-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Should Christians Hold to any form of Theistic Evolution then?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
The seven 'days' of Genesis is a time-compressed description of the evolution that took place over millions of years, according to a lecture by 9Mark Dever and his mentor Roy Clements to the Cambridge Inter-Collegiate Christian Union:
(right click, save link as, for direct download of audio file) CICCU • Dever and Clements on Christians and Science
38:30-39:55
CLEMENTS: "In fact if you think about it, Genesis chapter One does portray an evolutionary model. It would have been very easy for the ancient author, knowing nothing at all about evolution, to have simply said the whole of the universe suddenly sprang into being by a single divine fiat, with no progress, no development at all, but no, he spreads it out over seven days, and he says that material things emerged first: light, and the earth, and the heavens, and then plants before animals, and marine animals come before land animals, and the human race comes only at the very end.
In an astonishing way, he anticipates the general sort of evolutionary scheme, without any of the evolutionary details. So I don't have any great difficulty in accepting that if evolution was the way it happened, that God might have used such a mechanism for the production of the variety of species that we see, and I don't find any great difficulty harmonising that with Genesis One. But there are some Christians who feel that the seven days have to be taken with a greater degree of literalness than I feel is necessary, and they must look for another solution to the problem."
1:12:00-1:13:20
DEVER "The word Yom there in the Hebrew is used very similarly to the way we use the word Day, and it means many different things. I'm not sure I want to say exactly what Roy said on that, but I think, as a Christian who certainly believes in the truth of scripture there's nothing he's said that's inconsistent with that."
CLEMENTS: "If it were a twenty four hour day, I favour the view that it was a twenty four hours of revelation, maybe the prophet saw the vision over the space of seven days, but I don't think the prophet could possibly have been given an actual time scale to set against the things he was seeing happen. They had to have taken place in a time-collapsed way. He couldn't possibly have seen them, in my view, across the spectrum of the time the took, if they took millions of years, as science would say. He would have to have seen it in a time-collapsed way."
DEVER - "And I would say of course He could have done it in that way, and of course the prophet could have seen it that way, but the point is the word doesn't necessitate, the word Yom, doesn't necessitate you or me or Roy looking at it any one of those —"
CLEMENTS - "There are a whole host of ways of harmonising Genesis One with scientific accounts of origins. Some are seven-day Creationists, Young Earth view, I respect that view, but I don't hold it myself."
(right click, save link as, for direct download of audio file) CICCU • Dever and Clements on Christians and Science
38:30-39:55
CLEMENTS: "In fact if you think about it, Genesis chapter One does portray an evolutionary model. It would have been very easy for the ancient author, knowing nothing at all about evolution, to have simply said the whole of the universe suddenly sprang into being by a single divine fiat, with no progress, no development at all, but no, he spreads it out over seven days, and he says that material things emerged first: light, and the earth, and the heavens, and then plants before animals, and marine animals come before land animals, and the human race comes only at the very end.
In an astonishing way, he anticipates the general sort of evolutionary scheme, without any of the evolutionary details. So I don't have any great difficulty in accepting that if evolution was the way it happened, that God might have used such a mechanism for the production of the variety of species that we see, and I don't find any great difficulty harmonising that with Genesis One. But there are some Christians who feel that the seven days have to be taken with a greater degree of literalness than I feel is necessary, and they must look for another solution to the problem."
1:12:00-1:13:20
DEVER "The word Yom there in the Hebrew is used very similarly to the way we use the word Day, and it means many different things. I'm not sure I want to say exactly what Roy said on that, but I think, as a Christian who certainly believes in the truth of scripture there's nothing he's said that's inconsistent with that."
CLEMENTS: "If it were a twenty four hour day, I favour the view that it was a twenty four hours of revelation, maybe the prophet saw the vision over the space of seven days, but I don't think the prophet could possibly have been given an actual time scale to set against the things he was seeing happen. They had to have taken place in a time-collapsed way. He couldn't possibly have seen them, in my view, across the spectrum of the time the took, if they took millions of years, as science would say. He would have to have seen it in a time-collapsed way."
DEVER - "And I would say of course He could have done it in that way, and of course the prophet could have seen it that way, but the point is the word doesn't necessitate, the word Yom, doesn't necessitate you or me or Roy looking at it any one of those —"
CLEMENTS - "There are a whole host of ways of harmonising Genesis One with scientific accounts of origins. Some are seven-day Creationists, Young Earth view, I respect that view, but I don't hold it myself."
One cannot hold to evolution and believe in a literal historical biblical account of Genesis, would have to see it as myth or allegory
Theistic Evolution - a product of mans imagination?
(Gen 6:5 KJV) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.
Enough said.
(Gen 6:5 KJV) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.
Enough said.
Should Christians Hold to any form of Theistic Evolution then?
How would Theism deny a Creator?
~~~~~~~~
There are many different models of Theistic evolution, every one expresses belief in a Creator God.
FYI, the more acceptable, modern expression for Theistic Evolution is Evolutionary Creationism.
BioLogos is a leading organization which expresses support for an Old Earth and Evolutionary Creationism. Their website answers many questions that people have.
John H. Walton's book, The Lost World of Genesis 1 was an eye-opener for me, and finally put the Creation Debate in a context that brought me rest.
Walton maintains that the Genesis creation narrative is focused on functional order rather than physical/material objects.
"In the ancient world, creation stories begin with the default condition of nonorder. This default condition is not bad, corrupt, flawed or damaged but it is undesirable. Then the creator brings order into the world, though not thereby dispelling all nonorder. ... For those who accept evolutionary models, God's actions can be described in every minute step in the evolutionary process. Regardless of the scientific models one accepts, in God, as in Christ, all creation coheres (Col 1:17)". (New Explorations in the Lost World of Genesis, John H. Walton. 2025. p.73-74
Rob
Last edited:
So we believe that God can do anything except create according to the Biblical model of 6days and the Sabbath?
That’s a very accommodating view of scripture and it’s not good
That’s a very accommodating view of scripture and it’s not good
Which ties into forcing the bible to confirm accepted "scientific facts"
By holding to mn n ot being a unquie creation but evolved from common primate ancestors
Actually, the creation of man in Genesis is a testimony to one of the most unique moments ever as well as personal
The text goes out of its way to make sure that it was very very personal act of God
The text goes out of its way to make sure that it was very very personal act of God
The opening post wondered if Theistic Evolution was a viable biblical option and noted, that he thought it might mean they would be denying a Creator, “or at least that Mankind was a special creation in His own image?”
That tells me that you're a bit mixed up about what constitutes a Creationist.
THE POINT BEING: All creationist theories believe in a Creator.
I’m convinced that you don't understand and can't really define theistic evolutionism.
This ignorance is somewhat understandable, I said in my first post on this thread, “There are many different models of theistic evolution”.
Some forms of theistic evolution even hold a place for the special creation of mankind.
Perhaps you are being mislead by the term, evolution; It is defined in a variety of ways.
The term, “Evolutionary Creationist” has been recently been utilized to emphasize the importance of a Creator.
Simply stated Evolutionary Creationism proposes that God used an evolutionary process in in the process of developing his creation. The fact that we do not totally understand HOW the evolutionary process works isn't important…although it is something we can continue to research.
There are plenty of books on the debates. A few one-volume Systematic Theology Texts mention the wide variety of opinions about the topic.
Here are a few of the books on my shelf at home. I’d be willing to lend them out if you’re interested.
William H. Baker. In The Image of God; a Biblical View of Humanity. Moody Press, 1991
Fazale Rana & Hugh Ross. Who was Adam?; A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man. NavPress. 2005.
Peter Enns. The Evolution of Adam; What the Bible Does and Doesn’t say about Human Origins. BrazosPress. 2012.
C. John Collins. Did Adam And Eve Really Exist?, Who They Were and Why You Should Care. Crossways. 2012.
Ron Cole-Turner. The End of Adam and Eve; Theology & the Science of Human Origins.TheologyPlus Publishing. 2016.
S. Joshua Swamidass. The Genealogical Adam & Eve; The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry. IVP Academic. 2019.
J.B. Stump & Chad Meister, ed. Original SIn and The Fall, Five Views. Spectrum Multiview Books. 2020.
Jeffrey J. Niehaus. When Did Eve Sin?; The Fall & Biblical Historiography. Lexham Press. 2020.
Rob
That tells me that you're a bit mixed up about what constitutes a Creationist.
THE POINT BEING: All creationist theories believe in a Creator.
I’m convinced that you don't understand and can't really define theistic evolutionism.
This ignorance is somewhat understandable, I said in my first post on this thread, “There are many different models of theistic evolution”.
Some forms of theistic evolution even hold a place for the special creation of mankind.
Perhaps you are being mislead by the term, evolution; It is defined in a variety of ways.
The term, “Evolutionary Creationist” has been recently been utilized to emphasize the importance of a Creator.
Simply stated Evolutionary Creationism proposes that God used an evolutionary process in in the process of developing his creation. The fact that we do not totally understand HOW the evolutionary process works isn't important…although it is something we can continue to research.
There are plenty of books on the debates. A few one-volume Systematic Theology Texts mention the wide variety of opinions about the topic.
Here are a few of the books on my shelf at home. I’d be willing to lend them out if you’re interested.
William H. Baker. In The Image of God; a Biblical View of Humanity. Moody Press, 1991
Fazale Rana & Hugh Ross. Who was Adam?; A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man. NavPress. 2005.
Peter Enns. The Evolution of Adam; What the Bible Does and Doesn’t say about Human Origins. BrazosPress. 2012.
C. John Collins. Did Adam And Eve Really Exist?, Who They Were and Why You Should Care. Crossways. 2012.
Ron Cole-Turner. The End of Adam and Eve; Theology & the Science of Human Origins.TheologyPlus Publishing. 2016.
S. Joshua Swamidass. The Genealogical Adam & Eve; The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry. IVP Academic. 2019.
J.B. Stump & Chad Meister, ed. Original SIn and The Fall, Five Views. Spectrum Multiview Books. 2020.
Jeffrey J. Niehaus. When Did Eve Sin?; The Fall & Biblical Historiography. Lexham Press. 2020.
Rob
Last edited:
atpollard
Well-Known Member
Should Christians Hold to any form of Theistic Evolution then?
Only if they want to burn in hell![Just kidding.]
I find that "Evolution" and "Creationism" is a subject that produces infinitely more heat than light.
Evolution has the better "logical argument" and the "Bible" has the better track record for getting "TRUTH" correct, so I (personally) avoid discussing the subject.
Carry on without me.
Has anyone speculated, using his imagination, at what point in any Theistic Evolution theory did God examine His evolutionary process and decide that what He observed was His image and called it good enough to be man?
Dave G
Well-Known Member
"Should Christians Hold to any form of Theistic Evolution then?"
Why would they not actually believe in Who they professed, and believe His every word?
Why would they trust in men ( when He says for them not to place that trust in fallible men ), and not trust Him implicitly?
Mankind's science is already biased against Him, and there are biblical proofs that are continually being downplayed and suppressed.
Yet, we know from the Bible many things, some of them that even outright contradict modern science.
I'll trust God...
We as men are not trustworthy.
When God said in Genesis 1, the result was that it was so.
Hebrews 11:3
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
It is very clear in Hebrews that if you see it, it was made by God’s Word. It was spoken into existence. It was not evolved into existence.
If any would persist beyond Hebrews to say that the world was formed by processes of evolution, how much time is in an evening and in a morning? Do we ever use these words to explain something else?
Sometimes we do. But since everything that was mad me has not seen an evening, it has not come to a close, it is clear that we are not speaking metaphorically as in the beginning and the end of the creation.
The evening and the morning must be a literal day.
I would ask what logical explanation would you give for the use of the words evening and morning?
It is not possible to believe in evolution and God. They are not compatible. Hebrews 11:3 says by his words, evolution says by natural process. Evolution declares God to be a liar.
Evolution is not an acceptable explanation for a Christian.
Hebrews 11:3
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
It is very clear in Hebrews that if you see it, it was made by God’s Word. It was spoken into existence. It was not evolved into existence.
If any would persist beyond Hebrews to say that the world was formed by processes of evolution, how much time is in an evening and in a morning? Do we ever use these words to explain something else?
Sometimes we do. But since everything that was mad me has not seen an evening, it has not come to a close, it is clear that we are not speaking metaphorically as in the beginning and the end of the creation.
The evening and the morning must be a literal day.
I would ask what logical explanation would you give for the use of the words evening and morning?
It is not possible to believe in evolution and God. They are not compatible. Hebrews 11:3 says by his words, evolution says by natural process. Evolution declares God to be a liar.
Evolution is not an acceptable explanation for a Christian.
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
scripture does not allow for a "day age" theory of the first 6 days
also. I used to be a GAP theorist. as as a teenager, it seemed to solve alot of questions I had.
I have since left that belief, and Joined the YEC group
Most Baptists don't allow for a "day age" theory of the first 6 days.
Yet even Baptist systematic theology texts admit there is some reasonable debate about the subject.
DEFINITION:
Theistic Evolution maintains that God initiated or guided the evolutionary process, rejecting both strict creationism and atheistic interpretations of evolution. (By this simple definition, theistic evolution disagrees with the opening post - [many TE's deny special creation])
>>The debate around theistic evolution centers on how to interpret Scripture in light of scientific findings about the origins of life. (this is not a denial of Scripture)
Early believers were unaware of the vast age of the earth.
Beginning in the 1700's the budding science of geology began to hint that the earth was much older than we presumed.
This opened the door for a variety of interpretations.
The GAP theory was an early theory to explain the meaning of the biblical text.
The popular New Scofield Bible, heavily promoted belief in the Gap Theory.
But even by that time the Gap Theory was being dismissed as not consistent with the proper translation of the Hebrew text.
Theistic Evolution only became popular after Darwin. Prominent believers in T.E. include B. B. Warfield, Billy Graham, C.S. Lewis, N.T. Wright, Philip Yancey,
While T.E.'s basic tenets are simple, there are countless variations, ...it's an evolving theory...
Young Earth Creationism (YEC) became the predominant American belief following Whitcomb and Morris's publication of The Genesis Flood in 1961. As noted here on the BaptistBoard, its proponents quite aggressively maintain that it is the only proper interpretation.
But historically various interpretations have not resulted in major doctrinal disputes.
Whether you are a Young Earth Creationist or an Old Earth Creationist, the key component of God's message in the Creation stories of Genesis is clear.
1. God is the Ultimate Creator
2. God's Word brings Life
3. There is Order and Purpose in Creation
4. The Nature and Purpose of Mankind
5. The Consequence of Sin
6. The Need for Redemption
9. The Foundation of Faith
That being said, Theistic evolution poses some significant theological challenges to our theological understanding.
Those that choose to support Evolutionary Creationism don't throw out their fundamental Christian doctrines but are in the process of re-evaluating how those foundational aspects of our belief fit into the process of evolution.
Rob
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
I just gave a general review of the first few chapters of genesis while leading my home group in a bible study leading up to the Abrahamic covenant.Most Baptists don't allow for a "day age" theory of the first 6 days.
Yet even Baptist systematic theology texts admit there is some reasonable debate about the subject.
DEFINITION:
Theistic Evolution maintains that God initiated or guided the evolutionary process, rejecting both strict creationism and atheistic interpretations of evolution. (By this simple definition, theistic evolution disagrees with the opening post - [many TE's deny special creation])
>>The debate around theistic evolution centers on how to interpret Scripture in light of scientific findings about the origins of life. (this is not a denial of Scripture)
Early believers were unaware of the vast age of the earth.
Beginning in the 1700's the budding science of geology began to hint that the earth was much older than we presumed.
This opened the door for a variety of interpretations.
The GAP theory was an early theory to explain the meaning of the biblical text.
The popular New Scofield Bible, heavily promoted belief in the Gap Theory.
But even by that time the Gap Theory was being dismissed as not consistent with the proper translation of the Hebrew text.
Theistic Evolution only became popular after Darwin. Prominent believers in T.E. include B. B. Warfield, Billy Graham, C.S. Lewis, N.T. Wright, Philip Yancey,
While T.E.'s basic tenets are simple, there are countless variations, ...it's an evolving theory...
Young Earth Creationism (YEC) became the predominant American belief following Whitcomb and Morris's publication of The Genesis Flood in 1961. As noted here on the BaptistBoard, its proponents quite aggressively maintain that it is the only proper interpretation.
But historically various interpretations have not resulted in major doctrinal disputes.
Whether you are a Young Earth Creationist or an Old Earth Creationist, the key component of God's message in the Creation stories of Genesis is clear.
1. God is the Ultimate Creator
2. God's Word brings Life
3. There is Order and Purpose in Creation
4. The Nature and Purpose of Mankind
5. The Consequence of Sin
6. The Need for Redemption
9. The Foundation of Faith
That being said, Theistic evolution poses some significant theological challenges to our theological understanding.
Those that choose to support Evolutionary Creationism don't throw out their fundamental Christian doctrines but are in the process of re-evaluating how those foundational aspects of our belief fit into the process of evolution.
Rob
There is always a huge disagreement, even in my own church (most are OEC, while few of us have reverted to YEC) and I tried to share the bible is not clear really. so neither side can really prove their point this is gospel truth
I used the examples of the light of the stars reaching earth.
It takes light years for their light to reach. so this appears to promote an Old earth. As it took all these years for the last star to shine its light on the earth.
In the same token.
God said he created the earth for a purpose.. So would not create the earth in a way to fulfill that purpose immediately (the AGED earth theory) in other words. God said he created the light in the night (including stars) for a purpose.. Did he really have to wait millions of years. or could he have put a sat in the heavens and had its light shine that day (the miracle of creation)
again, the bible is not really clear. so neither side should be attacking the other side.
(Seems to me you might be confounding spiritual life with biological life.) I see it that biology is secondary to spirituality here. "Image of God" must relate to capacity to exhibit God-likeness, which relates to moral & spiritual awareness: the capability to know God, considered separately from mere biological life. In this respect, Adam possessed elevated criteria over the animals and apes, including adherence to the practice of monogamy, maintenance of social order, knowledge of God, obedience to God's commands etc. Adam denotes homosapiens in the image of God. It is why the sin of Adam is particularly culpable as to its consequences. As to epochs, Adam appears only at the dawn of human civilization, constrasted with the dawn of the animal kingdom which commenced at a very different time in earth's history.
IMO, the bible should never be seen as a biology or scientific text book. The bible relates to God; and Adam is the commencement of the history of two-way interaction between God and his creation. Humanity is being defined by its capacity to know God and not by its biology, even if the two are somehow related.
Last edited:
Well said. I could have phrased my question to more clearly address the physical evolution of "man". Thanks for your input.
Having never seen God manifested in my sight, I would just believe that when He said that He made us like Him and in His image, that every part of us is made in His image.
You may have discovered something that I never will. You may know what God looks like. I can’t say that I do. I just know what He said about us. I find that when God says something, we usually are unable to comprehend how deeply true the statement is. You seem to be taking a face value statement, that seems to involve all of mankind, physically and spiritually, and erasing half to fit your personal beliefs in regard to the physical.
Not sure how monogamy shows spiritual connection with the likeness of God. Also, God only made one woman for Adam. not much choice in the matter for Adam. In the case of mankind, I don’t know what your definition of adherence is but I don’t see it in regard to marriage or a lot of other things that God wants man to adhere to.
I suppose if you don’t believe what God said in the Bible, you would have the tendency to say that “the Bible doesn’t literally mean what it says. It means spirituality what I think it does.” At this point you have no credibility in any discussion because your Bible POV is subjective. You may feel like you have some validity but you can’t deny what the Bible says and expect people to believe you when you explain the Bible.
This seems to say that God has nothing to do with the physical. I think that to assume that the Bible is accurate in the spiritual but not in the physical is to say God doesn’t know what is going on or how He made the world.
John 1:3
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Hebrews 11:3
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,* so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
(*not by random evolutionary processes)
What people don’t understand is that for evolutionary processes to work, you don’t just need a missing link. You need two of them. And you need two of them to evolve into the same compatible kind. Not one into a fish and the other a frog.
so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
What spiritual things do you see?
What kind of religion is this that you are teaching?
How far are you willing to take your belief that the Bible is strictly spiritual?
You don’t believe that there was a literal flood?
How do you spiritually fit into this verse?
2 Peter 3:5-6
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
If the Bible relates to God, why does God tell that giant fib in Genesis 1 if it didn’t really happen? You have a miserable religious conundrum that is not able to be reconciled.