Is Theistic Evolution Heresy?

[jlmagee]

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 taken courses in theology and creationism at an evangelical university looking toward seminary. I am leaning more toward the TE position as I study.

Prominent TE proponents are N. T, Wright, Alistair McGrath, William Lane Craig, John Lennox, many (perhaps most) at the Discovery Institute, Francis Collins, and the BioLogos Foundation. J. I. Packer and John Stott wrote statements that endorse a TE position. All of these are professionals who have terminal degrees in their field. Collins is the only one mentioned by name that did not attend seminary to my knowledge. The position is consistent with Roman Catholic, Anglican, and many other Christian churches. These scholars and organizations conduct voluminous amounts of multi-disciplinary research when they form a position.

Essentially, Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Theistic Evolution, Day-Age Theory, and Gap Theory are all orthodox in their theology.

The theological issues which at first seem to be problematic have been discussed.

Psalm 19 and Romans 1 suggest a natural theology. That would seem to compel the investigating Christian to investigate ALL the evidence.
Students are taught to exegete (no eisogesis allowed) the scriptures to bring out the meaning. It is only consistent that other disiplines deserve the same consideration.

My professors have taught us to follow the evidence. Lee Strobel often states that he was going to follow the evidence wherever it took him. I agree with my professors and Strobel. Ken Ham says that we have to view the evidence through our YEC glasses. That is intellectually dishonest.

TE is a well thought out position accepted by scholars who conduct research for a living. It is consistent with evidence from archaeology, geology, paleontology, biology, anthropology, and orthodox theology. I do feel that other positions are orthodox as well.

 

[theFijian]

I cannot speculate.

A good reformed guide is to interpret scripture with scripture I'm sure you'll agree (one Calvinist to another).

So in the light of Rev 22:2, what do you make of the Tree of Life in Gen 2&3? As biologist say; nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, so nothing in scripture makes sense except in the light of the person and work of Christ.

 

[bsd058]

Ok, I think I'm going to stop writing on this for now...I have been thinking about it, and I kind of feel as though I would need to re-establish the foundational doctrines (concerning the resurrection and other basic theological concepts in regards to death and what Christ actually accomplished on the cross) with this crowd.

I'm not against discussing the basics, and I'm not trying to "talk down" to any of you. I actually appreciate the attention this matter has received so far. I just do not foresee myself edifying you, nor vice verse with this particular conversation. Perhaps I created this thread without thinking it through about who the audience would be.

Thank you all. Sincerely. You all have given me insight into this matter.

FYI - I'm Old Earth Creation. I'm just working through Theistic Evolution. I'm concerned with properly understanding the Bible, and I thank you for helping me.

 

[theFijian]

Ok, I think I'm going to stop writing on this for now...I have been thinking about it, and I kind of feel as though I would need to re-establish the foundational doctrines (concerning the resurrection and other basic theological concepts in regards to death and what Christ actually accomplished on the cross) with this crowd.

I'm not against discussing the basics, and I'm not trying to "talk down" to any of you. I actually appreciate the attention this matter has received so far. I just do not foresee myself edifying you, nor vice verse with this particular conversation. Perhaps I created this thread without thinking it through about who the audience would be.

Thank you all. Sincerely. You all have given me insight into this matter.

FYI - I'm Old Earth Creation. I'm just working through Theistic Evolution. I'm concerned with properly understanding the Bible, and I thank you for helping me.

So you didn't bother looking up Rev 22?

 

[crawfish]

Ok, I think I'm going to stop writing on this for now...I have been thinking about it, and I kind of feel as though I would need to re-establish the foundational doctrines (concerning the resurrection and other basic theological concepts in regards to death and what Christ actually accomplished on the cross) with this crowd.

I'm not against discussing the basics, and I'm not trying to "talk down" to any of you. I actually appreciate the attention this matter has received so far. I just do not foresee myself edifying you, nor vice verse with this particular conversation. Perhaps I created this thread without thinking it through about who the audience would be.

Thank you all. Sincerely. You all have given me insight into this matter.

FYI - I'm Old Earth Creation. I'm just working through Theistic Evolution. I'm concerned with properly understanding the Bible, and I thank you for helping me.

In light of this revelation, you might want to reconsider your original statement:

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.

Most among us have thought this through. A lot. Many of us came from a YEC/OEC background (I was a strong OEC most of my life), and it's the study - both from a biblical and scientific perspective - that has forced the change. Note that of the common views - TE, OEC, YEC, atheism - TE is the only one that is not "default". It has not traditionally received a lot of attention, and most people who don't really want to think go to one of the viewpoints that they hear. TE's, myself included, typically end there after a lot of pain, prayer and study.

 

[theFijian]

Most among us have thought this through. A lot. Many of us came from a YEC/OEC background (I was a strong OEC most of my life), and it's the study - both from a biblical and scientific perspective - that has forced the change. Note that of the common views - TE, OEC, YEC, atheism - TE is the only one that is not "default". It has not traditionally received a lot of attention, and most people who don't really want to think go to one of the viewpoints that they hear. TE's, myself included, typically end there after a lot of pain, prayer and study.

Absolutely, becoming and staying TE takes a lot more meditation and prayer than becoming any of those other positions.

 

[super animator]

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.

Your making this unnecessarily complex. If there were no death before the fall then there is no need for the tree of life to exist. None. Your reasons just make god an author of confusion.

 

[crawfish]

Your making this unnecessarily complex. If there were no death before the fall then there is no need for the tree of life to exist. None. Your reasons just make god an author of confusion.

This is true. What is the harder assumption to make -that the tree of life indicates death was possible in Eden without it, or that Cain was referring to "future relatives" when he was scared of being killed after his banishment?

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

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)

When considered superficially,this seems like a reasonable idea,but it disregards the fact that living creatures come into being immediately as individuals by the power of God working upon natural elements,and that they are alive by spirit,which is created together with their bodies. And so living creatures,whether taken individually or as groups,do not originate as a result of natural matter and laws of nature guided by God. God creates living creatures directly by his own power. His creative action is not merely divine providence. It is making something exist immediately.

[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.).

God's creative action is not done through any method or process. It is a direct act of absolute power.

God creates soul and body together at the beginning of a creature's existence.

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).

The words "all life" refer to all living species. It is not possible that all species have evolved - that is,descended - from a one-celled form,because common descent results from reproductive lineages,not from natural selection or genetic mutation. Selection and mutation can only influence the outcome of reproduction,not lead to the development of new species that are beyond what their parents were.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

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

Please stop your misuse of that document. The pope did not write it,and section 63 is not an endorsement but a summary of the scientific account of the origins of the universe and of species. Section 64 says:

"Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbationof all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms."

Now,the scientific theory of evolution as it is commonly known is indeed materialist and reductionist,because the natural sciences are materialist and reductionist. And theistic evolutionists tend to have a spiritualist view of nature and human origins,in that they regard matter as spiritual or as emanating spirit.

 

[Papias]

Anthony wrote:

The pope did not write it,

He was the chair of the commission, and he, along with the rest of the commission, wrote it together (that's what a comission does). Of course it reflects his views.

and section 63 is not an endorsement but a summary of the scientific account of the origins of the universe and of species.

It clearly is both for several reasons.

1. When someone summarizes a statement they disagree with, including that summary in a position statement, they immediately point out that they disagree with it. To fail to do so shows that they don't disagree with it. So even if it had been included simply as a summary, it would still show his support.

2. To make the Pope's support of common descent even more clear in this document, not only did he not refute it, but the wording makes it clear that it is his own statement, not just a summary. Examples include the many times when he gives his view of the scientific account (thus making it clear that he's not just summarizeing), and goes on to make his own statement. This can be seen in several places, such as when he writes:

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.

Anthony wrote:

Section 64 says:

Which is completely consistent with the Pope's support of Theistic Evolution. Section 64 is a very good section for you, Anthony, in particular to read, because it spells out that the Pope is opposed to any materialist view of evolution that doesn't include God. The Pope is making it clear there that THEISTIC evolution is supported, not ATHEISTIC evolution.

Now,the scientific theory of evolution as it is commonly known is indeed materialist and reductionist,because the natural sciences are materialist and reductionist.

You still don't seem to understand the difference between philosophical vs methodological naturalism. Please look to the many threads describing this. Sure, there are atheists who posit an atheistic view of evoluiton, just as there are theistic evolution supporters, like the Pope, who see God as playing a full role in a Theistic view of evolution.

And theistic evolutionists tend to have a spiritualist view of nature and human origins,in that they regard matter as spiritual or as emanating spirit.

I'm not sure what you are saying (and it sounds gnostic and heretical). For a better (and orthodox) understanding of theistic evolution, please read the Pope's statement again.

Papias

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

Papias:


Anthony wrote:

The pope did not write it,
​

He was the chair of the commission, and he, along with the rest of the commission, wrote it together (that's what a comission does). Of course it reflects his views.

He did not write it. He only gave permission for its publication. Here is the note at the bottom of the document.

Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God

* Preliminary Note
The theme of “man created in the image of God” was submitted for study to the International Theological Commission. The preparation of this study was entrusted to a subcommission whose members included: Very Rev. J. Augustine Di Noia, O.P., Most Reverend Jean-Louis Bruguès, Msgr. Anton Strukelj, Rev. Tanios Bou Mansour, O.L.M., Rev. Adolpe Gesché, Most Reverend Willem Jacobus Eijk, Rev. Fadel Sidarouss, S.J., and Rev. Shun ichi Takayanagi, S.J.

As the text developed, it was discussed at numerous meetings of the subcommission and several plenary sessions of the International Theological Commission held at Rome during the period 2000-2002. The present text was approved in forma specifica, by the written ballots of the International Theological Commission. It was then submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission, who has give his permission for its publication.

​

and section 63 is not an endorsement but a summary of the scientific account of the origins of the universe and of species.
​

Papias:

It clearly is both for several reasons.

1. When someone summarizes a statement they disagree with, including that summary in a position statement, they immediately point out that they disagree with it. To fail to do so shows that they don't disagree with it. So even if it had been included simply as a summary, it would still show his support.

No,it is not always necessary to contradict an opinion explicitly,especially if it is an open question whether the opinion is true or false. Section 285 of the Catechism mentions several false opinions on the origin of the world,but they are not refuted,because it is clear that they are not Catholic doctrine,and a catechism is not the proper place to argue against false opinions. "Communion and Stewardship" does not argue for or against evolution theory. It explains the Catholic doctrine of persons created in the image of God.

2. To make the Pope's support of common descent even more clear in this document, not only did he not refute it, but the wording makes it clear that it is his own statement, not just a summary. Examples include the many times when he gives his view of the scientific account (thus making it clear that he's not just summarizeing), and goes on to make his own statement. This can be seen in several places, such as when he writes:

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.

​

There is nothing about that statement that indicates it is the pope's.

 

[Keachian]

Section 285 of the Catechism mentions several false opinions on the origin of the world,but they are not refuted,because it is clear that they are not Catholic doctrine,and a catechism is not the proper place to argue against false opinions.

Which is what the following sections are all about; setting up what the RCC stance on creation is, p286-324 I would specifically direct you to p319-321

And while not explicitly endorsing theistic evolution it does lay the groundwork for accepting evolution as providence and under the authority of God.

-------
Soli Deo Gloria!

 

[Papias]

Anthony wrote:

He did not write it. He only gave permission for its publication. Here is the note at the bottom of the document.

Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God

........
As the text developed, it was discussed at numerous meetings of the subcommission and several plenary sessions of the International Theological Commission held at Rome during the period 2000-2002. The present text was approved in forma specifica, by the written ballots of the International Theological Commission. It was then submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission, who has give his permission for its publication.

First, even if he had not, the fact that he approved it would be sufficient to show that he supports theistic evolution. Secondly, this shows that he did write it (with others on the commission). That's how a commission works, the members of the commission work together to write the text, whit the bulk of the input by the chair or president of the commission. That's especially true of the most controversial or difficult sections. When all the minor sections and whole thing is done, it is again looked over and approved by the chair or president of the commission. Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, was chair of the commission. So yes, he took part in writing it, and approved the final form.

No,it is not always necessary to contradict an opinion explicitly,especially if it is an open question whether the opinion is true or false. Section 285 of the Catechism mentions several false opinions on the origin of the world,but they are not refuted,because it is clear that they are not Catholic doctrine,and a catechism is not the proper place to argue against false opinions. "Communion and Stewardship" does not argue for or against evolution theory. It explains the Catholic doctrine of persons created in the image of God.

Progmonk answered this. Plus, the rest of the document also shows that it supports theistic evolution, fitting with the part quoted above.


2

. To make the Pope's support of common descent even more clear in this document, not only did he not refute it, but the wording makes it clear that it is his own statement, not just a summary. Examples include the many times when he gives his view of the scientific account (thus making it clear that he's not just summarizeing), and goes on to make his own statement. This can be seen in several places, such as when he writes:

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.

​

There is nothing about that statement that indicates it is the pope's.

Yes, there is - specifically, the "while" part that I highlighted in purple. That shows that the commission, headed by Ratzinger, is giving it's own view, not just that of the scientists.

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

This thread has been here a while and potentially inflammatory but actually a fair question. The thing is, theistic evolution has produced a fair amount of heresy but then again most brands of Protestantism do. For me actually deciding what 'Theistic Evolution' is, has been like chasing ghosts in the fog. I'm sure of one thing, all Christians are creationists as a foundational conviction and theistic evolutionists know that. What the whole TE vs YEC thing comes down to is Creation. You must be a creationist in order to be a Christian, at least according to the Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
-Nicene Creed-​

Let me share my definition for Darwinism, it's actually rather simple.

'The a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes going all the way back to the Big Bang'.​

Of course, after you get that far into the subject matter that's all there really is to it. Theistic evolution is no more heretical then the operating instructions for a microwave oven. That is of course as long as you realize all Christians are Creationists, even theistic evolutionists.

The real conflict isn't between TEs and YECs, our theological boundaries are much too limited.

The Nicene Creed starts off with 'God as Creator' going on for the first three stanzas. I think that fact is significant. At the same time I have thoroughly enjoyed discussing how the human brain expands from that of apes, almost overnight, about 2 mya. I don't think believing in some stone age protohuman (Homo habilis) is heretical, just wrong.

I think taken together TEs and YECs could be regarded as contentious/divisive because we clearly are. I have always felt that the discussions are far too contentious, entirely too many details are drowned in these debates. The worst part about it, we all do it and your OP is no exception.

I don't think we are heretical exactly, just don't know how to act when company comes.

...Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, was chair of the commission. So yes, he took part in writing it, and approved the final form...

Papias

When have been over this again and again, the Pope never endorsed theistic evolution. So do you still believe Adam married an ape or did you figure out Eve had to be specially created as well?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark273]

There are many people who hold to TE and also hold to the inerrancy of Scripture, the depravity of all people, and salvation by faith in Christ who died on the cross for our sins. There is no necessary conflict. TE may be wrong, but not because it is heretical.

 

[Martyrs44]

There are many people who hold to TE and also hold to the inerrancy of Scripture, the depravity of all people, and salvation by faith in Christ who died on the cross for our sins. There is no necessary conflict. TE may be wrong, but not because it is heretical.

Wrong. It is heretical because it is a position that denies the actual history of scripture as recorded by Moses in Genesis and confirmed by prophets, the writers of the New Testament, and by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. It also makes it impossible to determine the time that Adam & Eve sinned, when death actually entered the world, and how it is that apes were not sinful but the first humans(Adam, Eve) to be responsible for sin had apes as parents. Such a notion is ridiculous.

 

[super animator]

Wrong. It is heretical because it is a position that denies the actual history of scripture as recorded by Moses in Genesis and confirmed by prophets, the writers of the New Testament, and by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. It also makes it impossible to determine the time that Adam & Eve sinned, when death actually entered the world, and how it is that apes were not sinful but the first humans(Adam, Eve) to be responsible for sin had apes as parents. Such a notion is ridiculous.

There is no evidence that it has been written by mose nor be intended to be historic fact.

 

[jlmagee]

Wrong. It is heretical because it is a position that denies the actual history of scripture as recorded by Moses in Genesis and confirmed by prophets, the writers of the New Testament, and by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. It also makes it impossible to determine the time that Adam & Eve sinned, when death actually entered the world, and how it is that apes were not sinful but the first humans(Adam, Eve) to be responsible for sin had apes as parents. Such a notion is ridiculous.

Theistic Evolution is not a monolithic viewpoint, however, I have not met any who deny any of the essential creeds of the Christian faith. You may not agree with it. It may not be correct. That means it is not your belief; that does not mean it is heresy.

Knowing when Adam and Eve sinned is hardly a critical doctrine. If I was to make a case for TE, I would put it at around 60,000 years ago. There is a great deal of evidence of an explosion of enlightenment in ideas, tools, and other implements from the prior generation. However, others may make there case at a different point. Remember, YEC's opinion differ on the age of Earth, as well.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Theistic evolution does not go without biblical merit. Young Earth creationists will try to make it seem that way, but it is simply their interpretation they collide it with, not Scripture itself.

The fact is that Genesis was neither meant to be taken literally or symbolically. It is meant to be ambiguous, conveying the message that God created the Heavens and the Earth.

By taking Genesis literally, however, you run into contradictions. In the same way YEC's may say that TE's contradict Genesis, TE's can say that God created light before the stars, which is contradictory when taking it literally. Take it a different way, and you see the Big Bang. <speaking of which, a Catholic theologian actually came up with the idea of the Big Bang. It was originally not a secular position, which is a bit ironic>
So, there are two sides of the coin here. YEC's have gotten so comfortable with denying theistic evolution that they do not see the pitfalls in their own theology.