Theistic evolution

Up until the early 1800s, science always included the supernatural as a possible realm of reflection.

Mercury's view of science should be called "scientistic." It certainly isn't the historic view of science.

The only brand of science that can be called "scientific" is science that deals with the evidence no matter where it leads. That evidence includes natural as well as supernatural.

Mercury's view of science is modern, but it isn't biblical.

 

Paul, would you agree with the following statements?:

1. By creation we mean that free act of the triune God by which in the beginning for his own glory he made, without the use of preexisting materials, the whole visible and invisible universe.

2.Creation is the act of the triune God, in the sense that all the persons of the Trinity, themselves uncreated, have a part in it - the Father as the originating, the Son as the mediating, the Spirit as the realizing cause.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Yes, in the sense that I think you are asking the question.

However, after God created the heavens and the earth, meaning universe and the earth's foundation, God, an undefined period later, fashioned the earth's biosphere. During this seven day period, some things were "made, fashioned, formed" out of existing matter. In man's case, God formed (asa) man out of the dust of the ground, but the Bible also speaks of God creating (bara) man by breathing into man the breath of life.

So in general, yes. Understanding that some things in Genesis 1:3ff were formed out of existing materials at God's command.

That being said, God created everything by his command. It didn't just evolve.

The operative phrase in #1 is "in the beginning." I do believe that God created everything, visible and invisible, out of nothing as referenced by Genesis 1:1, John 1, Colossians 1.

 

Then you agree with a Theistic evolutionist, namely, Dr. A.H. Strong, then President and professor of Biblical Theology in the Rochester Theological Seminary. Also author of such books as Systematic Theology and Christ in Creation. His text was a major text for classes in Systematic Theology in major evangelical Baptist seminaries.

He goes on to write about the inspiration of scripture: "Inspiration is that influence of the Spirit of God upon the minds of the scripture writers which made their writings the record of a progressive divine revelation, sufficient, when taken together and interpreted by the same Spirit who inspired them, to lead every honest enquirer to Christ and to salvation."

Hardly the words of one who rejects any portion of scripture, and denies God's hand in creation, and yet taught theistic evolution.

I offer this, not to enter the debate, but to put a stop to the nonsensical charges that those who embrace this sytem of thought in any way deny either the scriptures or God in the process.
Sound in theology. Sound in exegesis. Sound in faith.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I knew you were trying to set me up.

I have Strong's Systematic Theology.

And yes, I understand his attempt to reconcile "science" with Scripture. But the context of his day is different from ours. Today, we know the devastating results of believing in Darwinism. Two World Wars even sobered up the liberals and they retreated to neo-orthodoxy.

Jim, even the liberals admit that when someone gives up inerrancy, the orthodox doctrines don't just fall away. It usually takes another generation or two.

It is the "spiritual" grandchildren of Strong that you want to examine. Are they still believing in inerrancy and the orthodox faith? I think not. His denomination was the Northern Baptists who are today the American Baptists.

So the descendants of Strong have abandoned historic, biblical Christianity, but they do believe in theistic evolution!

If Strong believed your above statments he wouldn't have believed in theistic evolution. So no, Strong and I don't agree.

Weak in inerrancy, weak in exegesis, weak in faith.

 

Jim, that was really a weak attempt to prove that one can believe in theistic evolution and still embrace the Scriptures and God in the process.

The truth is, those who hold to theistic evolution eventually have to abandon inerrancy. In Systematic Theology, Strong was very weak on his presentation of inerrancy. If I remember correctly, he didn't address it, favoring the term "inspiration" instead.

Very weak, Jim.

 

Paul33 et al:

Strong's attempts were an attempt to save Christianity, not to destroy it. He realized that the science of evolution is so strong it must also be true; and since he also believed in the scriptures, he sought the way to reconcile the two.

The Word of God is precious to me and so is all truth. I have learned enough to know that all life is of common descent and the universe is billions of years old. I have learned enough to know that God is the creator of all and has given us His miraculous Word to bear testimony of that fact, as well as His love for us all and His plan of redemption for us all.

I am not going to abandon some of what I've learned. Its just that simple.

 

You see, Jim.

Paul of Eugene has eloquently proven my point. The Word is so precious to him that he believes that all life is of common descent.

Isn't that precious.

 

So, how long will it be before I throw out inerrancy? I am 78 now, and first pastored a church in 1945. By the way, inerrancy was not a term used in Strong's day, and he used the strongest terms possible to support the validity of ALL scriptures. I have never had a problem with inerrancy of the original scriptures.

Cheers. End of discussion on my part.

Jim

 

Marcia,

The people I have run into who support theist evolution believe that God created the Heavens and the Earth, in the order Genesis describes, but they believe that the "days" are "a thousand years." They base that a little on Jewish writing tradition. (For instance, often in the bible you would see prophecy indicating something would happen in what people read to be 7 years, when in fact it turned out that it happened in 7 generations.)

The problem they end up stumbling over is the "process."

Its pretty hard to mesh "God created man in His image and breathed life into him," with, "Man started out as a fish."

 

that is your mistake, not the theistic evolutionist. We do not teach that man evolved from anything but man. Each specie at best evolved within itself. An ape was always an ape, and he would be disgusted to be called a man.

Fundamententalist forget that among their own ranks, a day has been a thousand years, a few hours, in Jewish reckoning and everything in between. They even came up with a mysterious gap theory of untold time between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. The heralded Scofield Reference Bible had this theory in its notes and how many fundamentalists almost ascribed inspiration to those notes as well.

Let's talk about the same things and not what you speculate the other believes. That is why I generally stay out of these stupid debates.

Cheers,

Jim

 

So when did I say that you would throw out inerrancy, or even imply it?

I can prove historically, however, that whenever an institution adopts theistic evolution, the following generations will abandon biblical orthodoxy, starting with inerrancy.


Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology

6. Inspiration did not guarantee inerrancy in things not essential to the main purpose of Scripture. (p. 215)

9. When the unity of the Scripture is fully recognized, the Bible, in spite of imperfections in matters non-essential to its religious purpose, furnishes a safe and sufficient guide to truth and to salvation. (p. 218)

Stong uses the word inerrancy, which was alleged to not be in existence when he wrote Systematic Theology, and also reveals that he does not believe in inerrancy.

Strong then advocates that Christ is the ultimate authority, and says this about the Bible: "The Scripture is the imperfect mirror of Christ. It is defective, yet it reflects him and leads to him" (p. 219)

Need I remind you of what Psalm 19:7 teaches? "The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul."

Strong was influenced by higher criticism, and while he maintained an orthodox faith despite deminishing the authority of the Bible and failing to hold to full inerrancy, the Baptists around him and the next generation betrayed historic Christianity by adopting the scientific method as their ultimate authority.

To be fair to Strong, he counters that he does not admit to errors of science (223) or history in general (226). Strong was obviously walking a tightrope between factions in his denomination, using language that implied that the Scriptures were imperfect yet maintaining that he didn't see any errors in science or history.

[ July 06, 2005, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: Paul33 ]

 

As to Strong using the strongest words possible to describe that the Bible is without error, the best Strong could do was write about the credibility of the Scripture and refer to inspiration.

He denied inerrancy, but he also failed to speak in terms of infallibility, which prior to the coining of the word "inerrancy" was used to mean the same thing. The Bible is infallible meant that the Bible was without error and truthful in all that it affirmed.

Strong neither used inerrancy or infallibility to describe his position.

 

(sigh) God's revelation does not come only in the Bible. God's revelation comes with every sunrise, every sunset, every twinkle of starlight, every excavation, every journey, every exploration, every scientific expirement, every accident.

The trick is figuring out how to interpret God's revelation. It isn't wise to put God's written word, by interpretation, against God's actual works.

 

Paul of Eugene,

We actually agree on this. The Puritans called nature and the Bible the two books of God.

God's revelation in Scripture and God's revelation in nature must be in agreement. So if there is an apparent discrepancy, it is caused by either a misinterpretation of Scripture, a misunderstanding of nature, or a combination of both!

 

There is a false link between a hyper-literal interpretation of Gen 1 and inerrancy. I completely reject the false association. It's a slippery slope argument.
BTW, Charles Hodge, in many ways, one who could be considered the father of fundamentalism, did not hold to a young earth. He discusses this in his systematic theology.

 

It has been claimed that theisitic evolution is an oxymoron. This is totally false. Theisitic Darwinism is an oxymoron but one can believe that God created the world and He did it through means. Even the hyper-literalists believe that God created over a period of 144 hours.

 

He did it through means--

Yes, indeed--they are supernatural--God speaks and things happen.

...as opposed to naturalistic means--natural selection and genetic mutations over a time frame which is statistically absurd--just to get a simple cell going--maybe--if the oxygen level is low enough. (OXY-gen may have eliminated most OXY-morons.

Is it possible we have been digging too much ?--surely we have our heads in the sand.

There is one major problem: how did SIN evolve?

Let God be found true--and every man a liar.

Selah,

Bro. James

[ July 06, 2005, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: Bro. James ]

 

Jim,

If you were talking to me, and I got your belief wrong, I apologize. I was just telling Marcia what theists have told me. As to the "fish" they do believe it came from God, but they tell me, "God made the fish, and then it evolved into man."

If that isn't what the majority teach - again my apologies.