Theistic-evolutionist Theology

[PC1]

I have the utmost respect for evolutionists (theistic or otherwise). I can sympthasize with this position. That being said, I might be playing Devil's advocate in this thread. These are some valid questions regarding the theology of theistic-evolutionists that I'd like to see answered:

1) Did God create man sinful? Or put another way, was there a "Fall"? If there wasn't, then God created us with sin inherent in us, did He not? If He did; why?

2) Genesis is obviously viewed as non-literal. What do you make of the Genesis account then? Is it allogorical? If yes, what does it allude to? If no, then why is it there at all?

3) I'm assuming the Noachian flood is viewed as either non-literal or non-existent? Why did God include it in the Bible?

4) What of the angelic realm. When did Satan fall, if he did at all? Were the angels created 13.7 billion years ago when the universe is said to have come into existence or later? What did they go for 13.7 billion years while they waited for humans to evolve?

5) Dawkins says in the scope of evolutionary history, humans are the end of a fingernail, or something like that. Why did God wait so long (13.7 billion years) before he brought about humans? Similarly, why did God not just create instanteously?

6) I assume you believe in the soul. Did our ape-like ancestors also have this soul? Hunter-gatherers were said to exist a million years ago. Did they have a soul? If yes, why did God wait until 5,000 or so years ago to start revealing himself to us. Also, at what point in time did humans become "imbued" with a soul, and what do you base this on?

7) Does it seem like an oxymoron for Christ to come to save us from our original state that God created us in? (This ties back to #1).

8) Apparantly 99% of species that have once existed on this earth are extinct. Why were their millions, if not billions, of years of death and suffering before humans even came along?

I just came up with these off the top of my head, so they are in no particular order or importance. I'd especially like to see how #6 is answered though. It seems to me that theistic-evolutionists have a very crippled theology (but by all means, correct me).

[micatala]

The author of this quote is assuming that when one bases ones knowledge on the word of God, that his or her own fallible opinion does not enter in. We know this is in fact not true. We have seen time and again that people who quote scripture can be wrong, and those that deny scripture can be right.

Of course one's opinion enters in, but at least we can debate whether or not the opinion is true to the word of God and see whos opinion is sound and whos is not.
The word of God "(The Bible) in its original autographs is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, including issues of doctrine, ethics, and social, physical, or life sciences."

Fisherking has provided a very thoughtful post with a lot to respond to. However, for now, since I think this is the crux of our disagreement, let's focus on this.

On what basis do you make this claim of inerrancy?

If my opinion or point of view has clouded my ability to properly interpret the bible, my opinion is fair game and could very well be wrong. You and I have a different opinion about how we should intrepret Genesis and we attempting to show which intrepretation is the correct interpretation. That does not mean the word of God itself is wrong.

I would agree in part. I think where we differ is that I am guessing you consider the written work (at least in the original languages) of the Bible to perfectly reflect God's word. I look at the Bible as an imperfect human reflection of the eternal perfection of God's Word, which truly exists only in spirit.

I base this on the reality that humans are inherently imperfect and finite, and not capable of perfectly apprehending or understanding God's infinite and unfathomable word. Several Biblical authors actually testify to this idea.

So, yes, I do not disagree that God's word is itself cannot be wrong. However, this does not necessarily mean the Bible is perfect.

In addition, even if the Bible were perfect, we would never be able to get around all interpretive problems. Our discussion, it seems to me, relates to these interpretive questions. We each have our different assumptions about appropriate interpretive practice.

We are probably just going to have to agree to disagree here. You seem to be assuming that anywhere that it is written "God said" that this is literally what happened.

Yes. If it is not literally what happened, who is lying?

Who is lying? Moses when he wrote that divorce and remarriage was permitted, or Jesus when he said it was not?

[Fisherking]

We are probably just going to have to agree to disagree here. You seem to be assuming that anywhere that it is written "God said" that this is literally what happened.

Yes. If it is not literally what happened, who is lying?

I am merely suggesting there is a good possibility that figures like Adam might not be literal persons. This is not a black and white dichotomy.

Adam was a literal person, true or false?

False. If you read the Hebrew, "adam" in the Genesis story is referred to as 'Ha-adam'. The 'ha' is a definitive article, and is never used in a personal name.

It still depends on the context though.
These gentlemen make some very good points:

"5) Adam in Genesis 1-2 was an historical man, not a population:
a) ha,adam (translated “man”) is followed by a verb with a singular object suffix (“him”)in Genesis 1:27 and 2:15, rather than by a verb with a plural object suffix (“them”) as would be expected to be used if ha,adam referred to a population (Grier, 1977:13-17);
b) In Greek, a definite article is utilized with well known proper names for emphasis. In I Corinthians 15:22 a definite article is utilized with both adam and with Christ (Grier,1977:28-9)
c) According to Genesis 2:20-23 and I Timothy 2:13-14 there was a time when there was man, but no woman. This would be true if adam were a historical man, but would not be true if adam were a population (Grier, 1977:17, 36);
d) Adam bears a son at 130 years of age (Genesis 5:3), names his son
(Genesis 5:3), dies at 930 (Genesis 5:4-5). In Genesis 3:17 God speaks to
the serpent, the woman, and Adam. In Genesis 3:21 God makes clothes for
“Adam and his wife.” Each of these instances seem to require reference to an individual man. (Grier, 1977:17-18)
e) Adam is listed as a name with other names accepted as historical individuals (10
patriarchs in I Chronicles 1:1-4; Christ in I Corinthians 15:22; Moses in Romans 5:14; the entire lineage of Christ in Luke 3; and Enoch in Jude 14) (Grier, 1977:18-19, 29-30, 32, 40, 41)
f) In Luke 3, Adam is contrasted with all others in the lineage of Christ, by being created by God—not descendant from other humans (Grier, 1977:40-41)
g) Adam is considered a type of Christ in Romans 5:12-17 and I Corinthians 15:22, 45. It would seem that Adam is being considered as historical as Jesus (Grier, 1977:29-31, 34-5)
h) Adam is contrasted with all other humans in I Corinthians 15:22 and Romans 5:12-19 (Grier, 1977:30-1, 32-3);
i) Several Biblical writers (Hosea, Job, Paul, Luke, and Jude) as well as Christ Himself (in Matthew 19:4-5 and Mark 10:6-8) considered Adam a historical individual (Grier,1977:19-21, 24-42)
j) A historical Adam and Eve created with Adam first and then Eve forms the basis for the doctrine of marriage and divorce (Matthew 19:4-5; Mark 10:6-8) (Grier, 1977:25-7), the headship of man and the place of women in the New Testament church (I Timothy 2:13-14)(Grier, 1977:35-6), ... " Genesis 1-11 as Historical Narrative

[micatala]

I've been meaning to get back to this thread for some time to respond to some additional points of Fisherking.

We are probably just going to have to agree to disagree here. You seem to be assuming that anywhere that it is written "God said" that this is literally what happened.

Yes. If it is not literally what happened, who is lying?

I am merely suggesting there is a good possibility that figures like Adam might not be literal persons. This is not a black and white dichotomy.

Adam was a literal person, true or false?

My position is we do not know for sure, but that it is probably false that Adam was a literal person. In addition, my position is that it does not really matter from a theological point of view.

I don't see any reason to assume, given the countervailing evidence, that Adam was the 'actual first person.

The text itself gives very little wiggle room for an allegorical interpretation:

I don't see how any of the definitions and word analysis you provided makes for a better case that Adam was the actual first person.

According to Genesis Adam was the first person. According to the word analysis, the author of Genesis differentiated (by the words he used) where "the man (named) Adam" was used, mankind in general, man in relationship to woman, ect.
Having said that, I agree with you whole heartedly that there is a greater spiritual truth running through Genesis and the entire bible. I believe figures of speech are used to illustrate these truths. This does not mean we take whatever passage we feel like and say it is a figure of speech. Figures of speech have literary form and classified by the form they take.

I agree with some of what you are saying here. Yes, Biblical authors very frequently employ figures of speech. These figures can convey deeper truths than the underlying literal language. I also agree we cannot simply take any and every passage as a figure of speech on a whim. We need to look at the contextual evidence.

With respect to Genesis, I would not agree that the only reasonable interpretation is a literal one. As goat and I have pointed out, there is some reason to consider the intention of the writer not to be a literal description of actual events and persons. I confess, I need to wade through your analysis a bit more to address the specific words used. However, I doubt that this analysis will unequivocally settle the issue. Even in this analysis of the various words used for man, there is some interpretation going on.

Now, there is another issue with regards to the interpretation of Genesis outside of the actual text and the author's intention, and that is the point of extra-biblical evidence. I continue to hold that we (as a civilization) would never have changed our understanding of the solar system except for the scientific evidence. I continue to hold that it is every bit as reasonable to hold to a literal interpretation of passages in Psalms, Joshua, and elsewhere that the earth is fixed as it is to assume Genesis describes a literal 6-day creation. Yes, Psalms employs figures of speech. These figures often have a literal meaning and a non-literal one. On the one hand, you are arguing, without much detailed justification, that we should take all the "earth fixed" passages to only have a figurative meaning, but you are saying the Genesis passages have both a literal and a figurative meaning and that the literal meaning must be factually true.

I would ask for your rationale on what I see as an inconsistency in your approach to these passages. Why take the one literal and the other not? Focus if you wish only on the passage in Joshua. Even if we take this as a supernatural event (which Martin Luther did), the "event" in question is the cessation of the motion of THE SUN, not the cessation of the motion of the earth.

The only reason we now consider this passage differently is the scientific evidence we have for the motion of the earth.

Based on this precedenct, I think it is perfectly reasonable to reinterpret Genesis on the basis of the scientific evidence, even if there were no textual evidence for a non-literal interpretation (which I also think there is).

Consider the term 'bread.' On the one hand, this term is used in a literal way in many places in the Bible. On the other hand, Jesus refers to himself as the bread of life, for example, in John Chapter 6. The crowd ASSUMED HE WAS SPEAKING LITERALLY just as you assume Jesus' allusions to OT figures must mean he takes them literally. And yet, we know that he was speaking figuratively based on what he says later in that very chapter

Yes, scripture interpreting scripture is sound exegesis. I am glad to see you employing it

I differentiate between what Jesus and the authors of the Bible say and what those who interpret their words believe. Again, there is AMPLE precedence for taking even the most literal language in the Bible as figurative.

What precedence is this?

For one, the precedence set by Jesus in this very chapter of John. Jesus gave very literal language regarding himself as the bread of life. It was taken literally by his audience. We only subsequently learn that he employed this as a figure of speech.

For more, I again allude to the passages in Joshua and elsewhere on the motion of the sun, the sky as a dome or tent, and the earth being fixed.

For more, consider the Messianic prophecies. These were understood by the Jews to mean the Messiah would come as an earthly king and rule, as a king, on earth, when he came. He did come, and yet the understanding of "king" and "kingdom" were different than this literal understanding. Now, of course Christian theology divides the prophecies into those that apply to the first coming versus the second, and the "earthly kingdom" is understood to only apply to the second. This MAY BE true, but we do not know as the second coming has not occurred. It may well be the second coming will not unfold as current Christian theology holds, just as the first coming did not unfold in the literal way the Jews understood it.

Thus, these Messianic Psalms may very well have ONLY the figurative meaning, applying to a heavenly king and a heavenly kingdom. We certainly, as Christians, have reinterpreted many of these passages as such.

If you take some of the Psalms as non-literal, does this mean we can take the Messianic Psalms which are often interpreted as predicting Jesus literal birth, literal crucifixion, literal resurrection, etc. as figurative?

We can't make a sweeping generalization about figures of speech in Psalms or any any other book.

Agreed.

Psalms, without a doubt, is classified as Hebrew poetry and tends to use a great deal of figurative language. Our job as sound interpreters is to identify the figure of speech being used (if one is used). Once a figure of speech is identified, we can assume there is a greater truth being expressed.

Agreed. However, one cannot always unambiguously decide which passages are figures of speech and which are not. Some Psalms describe events we hold to be literal (e.g. Jesus crucifixion) and some do not (the sun moving through the heavens). We know that reasonable and intelligent people have in the past disagreed on what is literal and what is not, and we know that Christian's today have a different understaning than our brothers and sisters in the past.

I think you would agree with me when I say the greater truth that is expressed in the figure of speech is sometimes personal. The Holy Spirit may reveal a different truths to different people reading the same figure of speech passage.
The literal event underly any figure of speech (if a figure of speech is even present) does not cease to be a literal event because it is used to express a greater truth.

Again, agreed, but this does not settle the question of how to decide if a passage describes a literal event or not.

My point would be that, in many, most, or even (almost) all cases, whether the event is literal or not DOES NOT MATTER, just as whether Lazarus was an actual beggar or the prodigal son was an actual literal person does not matter to the truth and meaning of these stories.

I am saying "Why would I attempt to glean knowledge about God and his works from men who say there is no God". Does the bible teach otherwise?

The answer the first question is that we know men who say there is no God are often correct in what they say about nature, even when they disagree with what believers say.

So you think I should enroll in Atheism 101 so I can learn about God and his works?

The answer to the second question is irrelevant.

Since we are in the theology and doctrine forum, I think it is relevant.

It might be relevant to theological opinions, but it is not relevant to what is true or what is not true. Just because the Bible may not teach us to search for knowledge from those who are atheists does not mean that what an atheist teaches or believes is always false if it is at odds with what believers hold.

We frankly know that those today who claim evolution has not occurred and the earth is only several thousand years ago are also wrong.

I am aware there is a darwinist/uniformitarianist camp that believes they know what happened and there is a Creationist/catistrophist camp that believe they know what happened...

I know you may not agree with this assessment, but I don't think there is any other conclusion that one could come to based on the evidence, again, unless one assumes God is deliberately deceiving us.

Actually, I think Darwinists (and ultimately Satan) have been deceiving us.

I hope you will pardon me if I label this as utter and complete baloney. The accusation that Darwinism or evolution is Satanic is nothing more than an unsubstantiated insult.

If we wish, I think we can find much, much, more evidence of intentional deception among those I call "professional creationists" (e.g. Jonathan Wells, Duane Gish) than among evolutionary scientists.

but, I am curious what you believe God actually created.

Firstly, let me say that I view the ongoing evolution of the universe as PART of the God's creative process, not separate from it. We might say that God created the universe at the Big Bang, including the laws by which it operates, and these laws serve as secondary creative agents. This is not inconsistent with the idea in Genesis that the "earth brings forth plants" etc. Even in Genesis, we see that God does not always act as the primary creator, but sometimes as a secondary creator.

Thus, my view is that God created the universe "as a whole" but has allowed that creation to unfold over time, with the principles or "laws" of physics, chemistry, and biology, etc. serving as "governors" of this ongoing creative process.