[OPEN] A theology of evolution

[gluadys]

Interesting point. I would agree but I'm not sure if that is in conflict with say Gluadys' view or a monergistic view...

Sounds very Thomas Merton, though

I think Assyrian's post is excellent. Even repped him for it.

 

[laptoppop]

OK, let me try again to describe some of my warped theology. <grin>

If we properly understand the nature of God the whole free will versus predestination discussion goes away. Both are totally and completely true. Call it relativistic theology, if you want. Everything depends on how you look at things.

God is eternal. He *created* time – He is not subject to it by nature. Voluntarily, Jesus became subject to the realities of being a man, including time. What an amazing humbling!

Being outside of time, God sees all things at all times at once. He truly is the great “I AM”, dwelling forever in an ever-present NOW reality. From God’s perspective, there are no alternate choices – because He already knows what choices will be made.

Interestingly, because God is above and outside of time, all moments in time are the same. This means Jesus is always giving His life for us, and He is always raising from the dead. Amazing love!

From our perspective, caught within time, we see a flood of virtually endless choices. Each choice has consequences. Some we can anticipate, others we cannot. We truly have freedom in which set of choices we will make. Our love is real, not fake – it is freely given, not coerced. Our wills are truly free in every way. Whosoever will, come and drink freely!

However, God sees our choices already. Some He influences, other He does not. (Lord, soften my heart that You might influence all of my choices!) He has a will, a preference for which choice we should take. However, He also knows which choice we will take. He does not need to concern himself with what might have been – He dwells knowing what to us will be with 100% certainty, because He sees it all clearly.

It is this knowing that can also been seen as choosing. He has chosen us. Wow. He knew when He first made the universe how He would interact with it, and who would respond to His call. Indeed, He could put an irresistible call as a signboard in the heavens, but has instead chosen to woo us and to allow us to turn away from Him. He truly knows what it would take for each person to believe in Him. Beyond a certain point, it would violate our wills – He has chosen not to do that. He could have created the universe differently, or He could interact differently with the universe that is – as such, because He knows the results of our choices, the ultimate choice is His, not ours.

Here is an imperfect analogy. Imperfect because a video is not truly outside of time the way God is – but it may be helpful in understanding my point.

Imagine a video of a mouse going through a maze. You’ve seen this video a thousand times before – you know exactly what will happen. You are outside and beyond the timeframe that the mouse experiences while running the maze. You could draw the entire maze and describe the path that was taken.

Imagine the maze from the perspective of the mouse. All he sees is the course. At each step in the maze the mouse is making a choice. This choice is real – there is no coercion on the mouse.

Predestination *AND* freewill – both are fully and completely true without conflict. It all depends on if you are seeing it from our perspective, trapped in time, or from God’s perspective outside of time.

 

[stumpjumper]

I agree my friend ^

 

[Assyrian]

Same here.

I wouldn't go for the idea of Jesus always giving his life as Hebrews says it was once for all and was effective enough not to need repeating. But it certainly is his hearty for us through all eternity.

Otherwise, I'm in total agreement. You know, it's really nice to find strong common ground with a saint like laptoppop.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

However, God sees our choices already. Some He influences, other He does not. (Lord, soften my heart that You might influence all of my choices!) He has a will, a preference for which choice we should take. However, He also knows which choice we will take. He does not need to concern himself with what might have been &#8211; He dwells knowing what to us will be with 100% certainty, because He sees it all clearly.

this is the foreknowledge vs foreordination argument dressed up. if you find yourself thinking in these terms perhaps you might appreciate Molinism or middle knowledge. The fundamental issue with this scenario is that God is an observer not an active participant.

 

[Assyrian]

No, we still have God interacting with the universe and with us.

However, God sees our choices already. Some He influences, other He does not. (Lord, soften my heart that You might influence all of my choices!)

 

[stumpjumper]

this is the foreknowledge vs foreordination argument dressed up. if you find yourself thinking in these terms perhaps you might appreciate Molinism or middle knowledge. The fundamental issue with this scenario is that God is an observer not an active participant.

I wouldn't say that... I tend to think that the Catholic and Lutheran perspective in this predestination vs free will debate is a middle option in which God is an active participant but allows us to make our own choices in some ways...

Thomas Merton's books are full of writings about the synergism of divine Providence and the freedom of man... Divine Providences goal in a lot of his writings is for man to freely submit his will to God and work with and accept God's grace...

God is still actively involved in all aspects of our life but we remain free in some regards...

 

[mark kennedy]

Well! We're those of us who are "theistic evolutionists" probably follow some systematic way of looking at evolution...

There are still those of us YECs that are somewhat interested in theology. This sounds like an interesting discussion, I am arriving a little late but I'll try to catch up.

So, how 'bout a bit of a look at process theology of the orthodox variety (not the philosophical one...)?

(I actually so have a purpose in this OP so I hope I get to it eventually ...)

I don't know what the distinction is but count me in.

Anyway, process theology:

Start here with Karl Rahner:
http://users.adelphia.net/~markfischer/Rahner000.htm

I browsed the link and from what I see this sounds like theology as an intellectual exercise. My take on it is the process theology would be post conversion and pre-scientific reflective thought on; reconciling a changing universe, the creatures free will, and God's unchanging nature.

One aspect that Rahner really makes clear in his systematic theology is that man is a "free, subjective being" and that we are faced with contingencies. We encounter God in the natural world as the source and the sum of our existence.

We encounter God at a basic level reflected in nature. The New Testament makes it clear that God divine attributes and eternal Godhead are 'clearly seen' and as free moral agents we are 'free' to react as we so choose.
Free moral agency is ubiquitious to human experience otherwise how would God be justified in his judgment of our sin?

Faith is God's self-communication accepted by the individual. One thing that is very clear, though, in Rahner's thought is that man is free. He is capable of accepting or rejecting God's grace and that very freedom is the reason for man's emergence through means that may appear random in the eyes of some.

That would be the first thing that becomes apparent, we do have free will and yet find ourselves as slaves of sin. Faith is presented in the Gospel as the gateway to God's grace that leads to our obediance and impowers us with the righteousness of God in Christ. We do have a choice and for the most part we choose wrong, not just as an exercise of free will but because the creation is subject to vainity.

Now, my point actually, is that some, in fact a good many, Christian systematic theologies are actually refuted by process theology and the ToE. Calvinism asserts that mans will is bound and can not freely choose God's grace on it's own and can not reject God's grace either.

There's a can of worms I would love to get into a little more when I get the time. I'm going to take another look at the links and some of the discussion so far. I'll let you guys know what I come up with. I will say this, the paradox of free will and divine ominipotence. This thread has my attention, lets hope it turns into a discussion the helps to reconcile our view of nature and theology.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[stumpjumper]

There's a can of worms I would love to get into a little more when I get the time. I'm going to take another look at the links and some of the discussion so far. I'll let you guys know what I come up with. I will say this, the paradox of free will and divine ominipotence. This thread has my attention, lets hope it turns into a discussion the helps to reconcile our view of nature and theology.

Grace and peace,
Mark

We're pretty much in agreement on our view of free will and moral agency...

In regards to the link I provided, the Rahner one is a chapter by chapter summary of the best systematic theology I have read thus far. Karl Rahner was one of the chief theologians behind Vatican II and his theology and soteriology is IMO more on the Protestant view of God's grace than say the Tridentine Catholic view.

Anyway, he makes for good reading and is somewhere around a middle ground when it comes to process theology. He would not endorse open theism or a Whiteheadian view that God is changeable etc...

He did state that the world has been consistently evolving towards a pan-en-theistic state as God's grace conquers humanity's sin and separation from God....

Grace and peace to you as well...

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Well! We're those of us who are "theistic evolutionists" probably follow some systematic way of looking at evolution...
[]
A theology of evolution requires libertarian free will and a good many western systematic theologies completely deny that such a thing exists.

Free will or no free willy?

* no not the whale

Whew, you folks are far more wide read than I, but allow me to offer some humble thoughts...

The theology concerning free will and predestination that is held by somebody who accepts evolution seems to me to depend on a number of points.

Two salient issues are what does it mean that

"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
Gen 1:27, NASB, courtesy BibleGateway.com​

and how does one interpret the story of Adam and Eve.

Very shortly after Origins was written it was argued that evolution shaped our bodies and God put our souls in at some point. This appears to me to be, more-or-less, the position of the Catholic Church.

I am using the discussion at http://www.carm.org/open/free_will.htm for my definition of "Libertarian Free Will"...

"In libertarian free will, a sinner is equally able to choose God or reject God regardless of his sinful condition.
In compatibilist free will, a sinner can only choose to do that which is consistent with his sinful nature."​

I don't see how TE requires Libertarian Free Will.

I personally hold a position midway between the two, at least as formulated above. Alcoholics can and do turn away from alcohol, but to state that becoming sober is as equally as easy as crawling back into the bottle for them is foolishness.

The Holy Spirit acting both directly and via other people provides us with the help we need to accept grace. (I think that qualifies me for semi-pelagianism, but its been a while since I familiarized myself with the definition.)

I am not a determined determinist.

I don't insist that we are predestined for salvation or damnation. The Bible certainly seems to say that we are, but I don't consider that to be a central message that God would circumvent our free will in order to keep in (or out) of the Bible.

If we are, then I would agree with C.S. Lewis, time doesn't work for God the way it does for us.
Do I understand how God can be outside of time looking in, and interact with us during time and allow us free will?
Or how the rather handwaving description that C.S. Lewis makes in The Great Divorce works?
No, But then I don't fully understand the Trinity either.

But what does seem clear, what shows up over and over in the Bible is that God calls us to act in a certain way.
Why does he spend so much time and energy exhorting us to follow his will if we are incapable of doing so?

BTW, I agree with Gluadys that predestination concerning salvation does not require physical determinism.

Excellent thread, thanks to all for the effort put forth.

 

[stumpjumper]

Gotta read the Great Divorce someday...

Good post Robert..

 

[mark kennedy]

We're pretty much in agreement on our view of free will and moral agency...

In regards to the link I provided, the Rahner one is a chapter by chapter summary of the best systematic theology I have read thus far. Karl Rahner was one of the chief theologians behind Vatican II and his theology and soteriology is IMO more on the Protestant view of God's grace than say the Tridentine Catholic view.

Nothing earthshaking on the free will moral agency front, I never held very firmly to Calvanistic predestination. I only read the link and his ideas about salvation are strongly tied to some concept of self I find elusive. I like the comprehensive way it is presented and it's interesting to see how the Catholics have managed to simplify their theology to make it understandable for the average Joe.

Anyway, he makes for good reading and is somewhere around a middle ground when it comes to process theology. He would not endorse open theism or a Whiteheadian view that God is changeable etc...

He did state that the world has been consistently evolving towards a pan-en-theistic state as God's grace conquers humanity's sin and separation from God....

Grace and peace to you as well...

I got this from the introduction in the link, it reminded me of someone else:

"In general, Rahner suggests that the bases of Christian faith are reliable. Although spiritual knowledge is limited and imperfect, it is nevertheless true knowledge, based on experience, rooted in history, leading to transcendence."

I just happened to be reading Paley when I happened upon the thread and recognized a couple of simular concepts:

"VIII. Neither, lastly, would our observer be driven out of his conclusion, or from his confidence in its truth, by being told that he knew nothing at all about the matter. He knows enough for his argument: he knows the utility of the end: he knows the subservience and adaptation of the means to the end. These points being known, his ignorance of other points, his doubts concerning other points, affect not the certainty of his reasoning. The consciousness of knowing little, need not beget a distrust of that which he does know." (William Paley, Natural Theology)

I think both of them are stuggleing with a single problem, when we are faced with limited or little knowledge we can still trust the knowledge we have. This seems to hold true in theology as well as science so this is not a new problem.

There was another little intellectual puzzle I found irresistable. There is a distinction between formal causes and efficient causes. These are just random quotes while I try to get a handle on the discussion allready well underway.

"E. The Model of Formal Causality (IV.2.D, p. 120). The language of Thomistic metaphysics proves helpful here. God’s relation to us is an example, Rahner says, of “formal” causality. The very principle of God’s being becomes constitutive of who we are. Example: the generation of children by their parents is “formal” causality. In causing children, the “principle” of the parents becomes a part of the children. This must be distinguished from “efficient” causality. In efficient causality (e.g., a bat striking a baseball), the effect differs from the cause (the bat does not become a part of the ball)."

There is a distintion in my mind between God's providence and God's intervention. God does wind the universe up like a watch and let it run as it was intended to, perhaps ajusting the time or making repairs. What causes the motion of the wheels and springs is easily attributed to the main spring. What causes the watch is what Aristotle attributed to the unmoved mover, that is God.

"I deny, that for the design, the contrivance, the suitableness of means to an end, the adaptation of instruments to a use (all which we discover in the watch), we have any cause whatever. It is in vain, therefore, to assign a series of such causes, or to allege that a series may be carried back to infinity; for I do not admit that we have yet any cause at all of the phænomena, still less any series of causes either finite or infinite. Here is contrivance, but no contriver; proofs of design, but no designer. " (Natural Theology, Paley)

Now I guess I'm rambling but I just happend to notice that both Paley and Rahner dealt with two fundamental problems. First the limits of knowledge and the reliability of the knowledge allready possesed. Secondly there is this whole buisness of causation where we discern between an immediate and an ultimate cause.

Overall I like the way Rahner gets you involved in the problems of theology without making you solve all of the riddles at once. Metaphysics is a difficult study and it's refreshing when someone goes to the trouble to take it one step at a time. Much of his theology focuses on subjective issues and the redemptive history he mentions is a personal one which doesn't set well with me.

At any rate, that's my rambling thoughts on the subject thus far. I'll try to get more on topic as we go but the task of blending philosophy and theology is a difficult one. With all the twisting and turnings of epistomology, hermeneutics and metaphysics I would say this discussion could go many directions before it's over.

I will say this, this is one of the few genuine attempts at a theological discussion in origins theology I have seen. Most of the time we wrestle over the subject of origins and leave much of our Christian theology to fend for itself.

Blending philosophy and theology...hmmm...sounds tricky but I'll give it a whirl.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[stumpjumper]

I think you made an interesting connection there... Rahner was very big into natural theology and you can see that influence in a lot of his positions.

If you contrast him with someone like Karl Barth you really see the difference that natural theology and integrating philosophy and theology make on some positions. I agree with the similarities between Rahner and Paley...

 

[gluadys]

I got this from the introduction in the link, it reminded me of someone else:

"In general, Rahner suggests that the bases of Christian faith are reliable. Although spiritual knowledge is limited and imperfect, it is nevertheless true knowledge, based on experience, rooted in history, leading to transcendence."

I just happened to be reading Paley when I happened upon the thread and recognized a couple of simular concepts:

"VIII. Neither, lastly, would our observer be driven out of his conclusion, or from his confidence in its truth, by being told that he knew nothing at all about the matter. He knows enough for his argument: he knows the utility of the end: he knows the subservience and adaptation of the means to the end. These points being known, his ignorance of other points, his doubts concerning other points, affect not the certainty of his reasoning. The consciousness of knowing little, need not beget a distrust of that which he does know." (William Paley, Natural Theology)

I think both of them are stuggleing with a single problem, when we are faced with limited or little knowledge we can still trust the knowledge we have. This seems to hold true in theology as well as science so this is not a new problem.

It is interesting that one can apply the bolded statement of Paley to science and specifically to evolution.

So much anti-evolution sentiment is based on what we do not know or what it is supposed we cannot know about the process or history of evolution. Similarly with dating the earth and the universe.

But as Paley points out, these limitations do not really affect scientific conclusions (or metaphysical conclusions) because they are based on what we do know. And we can trust the knowledge we have, even when it is limited.

If we could not, how could we ever have trust in God whom we can know in only the most limited fashion.