Theistic Evolutionists: Who is God? Monotheism or Pantheism?

[Isaiah60]

My question for theistic evolutionists is not a hard one but a fundamental question: Who is God? Is God the God of monotheism or pantheism?

 

[PloverWing]

I am monotheist. Why do you ask?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Monotheism. We worship God, the Holy Trinity.

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things seen and unseen.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father. God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God. Begotten, not created, of one Being with the Father. By whom all things were made. Who for us human beings, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and became flesh by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became human. He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day He rose again, in accordance with the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, where He sits at the right hand of the Father. From thence He shall come again, with glory, to judge the living and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son], who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets.

In one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
Acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.
We look forward to the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the Age to Come. Amen."

"Theistic Evolution" means nothing except that we don't have a problem with the scientific consensus, and it does not contradict our Christian faith. It's not a doctrine, it's simply a way of saying we accept both our faith and the scientific consensus--that's all it means.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I am monotheist. Why do you ask?

I suspect he thinks that Christians who accept the scientific consensus have some alternative ideas about God. When all it means is that we are Christians who don't have a problem with science.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

My question for theistic evolutionists is not a hard one but a fundamental question: Who is God? Is God the God of monotheism or pantheism?

Wouldn't it be possible for one who accepts the reality of evolution to be either kind of Theist?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Wouldn't it be possible for one who accepts the reality of evolution to be either kind of Theist?

Technically anyone from any theistic belief can be described as a "Theistic Evolutionist"--Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Pagan, etc. But, since we're all Christians here (as this is a Christian-only part of the forum), I think we can safely assume a Christian-only context for the question. Unless the OP wasn't aware that this wasn't a Christians only area.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Isaiah60]

I read all your replies and nice to know you all have faith. Being a theist can be a vague term and also in these times very misunderstood. There's things like theistic Satanism which is the Right Hand Path of the occult. Islam also falls into that category. Islam is monism and not monotheism (Qur'an 5:110). Hinduism is pantheism.

The Judeo-Christian faith is monotheism. Jesus taught it; His disciples taught it; their successors taught it. Christianity is not a sly deviation from Judaism but rather the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. I'm sure we all agree on that.

Pantheism is derived from two Greek words: Pan (All) and Theos (God). Thus pantheism was the common pagan belief that All is God. This belief system teaches that nature made itself. Further, it teaches that the universe is God. Now monism is the Siamese twin of pantheism except it teaches that one can become one with the universe (i.e., God) and even receive messages form the universe. Monism was the religion of Hitler and the Third Reigh as well as Charles Manson. Today it has become the worldview of progressives in the west. The pantheist/monist worldview is not compatible with Biblical monotheism as it excludes a transcendent monotheist God outside of time and space.

Now before I go an inch further I need to point out that Islam IS NOT a monotheistic religion. Muhammad rejected the crucifixion and there was only one view in the world at this time in history that rejected the crucifixion of Christ and that was the Gnostics. The Gnostics were/are a monist cult. The Third Reich was part of the Monist League. Qur'an 5:110 is plagiarized from two Gnostic documents which means Islam is a monist worldview.

Back on track here. The God of pantheism is slow and clumsy, careless and unknowable. Pantheism, unlike Judeo-Christian monotheism, does not represent a Personal God but an Impersonal Substance which many confuse as God but in fact is just finite nature.

God is not slow in keeping His promises nor is He slow in creating the world. Theistic evolution is a retreat from both Biblical theology and science. For one, modern science was not founded on evolution theory. What you call "science" to me is just a mere forceful way of saying evolution theory is science proven. Evolution is not science but a theory of science and a very bad theory for all that. Christians who fear evolution theory should fear the Lord more. I have no fear of evolution nor the men and women who claim it is god. For evolution theory came from ancient times, and became a well established theory in ancient Greece and Rome. Everything from the spontaneous generation to the ape-to-man view to M-theory is found in the classical literature. Nothing Darwin purposed was his own. Pantheism is the origin of what is called evolution theory today. About the only original thing about the theory is the name itself. But its all pantheism.

I fail to see how theistic evolution is monotheism? I'm interested in how you explain this without insulting the intelligence of God.

1..2..3...Go!

 

[PloverWing]

It's hard to know where to start here. I disagree with so many things in these paragraphs. (And Godwin's Law, really? Already?)

Best to echo what ViaCrucis has said. Biological evolution says nothing about the existence or nature of God. It says only that natural selection leads to the formation of new species. Many of the people who agree with this are also Christians, and would say that God created a universe in which natural selection takes place. That's what "theistic evolution" means, at least for Christians.

As to "insulting the intelligence of God": God created a complex adaptive system by which life on earth could adapt to huge changes in the environment. Hot, cold, wet, dry, so many changes, over so many many years, and life on earth has not gone extinct. How amazing is that? I can't imagine the intelligence it takes to set up such a system.

 

[Isaiah60]

It's hard to know where to start here. I disagree with so many things in these paragraphs. (And Godwin's Law, really? Already?)

Best to echo what ViaCrucis has said. Biological evolution says nothing about the existence or nature of God. It says only that natural selection leads to the formation of new species. Many of the people who agree with this are also Christians, and would say that God created a universe in which natural selection takes place. That's what "theistic evolution" means, at least for Christians.

As to "insulting the intelligence of God": God created a complex adaptive system by which life on earth could adapt to huge changes in the environment. Hot, cold, wet, dry, so many changes, over so many many years, and life on earth has not gone extinct. How amazing is that? I can't imagine the intelligence it takes to set up such a system.

The Biblical creationist view, aka., YEC, is that micro-evolution is true in that a species can adapt and make minor changes without changing the nature of a particular species i.e., a duck is a duck and always will be a duck. We do not believe God is slow acting or clumsy, forgetful, or unaware. We do not believe God is the universe, but He is outside time and space. The universe and all therein was created by the hand of God and by His word everything was made. God made whales from the beginning and they have not changed into new species. Likewise with other forms of life. There is no evidence that any species on earth has ever been anther species. Man was never an ape. God created man as a man and there was no need for evolution. In the creation view, there is no need or room for evolution since God created all things. He sustains life by making life capable of sustaining itself. Macro-evolution is creation minus God. Its pantheism as far as I see it.

 

[sfs]

The Biblical creationist view, aka., YEC, is that micro-evolution is true in that a species can adapt and make minor changes without changing the nature of a particular species i.e., a duck is a duck and always will be a duck.

Yeah, we know that. The only problem is that the Biblical creationist view doesn't describe our universe.

We do not believe God is slow acting

The God described by the Bible is often slow-acting.

or clumsy, forgetful, or unaware.

None of us think God is clumsy, forgetful, or unaware. (But points for the Oxford comma.)

We do not believe God is the universe, but He is outside time and space.

We also don't believe God is the universe.

The universe and all therein was created by the hand of God and by His word everything was made.

Yup.

God made whales from the beginning and they have not changed into new species. Likewise with other forms of life.

That's the part that's your belief. It has nothing to do with pantheism.

There is no evidence that any species on earth has ever been anther species.

There is overwhelming evidence that every species on earth used to be another species.

Macro-evolution is creation minus God.

Macroevolution is a description of physical events. Anyone who tries to draw any conclusion about the existence or nonexistence of God from macroevolution is deeply confused.

Its pantheism as far as I see it.

But you haven't given any justification for your belief that theistic evolution is pantheism. You've listed some beliefs of creationism that have nothing to do with pantheism, and you've listed some beliefs about God that have nothing to do with whether evolution is true.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Biblical creationist view, aka., YEC,

Presumption. I believe in Scripture, but I'm not a YEC. The same is true of millions of Christians both today, and in the past. YEC is not the "Biblical" position. It's a position held by some Christians.

Calling YEC the "Biblical" view is presumptive, you are presuming this without substantiating it. I read the same first chapter of Genesis that you do, but I don't see a literal creation within six days taking place less than ten thousand years ago. I see a robust, poetic description of God's creative agency in the universe, of His sovereign creative work. And yes, poetic. Genesis 1 is poetry. It even has a repeated refrain: "There was evening and there was morning, the Nth day" The first three days of creation has God creating spaces, the last three days has God filling those spaces with creatures.

Day 1 - God creates light and separates light from darkness, day and night.
Day 4 - God creates sun, moon, and stars to rule day and night.

Day 2 - God separates the waters, the waters above and the waters below, seas and sky.
Day 5 - God creates swimming and flying creatures to rule the seas and the sky.

Day 3 - God separates dry land from the water.
Day 6 - God creates all the things that crawl, creep, run, and jump to rule the land.

Consider, also, that in Genesis 1 in the beginning the earth already is described as existing. It describes the earth as a formless waste with the primordial waters, it is from these primordial elements that Genesis 1 describes creation. God takes the formless earth and gives it form, God takes the primordial waters and orders them. The Hebrew word bara, translated as "create" describes giving something shape, or filling--like when a potter molds clay. The Genesis 1 account describes God taking the primordial elements and giving them shape, organizing them, from chaos into an ordered state.

If we take Genesis 1 absolutely literally, then we don't get Creation ex nihilo, since Genesis 1 describes the creation of the heavens and the earth from already existing material. There is, as said, already a formless earth and a primordial ocean. This isn't shocking when we understand that Genesis 1 was written within the context of the ancient near east, where these plot elements were common in creation stories.

In the stories of the ancient near east there is a primordial ocean, Tiamut. Tiamut in the pagan stories of Israel's neighbors was a primordial goddess, the mother of all the gods. In the Enuma Elish Tiamut gives birth to the gods, who then proceed to engage in violent battle, their blood and bones becoming the creatures, mountains, etc of creation.

Genesis 1 directly contradicts the pagan views of creation by insisting that Israel's God is above all things. God is already there, above the primordial ocean. The primordial ocean is nameless, not a goddess, but just inanimate water. God orders the creation, it is not the result of chaos but order, not accident but purpose. And God is above all creatures, including the sun, moon, and stars (which were worshiped as gods and goddesses by Israel's pagan neighbors), these are but mere creatures.

Thus Genesis 1 is a polemic against ancient paganism, de-mythologizing the gods and goddesses of Israel's neighbors into powerless creatures, with Israel's God as the One ordering all of creation.

Genesis 1, read rightly and within its historic context, has a lot to tell us. There's a lot there. And I believe every word. But forcing it into a modernistic literalistic reading deprives the text of all that it's saying. It's the difference between listening to Beethoven, and simply looking at a piece of sheet music. Seeing where the notes happen to fall on the page is significantly less than hearing the fully symphony of music as it is intended to be experienced.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Isaiah60]

Presumption. I believe in Scripture, but I'm not a YEC. The same is true of millions of Christians both today, and in the past. YEC is not the "Biblical" position. It's a position held by some Christians.

Calling YEC the "Biblical" view is presumptive, you are presuming this without substantiating it. I read the same first chapter of Genesis that you do, but I don't see a literal creation within six days taking place less than ten thousand years ago. I see a robust, poetic description of God's creative agency in the universe, of His sovereign creative work. And yes, poetic. Genesis 1 is poetry. It even has a repeated refrain: "There was evening and there was morning, the Nth day" The first three days of creation has God creating spaces, the last three days has God filling those spaces with creatures.

Day 1 - God creates light and separates light from darkness, day and night.
Day 4 - God creates sun, moon, and stars to rule day and night.

Day 2 - God separates the waters, the waters above and the waters below, seas and sky.
Day 5 - God creates swimming and flying creatures to rule the seas and the sky.

Day 3 - God separates dry land from the water.
Day 6 - God creates all the things that crawl, creep, run, and jump to rule the land.

Consider, also, that in Genesis 1 in the beginning the earth already is described as existing. It describes the earth as a formless waste with the primordial waters, it is from these primordial elements that Genesis 1 describes creation. God takes the formless earth and gives it form, God takes the primordial waters and orders them. The Hebrew word bara, translated as "create" describes giving something shape, or filling--like when a potter molds clay. The Genesis 1 account describes God taking the primordial elements and giving them shape, organizing them, from chaos into an ordered state.

If we take Genesis 1 absolutely literally, then we don't get Creation ex nihilo, since Genesis 1 describes the creation of the heavens and the earth from already existing material. There is, as said, already a formless earth and a primordial ocean. This isn't shocking when we understand that Genesis 1 was written within the context of the ancient near east, where these plot elements were common in creation stories.

In the stories of the ancient near east there is a primordial ocean, Tiamut. Tiamut in the pagan stories of Israel's neighbors was a primordial goddess, the mother of all the gods. In the Enuma Elish Tiamut gives birth to the gods, who then proceed to engage in violent battle, their blood and bones becoming the creatures, mountains, etc of creation.

Genesis 1 directly contradicts the pagan views of creation by insisting that Israel's God is above all things. God is already there, above the primordial ocean. The primordial ocean is nameless, not a goddess, but just inanimate water. God orders the creation, it is not the result of chaos but order, not accident but purpose. And God is above all creatures, including the sun, moon, and stars (which were worshiped as gods and goddesses by Israel's pagan neighbors), these are but mere creatures.

Thus Genesis 1 is a polemic against ancient paganism, de-mythologizing the gods and goddesses of Israel's neighbors into powerless creatures, with Israel's God as the One ordering all of creation.

Genesis 1, read rightly and within its historic context, has a lot to tell us. There's a lot there. And I believe every word. But forcing it into a modernistic literalistic reading deprives the text of all that it's saying. It's the difference between listening to Beethoven, and simply looking at a piece of sheet music. Seeing where the notes happen to fall on the page is significantly less than hearing the fully symphony of music as it is intended to be experienced.

-CryptoLutheran

I'm not reading that in Scripture. The Jews were never commanded to work for 6000 years and then take a 1000 year Sabbath. If we are talking millions of years that scenario becomes even more humorous. The Enuma Elish is the beginning of what the Greeks and Romans would use as their naturalist history that Darwin would called evolution theory. I simply have no problem accepting YEC as their understanding of science is not a compromised understanding but a genuine understanding. Theistic evolution is just playing with semantics and words as if they were magicians at a carnival do to entertain their audience. Though the end result of the magicians tricks is that its not real. Likewise with theistic evolution. Believe me, if theistic evolution were to be true people like myself, with a reputation of honesty, would not doubt its credibility. Why is it hard to believe that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 literal days, making what would become the literal framework for our 24 hour days and weeks etc.? God created the sun and moon on the 4th day because they were not necessary beforehand, as God Himself was the Light...the Light of Eternal Life. So not hard to image the earth without the sun and moon with the Light of God creating on the first 3 days of creation. But if we accept theistic evolution we are to believe that God is slow, clumsy and not so fast at putting His thoughts in order. We are reduced to the slowness of pantheism as read in the Enuma Elish and other pagan accounts which would have us believe that life arose out of the watery chaos.
I'm glad to see you're not one of those many Christians who believe we must trust the Enuma Elish over Genesis like the scholars of the NIV'11, NAB, and NRSV want us to accept. Though I've noticed over the years that most theistic evolutionists are quick to ditch Scripture for evolution theory. You may not be one of them and in that I applaud you. Though with theistic evolution comes the acceptance of evolution in which most believers of theistic evolution do apostate.

Now I want to make an important point here that I'm not sure if I'm allowed to say or not since the rules of this forum are highly intolerant to open discussion as if this entire forum were run by radical British progressives. But people wonder why Roman Catholic priests molest so many kids? this is a serious question. The answer is very simple and it comes from the Roman Catholic doctrines themselves.

First, Roman Catholic priests are not allowed to marry. I'm not saying a priest not marring is wrong, but not being allowed to marry is simply not Biblical.

Secondly, The RCC has been very tolerant of theistic evolution. But when priests accept theistic evolution they abandon God's quick judgment on the earth and His presence seems so far away that eventually these priests lose faith.

The Situation: So we have Roman Catholic priests who are not allowed to marry and have abandoned faith in God. In all these priest scandals where children were molested it all came from priests and parishes that accepted theistic evolution.

Interestingly, I was recently in my life interested in becoming a Roman Catholic. I began to inquire my interest to local Roman Catholic priests in my local area. But I was informed that they do not teach either creation or evolution which is the official position of the church. This means they stay neutral on the issue. My question then to them was what is the 5th word? What is the 5th word of Genesis 1:1? To this I never received a reply back. So it was the Anglican view I embraced because they know the 5th word. My other issue of contention was how they changed on the Roman Missals which used to go by the Douay-Rheims Bible and now use the NAB which is a flat earth book. Since I don't want to read the words of a flat earth book in the Roman Missal, I chose not to become Roman Catholic. They should have either kept it the Douay-Rheims or switched it out with the RSV-2CE.

Speaking of flat earth, most theistic evolutionists I have met are quick to accuse the Bible of teaching flat earth. But how is this faith? Is that not detracting from the body of Christ by impugning the Scriptures? I've just never seen true faith come out of theistic evolution. Seen plenty of apostasy, too much actually. Seen people more loyal to Darwinism than to the word of God. I just never witnessed true faith.

One last point I want to drive in. Theistic evolution is a very easy view for snakes to infiltrate. They cannot infiltrate YEC and they've tied but to no success. So the YEC view is also impenetrable.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Jews were never commanded to work for 6000 years and then take a 1000 year Sabbath.

In saying this I think it's clear that you didn't really bother to read my post. I never said anything about the days of creation being long periods of time. The days in Genesis 1 are days, not periods of time. Genesis 1 simply isn't a literal description of creation, whether over six 24 hour periods, or six periods of time. That's not the point of the text. The point of the text isn't what it says about how things came to exist, the point of the text is that what exists is the beautiful handiwork of God. It's not about what, it's about Who.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Sanoy]

I have never met a theistic evolutionist that was not monotheistic. They are diverse with varying views on origins.

I think Genesis has too many mysteries to unlock to settle on having found the real and only Biblical view.

 

[PaulCyp1]

Obviously there can be only one Supreme Being. That's what "supreme" means.

 

[FireDragon76]

I am a monotheist but I don't believe God is a big man in the sky, and I don't think that is implied by the idea of monotheism, necessarily. "Pantheism" has often functioned as a bogieman to keep Christians from thinking about God and shut down conversations that are necessary.

 

[Queller]

Why is it hard to believe that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 literal days, making what would become the literal framework for our 24 hour days and weeks etc.?

Because the evidence He left behind does not support that conclusion.

God created the sun and moon on the 4th day because they were not necessary beforehand, as God Himself was the Light...the Light of Eternal Life. So not hard to image the earth without the sun and moon with the Light of God creating on the first 3 days of creation.

If God is an actual physical light in the universe then why do we need the sun at all?

 

[trophy33]

My question for theistic evolutionists is not a hard one but a fundamental question: Who is God? Is God the God of monotheism or pantheism?

"Monotheistic" God, the Creator, the source of everything, one true God.
We live in Him and we exist in Him.