendom is majority Roman Catholic, which doesn't hold that view at all, so right there the view above is already a minority position. Next, all the other forms of Christianity (Eastern - which is pretty big, Lutheran, Mormon, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, etc.), may or may not hold that view. Most mainstream Protestant groups (ECLA, PCUSA, UMC) do not hold that view, I wouldn't count Mormons because their framwork around that (who God is) is too different for it to be considered the same story, leaving many conservative Protestants - such as many Baptists, and the Jehovah's Witnesses.

It's an estimate only to try to put numbers on that, but I'd guess from 100% we go down to bout 48% at the Catholic split, to maybe 35 to 40% taking off the eastern orthodox churches, and take roughtly have of that (which may be generous) for the mainstream vs fundamentalist split, leaving very roughly around 18 to 20% of Christendom with your view.


Are we on the same page so far?

In Jesus' name-

Papias

I think we might have difficulties. Maybe I should ask for this forum to be moved to the Reformed section, since we seem to view original sin in a fundamentally different manner.

Do Roman Catholics side with Pelagius on their doctrines of original sin? I'm not just throwing around names; I'm just wondering what Roman Catholics do with the councils of Carthage in May of 418 and Ephesus in 431?

Canon 1 (Carthage): “If any man says that Adam, the firstman, was created mortal, so that whether he sinned or not he would have died, not as the wages of sin, but through the necessity of nature, let him be anathema.”

I just assumed that the Roman Catholic church held to the council of Carthage. St. Augustine's doctrine of original sin was at stake and therefore the council condemned Pelagian doctrine which taught that Adam would have died no matter what since everyone (according to Pelagius) was technically born with a clean slate (Tabula Rasa).

If Roman Catholics do not hold to the first canon of the council of Carthage, I can move this discussion to the reformed section. I know that we hold to this doctrine.

Thanks.

 

[theFijian]

I mean both spiritual and physical. I believe in a resurrection to both physical and spiritual life. I also believe that had Adam not fell, people would not die physically nor would they have died spiritually in Adam. While we experience death (spiritual before we are born again, and physical before the resurrection) right now, it is generally understood in Christendom (as far as I know) that both physical and spiritual death is a result of the fall of Adam. Therefore, Christ needed to taste both for us in our place.

If Adam and Eve were created immortal, then what need was there for the Tree of Life?

 

[bsd058]

If Adam and Eve were created immortal, then what need was there for the Tree of Life?

I cannot speculate.

 

[super animator]

I cannot speculate.

Why do you mean that you "cannot speculate"? Do you agree that the tree of life is a unnecessarily feature if Adam and Eve are immortal?

 

[Papias]

bsd wrote:

Do Roman Catholics side with Pelagius on their doctrines of original sin?

Absolutely not. Pelagius was a heretic who denied that original sin existed, and taught that people could save themselves without divine grace.

I'm not just throwing around names; I'm just wondering what Roman Catholics do with the councils of Carthage in May of 418 and Ephesus in 431?

Canon 1 (Carthage): “If any man says that Adam, the firstman, was created mortal, so that whether he sinned or not he would have died, not as the wages of sin, but through the necessity of nature, let him be anathema.”

We agree with this. That statement is fully consistent with theistic evolution. Taking Adam as the first human (the first transitional ape-human whom God gave a soul to), he was certainly created (born) with a soul, and was then with a soul and without the need to suffer spiritual death of that soul, until the fall, when he became subject to spiritual death.

Until that point, there was no "necessity of nature" that he suffer spiritual death. If you see a Canon in Carthage (or elsewhere) that says that non-human animals didn't suffer physical death until the fall, then let's discuss it.

You can see the Pope's support for evolution in statements such as this one:

While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.

you can read all of it here: Cardinal Ratzinger and International Theological Commission on Creation and Evolution

If Roman Catholics do not hold to the first canon of the council of Carthage, I can move this discussion to the reformed section. I know that we hold to this doctrine.

Thanks.

We do hold to it, but I'm not sure that you fully understand our view of theistic evolution, with Adam as the single, first, human, who brought about original sin and spiritual death.

I also have many reasons, in the areas of theology, reason, and scripture, to think that the "no animal death before the fall" is incorrect.

Of course, if you'd rather discuss this among a smaller subset of Christians, feel free to do so.

Blessings-

Papias

 

[bsd058]

Why do you mean that you "cannot speculate"? Do you agree that the tree of life is a unnecessarily feature if Adam and Eve are immortal?

The Bible doesn't state the reason for the tree of life being in the garden before the fall. Therefore I cannot speculate the reason for it being in the garden before the fall.

We are told that, after the fall, if they ate from it then they would have lived forever. Does this mean that it served to sustain Adam and Eve alive? I don't know about that.

This is what speculation could lead to:

1) Perhaps the tree of life gave life to the other trees in the garden
2) Perhaps it was there as theophany in sustaining Adam and Eve until the fall
3) Perhaps the tree of life was merely a shadow of Jesus Christ.

I don't know. This is what I mean by, "I cannot speculate."

I think death is the wage of sin, not the necessity of Adam's pre-fallen nature.

There could be any number of reasons God had the tree of life within the garden, but the Bible doesn't seem to say the actual reason. I'm open to a reason as long as the reason comes from the Bible.

 

[bsd058]

bsd wrote:

Absolutely not. Pelagius was a heretic who denied that original sin existed, and taught that people could save themselves without divine grace.

Okay, I just didn't know for sure.

We agree with this. That statement is fully consistent with theistic evolution. Taking Adam as the first human (the first transitional ape-human whom God gave a soul to), he was certainly created (born) with a soul, and was then with a soul and without the need to suffer spiritual death of that soul, until the fall, when he became subject to spiritual death.

Until that point, there was no "necessity of nature" that he suffer spiritual death. If you see a Canon in Carthage (or elsewhere) that says that non-human animals didn't suffer physical death until the fall, then let's discuss it.

Okay, so the fall of man possibly didn't actually affect the mortality other animals is what you're trying to say. I can see where you're coming from. The man and woman were then created from their parents who were not human, but similar to human.

Am I understanding you correctly?

You can see the Pope's support for evolution in statements such as this one:

While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.







We do hold to it, but I'm not sure that you fully understand our view of theistic evolution, with Adam as the single, first, human, who brought about original sin and spiritual death.

I also have many reasons, in the areas of theology, reason, and scripture, to think that the "no animal death before the fall" is incorrect.


Of course, if you'd rather discuss this among a smaller subset of Christians, feel free to do so.

Blessings-

Papias

Actually, maybe if you could give your input as to other reasons you would believe that no animal died before the fall. That might be helpful.

Thanks.

 

[Papias]

bsd wrote:

Okay, I just didn't know for sure.

No problem.

Okay, so the fall of man possibly didn't actually affect the mortality other animals is what you're trying to say. I can see where you're coming from. The man and woman were then created from their parents who were not human, but similar to human.

Am I understanding you correctly?

Yes. Thank you for taking the time to do so.

Actually, maybe if you could give your input as to other reasons you would (not) believe that no animal died before the fall. That might be helpful.

Thanks.

(my italics - Papias)

OK.

My reasons, in the areas of theology, reason, and scripture (which is last, because it is most important), to think that the "no animal death before the fall" is incorrect:

1. theology:

a The "no physical death in animals before the fall" view has Adam's sin causing both physical and spiritual death in people. Then, Jesus prevents only spiritual death (Jesus obviously doesn't prevent physical death, because Christians die). Means that Adam, a simple human, is more powerful than God (Jesus), because Jesus is unable to fully correct the problem caused by Adam.

b It means that God doesn't have the foresight to make a working system. Obviously (see #2, below) a world without death is not functional. One would expect a God as great as our God to make a sustainable system.

c. It makes God appear unjust, in punishing animals (with death) for the sins of not just someone else, but even someone of a different species.

2 - logical reasons

a Reproduction - A praying mantis lays hundreds of eggs per season. If all of those live (because there is no death), then from 1 mantis pair in year 1, you'll have:

Year: Number of Mantids:
1 2
2 200
3 20000
4 2000000
5 2E+08
6 2E+10
7 2E+12
8 2E+14
9 2E+16
10 2E+18
11 2E+20
12 2E+22
13 2E+24
14 2E+26
15 2E+28
16 2E+30
17 2E+32
18 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (just to show what kind of numbers we have)
19 2E+36
20 2E+38

So that means that by around year 12, mantids cover the earth to the depth of 1 mile, and by year 16, the writhing mass of mantids engulfs the moon, expanding at an ever increasing speed to engulf the sun the next year and the whole solar system (including the Kuiper belt) the year after that. The mantisplosion! Things go even faster for many other insect species, because the reproduce faster. The same goes for every species on earth, including humans. The same goes for seeds - many plants make hundreds or thousands of seeds a year, 99.99% of which die within months.

b. Human anatomy shows death was present. Any nutritionalist will tell you that much of our digestive tract is clearly made for eating meat. Plant eaters like cows have multiple stomachs, more intestine, etc. God made us partially carnivorous (or made a really bad body design).

c. Actually, even if we were vegetarians, that would still kill the plants eaten. So if there was no death, what did anything eat?

d. the animals that God created clearly show that death has always been around because many creatures are clearly designed head to toe to be predators. A few examples:

• Spiderwebs - to catch what?
• Poison - literally thousands of animals have poison for predation (snakes, spiders, wasps, etc.) or for defense against predation (arrow-frogs, toads, monarch butterflies, etc.).
• deep sea anglerfish - Why would anything be attracted to their "bait"?
• Alligator snapper turtle "worm" tongue bait - same thing.
• many other deepsea fish.
• Sharks - what did they eat?
• A cheetah's speed - why be designed fast if you only have to catch a squash?
• A chameleon's tongue - same.
• and on and on........

3 - scriptural.

a Gen 2 shows that Adam and Eve were already familiar with physical death, otherwise God saying "you will die" would have been as meaningless as if I told you that you would gelipacaanizoid.

b God planted the tree of life before the fall, showing that death was already present, otherwise the tree of life would have been pointless (as pointed out by the fijian).

c Gen 1 says the first humans were created male and female, and encouraged to reproduce. However, as anyone who's done some basic geometric math (y = 2^x or even y=6^x) knows, this would rapidly produce an ever increasing overpopulation problem. The very fact that God made them male and femle (and, I assume, made them with reproductive organs), shows that death was present. (See 2a, above)

d God repeatedly sees his creation as good in Gen 1. As pointed out in
2 a and 2 c above, that means the system was functional (and would have had to include death).

e. In Romans, Paul talks about human sin and it's consequences. In that context, he discusses the consequence of sin as death. Sin is a spiritual concept, related to humans and the law (which animals don't have). The context of the discussion shows that we are talking about things that are spiritual and related to humans.

I'm sure I missed a few, but those are off the top of my head. They may be a good place to start discussing specific points.

In His name-

Papias

P. S. bsd, it sounds like you understand the common TE idea of a single, literal, transitional-human Adam. But just to be clear, here are more details. There WAS a literal, first person, Adam. He was a member of a community, and was the first person in the ape to human gradual change. After all, there had to be a first, if there weren't humans 5 million years ago, and there are humans today – he was the first to whom God divinely gave a soul. Understanding how populations interbreed makes it obvious that all humans today are descended from him. Original sin did enter the human race though him, because he was the first to be divinely given a soul by God, and perhaps to be developed to the point of being able to conceptualize God, and hence to be able to rebel against God. Original sin, in this view, is not caused by eating literal magical fruit, but rather deciding to rebel against God. The idea of Adam as a real, single, historical person, who brought about original sin, and who is the literal ancestor of all humans alive today, is fully compatible with, and an important part, for some, of theistic evolution.

 

[bsd058]

^^^ There's a lot of stuff here ^^^

I'll try and mull it over this week. Thank you for your response.

 

[Keachian]

I put my reformed hat on...

I contend, as with others I'm sure, that the acceptance of Darwinian Evolution as the means by which mankind and the species were created by God leads to the conclusion that death was a matter of fact before the fall of Adam.

I would agree with you.

Christians believe that death entered into the world through the fall of Adam (Romans 5:12), and therefore death, in a sense, is proof that sin has entered into the world and has not been eradicated yet.

Yet, if death existed before Adam existed then we must believe that death did not enter the world through sin.

You mean sin entered the world, in regards to death there are two ways I think that are worth looking at in terms of prefall theodicy if we are to accept death before the fall. First (and I think this is the weaker of the two) the death before the fall is to do with the right ordering of the universe. Second as with all other answers to the question of theodicy we look to the unblemished lamb slaughtered before the foundation of the world, this is even stronger in reformed theology God knew that sin was going to happen and so the plan A always was Christ.

If death is not the penalty of sin, which it is (Rom 6:23), then Christ did not take the penalty for our sin by dying on our behalf.

We still die though, that is unless Christ return.

But, Christ died for our sin on our behalf (1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10 Rom 3:25). He was therefore our substitute which turned the wrath of God away from us.

We're saved from the second death, not the first unless Christ return.

My present conclusion: The belief in theistic evolution implies the belief that Christ did not die in order to be the substitute for sinners since death is not the consequence of sin (but rather a natural occurrence) and therefore Christ's death did not pay for the consequence of sin (which was death). This shows it to be heresy.

This is a bit of a jump, then we continue to jump on down to the h word. The reformed position is that sin is a part of God's plan, that man is inherently sinful, the problem is not physical death but rather that of spiritual death; "do not fear those that can kill the body but not the soul, but rather fear Him who can destroy both body and soul in hell!"

 

[lucaspa]

You can choose to agree or disagree with me.

Disagree.

Bsd, take a look at my thread "God and natural".

If you do, I would invite you to utilize the Bible as the means through which we can come to an agreement on whether or not Theistic Evolution compromises the message of the Gospel and is therefore heresy.

Sorry, but God has 2 books. You are asking me to ignore God. I can't do that.


I think the "definition" of theistic evolution is closer to the 2nd one you posted:
[FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]"Definition 2[/FONT][FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica] -[/FONT] Many Christians, including men of science as well as theologians, accommodate the discoveries of science in their religion by suggesting that God did not create the world (in its present form) supernaturally. Rather, He used natural processes as His “method of creation,” and guided evolution to the final realization of man."

See the 2nd quote in my signature.

Also, God did not need to "guide" evolution. He could have. The guidance presumes that God cared about the specific physical form of a sapient species capable of communicating with God. Personally, since God does not have a physical form, that He does not care about the physical form of humans. God could let natural selection loose, sustain it, and be sure that, eventually, it would produce a sapient species capable of communicating with God. In this case, then God could have evolution work on millions/billions of worlds and be communicating with millions'billions of different species.

The creation of life as described in Genesis is thus recognized to be essentially poetic, or at least to be flexible enough to permit God a wide latitude in His method of creation. This interpretation is generally referred to as “theistic evolution” (Young, 1985, p. 46, emp. and parenthetical item in orig.).

Basically, the idea is that the creation stories in Genesis 1-3 are meant to tell theological truths about God and creation, not tell the method of creation.

Definition 4

- What is theistic evolution? Believers in God generally take the position that God made the universe, including the laws of nature, so that the universe moves along in response to these laws. If one drops an object to earth, it is expected to behave in accordance with the law of gravitation as formulated by scientists as a result of their observation. Both theists (believers in God) and atheists (disbelievers in God) believe that there are natural laws by which the universe operates. The atheist believes that there was no FIRST CAUSE but that this system has gone on for eternity, so that prior to each effect there has existed a totally adequate natural cause. When a natural effect occurs for which there was not a totally adequate natural cause, then supernatural INTERVENTION has occurred. Theistic evolution postulates that such intervention accounts for some actions in evolution (Camp, 1972, p. 192, emp. and parenthetical items in orig.)

Let me clarify this. Atheists believe that natural causes act on their own. That is what is meant by "adequate". Theists believe that God sustains all the natural causes, that they operate only because God wills them to operate. As it happens, God wills them to happen each and every time.

Deists are close to atheists. Atheists beleive either 1) the universe has existed forever and there is no First Cause (Aristotle's view) or 2) that First Cause is something other than God. Deists believe in God as First Cause but then believe, as atheists do, that natural happens on its own after that.

Creationists are close to deists and atheists in that they believe that natural happens on its own.
You have some misconceptions about evolution. Evolution has a broader definition than you gave it. Basically, evolution is "descent with modification". Natural selection is one means of getting that modification, and is the mechanism for getting the designs in plants and animals.

Natural selection is about differential reproduction. It's not that the unfit "die" outright. But rather that they leave fewer offspring that reproduce than the fit. Yes, dying before you reproduce can leave fewer offspring, but the same end can be acheived by leaving the same number of offspring but having fewer of them survive to adulthood and reproduce.

Again, I take the Wikipedia definition, not because it is the easiest to find, but because it is the general consensus of the people we come into contact with on a normal basis. It is the most common definition we will run into when talking with the general public.

In this case you have been misled. Wikipedia has led you to some false conclusionis about natural selection. Here is Darwin's description of it:
"If, during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organization, and I think this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to the high geometric powers of increase of each species, at some age, season, or year, a severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each beings welfare, in the same way as so many variations have occured useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection." [Origin, p 103 6th ed.]

Notice Darwin put natural selection in terms of preservation, not death. Natural selection preserves the good designs.

Christian has no problem with using these ideas today in order to explain these sciences, they should have difficulty with this theory as it pertains to the origin of life and species.

WHOA! Natural selection has nothing to do with the origin of life. Life arose by chemistry. Not natural selection.

I contend, as with others I'm sure, that the acceptance of Darwinian Evolution as the means by which mankind and the species were created by God leads to the conclusion that death was a matter of fact before the fall of Adam.[/qjuote]
And scripture supports that. The death in Romans 5:12 and Genesis 2:17 is spiritual death, not physical death.

Let's look at Genesis 2:17:
"but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not [fn]eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

Look at what I bolded. That is a very specific word in Hebrew: beyom. The word "yom" in Hebrew means "day". It can also mean a period of time longer than a day. When the prefis "be" is added, it limits "yom" specifically to 24 hours. You can see this in Genesis 2:2-3 when "beyom" is used for "day" in the original Hebrew. Why? To limit the 7th day to 24 hours! Without that "beyom" the 7th day could have an indefinite length since there is no day after it.

Now, did Adam die physically when he ate the fruit? NO! He lived for 900 years after that. But did Adam die spiritually when he ate the fruit? Absolutely. Because that was when Adam and Eve were cut off from God because they disobeyed Him.

Spiritual death entered the world thru sin. Physical death was already there.

Now, which of those 2 types of death -- physical and spiritual -- is of concern to Christians? Do we really care about physical death? NO! We shouldn't. After all, what happens after we physically die? We go live with God! So what we care about is spiritual death -- being forever cut off from God.

I am always puzzled that creationists are so concerned about dying physically. They are so concerned and afraid about that. It makes me think they don't really believe in God and Jesus.

So, from scripture, it's clear that your objection to evolution has no merit. It is based upon a confusion of spiritual death with physical death.

BTW, there is another indication that physical death was always in the world: Genesis 1:28-30:
"Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the [fn]surface of all the earth, and every tree [fn]which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the [fn]sky and to every thing that [fn]moves on the earth [fn]which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so. "

Why do we have to eat? To keep from starving. To death! If we don't eat, we starve to death. So God created us to die physically. He then gave us food to eat to postpone that death. If He had not given us food to eat, everyone would have starved to death very quickly, right?

So stop worrying that theistic evolution is heresy. It's not. We still need a Savior because, at some point in our lives, all of us will disobey God (sin) and be cut off from Him. We all need reconciliation to God and that reconciliation comes from the physical death of Jesus.

Just relax and let science tell you how God created. And please, read all of scripture and listen to it, instead of taking your human idea and trying to make scripture fit that idea.

 

[lucaspa]

The Bible doesn't state the reason for the tree of life being in the garden before the fall. Therefore I cannot speculate the reason for it being in the garden before the fall.

We are told that, after the fall, if they ate from it then they would have lived forever. Does this mean that it served to sustain Adam and Eve alive? I don't know about that.

But that makes the Tree unnecessary. After all, if they were going to live forever even without eating of that Tree, why put it there to begin with?

The answer lies in knowing the audience at the time. Remember, Genesis 2-3 was written for the people of the time specifically, not for us. In order to understand the story, we must put ourselves in their place and hear the story as they would hear it.

One of the major competitor religions was the Egyptian religion. That religion would be a temptation for the Hebrews to leave worship of Yahweh and follow it. In the Egyptian religion of the time it was thought that, if you could gain enough knowledge, a person could become a god. Basically, it was an early knowledge = power, with the idea that the power would be power enough to be a god.

Genesis 2-3 destroys that idea. Adam and Eve get the ultimate power -- knowledge of good and evil -- but they don't become God, or even gods with a small "g". They remain mortal people. But now they are mortal people who have disobeyed God and have Him angry at them.

Now, the inference of the story is that they were always going to die physically. But now God has a problem in that humans know good and evil. They are still mortal, however. Whew. But what happens if they eat the fruit of the Tree of Everlasting Life? Oops. So now we get:
"Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"—"

I'm not sure who the "us" is. Is it the royal "we"? Or does it refer to a population? The concordance doesn't help, because it puts "of Us, knowing" together as the word "knowing": Genesis 3 (Blue Letter Bible: NASB - New American Standard Bible)

That doesn't comment on the "of Us"

This is what speculation could lead to:

1) Perhaps the tree of life gave life to the other trees in the garden
2) Perhaps it was there as theophany in sustaining Adam and Eve until the fall
3) Perhaps the tree of life was merely a shadow of Jesus Christ.

Before you speculate, perhaps you should check your Bible. Genesis 2:9:

"Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. "

That pretty much refutes all your speculations. You are still stuck why God would put a Tree in the Garden whose fruit gives eternal life when the humans in the Garden already have that. It only makes sense if humans do not have eternal life.

I think death is the wage of sin, not the necessity of Adam's pre-fallen nature.

Again, spiritual vs physical. Which is worse for you?

 

[bsd058]

Just a question: How many of you have been to seminary? I just want to get a feel for those with theological training.

 

[Keachian]

Just a question: How many of you have been to seminary? I just want to get a feel for those with theological training.

I have not been to seminary yet

 

[Papias]

bsd wrote:

Just a question: How many of you have been to seminary? I just want to get a feel for those with theological training.

I have not. However, I didn't come up with these points myself either.

They are given to me by priests that have been to seminary. (also, I earlier posted the statement from the Pope. The Pope has been to seminary.)

^^^ There's a lot of stuff here ^^^

I'll try and mull it over this week. Thank you for your response.

Oh, yeah, take your time. Have a nice day-

Papias