Only evolutionist Lutherans

[Sérgio Junior]

I'm posting here instead of posting on the forum "Creation and Theistic Evolution" because I want to hear an opinion from Lutherans who accept TOE.I don't know if this discussion will yield any answer, because it seems that there aren't many active Lutherans here in the CF who are Evolutionist Theists, the only Lutheran here that I know who accepts Evolution is @ViaCrucis.

My question is this: How did The Fall affect this creation? According to evolution there are traces and evidences of predation millions of years ago, I think these are one of the greatest challenges for a Lutheran who accepts Evolution, since Lutheranism and Western Christianity are derived from Augustine's theology; and how The Fall affected the whole natural world and our nature (Psalm 51:5 and Romans 5:12)? Being that there was death and rivalry from the beginning of evolutionary history. How to reconcile this with the scriptures??

PS: I would like only the Lutherans who accept the TOE to post here, just to avoid unnecessary discussions and possibles flamings.

 

[FireDragon76]

Lutherans rarely think about theology and religious things in a systematic manner, especially on that subject. You are more likely to get that sort of response among the Reformed.

My guess is that those of us who accept the scientific evidence about evolution accept both accounts of the origin of life as true, but in different ways. One is a story with symbolism that tells us existential truths that we can intuitively understand, the other tells us truths about biology according to a naturalistic method of inquiry.

 

[FireDragon76]

To my knowledge, Augustine believed it was possible that Adam was actually created mortal. I do not believe the Fathers of the Church understood those stories as literalistically as later Protestants would. I believe many of the Fathers, such as Augustine, understood the story of the Fall through Greek Platonism. Because it was already clear by the late ancient period that the universe was more complicated than what the biblical stories depicted (the earth is not a flat disk with a dome over it), and even Augustine said it was wrong to pit scientific learning against biblical truth and scandalize the faith. So I don't think Augustine would countenance Creationism as a response to the theory of evolution.

 

[Sérgio Junior]

Lutherans rarely think about theology and religious things in a systematic manner, especially on that subject. You are more likely to get that sort of response among the Reformed.

My guess is that those of us who accept the scientific evidence about evolution accept both accounts of the origin of life as true, but in different ways. One is a story with symbolism that tells us existential truths that we can intuitively understand, the other tells us truths about biology according to a naturalistic method of inquiry.

I understand, but I would like to see what are the perspectives of other Lutherans who accept evolution, and how they reconcile this question I asked about The Fall with their TE vision.

Yes, I see these two truths in this way, but the difficulty I have is how the fall affected nature, because the scriptures seem to say that nature suffers along with humanity the consequences of The Fall, and needs restoration (Romans 8:22 and Acts 3:21), I don't know if these verses have anything to do with what I wrote, but this is one of the conclusions that some get out of them!

 

[Sérgio Junior]

To my knowledge, Augustine believed it was possible that Adam was actually created mortal. I do not believe the Fathers of the Church understood those stories as literalistically as later Protestants would. I believe many of the Fathers, such as Augustine, understood the story of the Fall through Greek Platonism. Because it was already clear by the late ancient period that the universe was more complicated than what the biblical stories depicted (the earth is not a flat disk with a dome over it), and even Augustine said it was wrong to pit scientific learning against biblical truth and scandalize the faith. So I don't think Augustine would countenance Creationism as a response to the theory of evolution.

But some people say that Augustine and others Fathers of the Church actually believed in a literal Fall in the same way that today's evangelicals believe, it might even be that they believed in a Pre-Fall mortality condition, but the real problem is, as indeed the fall affected humanity, since death and violence existed before we arrived here? I think that in an evolutionary context the notion of original sin doesn't make much sense, but if we reject this concept of Original Sin the Lord's sacrifice ends up becoming in vain, at least from the point of view of our Western theology!

 

[FireDragon76]

But some people say that Augustine and others Fathers of the Church actually believed in a literal Fall in the same way that today's evangelicals believe, it might even be that they believed in a Pre-Fall mortality condition, but the real problem is, as indeed the fall affected humanity, since death and violence existed before we arrived here? I think that in an evolutionary context the notion of original sin doesn't make much sense, but if we reject this concept of Original Sin the Lord's sacrifice ends up becoming in vain, at least from the point of view of our Western theology!

I don't see that at all, especially if we go with some other interpretations of the Cross.

We still might believe, for instance, that Jesus achieved something for us by overcoming death. Hey, I mean, it's death we are talking about here. Whether or not Adam and Eve were monkeys in a jungle or two nudists in a garden, we still have this problem of death as human beings. The fact we sacarmentally participate in the immortal life of God, I think, is reason enough to keep believing, regardless of what our views of Genesis are.

But I think this requires more theological and liturgical imagination than treating the Bible as just a bunch of interlocking theological data.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think that in an evolutionary context the notion of original sin doesn't make much sense, but if we reject this concept of Original Sin the Lord's sacrifice ends up becoming in vain, at least from the point of view of our Western theology!

If we understand what original sin is saying about us, rather than what it says about a specific event with Adam in Eden, I don't think there's much problem at all. The failure and brokenness of our humanity is made transparent through all our sinful works. We don't need Adam literally eating fruit in order to grasp the inherent sinfulness of ourselves.

This does lead to questions that we, perhaps, simply can't answer; but it has little-to-no effect on theology. On the problem of concupiscence, man's brokenness, our condemnation under the Law, and our salvation by what Christ has done, which is ours by God's grace alone. The proper teaching and dichotomy of Law and Gospel remain, the biblical story of redemption and salvation doesn't change, the centrality of Christ in God's dealings with His creation doesn't change.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[FireDragon76]

If we understand what original sin is saying about us, rather than what it says about a specific event with Adam in Eden, I don't think there's much problem at all. The failure and brokenness of our humanity is made transparent through all our sinful works. We don't need Adam literally eating fruit in order to grasp the inherent sinfulness of ourselves.

This does lead to questions that we, perhaps, simply can't answer; but it has little-to-no effect on theology. On the problem of concupiscence, man's brokenness, our condemnation under the Law, and our salvation by what Christ has done, which is ours by God's grace alone. The proper teaching and dichotomy of Law and Gospel remain, the biblical story of redemption and salvation doesn't change, the centrality of Christ in God's dealings with His creation doesn't change.

-CryptoLutheran

It might mean we hold the biblical story a little less firmly in some ways, and that might bug people. But we are only holding it less firmly so that we can fit a wider view of the world in there, one that does not require us to be intellectually dishonest.

I believe in the LCMS, this is somewhat of an open issue. They seem to insist the world was created in six twenty-four hour days, and that must be accepted as something de fide, but I don't think many pastors press the issue. They don't seem as kooky about it as alot of other denominations, where creationist debates take on a life of their own.

 

[Sérgio Junior]

I don't see that at all, especially if we go with some other interpretations of the Cross.

We still might believe, for instance, that Jesus achieved something for us by overcoming death. Hey, I mean, it's death we are talking about here. Whether or not Adam and Eve were monkeys in a jungle or two nudists in a garden, we still have this problem of death as human beings. The fact we sacarmentally participate in the immortal life of God, I think, is reason enough to keep believing, regardless of what our views of Genesis are.

But I think this requires more theological and liturgical imagination than treating the Bible as just a bunch of interlocking theological data.

If we understand what original sin is saying about us, rather than what it says about a specific event with Adam in Eden, I don't think there's much problem at all. The failure and brokenness of our humanity is made transparent through all our sinful works. We don't need Adam literally eating fruit in order to grasp the inherent sinfulness of ourselves.

This does lead to questions that we, perhaps, simply can't answer; but it has little-to-no effect on theology. On the problem of concupiscence, man's brokenness, our condemnation under the Law, and our salvation by what Christ has done, which is ours by God's grace alone. The proper teaching and dichotomy of Law and Gospel remain, the biblical story of redemption and salvation doesn't change, the centrality of Christ in God's dealings with His creation doesn't change.

Thanks for the answers, brothers.

I consider myself to be a Theistic evolutionist, but lately I'm having trouble with this question about original sin, the scriptures imply that sin actually entered into that creation through one man (Romans 5:12) I can assume that it came through one of our hominidae ancestors (which we may call "Adam" and "Eve"); Psalm 51 gives the idea that sin is hereditary because it says: "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. Psalm 51:5 - NIV".

But something that is really hard to understand, is how Original Sin affected the natural and behavioral reality? Being that in nature (as I said above), there has always been death, tragedy, violence and selfish acts of our ancestors and others animals, all this has always existed without the need for a concept of The Fall. I believe in the concept of Original Sin, but I just can not make it to make sense in my mind. But despite thisand of making no sense in my mind, I believe it, because the scriptures say so, or am I misunderstanding the scriptures?

I apologize if this text violates any rules of the Lutheran subforum!

 

[Sérgio Junior]

I have been thinking here and I think it makes sense to say that Original Sin is a "kind of spiritual contamination" and doesn't alter the biological occurrences, I think the idea of original sin being a kind of spiritual contamination is a point to consider, although suffering and animal death raises various questions and theological problems, I don't think scripture says something like "The Fall is the cause of the sufferings in nature". I think the intent of the doctrine of original sin is to teach us that we all fall from the state of Grace that Adam possessed and that we can only obtain a new life and Salvation through Jesus Christ, although I think the doctrine of original sin is one of the most dificult doctrines to be understood.

 

[FireDragon76]

Christianity is actually very much indebted to Platonism in its philosophical assumptions, it's almost as if Nietzsche and Simone Weil were right, that Christianity is essentially Platonism couched in a religious narrative (though I think that could go too far, there is a kernel of truth there). It's not about the external world so much as the inner world that can be mediated and understood intuitively through myth and symbols. So when we talk about Adam and Eve and original sin, we are not talking about something we should expect to find verification through scientific investigation, which relies upon Aristotilian metaphysics in its assumptions.

You can even see some of this Platonic influence heavily in Luther, something Pr. Jordan Cooper and others have noted. Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, frequently conflicted with science due to its adoption of Aristotle in many key points. Luther's Theology of the Cross, on the other hand, seems highly Platonic in its assumptions, as was his basic indifference to Copernicus's discoveries (which did not stop devout Lutherans, such as Kepler, from pursuing astronomy and confirming Copernicus's ideas).

 

[Sérgio Junior]

Christianity is actually very much indebted to Platonism in its philosophical assumptions, it's almost as if Nietzsche and Simone Weil were right, that Christianity is essentially Platonism couched in a religious narrative (though I think that could go too far, there is a kernel of truth there). It's not about the external world so much as the inner world that can be mediated and understood intuitively through myth and symbols. So when we talk about Adam and Eve and original sin, we are not talking about something we should expect to find verification through scientific investigation, which relies upon Aristotilian metaphysics in its assumptions.

Perhaps I agree with this phrase in bold, since some doctrines and thoughts of Christian theology as "The Fall" have platonic influences since the history of Christianity from its beginnings is part of this Hellenistic context. Since Platonism and Neoplatonism influenced many Christians (including Augustine) and the some Christian dogmas!..... but in spite of this I fear I'm misrepresenting the philosophy of our religion and I fear that too I'm going too far.

 

[FireDragon76]

Perhaps I agree with this, since some doctrines and thoughts of Christian theology as "The Fall" have platonic influences since the history of Christianity from its beginnings is part of this Hellenistic context. Since Platonism and Neoplatonism influenced many Christians (including Augustine) and the some Christian dogmas!..... but in spite of this I fear I'm misrepresenting the philosophy of our religion.

I wonder sometimes how much Paul, who formulated so much early Christian theology, was influenced by Platonism and surrounding Greek religion. He says he was a Pharisee among Pharisees, of course, but that might have simply been trying to ingratiate himself to an audience. Might he have been more like Philo of Alexandria, who interpreted Judaism through Platonism and Greek thought? We see within Paul that he sees Jesus as a cosmic figure that reconciles seeming contradictions, so it is also possible he had a change of worldview through his conversion experience, and Protestant orthodoxy only is scratching the surface of his thought by focusing on justification.

I know Orthodox and Catholics are bothered less by this than Protestants, mostly because Orthodoxy and Catholicism are highly experiential religions and many believe that there was a kind of logos spermatikos at work in the Greeks through divine providence, and also because Protestants tend to be tied more to the exclusivity of the Gospel.

 

[Sérgio Junior]

I wonder sometimes how much Paul, who formulated so much early Christian theology, was influenced by Platonism and surrounding Greek religion. He says he was a Pharisee among Pharisees, of course, but that might have simply been a rhetorical point. Might he have been more like Philo of Alexandria, who interpreted Judaism through Platonism and Greek thought? .

I know Orthodox and Catholics are bothered less by this than Protestants, mostly because Orthodoxy is a highly experiential religion and many believe that there was a kind of logos spermatikos at work in the Greeks through divine providence, and also because Protestants tend to be tied more to the exclusivity of the Gospel.

I also ask the same question, but perhaps Paul's thought should be something like a Jewish matrix supported by Platonist philosophy? But who knows?

Perhaps many Protestants view Greek philosophy as something negative? I think that many Protestants take over the exclusiveness of the Gospel and reject Philosophy because of Colossians 2: 8, but I do not know if Paul was speaking against the Hellenistic Thought in these verses!

 

[FireDragon76]

I also ask the same question, but perhaps Paul's thought should be something like a Jewish matrix supported by Platonist philosophy? But who knows?

Perhaps many Protestants view Greek philosophy as something negative? I think that many Protestants take over the exclusiveness of the Gospel and reject Philosophy because of Colossians 2: 8, but I do not know if Paul was speaking against the Hellenistic Thought in these verses!

I think Protestants associate philosophy with Rome's experience with Aristotle. And also because of the modern liberal Protestant aversion to metaphysics in favor of ethics (you can see this in German liberal Protestantism in particular).

Pr Jordan Cooper makes a good case that Luther was influenced by Plato and the Pseudo-Dionysian tradition. That is likely as Luther was a fan of the Theologica Germanica and tranlated it into German, which was part of the Rhineland mysticism that was founded by the teachings of the Dominican friar Meister Eckhart.