# Boundaries For Orthodox Discussion Concerning Theistic Evolution



## KMK (Nov 13, 2009)

What are the limits for orthodox (not necessarily confessional) discussion/arguments in the arena of creation?

Some that come to mind:

1) God is the Creator
2) God created 'out of nothing'
4) Creation occurred in six days
3) Death proceeds from the fall of man


----------



## SRoper (Nov 13, 2009)

Seems reasonable, except that I would specify human death in line four (point three?).


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Nov 13, 2009)

KMK said:


> What are the limits for orthodox (not necessarily confessional) discussion/arguments in the arena of creation?
> 
> Some that come to mind:
> 
> ...



I basically agree, but would add "Human" to #3 (the last one - did you mean it to be #4?). I see no compelling evidence that animals did not die before the Fall...

-----Added 11/13/2009 at 11:26:51 EST-----



SRoper said:


> Seems reasonable, except that I would specify human death in line four (point three?).



Beat me to it!


----------



## jogri17 (Nov 13, 2009)

I would consider orthodoxy merely acknowleding the facts that :
1. God created all things initially out of nothing (ex nilo)
2. God created man in his own image and woman was created from him in some sense. They were not created egalatarians 
3. At the very least there was no spiritual death in any sense before the fall which of course logically implies number... 
4. Adam and Eve were real and historical persons (probably did not go by those names in all reality) and were created: without sin. With a free will that could choose either good or evil. and within the bounds of a covenant of works of some sort though the exact conditions are debatable and the reality of the fall in Adam was a fall for each and every human being as an individual.


----------



## au5t1n (Nov 13, 2009)

KMK said:


> What are the limits for orthodox (not necessarily confessional) discussion/arguments in the arena of creation?
> 
> Some that come to mind:
> 
> ...



Great list. And I think point "3" is good the way it is.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 13, 2009)

The PCA did a committee study on "four views" of creation which has had the effect of making any one of them acceptable as an "exception" in some, but not all presbyteries.

(Remember, in the PCA Study Committees have the effect of majority opinion advice to courts considering issues related to them- they do not finally "settle" them or change the constitution. They are useful for informing difficult and complex issues or new applications of established principles- but not settle contentious issues).

(Keep in mind that even Dr. Sproul considered one of the "modern" views but has since changed his mind and now believes and teaches the classic view).

Some of us are not sure about what to think about all this. 

The clarity, it would seem, we need is that the Confession does support and presume the "literal" 6 day account and that any view that differs in substance with that must be requested as "exception" and very carefully evaluated.

But for a good summary of the views, their differences and unity, this may be helpful.

PCA Historical Center: Creation Study Committee Report to the 28th General Assembly, June 21, 2000


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 13, 2009)

There can be a degree of "evolution"/"development"/"diversification" in the "kinds" which God made i.e. to the extent that there is evolution by natural selection God created it and providentially guided it.

E.g. What race were Adam and Eve or Noah and Mrs Noah? Or did they look like a combination? They must have had the potential to diversify into the different races when their various progeny were isolated.

Darwin falsely extrapolated the truth of "micro-evolution" to say that all creatures were related to a common ancestor that may have started in a warm pool!


----------



## ewenlin (Nov 13, 2009)

Interestingly, almost every pastor in Singapore's Assemblies of God believe and teach the classical young earth, 6 day creation. The 4 views has hardly even ground here.

Just an observation..


----------



## Jon Peters (Nov 13, 2009)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > What are the limits for orthodox (not necessarily confessional) discussion/arguments in the arena of creation?
> ...



I agree with Mason about #3 but would perhaps eliminate #4. If you are talking about the bounds of confessionalism than I agree that the 6/24 view is the confessional position. But in terms of broader orthodoxy, your boundaries place a whole host of Reformed men outside of the bounds of orthodoxy. I think, at the very least, #4 should be broadened. But then again, do you mean 6/24 hour days?


----------



## TeachingTulip (Nov 13, 2009)

austinww said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) God is the Creator
> ...


----------



## KMK (Nov 13, 2009)

Jon Peters said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> > KMK said:
> ...



I fixed the numbers so they now read:



> 1) God is the Creator
> 2) God created 'out of nothing'
> 3) Creation occurred in six days
> 4) Death proceeds from the fall of man



I think you must include #3 because the Bible explicitly states "in six days". (Exo 20:11) I understand that there is disagreement on the meaning of the word "days" but I don't see how you can get around the explicit statements of the Bible and remain orthodox.

The big question so far is, can one argue for the death of plants and animals before the fall and still remain orthodox? (Again, not 'confessional' but 'orthodox'.) What are the names of those who believe in animal/plant death before the fall?


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 13, 2009)

If the parameters are orthodoxy, then you cannot rule out the framework view so popular with Westminster students of Kline. That would remove the 6 days from the list unless you made it mean whatever you wanted it to mean!

Hence:

God is the Creator
God created out of nothing
Adam and Eve were historical figures who really fell

Personally, I was a Hugh Ross, Big-Bang, Progressive Creationist for most of my ministry and considered myself tolerably orthodox. Like Sproul, I have returned to the classic view and would defend it pretty strongly, even against my friends of the framework perspective.

I reiterate a source mentioned in one of my posts the other day. Get Pipa's Did God Create in 6 Days, currently available for a mere $5 from Reformation Bookstore Reformation Bookstore: Resources For The Next Reformation - Search. That is a full 81% off for a hardback that is worth every bit of the retail. It includes thoughtful articles from a variety of perspectives (including framework).


----------



## KMK (Nov 13, 2009)

I appreciate everyone's input. However, the purpose of this thread is to determine the parameters of the discussion. Please don't make it a venue for the furtherance of your own personal view.



DMcFadden said:


> If the parameters are orthodoxy, then you cannot rule out the framework view so popular with Westminster students of Kline. That would remove the 6 days from the list unless you made it mean whatever you wanted it to mean!
> 
> Hence:
> 
> ...



I take it from this that you believe some evolutionists nuance any meaning at all out of the word "days" and, therefore, "in six days" is not a helpful parameter. It seems to me, however, that the six days must be dealt with in some way. Even if we argue over it's meaning, t has to mean _something_, right?

Thanks for the book recommendation.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 13, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> If the parameters are orthodoxy, then you cannot rule out the framework view so popular with Westminster students of Kline. That would remove the 6 days from the list unless you made it mean whatever you wanted it to mean!
> 
> Hence:
> 
> ...



Isn't it dangerous to define orthodox by what various people do/believe versus what is the right thing to do or believe? Or are you defining orthodox somewhere along the lines of "Things that won't get you excommunicated"?

CT


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 13, 2009)

> Presbyterian Church in America
> Study Committee on Creation
> June, 2000
> 
> ...





> The Scriptures, and hence Genesis 1-3, are the inerrant word of God. That Genesis 1-3 is a coherent account from the hand of Moses. That history, not myth, is the proper category for describing these chapters; and furthermore that their history is true. In these chapters we find the record of God’s creation of the heavens and the earth ex nihilo; of the special creation of Adam and Eve as actual human beings, the parents of all humanity (hence they are not the products of evolution from lower forms of life). We further find the account of an historical fall, that brought all humanity into an estate of sin and misery, and of God’s sure promise of a Redeemer. Because the Bible is the word of the Creator and Governor of all there is, it is right for us to find it speaking authoritatively to matters studied by historical and scientific research. We also believe that acceptance of, say, non-geocentric astronomy is consistent with full submission to Biblical authority. We recognize that a naturalistic worldview and true Christian faith are impossible to reconcile, and gladly take our stand with Biblical supernaturalism.
> .....



This sections seems to set out the unanimously agreed parameters by those on the committee, at that point in time, anyway.


----------



## KMK (Nov 13, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> > Presbyterian Church in America
> > Study Committee on Creation
> > June, 2000
> >
> ...



What exactly are they saying here? What do they mean by 'a naturalistic worldview'?


----------



## KMK (Nov 13, 2009)

What about the idea of a worldwide flood? It is not usually considered in the category of creation, but evolutionists usually deal with it in some way.


----------



## au5t1n (Nov 13, 2009)

KMK said:


> What about the idea of a worldwide flood? It is not usually considered in the category of creation, but evolutionists usually deal with it in some way.



Are you willing to make it a test of orthodoxy, given the existence of a local flood position? I'm not saying you shouldn't - Just asking.


----------



## TimV (Nov 13, 2009)

orthodox is just a word without meaning at the moment when it comes to creation. Catholics are still orthodox and the RC church is fine with natural selection as the cause of how we got here. Same with the PCA with Keller going into print saying natural selection is the way we got here.

There will have to be an ecumenical council or something to decide the issue otherwise it will just be a couple conservative churches/demonimations using their own private vocabulary which has no meaning outside some Baptist and small Presbyterian denominations.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 13, 2009)

> What exactly are they saying here? What do they mean by 'a naturalistic worldview'?



I'm not familiar enough to answer this.

The footnotes and appendix may be helpful in understanding the "terms of art" used in the report. It was, in part, responding to the modern view popularized by Mr. Kline that had gained a recent following. That view was being both challenged and defended by the report.

(This to me illustrates why in PCA polity, study committees on factionalized doctrinal positions are not the appropriate means to resolve and settle them).

Best I can tell, the reasoning was that all four views are not based the impersonal works of nature- something like that.


----------



## KMK (Nov 14, 2009)

TimV said:


> orthodox is just a word without meaning at the moment when it comes to creation.



Agreed.


----------



## SRoper (Nov 16, 2009)

KMK said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > > Presbyterian Church in America
> ...



Most likely they mean a worldview that does not allow for the supernatural.


----------



## Christusregnat (Nov 16, 2009)

TimV said:


> There will have to be an ecumenical council or something to decide the issue



This is a noble goal. However, when theologians of almost every stripe argue against Christendom, this will not happen.


----------



## he beholds (Nov 16, 2009)

KMK said:


> Jon Peters said:
> 
> 
> > ColdSilverMoon said:
> ...


I think one can argue for the death of plants before the fall, since man is given them to eat. I don't think there is actually a counter-argument so I would list every theologian as the names of those who believe in plant death! I would also imagine that if bacteria, etc, had any pre-fall use (even in the stomach to break up the food), then these too could have killed and been killed. 
I am not sure when animals were given for food, though most say after the flood. I could see a pre-fall world where animals were already eaten, but it is hard to accept today as we live in a time where animal eating ultimately gets tied up in questions/doubts about morality.

So I think one would still be orthodox even if he considered plant death as a pre-fall ability.


----------



## Christusregnat (Nov 16, 2009)

KMK said:


> What are the limits for orthodox (not necessarily confessional) discussion/arguments in the arena of creation?
> 
> Some that come to mind:
> 
> ...



Perhaps something more fundamental would be an appropriate consideration, such as the relationship between Scripture and empiricism. General vs. Special revelation, etc.

Also, what do you see as the difference between confessional and orthodox?


----------



## KMK (Nov 16, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > What are the limits for orthodox (not necessarily confessional) discussion/arguments in the arena of creation?
> ...



Interesting point. How would you phrase it?

I was mainly looking for the things brothers might be able to disagree on and still reasonably consider each other to BE brothers.


----------



## Julio Martinez Jr (Nov 17, 2009)

KMK said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > > Presbyterian Church in America
> ...



I think what they meant here is a purely philosophical materialism that is prevalent among atheistic philosophers like Bertrand Russell or George Smith, which states that all of life is purely material (=naturalism). There is no soul. Your brain is both your mind and soul.

-----Added 11/17/2009 at 12:28:00 EST-----



Christusregnat said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > What are the limits for orthodox (not necessarily confessional) discussion/arguments in the arena of creation?
> ...


One book on the subject that I've always been intriqued by is somewhat related to utilitarian ethics (J.S. Mill). I know it isn't epistemology per se, but it has crucial postulates about a moderate theory of empiricism. I'd like to read something like that from a Christian point of view (=Christian empiricism).


----------

