[OPEN] A theology of evolution

[stumpjumper]

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

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 ...)

Anyway, process theology:

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

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.

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.

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.

This POV is in complete disageement with what a theology of evolution would tell us about our natural world. Indeed, much of western theology is in disagreement and that is what my rambling point might be...

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

 

[laptoppop]

Is this summary a reasonably accurate description of process theology?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology

If so, I have some major disagreements with it - for example, God changing over time. God does not change.

The way I see it, God created the multidimensional universe -- including time. His way of describing Himself - "I AM" used both at the burning bush and by Jesus - grapples with the issue of an everpresent God outside of time. From the little I see, it looks like the god of process theology is subject to time.

It is crucial to understand that the Creator is not the creation and that the Creator is not subject to the creation (except for the glorious wonderful deliberate acts of love by Jesus where he voluntarily became subject to the creation). From our limited perspective, imagine God outside of time like a guy looking down on a timeline. He can see the beginning, he can see the end, he can see the middle. He sees all times at once. He knows the beginnning from the end.

Such a perspective reconciles free will versus election. Both are true from God's perspective. This helps us rejoice in God choosing us while putting out the whosoever will call to faith. We have free will, but He already knows what we will do. He chose us - one could say He set up the universe knowing how we would react, so it is His choice. He knows exactly where on the timeline He interacts with us, and those interactions are part of His everpresent Now.

 

[stumpjumper]

Is this summary a reasonably accurate description of process theology?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology

If so, I have some major disagreements with it - for example, God changing over time. God does not change.

In some ways it is but certainly not all.

I agree that God does not change over time.

Process theology does not neccesitate that God changes which is pretty much open theism... I think the wiki confused open theism with process theology in certain respects...

The way I see it, God created the multidimensional universe -- including time. His way of describing Himself - "I AM" used both at the burning bush and by Jesus - grapples with the issue of an everpresent God outside of time. From the little I see, it looks like the god of process theology is subject to time.

No.

I would say that the God of process theology exists outside of time and pulls AND pushes creation towards and away from itself...

It is crucial to understand that the Creator is not the creation and that the Creator is not subject to the creation (except for the glorious wonderful deliberate acts of love by Jesus where he voluntarily became subject to the creation). From our limited perspective, imagine God outside of time like a guy looking down on a timeline. He can see the beginning, he can see the end, he can see the middle. He sees all times at once. He knows the beginnning from the end.

Such a perspective reconciles free will versus election. Both are true from God's perspective. This helps us rejoice in God choosing us while putting out the whosoever will call to faith. We have free will, but He already knows what we will do. He chose us - one could say He set up the universe knowing how we would react, so it is His choice. He knows exactly where on the timeline He interacts with us, and those interactions are part of His everpresent Now.

I have to admit that what you said sounds very close to Calvinism.

Do you believe that man cooperates in his walk with God (and can resist God's will and cause things to occur that God does not will) or that God controls everything?

 

[Gus2009]

Modern physics seems to disagree with doctrines like Calvinism as well. The universe is not a set, clockwork, deterministic, newtonian one. Things really arent pre-destined, they work themselves out from a range of probabilities. Some things are likely to happen, others are so unlikely that they become near impossible. They were not however, set in stone from the start. Is this, sort of, what youre getting at or have i missed the the point of the question completely?

 

[stumpjumper]

Yep^ That was sorta the point of my ramble there... Some Christian theological statements are in conflict with what we see in the world and perhap, many times, it is the underlying theology that needs to be re-assessed not neccesarily one's view of the infallibility or inspiration of scripture...

 

[gluadys]

Modern physics seems to disagree with doctrines like Calvinism as well. The universe is not a set, clockwork, deterministic, newtonian one. Things really arent pre-destined, they work themselves out from a range of probabilities. Some things are likely to happen, others are so unlikely that they become near impossible. They were not however, set in stone from the start. Is this, sort of, what youre getting at or have i missed the the point of the question completely?

I think this is a point where many Calvinists go wrong (though I don't think Calvin himself made this error) i.e. the notion that election requires the predestination of all things.

Election is the predestination of some to salvation--and that is really all it is. It is not a predetermination of one's occupation, future spouse, how many children one will have or whether or not one will die in a car accident. Election is not really incompatible with a lot of free choice and even random events.

 

[gluadys]

I am betwixt and between on process theology. I agree it does not mean God changes over time--though I think the unchangeableness of God is, (like predestination) often exaggerated. Scripture, for example, does say that God changes his mind. The flood story begins with God "regretting" that he had made humanity. Abraham successfully bargains with God over the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, changing his apparently fixed purpose to one conditional on the failure to find 10 just men. Moses succesfully changes God's will to destroy the people of Israel and begin a new nation with him. There are other examples, too.

So God can and does change direction in his methods. What he does not change is his nature (love) or his ultimate goal (the redemption of all creation). But different times and circumstances may mean that goal will be pursued by different strategies although always in love.

Given this, I see no conflict between evolution and God's purpose. Rather I see a world created in freedom and grace whose relationship with its Maker is rather like that of a dancing partner in which both respond to each other.

But, you will note, I did not say "freedom" but "freedom and grace". If creation were merely free it would be free to resist and even thwart God's ultimate purpose, and I don't believe that is the case. Ultimately, I do not believe God's grace can be resisted.

I do believe grace can be resisted and people can do what is against God's will. What else is sin but acting against God's will? We can and do struggle against God's grace. But in the end resistance is futile (Is God the Borg? ) I do not believe any will be lost that God has determined to save.

A final note on God's foreknowledge:

laptoppop says

...imagine God outside of time like a guy looking down on a timeline. He can see the beginning, he can see the end, he can see the middle. He sees all times at once. He knows the beginnning from the end.

I think this view is incompatible with the freedom and grace God has bestowed on Creation. It assumes there is an end --- a single end --- which can be seen. But how can there be a single end before a choice is made that determines the end?

The question is: whose choice? If it is God's choice, to be sure he can see the end, but then we are back to God pre-determining all things, instead of election to salvation. If the freedom in grace God has bestowed on creation is genuine, then in some things the choice must be ours, not God's and there can be no end to be seen prior to our free choice determining which end shall be.

The range of our choices may be limited. We may have only 3 or 4 options, not an infinity of options, but we still have options and each will lead to a different end.

I believe God is aware of our options and the ends to which each will lead; in short, God is aware of every possible end. Therefore, God is never caught by surprise or unable to respond appropriately, whatever we may choose. But until we choose, God will see all ends, not the end. Because prior to our choice there is no one end to be seen.

I think this is a necessary perspective for reconciling God's foresight --which is genuine-- and our freedom -- which is also genuine.

 

[stumpjumper]

I think this is a necessary perspective for reconciling God's foresight --which is genuine-- and our freedom -- which is also genuine.

Good post Gluadys. I never knew you were a Calvinist.

I tend to agree with a lot of what you wrote but I think this is problematic:

If creation were merely free it would be free to resist and even thwart God's ultimate purpose, and I don't believe that is the case. Ultimately, I do not believe God's grace can be resisted.

It seems to me to beg the question as to what purpose our free will serves. I tend to look our final salvation as a self-surrender to God. Love being only authentic and genuine when it is freely chosen (or at least freely accepted)...

As a Lutheran, I can say that I have read some monergistic theology that would make the argument that man does not choose God but our acceptance of grace is authentic. It is authentic, though, because it can be resisted.

If the acceptance of salvation is not a surrender of our "self" or a willful surrender to God, then of what value is freedom of the will?

I guess you can work in a middle ground but I have found that a lot of Calvinists deny evolution because it becomes problematic for their overall theology. An evolutionary theology tends to rebut total depravity and shows a relationship between man and God that is different from say the shorter catechism...

 

[gluadys]

I tend to look our final salvation as a self-surrender to God. Love being only authentic and genuine when it is freely chosen (or at least freely accepted)...

As a Lutheran, I can say that I have read some monergistic theology that would make the argument that man does not choose God but our acceptance of grace is authentic. It is authentic, though, because it can be resisted.

Perhaps we should distinguish between "resisted" and "refused". I would agree we can resist grace, but ultimately it cannot be refused.

But this does not imply that God coerces acceptance. Rather that in God's gracious patience he never permits an ultimate refusal. God never gives up on us; he never accepts our resistance as final, but perseveres in loving us until we freely accept his love.

It is equally important to note that only a free acceptance of grace is acceptable to God. So he does not short-circuit the process so as to force a decision against our will, but rather works even with a resistant will to soften and bend it, not break it, until the resistance is freely surrendured.

I guess you can work in a middle ground but I have found that a lot of Calvinists deny evolution because it becomes problematic for their overall theology. An evolutionary theology tends to rebut total depravity and shows a relationship between man and God that is different from say the shorter catechism...

I don't understand why one would say that evolutionary theology rebuts total depravity. I don't see that as a necesary consequence of an evolutionary point of view.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I guess you can work in a middle ground but I have found that a lot of Calvinists deny evolution because it becomes problematic for their overall theology. An evolutionary theology tends to rebut total depravity and shows a relationship between man and God that is different from say the shorter catechism...

BB.Warfield was outspokenly TE.
was your choice of middle ground a deliberate allusion?

I believe God is aware of our options and the ends to which each will lead; in short, God is aware of every possible end. Therefore, God is never caught by surprise or unable to respond appropriately, whatever we may choose. But until we choose, God will see all ends, not the end. Because prior to our choice there is no one end to be seen.

sounds middle knowledge or Molinist.

 

[artybloke]

I believe God is aware of our options and the ends to which each will lead; in short, God is aware of every possible end.

This is a possible solution - except that he would still not know what choice we're going to make. And I think that's right - a bit like Schroedinger's Cat - is it alive or is it dead? Until we open the box, it's both. And I think that until we open the box of faith, God chooses not to know.

Ever since I first read Moltmann's The Crucified God I've had a problem with the unchangeability of God, by the way. It seems to be based more on the Greek notion of purity = apathia than on the Hebrew notion of a God who is consistent and true - but is capable of being argued with, and of changing his mind. The Hebrew/Christian God is, it seems to me, to be a God of pathos - who, through Christ, involves Himself with us and our sufferings at the deepest level.

 

[stumpjumper]

Perhaps we should distinguish between "resisted" and "refused". I would agree we can resist grace, but ultimately it cannot be refused.

But this does not imply that God coerces acceptance. Rather that in God's gracious patience he never permits an ultimate refusal. God never gives up on us; he never accepts our resistance as final, but perseveres in loving us until we freely accept his love.

It is equally important to note that only a free acceptance of grace is acceptable to God. So he does not short-circuit the process so as to force a decision against our will, but rather works even with a resistant will to soften and bend it, not break it, until the resistance is freely surrendured.

But that position really only leads to two options: universal salvation of some sort or double predestination of some sort...

At the very least you would have to say that if God's grace can not be ultimately refused that it was then God's will that some are not saved...

I don't understand why one would say that evolutionary theology rebuts total depravity. I don't see that as a necesary consequence of an evolutionary point of view.

An evolutionary POV, at least process theology, would say that we emerged via free processes because love is only authentic when it is freely accepted or sought.

Total depravity would say that we can not freely seek or even freely accept God's love. Plantinga's problem of evil theodicy takes that exact route, libertarian free will, even though he does not follow process theology... Process theology would even go further...

 

[gluadys]

I believe God is aware of our options and the ends to which each will lead; in short, God is aware of every possible end. Therefore, God is never caught by surprise or unable to respond appropriately, whatever we may choose. But until we choose, God will see all ends, not the end. Because prior to our choice there is no one end to be seen.

sounds middle knowledge or Molinist.


[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]

A good summary of Molinism
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10437a.htm

How right the Preacher was to say there is nothing new under the sun. I had never heard of Luis de Molina and his ideas until he was mentioned here.

As far as I knew, my ideas on God's foreknowledge were unique to myself as I have never heard them expounded by anyone else.

But it is far from the first time I have found my originality scooped by a previous thinker.

Yes I would tend to agree with Molina on the nature of God's foreknowledge. Where I would part company with him (and apparently the whole Catholic church) is on the unimpaired freedom of the will after the fall. This is a point on which I remain Calvinist--that in the state of depravity in which we find ourselves the will is not free but in bondage to sin.

 

[stumpjumper]

A good summary of Molinism
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10437a.htm

Alvin Plantinga considers himself a Molinist as well as Reformed... He holds to libertarian free will though... I have not read any of his soteriological views though just his PoE stuff and his ontological argument...

 

[gluadys]

But that position really only leads to two options: universal salvation of some sort or double predestination of some sort...

True. I don't think we can assume universal salvation but I don't think we can close off that possibility either. God saves whom he wills---the elect---but is there anyone, anything whom he does not will to save?


I don't think we have enough insight into the will of God to say yea or nay.

An evolutionary POV, at least process theology, would say that we emerged via free processes because love is only authentic when it is freely accepted or sought.

Total depravity would say that we can not freely seek or even freely accept God's love. Plantinga's problem of evil theodicy takes that exact route, libertarian free will, even though he does not follow process theology... Process theology would even go further...

I still don't see a contrradiction here. Yes, we emerged via free processes and via free processes we chose to reject God and enter into the kingdom of sin. But having found ourselves under the power of sin, we are no longer free to reject it again and turn again to God of our own free will. We have no free will until, by God's grace, we are released from the power of sin.

In this respect, I would see resistance to the grace of God as an aspect of unfreedom. So long as we are bound to sin our natural instinct is precisely to resist the grace of God. Until God's grace breaks the power of sin in our life, we will resist it. But with the victory of grace over sin, we regain the freedom of will intended for us in creation. With that comes the possibility of consenting freely to the acts of God's grace in our lives.

 

[Assyrian]

But that position really only leads to two options: universal salvation of some sort or double predestination of some sort...

At the very least you would have to say that if God's grace can not be ultimately refused that it was then God's will that some are not saved...

Weird double take there. I was going to say that, but I thought I hadn't posted yet...

If that is the case, then I think the only choice is between a hypercalvinistic predestination to damnation, or a universalist salvation of all. Either God extends his ultimately unrefusable grace to all, or there are some he chooses not to extend his unrefusable grace to and are by God's choice left to their damnation.

Prior publication is yours

 

[stumpjumper]

True. I don't think we can assume universal salvation but I don't think we can close off that possibility either. God saves whom he wills---the elect---but is there anyone, anything whom he does not will to save?


I don't think we have enough insight into the will of God to say yea or nay.

Fair enough... That would be the Lutheran response in all actuality...

Ever read any Karl Braaten?

I still don't see a contrradiction here. Yes, we emerged via free processes and via free processes we chose to reject God and enter into the kingdom of sin. But having found ourselves under the power of sin, we are no longer free to reject it again and turn again to God of our own free will. We have no free will until, by God's grace, we are released from the power of sin.

In this respect, I would see resistance to the grace of God as an aspect of unfreedom. So long as we are bound to sin our natural instinct is precisely to resist the grace of God. Until God's grace breaks the power of sin in our life, we will resist it. But with the victory of grace over sin, we regain the freedom of will intended for us in creation. With that comes the possibility of consenting freely to the acts of God's grace in our lives.

Hmm. I'll have to think about that...

I want to agree but I'm not sure if an evolutionary perspective would posit that we are truly completely bound to sin. I remember a conversation I had with a_ntv in GT here and the Catholic understanding of free will and original sin...

IMO, when I was discussing the Lutheran view of free will it occurred to me that what he was saying seemed to be more in line with an evolutionary view of our past...

 

[stumpjumper]

Prior publication is yours

All rights reserved

 

[Assyrian]

I guess you can work in a middle ground but I have found that a lot of Calvinists deny evolution because it becomes problematic for their overall theology. An evolutionary theology tends to rebut total depravity and shows a relationship between man and God that is different from say the shorter catechism...

For those who believe total depravity is the scriptural viewpoint, not just from Genesis by the whole of scripture, understanding God used evolution is not going to change that. However if you don't approach the question with a preset theology, evolution does suggest a very different reading of a lot of passages.

The traditional view says Adam was created perfect, able to live a life morally perfect enjoying an unblemished relationship with God. It was only when he sinned that human nature was cursed, our fallen human will unable live a life free from sin.

This raises an interesting question, was Adam's original relationship with God dependant on his own righteousness? Yet the bible tells us that grace was God's plan from before the foundation of the world, his Plan A rather than a Plan B repair strategy is things went wrong.

If we look from an evolutionary view point, God formed this hominid that bore something of the image of God, capable of rational thought, of passion, of love and empathy, who would fight with fury to protect its family, who would even lay down its life to protect them. God took this hominid and called it higher, to a moral and spiritual life, equipping it and teaching it right from wrong, even if its first divine law may just have been the simplest one of taboo.

When they were tempted, the temptation was the same as ours Gen 3:6the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise... As John put it, 1John 2:16lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life.

When the bible talks of 'the flesh' the tradition interpretation is 'our fallen sin nature'. I suspect it means exactly what it says. It is simply human nature, the desires and instincts that are good in themselves, but often stand between us and our call to walk with God.

There are other factors too. Human society is often damaged and causes damage. It is in the grip of dark powers. Sin is habit forming, or as the bible puts it, when we sin it makes us slaves. What happens the human spirit in all this is another question again.

 

[stumpjumper]

When the bible talks of 'the flesh' the tradition interpretation is 'our fallen sin nature'. I suspect it means exactly what it says. It is simply human nature, the desires and instincts that are good in themselves, but often stand between us and our call to walk with God.

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