Is Theistic Evolution Heresy?

[Metal Minister]

Arguing that man has only been around for 6000 years is delusional after being granted the vigorous science that says otherwise. The Sumerians alone exceed 6000 years.

Ah, then I am in agreement with Mark.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Ah, then I am in agreement with Mark.

Light travels at 186,000 miles per second, and we see stars that are in deep space- literally gigantic leaps out in the universe. If one of them dies, it could essentially take us many thousands of years before the light would even reach us for us to know it has gone out.
The very physics of reality are against YECism. How do you posit that reality is only 6000 years old if the light from stars are just reaching us from hundreds of thousands of light years in space?

 

[Metal Minister]

Light travels at 186,000 miles per second, and we see stars that are in deep space- literally gigantic leaps out in the universe. If one of them dies, it could essentially take us many thousands of years before the light would even reach us for us to know it has gone out.
The very physics of reality are against YECism. How do you posit that reality is only 6000 years old if the light from stars are just reaching us from hundreds of thousands of light years in space?

Because God is bigger than the little box you'd like to place Him in. Reread Genesis. It shows God created the light first, and then the source, meaning it didn't take thousands of years to get here by the time man was here. It was always here. When you realize God is the Almighty Creator, and is not limited by our understandings of His universe, then you'll realize why theistic evolution is so anti-biblical.

 

[Skarl]

Because God is bigger than the little box you'd like to place Him in. Reread Genesis. It shows God created the light first, and then the source, meaning it didn't take thousands of years to get here by the time man was here. It was always here. When you realize God is the Almighty Creator, and is not limited by our understandings of His universe, then you'll realize why theistic evolution is so anti-biblical.

It always entertains me when creationists say things like that as they try and shove God into a box of creating the universe and life via magic, because there's no way God could be intelligent enough to work through naturalistic mechanisms.

To say nothing of God faking all these signs of age and being a deceiver isn't exactly biblical.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Because God is bigger than the little box you'd like to place Him in. Reread Genesis. It shows God created the light first, and then the source, meaning it didn't take thousands of years to get here by the time man was here. It was always here. When you realize God is the Almighty Creator, and is not limited by our understandings of His universe, then you'll realize why theistic evolution is so anti-biblical.

Oh yes, he creates light, but there is no light source until the fourth day. Sounds a mighty like energy massing together into stars, don't you think? What is more reasonable- that God made all the light sources in a matter of days, or He created the light sources by the same exact mechanism that we see stars being created today?
What is anti-biblical is the position of anti-human intelligence. We were created in the image of God, and we have superior minds. YECism is that of cavemen, who would like to think the Earth is flat. Theistic evolution paints a much more beautiful picture, worthy of God. YECism is dumbed down, absurd fanaticism produced by the same people who put 'faith beats facts' on their roadside church signs. It's time to move to the grown ups table._

 

[Metal Minister]

It always entertains me when creationists say things like that as they try and shove God into a box of creating the universe and life via magic, because there's no way God could be intelligent enough to work through naturalistic mechanisms.

To say nothing of God faking all these signs of age and being a deceiver isn't exactly biblical.

If I had more time, I would shred this ridiculousness to ribbons. God is not limited to using naturalistic means to do anything. I find it funny that anyone who claims to be Christian denies the fact that God created anything. They throw the word "creationist" around like an insult. Sorry, that is a badge of honor stating that I hold to God as creator.

 

[Skarl]

If I had more time, I would shred this ridiculousness to ribbons. God is not limited to using naturalistic means to do anything. I find it funny that anyone who claims to be Christian denies the fact that God created anything. They throw the word "creationist" around like an insult. Sorry, that is a badge of honor stating that I hold to God as creator.

Well, nice job destroying that straw man. That was truly impressive.

 

[Metal Minister]

Well, nice job destroying that straw man. That was truly impressive.

Which "strawman" would that be? Where people use the word "creationist" like an insult? Sorry I can't point to hundreds of instances on this website alone. The "strawman" of evolutionists trying to force God into a "natutalistic only" box? Sorry, but there are plenty of instances of that right here. The bible is NOT ambiguous in God's miraculous creation, no amount of eisegesis is going to change that.

 

[Keachian]

That strawman would be the opinion that TE necessitates God always using naturalistic means

 

[Metal Minister]

That strawman would be the opinion that TE necessitates God always using naturalistic means

Ah, but if you look at his post (as well as almost all other te's) you see that they basically say the same thing as atheistic evolutionists. The only difference is that they say God made the first cell, and then let it go on its own. Then turn around and try to read the bible as though science was a hermenuetic! Which is more "deceptive"? 1) The earth having an appearance of age, or 2) God blatantly telling us something that isn't true in Genesis? I know your feelings ProgMonk, and you and I have had some very good discussions on this. No matter what though, Mark is correct in this. You have to be a "creationist" to be Christian. Whether you think God "created" only a single cell and then walked away until He thought monkeys were advanced enough to bother with, or if you believe His words as written in Genesis. Either way, God is the creator...just one shows His mercy and love, while the other makes Him out to be an uncaring deceiver.

 

[super animator]

No matter what though, Mark is correct in this. You have to be a "creationist" to be Christian.

Believing that god created does not make you a creationist. When we the majority of TE refer to creationist, we typically refer to YEC and OEC. Mark is strictly referring to the YEC.
(Though I know that some people Consider TE to be a form of creationism, but I disagree)

 

[Eric Hibbert]

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][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. 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.

I don't want to get too deeply into this because those who disagree will just sling mud and I'm not really into that. Also because there's an unspoken attitude here that all doctrines must be accepted as orthodox.

So, in short, I'll just say that I tend to agree with you that, in addition to contradicting the Biblical account, theistic evolution raises serious logical contradictions concerning the Gospel.

If one was seeking membership in our church, a belief in theistic evolution would disqualify them.

When an unbeliever accepts Christ (deity, trinity, virgin birth, sovereignty) but is unsure of the age of the Earth, does your church baptize him?

We don't believe in the idea of "accepting Christ". It isn't our place to "accept Christ". It's Christ's prerogative to accept us or not.

On to your question, the Bible doesn't say how old the Earth is and it isn't an essential doctrine, as far as we know. So, in and of itself, it would have no bearing on candidacy for baptism.

 

[super animator]

Actually quite accurate.

Straw-man is still a straw-man.

I already answered this above but like your brethren in unbelief you don't take heed to details you don't like.

I am no oblige to track conversation that you have with other people.

 

[Martyrs44]

Straw-man is still a straw-man.

It wasn't a straw man to begin with.

I am no oblige to track conversation that you have with other people.

Then don't.

 

[Papias]

super animator wrote:

Believing that god created does not make you a creationist. When we the majority of TE refer to creationist, we typically refer to YEC and OEC. Mark is strictly referring to the YEC.
(Though I know that some people Consider TE to be a form of creationism, but I disagree)

The confusion is because mark is equivocating. In this case, it is on the term "creationist".

If he had written "young earth" or "old earth" creationist, then the argument that one must be YEC or OEC to be Christian is clearly wrong, since the Nicene creed contains no such terms. Thus, he wouldn't have been able to attack TEs, or at least would have had to find a different way to do so.

If he wrote "evolutionary creationist", a synonym for TE, then he would also have been unable to attack TEs by saying "to be Christian you have to be creationist".

Hence his use of the term "creationist", while refusing to be specific about what he means.

For civil and productive conversation among brothers and sisters in Christ, we should either define our terms or at least choose terms with clear definitions, and certainly never use double meanings.

Using the term "evolutionary creationist" as a synonym for TE is OK, especially since all of us Christians are clear that God did the creating.

****************************************

Metal Minister wrote:

The only difference is that they (TE's, my add) say God made the first cell, and then let it go on its own.

Um, if you really think that's what all (or even a strong majority) of TE's think, then you haven't been listening and certainly haven't read Heb 1:3 and John 5:17.

Many TE's - myself included, see God as actively creating over all our history, including today. The scripture clearly says as much, and your description above is closer to deism. In a common TE view, God creates by using evolution, just as He knit you in your mother's womb using cell division, chemistry, and gene activation - even though the scripture clearly says "knit", we know that the scripture is not a science textbook.

Understanding the position of the side you disagree with is the first step in any productive, and respectful, discussion.

Papias

Papias

 

[super animator]

It wasn't a straw man to begin with.

Yes. It. Is. You asserting that your interpretation is the Word God. My problem is not with the word, but with your interpretation. Learn the difference.

 

[mark kennedy]

Take care Mark! Good luck!

Thanks MM, I'm not gone I just don't have the time to chase their arguments around the mulberry bush. Your in my prayers.

Yeah, he needs it., because he's arguing that up is down and left is right.

I'm arguing that Creationism is essential Christianity, not a single substantive argument to the contrary has been suggested. Why do Theistic Evolutionists have to make everything a contest?

The confusion is because mark is equivocating. In this case, it is on the term "creationist".

The age of the earth is irrelevant, this is about lineage and the origin of life. You know that.

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

The confusion is because mark is equivocating. In this case, it is on the term "creationist".

The age of the earth is irrelevant, this is about lineage and the origin of life. You know that.
​

mark, you ignored the fact that I listed three, not two, meanings for "creationist". Even though you know them, I'll list them again: YEC, Evolutionary Creationist, and OEC.

By continuing your equivocation, you have nicely proven my point.

So mark, is an evolutionary creationist (which is an theistic evolution supporter) a Christian? Yes/No?

Papias
​

 

[mark kennedy]

mark wrote:

mark, you ignored the fact that I listed three, not two, meanings for "creationist". Even though you know them, I'll list them again: YEC, Evolutionary Creationist, and OEC.​

You ignored how the Nicene Creed, Moses, Hebrews, John and the RCC teach creation so we're even.

By continuing your equivocation, you have nicely proven my point.

You have your nerve to accuse someone of a fallacious argument. That's all you really do, mostly ad hominem attacks like this one but equivocation is always included in your repertoire or Darwinian rhetoric.

So mark, is an evolutionary creationist (which is an theistic evolution supporter) a Christian? Yes/No?

Your either a Creationist are you are not a Christian, period. That's not my opinion, that is the canon of the Church, testimony of Scripture and the essential meaning of the Gospel.​

 

[super animator]

You ignored how the Nicene Creed, Moses, Hebrews, John and the RCC teach creation so we're even.

That's not the point he's making. He is no way shape or form that he is suggesting that RCC didn't teach creation or he's against creation. The point that he is making that he isn't just referring to the age of the earth when he list the meanings of creationist, but the precess of creation. Specifically TE or evolutionary creationist.

You have your nerve to accuse someone of a fallacious argument. That's all you really do, mostly ad hominem attacks like this one but equivocation is always included in your repertoire or Darwinian rhetoric.

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Your either a Creationist are you are not a Christian, period. That's not my opinion, that is the canon of the Church, testimony of Scripture and the essential meaning of the Gospel.

Mark, you miss the Creationist part in the "evolutionary CREATIONIST" which is another form of creationist. Your implying that evolutionary creationist are not TrueChristians™.