# Is Theistic Evolution heresy?



## Anglicanorthodoxy

What's the official PB opinion on this topic (theistic evolution)? I see a lot of very well-respected pastors and theologians (Tim Keller, N. T Wright, Alister McGrath, Bruce Waltke, Francis Collins) are theistic evolutionists. Where does one draw the line between error and heresy on this? My personal view is that as long as one believes in an historical Adam and Eve, and accepts the Genesis account of the fall, they're fine. However, when people like Peter Enns deny the existence of Adam & Eve, then I think that's teetering on heresy. I don't necessarily want to debate YEC/OEC/ID/TE, I'm just asking where you'd draw the line? When does someone become a heretic? Is Bruce Waltke, (who believes in an historical Adam and accepts the Genesis account of the fall), a heretic because he believes in evolution? The issue of creation is something I'm still studying.


----------



## Logan

Anglicanorthodoxy said:


> What's the official PB opinion on this topic?



It's officially whatever Joshua posts

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Bill The Baptist

I don't know about heresy, but I don't think it's possible to truly affirm a literal Adam and Eve and a literal fall that introduced death, and also affirm evolution. This would certainly seem to be a major problem.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## arapahoepark

Being a fomer theistic evolutionist and avid reader of Biologos; it flirts hard with heresy. A lot do not believe in inerrancy. Many over at that site would affirm that theology needs to be changed to account evolution since there has always been suffering intrinsic to the world. I read Jack Collins book on Adam and Eve and believes whether or not one believes in evolution (a stance he does not take), they need to at least affirm a real couple at the headwaters of the human race. Interesting, but I am more conservative than that. TE, regardless if we Christians look like fools, is something that needs to be fought against. It is one of biggest threats to the church today I believe, even more so than egalitarianism, as it takes a a foundation of everything away unlike Andy Stanley would have you believe.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

arapahoepark said:


> Being a fomer theistic evolutionist and avid reader of Biologos; it flirts hard with heresy. A lot do not believe in inerrancy. Many over at that site would affirm that theology needs to be changed to account evolution since there has always been suffering intrinsic to the world. I read Jack Collins book on Adam and Eve and believes whether or not one believes in evolution (a stance he does not take), they need to at least affirm a real couple at the headwaters of the human race. Interesting, but I am more conservative than that. TE, regardless if we Christians look like fools, is something that needs to be fought against. It is one of biggest threats to the church today I believe, even more so than egalitarianism, as it takes a a foundation of everything away unlike Andy Stanley would have you believe.


Theistic evolution would just be a failed attempt to try to gave "accepted scientific facts" be the filter to view the scriptures through, but must have the scriptures themselves as being the main lens at work here. there is no proof that there has ever been any evolution resulting from changing from one species into another, but just within the same species, so dogs evolved into different breeds, but also stayed dogs.
Also, many holding to this would deny the literal adam and eve, or would see them as a final product of evolution, but that denies them as a special creation of God, and also causes problem with the historicity of the fall...
Would see holding to this as holding to really bad theology, but not to level of outright heresy, as my understanding is that applies directly to denial of essentials such as resurrection, death as atonement, trinity etc...


----------



## jwithnell

At least one of the authors mentioned in the OP would be considered outside of orthodoxy on many issues. 

That said, confessional standards hold to both special and general revelation and we best not place them at odds with each other.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Some serious hermeneutical hopscotch is needed to deny the literal meaning of _days _in Exodus 20:11.

- The ordinance of the Sabbath is now doubtful if six days is not literal.
- If the first Adam is allegorical, then the second Adam is, too?
- A literal Adam is required in Romans.
- The Apostle clearly described Adam as the first human sinner--not whatever millions of human-like beings in the presumed evolutionary chain.
- Death came through Adamic sin, an explanation from Scripture that is cast aside in the notion of millions of years of death and destruction prior to Adam assumed by evolution.

Reactions: Like 11


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Some serious hermeneutical hopscotch is needed to deny the literal meaning of _days _in Exodus 20:11.
> 
> - The ordinance of the Sabbath is now doubtful if six days is not literal.
> - If the first Adam is allegorical, then the second Adam is, too?
> - A literal Adam is required in Romans.
> - The Apostle clearly described Adam as the first human sinner--not whatever millions of human-like beings in the presumed evolutionary chain.
> - Death came through Adamic sin, an explanation from Scripture that is cast aside in the notion of millions of years of death and destruction prior to Adam assumed by evolution.


Agree with all that you stated here, so would holding to it be seen as Heresy then?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> Agree with all that you stated here, so would holding to it be seen as Heresy then?


I am of the opinion that _heresy _is a matter for the church to declare versus my personal opinions. Despite the numerous treatments by Reformed denominations wherein such a view has not been formally declared to be _beyond the bounds_, I remain steadfast in my view that holding a theistic view of evolution cannot be reconciled with Holy Writ. I leave the matter of _heresy _in the hands of those with the authority to declare it to be so.

Patrick

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I am of the opinion that _heresy _is a matter for the church to declare versus my personal opinions. Despite the numerous treatments by Reformed denominations wherein such a view has not been formally declared to be _beyond the bounds_, I remain steadfast in my view that holding a theistic view of evolution cannot be reconciled with Holy Writ. I leave the matter of _heresy _in the hands of those with the authority to declare it to be so.
> 
> Patrick


The scriptures themselves would define those holding to Jesus not being God, no resurrection, no Trinity etc as being heretic though, regardless if any group said those positions were or not....


----------



## BG

Theistic evolution is a wholesale denial of chapter 6 of the confession of faith

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## augustacarguy

BG said:


> Theistic evolution is a wholesale denial of chapter 6 of the confession of faith



Not to mention a denial of Scripture. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins

In the PCA's position paper on creation, they declared that theistic evolution was out of bounds, but the length of creation days was negotiable. The OPC holds a similar viewpoint. While I firmly believe in a literal interpretation of the creation days, I am willing to vote for someone who does not hold to a literal interpretation of the creation days IF they do NOT hold to theistic evolution, and DO hold to a literal, historical Adam and Eve, who were the sole progenitors of the human race. 

Heresy is, of course, a somewhat slippery term. Some people use it when they mean "heterodoxy," which is merely teaching a doctrine incompatible with confessional teaching. Others use it in a more restricted sense of "soul-damning." Is it possible for someone to believe in theistic evolution and not go to Hell? I would answer, "Only if they are being inconsistent!" I believe that consistent theistic evolution is heresy in the strict sense of the term, since they will deny the Fall, deny original sin, deny death as coming in by the Fall, deny the goodness of creation, deny the covenant of works, and eventually they will get around to denying that Christ came to fix what Adam broke. Eventually it results in Christological heresy. Consistent theistic evolution is an evil root that poisons the whole tree of theology. 

Happily, some hold it inconsistently, and think they can hold on to a historical Adam and Eve as progenitors of the human race which God made to evolve. This would not be consistent, and would be ultimately unsustainable, but it would be considerably less problematic from a salvation point of view. It might be possible for someone who held this inconsistent version to still be saved. I agree with Patrick, though, and would rather let the church decide this matter on a case by case basis.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## lynnie

It is my understanding that Keller at least, not sure of the rest of the list, believes in a literal first Adam while also being evolutionist. At some point in time God breathed the first human soul into an evolved primate, and that was Adam. Not sure where Eve came from. So you can hold to millions of years of evolution plus God creating the first man.

Walt Brown's "In the Beginning" is an excellent book for refuting many of these ideas.


----------



## Gforce9

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I am of the opinion that _heresy _is a matter for the church to declare versus my personal opinions. Despite the numerous treatments by Reformed denominations wherein such a view has not been formally declared to be _beyond the bounds_, I remain steadfast in my view that holding a theistic view of evolution cannot be reconciled with Holy Writ. I leave the matter of _heresy _in the hands of those with the authority to declare it to be so.
> 
> Patrick



I'm glad you and Lane addressed this. Both we and Evangelicals (on paper) have issues with the Papacy. In Evangelicalism, however as Michael Horton has pointed out, each person is his own pope and determines truth and error, exegetical method, orthodoxy....all by themselves. Rome has one pope, Evangelicals have 5 million. I am grateful for confessional presbyterianism.....

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## BG

What is odd about these men is that they deny a literal six days because it is as they see it inconsistent with science but believe in the resurrection.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 1


----------



## Anglicanorthodoxy

BG said:


> What is odd about these men is that they deny a literal six days because it is as they see it inconsistent with science but believe in the resurrection.


They say Genesis 1 is a poem.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

I you want to "easily debunk" theistic evolution, start with Exodus 20 and work backwards chapter by chapter, or for that matter, start in 1 Samuel, or Joshua, or any historical account. That about does it.


----------



## RamistThomist

Anglicanorthodoxy said:


> They say Genesis 1 is a poem.



It has some poetic material. It also has the waw-consecutive. In any case, it's not clear, on their reading, why poems can't have historical referents.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K

Do not throw around the word "heresy" unless you are willing for people to think you mean the church should condemn those who hold such views as being outside of Christ and headed to probable damnation. That's what the word "heresy" means to many people.

If you mean something less than that, then use a less inflaming word for the sake of both clarity and charity.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## SRoper

I don't believe there is an official PB position about theistic evolution be heresy, but advocating for even the old earth position here can get you in trouble with the administrators.


----------



## Dachaser

greenbaggins said:


> In the PCA's position paper on creation, they declared that theistic evolution was out of bounds, but the length of creation days was negotiable. The OPC holds a similar viewpoint. While I firmly believe in a literal interpretation of the creation days, I am willing to vote for someone who does not hold to a literal interpretation of the creation days IF they do NOT hold to theistic evolution, and DO hold to a literal, historical Adam and Eve, who were the sole progenitors of the human race.
> 
> Heresy is, of course, a somewhat slippery term. Some people use it when they mean "heterodoxy," which is merely teaching a doctrine incompatible with confessional teaching. Others use it in a more restricted sense of "soul-damning." Is it possible for someone to believe in theistic evolution and not go to Hell? I would answer, "Only if they are being inconsistent!" I believe that consistent theistic evolution is heresy in the strict sense of the term, since they will deny the Fall, deny original sin, deny death as coming in by the Fall, deny the goodness of creation, deny the covenant of works, and eventually they will get around to denying that Christ came to fix what Adam broke. Eventually it results in Christological heresy. Consistent theistic evolution is an evil root that poisons the whole tree of theology.
> 
> Happily, some hold it inconsistently, and think they can hold on to a historical Adam and Eve as progenitors of the human race which God made to evolve. This would not be consistent, and would be ultimately unsustainable, but it would be considerably less problematic from a salvation point of view. It might be possible for someone who held this inconsistent version to still be saved. I agree with Patrick, though, and would rather let the church decide this matter on a case by case basis.


I would tend to view those who would hold to it same fashion as those who only would see say a limited inspiration view on the scriptures, so that in both cases could be saved, but severely wrong on that one view....


----------



## Dachaser

BG said:


> What is odd about these men is that they deny a literal six days because it is as they see it inconsistent with science but believe in the resurrection.


As long as they hold with the truths regarding the nature of God, the death of Jesus as atonement, and the physical resurrection, would be saved but really wrong regarding this issue...


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

SRoper said:


> I don't believe there is an official PB position about theistic evolution be heresy, but advocating for even the old earth position here can get you in trouble with the administrators.


Actually it would depend upon exactly how someone is advocating for the old earth view and not some blanket "don't go there" rule.

See also:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/old-or-young-earth.88926/#post-1098261


----------



## Dachaser

Jack K said:


> Do not throw around the word "heresy" unless you are willing for people to think you mean the church should condemn those who hold such views as being outside of Christ and headed to probable damnation. That's what the word "heresy" means to many people.
> 
> If you mean something less than that, then use a less inflaming word for the sake of both clarity and charity.


I understand that point, and so would now see them as being holding on this one issue bad/wrong teachings, but not rising to level of heresy, as that would tend to say they were not even saved...


----------



## SRoper

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Actually it would depend upon exactly how someone is advocating for the old earth view and not some blanket "don't go there" rule.



Maybe it is the case that you can say you hold to old earth, but you can't advocate for the details of the position that every old earth creationist believes. I just know that it was the cause of the strongest rebuke I have received here.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

SRoper said:


> Maybe it is the case that you can say you hold to old earth, but you can't advocate for the details of the position that every old earth creationist believes. I just know that it was the cause of the strongest rebuke I have received here.


Since you are continuing to raise the issue, you will have to provide more explicit context, link, etc. I am sure an explanation is at the ready once that is provided.


----------



## Dachaser

SRoper said:


> Maybe it is the case that you can say you hold to old earth, but you can't advocate for the details of the position that every old earth creationist believes. I just know that it was the cause of the strongest rebuke I have received here.


Think that discussing/debating the Age of Earth/Universe much different though then trying to support Theistic Evolution ...


----------



## BG

Theistic evolution is incompatible with the confession of faith.

If Theistic evolution were true we will need to reevaluate every doctrine we hold, Federal headship would be gone and we would need to deal with the idea of sub humans perhaps living perfect lives and not sinning or perhaps falling into sin but not really representing us because they were not human.


It might actually be the H word .

Sorry hope I didn't offend anyone

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## arapahoepark

BG said:


> Sorry hope I didn't offend anyone


Atheists invented the safe spaces. They need to start making one when they encounter your words.


----------



## SavedSinner

Gforce9 said:


> I'm glad you and Lane addressed this. Both we and Evangelicals (on paper) have issues with the Papacy. In Evangelicalism, however as Michael Horton has pointed out, each person is his own pope and determines truth and error, exegetical method, orthodoxy....all by themselves. Rome has one pope, Evangelicals have 5 million. I am grateful for confessional presbyterianism.....


Is this true that he says each christian is his own pope? One expects to hear that from Roman Catholics, but from a reformed scholar?


----------



## SavedSinner

SavedSinner said:


> Is this true that he says each christian is his own pope? One expects to hear that from Roman Catholics, but from a reformed scholar?


He is probably criticizing non-reformed protestants "evengelicals"


----------



## Gforce9

SavedSinner said:


> He is probably criticizing non-reformed protestants "evengelicals"


He was indicting Evangelicals for acting as popes for themselves rather than 1) holding to the testimony of the church through the ages, 2) for constantly reinventing the wheel, 3) coming up with new, special revelation all the time and 4) in many cases, jettisoning historical Christianity altogether....

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

SavedSinner said:


> Is this true that he says each christian is his own pope? One expects to hear that from Roman Catholics, but from a reformed scholar?





SavedSinner said:


> He is probably criticizing non-reformed protestants "evengelicals"



Various turns on the phrase appear in Horton's works in the context of the "_Just Me and My Bible_" or "_No Creed But Christ_" movements. See:
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/articles/charles_finney_vs_westminster_confession.shtml

I hesitate to post the link at the site above, as that site will likely consume the next few hours of your day as you peruse its many interesting articles and topics.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Von

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I hesitate to post the link at the site above


Now you're just making it impossible NOT to click on it...

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## BG

Doesn't Michael Horton and most of the men at Westminster West hold to theistic evolution ?


----------



## SRoper

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Since you are continuing to raise the issue, you will have to provide more explicit context, link, etc. I am sure an explanation is at the ready once that is provided.



Sorry, it was unfair of me to bring it up without the context. It was from years ago.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

BG said:


> Doesn't Michael Horton and most of the men at Westminster West hold to theistic evolution ?


I cannot verify the quote below (my emphasis added) as I do not find it or anything similar to it in more recent works by Horton:

Src: https://missioconfessio.wordpress.c...orton-on-the-resurged-historical-adam-debate/

However, one thing I wish to add to the discussion is a quotation from Michael Horton’s second volume of his dogmatics, _Lord and Servant: A Covenant Christology. _Horton makes an interesting statement regarding the nature of the historical Adam on page, 118:

_Throughout this chapter I have assumed the historicity of Adam and Eve. Apart from a historical Adam (whatever account by which one arrives at this claim), the anthropology assumed by biblical writers all the way up to Paul’s contrast of the two Adams – not as mythical figures or religious symbols but as the historical loci of judgment and justification – is meaningless. It is rendered meaningless not because everything that a religion wants to affirm has to be in the form of historically reliable assertions, but because the Bible itself presents the fall in genre of realistic narrative and the ethical and doctrinal statements in subsequent Scripture (including references to this history by Jesus) make the historicity essential rather than accidental, particularly in the contrast of the two Adams. * Instantaneous creation of Adam and Eve is not explicitly required by the text or its subsequent interpretation, but the historicity of a first human couple with whom God entered into covenant is indispensable to theology at significant points in almost every locus*. After noting that Hegel, Schleiermacher, Ritschl, Bultmann, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Barth all denied the historicity of Adam, replacing it with the story of Jesus as the paradigm of truly actualized personhood, Childs correctly perceives that this move can only be made without serious attention to exegesis: the “problem” is modern, not biblical._​


----------



## MW

Evolution is nonsense and theistic evolution is nonsense divinity. If evolution were true the belief system of man would be a consequence of evolution. It could in no proper sense be a matter of divine revelation requiring assent and trust. There would be no place for theism, which believes that God is both transcendent over and immanent in creation. One would either have to become a Deist and hold to every development as a part of the wind up clock with man bound to believe only what he can reasonably prove, or a Pantheist who holds that all things are an emanation of the divine and man must feel his way towards God.

As for the instantaneous creation of Adam, it is there in plain black and white. Dust thou art!

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1 | Amen 3


----------



## Von

MW said:


> If evolution were true the belief system of man would be a consequence of evolution. It could in no proper sense be a matter of divine revelation requiring assent and trust.


Just for interest sake (I am a firm Young Earth Creationist), how does evolution negate divine revelation?


----------



## MW

Von said:


> Just for interest sake (I am a firm Young Earth Creationist), how does evolution negate divine revelation?



Whatever man happened to think would be a product of the same mechanism, force of necessity, and process of development which has evolved everything else. This renders belief as assent to truth an illusion, and it turns revelation as the basis of assent into a delusion.

In terms of the hypothesis of evolution as it is usually stated, it is a purposeless mechanism, which means the content of divine revelation would have no basis in the reality of things. There would be no reason to think that anything revealed bears any correspondence or connection to existence.

Then, as far as evolution is concerned, nothing is finished. Everything simply keeps on developing. To what, then, could divine revelation address itself?

Divine revelation requires intelligent and responsible creation, purposeful creation, a finished creation -- just the kind of reality that divine revelation itself makes known.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2


----------



## Dachaser

MW said:


> Evolution is nonsense and theistic evolution is nonsense divinity. If evolution were true the belief system of man would be a consequence of evolution. It could in no proper sense be a matter of divine revelation requiring assent and trust. There would be no place for theism, which believes that God is both transcendent over and immanent in creation. One would either have to become a Deist and hold to every development as a part of the wind up clock with man bound to believe only what he can reasonably prove, or a Pantheist who holds that all things are an emanation of the divine and man must feel his way towards God.
> 
> As for the instantaneous creation of Adam, it is there in plain black and white. Dust thou art!


One cannot hold to the Genesis version as being literal/historical and also hold to evolution, as God did not use it to create mankind, nor to originate life itself, as all were made by Him after their own kinds.


----------



## Dachaser

SavedSinner said:


> He is probably criticizing non-reformed protestants "evengelicals"


he would probably be attacking those such as fellow Baptists who were not holding to reformed Confessions of the faith, such as the 1689 one...


----------



## Unworthy_Servant

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Various turns on the phrase appear in Horton's works in the context of the "_Just Me and My Bible_" or "_No Creed But Christ_" movements. See:
> http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/articles/charles_finney_vs_westminster_confession.shtml
> 
> I hesitate to post the link at the site above, as that site will likely consume the next few hours of your day as you peruse its many interesting articles and topics.



Wow that site is a gem. Thanks for the share!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Herald

Jack K said:


> Do not throw around the word "heresy" unless you are willing for people to think you mean the church should condemn those who hold such views as being outside of Christ and headed to probable damnation. That's what the word "heresy" means to many people.
> 
> If you mean something less than that, then use a less inflaming word for the sake of both clarity and charity.


I prefer to label theistic evolution as unbiblical. I like what Lane said. Consistent theistic evolution is soul damning because it eventually culminates in a deficient christology.


----------



## Dachaser

Herald said:


> I prefer to label theistic evolution as unbiblical. I like what Lane said. Consistent theistic evolution is soul damning because it eventually culminates in a deficient christology.


My Experiences with many who hold to it is that they are trying to make the bible and "scientific facts" get reconciled together, but problem is that those facts are not true...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

While it was a while ago in the thread, I would basically concur with Lane's position. I do not hold that everyone who is not a strict 6/24 man is a heretic, and it is important to distinguish between Old Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution. Consistently held, the latter position would entail a heterodox anthropology, which will logically require one to embrace a heterodox Christology.

Many Theistic Evolutionists hold their position in tension with other Christian and Reformed doctrines. It is a happy inconsistency, but do not be surprised if those taught by evangelical Theistic Evolutionists later deny key doctrines such as biblical inerrancy, a literal Adam and Eve, federal theology, the covenant of works, original sin, and so on.

As someone else noted, affirming Theistic Evolution because of what scientists tell us is vain for an orthodox Christian. Most scientists probably tell us that Christ did not rise from the dead, but why should we believe them and not the word of God? With respect to creation, moreover, I am just after reading John Lennox argue that the biblical account of creation and the fall is the one that seems to accord with human experience. Why set aside the infallible teachings of Scripture and the lessons of human experience because of what some elitist scientists - who often have vested personal and economic interests in affirming evolution - tell us "really" happened.


----------



## iainduguid

BG said:


> Doesn't Michael Horton and most of the men at Westminster West hold to theistic evolution ?


When I was there from 1996 - 2006, no one on faculty would have been remotely close to holding to theistic evolution. Everyone would have clearly affirmed historic Adam and Eve. The faculty is largely unchanged in personnel and, as far as I know, in their theological views. I can't imagine them hiring anyone who was even fuzzy on that issue.

Perhaps you mean that most of the faculty there would hold to some version of Meredith Kline's framework view of the days of creation. That is certainly the case, but many framework advocates, including Kline himself, would unequivocally affirm historic, unique Adam and Eve.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## ZackF

My internal handling of the origins question and subsequent 'resolution' of it in my mind would strike most as a pietistic cop out. I've come to find theistic evolution (TE) positively incompatible with sacred scripture. It undermines Genesis which in turn undermines the rest of the bible. Furthermore, accepting TE one would have to conclude that Christ and Paul didn't get Adam and creation account very well.  

Christians have always argued with good reason how accurate in a person's mind does the content of faith have to be in order for that person to be saved. I believe TE is heresy and should be grounds for removal from leadership because it undermines the faith. However, I get off the train before arguing that TE disqualifies one from a state of grace.

When I became Reformed over ten years ago and believed in Christ alone for salvation I considered myself a TEist. Other than a few web articles and relevant threads on this board, I didn't research much. In the end, really the beginning, I came to reject TE several years ago for reasons of faith. If the Genesis account is true then TE is impossible. Rejecting TE doesn't 'put God in a box' rather it takes Him at his word. There was either death before the Fall or not. Sin entered through one man or not. Adam is the federal head of mankind or he is not. We are either in Adam or in Christ. TE is irrational from biblical worldview. 

Having said that, I'm not without compassion for Christians in vocations that at least _de facto _demand agreement with evolutionary theory lest they be bounced to the street. These days even a person seasoned in his career can lose his livelihood should that become known about him. For those folks no easy answer will suffice.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BG

iainduguid said:


> When I was there from 1996 - 2006, no one on faculty would have been remotely close to holding to theistic evolution. Everyone would have clearly affirmed historic Adam and Eve. The faculty is largely unchanged in personnel and, as far as I know, in their theological views. I can't imagine them hiring anyone who was even fuzzy on that issue.
> 
> Perhaps you mean that most of the faculty there would hold to some version of Meredith Kline's framework view of the days of creation. That is certainly the case, but many framework advocates, including Kline himself, would unequivocally affirm historic, unique Adam and Eve.



Don't they both teach evolution?


----------



## iainduguid

BG said:


> Don't they both teach evolution?


No. The framework view (there are actually multiple different framework views, but here I'm thinking of Kline's version) has to do with the days of creation, not the historicity of Adam and Eve. I don't advocate that view myself, but it is important to represent it accurately.


----------



## BG

I took a few minutes to look up the frame work view all the sites I looked at said the following:

The framework view has been successful in the modern era because it resolves the traditional conflict between the Genesis creation narrative and science. It presents an alternative to literalistic interpretation of the Genesis narratives,


----------



## iainduguid

BG said:


> I took a few minutes to look up the frame work view all the sites I looked at said the following:
> 
> The framework view has been successful in the modern era because it resolves the traditional conflict between the Genesis creation narrative and science. It presents an alternative to literalistic interpretation of the Genesis narratives,


It might be more helpful if you actually read the sources themselves, or better still spend some time actually talking to the authors. The internet is not always the most reliable resource in representing the views of others.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## ZackF

iainduguid said:


> It might be more helpful if you actually read the sources themselves, or better still spend some time actually talking to the authors. The internet is not always the most reliable resource in representing the views of others.





That's an important point Dr. Duguid though I'm more curious as to whether or not Jesus would hold to the framework viewpoint.


----------



## arapahoepark

BG said:


> I took a few minutes to look up the frame work view all the sites I looked at said the following:
> 
> The framework view has been successful in the modern era because it resolves the traditional conflict between the Genesis creation narrative and science. It presents an alternative to literalistic interpretation of the Genesis narratives,


Unfortunately, it is misrepresented. But, EJ Young completely dismantled the view in The Days of Genesis One, showing at they are consecutive.


----------



## Dachaser

arapahoepark said:


> Unfortunately, it is misrepresented. But, EJ Young completely dismantled the view in The Days of Genesis One, showing at they are consecutive.


Six literal and consecutive days...


----------



## Dachaser

Von said:


> Just for interest sake (I am a firm Young Earth Creationist), how does evolution negate divine revelation?


Those who hold to such views negate the 6 days as being 24 hour time periods, deny that God created all things after their own kinds, and many would see Adam as being the first human, but with primate parents, and they would deny the Fall was when evil and death started into nature...


----------



## BG

iainduguid said:


> It might be more helpful if you actually read the sources themselves, or better still spend some time actually talking to the authors. The internet is not always the most reliable resource in representing the views of others.



So you are saying that these men hold to a literal 6 day 24 hour period and not to some form of evolution


If the framework view advocates a position where by sin entered the world before Adam doesn't that destroy all of our theology?


----------



## iainduguid

BG said:


> So you are saying that these men hold to a literal 6 day 24 hour period and not to some form of evolution
> 
> 
> If the framework view advocates a position where by sin entered the world before Adam doesn't that destroy all of our theology?


It is possible to hold an old earth creation position and not hold to evolution. It is possible to hold that view and believe that sin entered the world through unique Adam and Eve. That is what I believe the majority of the faculty at WSCAL would argue. It is not my own position, but it is far from unique in the Reformed world.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Afterthought

MW said:


> As for the instantaneous creation of Adam, it is there in plain black and white. Dust thou art!


How does this show instantaneous creation of Adam? The non-instantaneous view could simply say "dust" was the starting product, although there was some process intervening that is not mentioned; hence, Adam could rightly be called "dust."


----------



## MW

Afterthought said:


> How does this show instantaneous creation of Adam? The non-instantaneous view could simply say "dust" was the starting product, although there was some process intervening that is not mentioned; hence, Adam could rightly be called "dust."



There are many roads we could take to demonstrate the contrariety. I will simply go with the literal road. The text literally reads, "Dust thou." It is not what he was; it is what he is. Evolution requires mutation. Were an evolutionist to say that man had been dust (although the hypothesis never lays claim to this idea), the mutation to an higher form would make it inappropriate to still describe him in this way. I might add, that the death process, in which man returns to dust, is by means of corruption, not devolution, which is demonstrative of itself. In contrast, evolution makes the death process integral to the development.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## Dachaser

Afterthought said:


> How does this show instantaneous creation of Adam? The non-instantaneous view could simply say "dust" was the starting product, although there was some process intervening that is not mentioned; hence, Adam could rightly be called "dust."


Jesus held to Adam being a direct creation of God though.


----------



## Dachaser

MW said:


> There are many roads we could take to demonstrate the contrariety. I will simply go with the literal road. The text literally reads, "Dust thou." It is not what he was; it is what he is. Evolution requires mutation. Were an evolutionist to say that man had been dust (although the hypothesis never lays claim to this idea), the mutation to an higher form would make it inappropriate to still describe him in this way. I might add, that the death process, in which man returns to dust, is by means of corruption, not devolution, which is demonstrative of itself. In contrast, evolution makes the death process integral to the development.


evolution would not see Man as being a divine creation, as that process would have taken many generations, but the big problem for them is that there is no known way to have primate DNA mutated to a human DNA without God doing that, and that is why there had to be the special creation by God.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Warren

I believe in God's whole word, including the miraculous creation of man. (So while forming Adam, did God just chill 100,000 yrs in suspended animation, let nature take it's course, then take control again and *breathe life* into him? lol) When it comes to genetics, civilization (like those ruins in SE Turkey dated 18,000 yrs old), astronomy, etc. I accept what the officials call fact as their strong opinion, and I just go along with it like that. I've lived many thousands of days without understanding the finer details of gravity and carbon dating. (Don't jump off tall things, don't eat old food. You know.)


----------

