Evangelical Theistic Evolution?

[Deleted member 14917]

Browsing the r/Reformed subreddit today, I noticed a video arguing for "The Case for Theistic Evolution". Didn't watch it, but it made me wonder, how common is theistic evolution within Reformed churches/denominations? Is there a large push to get churches to accept this? Why? Personally, I believe to be out of step with scripture. Any former theo-evo's here who later became creationists?

EDIT: The subreddit in question is quite discouraging on this matter.

 

[No Other Name]

Youtube link?

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

how common is theistic evolution within Reformed churches/denominations?

It is very common in the OPC and PCA. I think in some presbyteries it's a majority.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Tim Keller, sound as he was in some areas of the Gospel, caused great harm among us by his "theistic evolution" views. A great book to counter this gross error is In the Beginning: Listening to Genesis 1 and 2, by Cornelis Van Dam.

 

[Deleted member 14917]

Youtube link?

Strange, I've tried finding it, but I can't seem to find the link...

 

[Pomopu]

Tim Keller, sound as he was in some areas of the Gospel, caused great harm among us by his "theistic evolution" views. A great book to counter this gross error is In the Beginning: Listening to Genesis 1 and 2, by Cornelis Van Dam.

I concur. But I'm sympathetic to Keller's audience and reach, far different from most other guys who believe what he believes about God and the Bible; it might be stupid to believe in evolution and the Christian God, but I don't think it is a heresy?

 

[Deleted member 14917]

Youtube link?

Argh, sorry. It wasn't a video. Rather, it was a disussion on the subreddit. I got it confused with something else. My apologies.
Link, if curious:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/1in6fs7/a_case_for_evangelical_theistic_evolution

 

[Corey Powell]

I concur. But I'm sympathetic to Keller's audience and reach, far different from most other guys who believe what he believes about God and the Bible; it might be stupid to believe in evolution and the Christian God, but I don't think it is a heresy?

Not heresy, but it certainly leads to it. It necessarily undermines the foundations of almost every area of theology and proper hermeneutics. Many are just happily inconsistent.
[automerge]1740165152[/automerge]

Argh, sorry. It wasn't a video. Rather, it was a disussion on the subreddit. I got it confused with something else. My apologies.
Link, if curious:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/1in6fs7/a_case_for_evangelical_theistic_evolution

I find it almost as amusing as sad when people argue that there was death before the fall because people ate plants and so the plants died.

 

[arapahoepark]

Reddit is a poor gauge for most things. Nearly all subs lean liberal, even the 'Christians.'
It wasn't long ago our own PB was mentioned on r/Reformed but the post was removed. Then a few days ago a person asked how they were to handle the fact that their pastor probably voted for Trump...
In a thread from last year I believe I noted that this seems to be where all the moderates, leftists and National Partnership (? Of the PCA?) people hang out.

 

[No Other Name]

Browsing the r/Reformed subreddit today, I noticed a video arguing for "The Case for Theistic Evolution". Didn't watch it, but it made me wonder, how common is theistic evolution within Reformed churches/denominations? Is there a large push to get churches to accept this? Why? Personally, I believe to be out of step with scripture. Any former theo-evo's here who later became creationists?

EDIT: The subreddit in question is quite discouraging on this matter.

I agree with @arapahoepark

Reformed churches by and large experience zero influence from theistic evolution. Our mutually respective confessions are pretty much in lockstep with each other on the doctrine of creation (Ch. 4)

If there is any youth in a confessionally Reformed church posting in that subreddit, they are probably doing so anonymously and to no one else's knowledge.

They might be *that one* who is most likely to make an edgy comment in Sunday school or something.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

Reformed churches by and large experience zero influence from theistic evolution.

That is simply not true. See the OPC report, which lists a number of "Old Earth" interpretations present in conservative presbyterian circles.

 

[arapahoepark]

That is simply not true. See the OPC report, which lists a number of "Old Earth" interpretations present in conservative presbyterian circles.

Don't have time to read all of it but perhaps you're conflating old earth and evolution. Many are old earth creationists, some who believe in macro evolution but not with humans; the latter being an act of special creation unlike that believes by theistic evolutionists.
[automerge]1740169292[/automerge]
@DetectivePhelps
Btw, I used to be theistic evolutionist. I couldn't square what the Bible said with everything I was hearing from Biologos.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

Don't have time to read all of it but perhaps you're conflating old earth and evolution. Many are old earth creationists, some who believe in macro evolution but not with humans; the latter being an act of special creation unlike that believes by theistic evolutionists.
[automerge]1740169292[/automerge]
@DetectivePhelps
Btw, I used to be theistic evolutionist. I couldn't square what the Bible said with everything I was hearing from Biologos.

Yes, the OPC typically allows the belief in its office bearers in so-called "macro-evolution," but one must believe that man is a distinct creation, and in a literal Adam.

That's still a kind of "theistic evolution" though. It's theistic, and it's evolution.

 

[BlockheadedSinner]

Yes, the OPC typically allows the belief in its office bearers in so-called "macro-evolution," but one must believe that man is a distinct creation, and in a literal Adam.

That's still a kind of "theistic evolution" though. It's theistic, and it's evolution.

I would be shocked if any TE’s in the OPC were theistic evolutionists. As mentioned above, don’t conflate OEC with theistic evolution.

In the PCA, I’ll allow for a handful of theistic evolutionists, but they certainly aren’t common.

But are there plenty of OEC’s in both demons? Absolutely. There is also a problem of definition here - how far beyond 6,000 years may one go before one is no longer a YEC?

 

[Ploutos]

I would be shocked if any TE’s in the OPC were theistic evolutionists. As mentioned above, don’t conflate OEC with theistic evolution.

In the PCA, I’ll allow for a handful of theistic evolutionists, but they certainly aren’t common.

But are there plenty of OEC’s in both demons? Absolutely. There is also a problem of definition here - how far beyond 6,000 years may one go before one is no longer a YEC?

I'd say orders of magnitude. 10, 15, 20 thousand years - YEC. 50k, 100k, 1m, 10m - OEC. At that point I think one is well beyond gaps in the genealogies and sufficient time to account for surmised historical timelines based on known events.

 

[En Kristo]

Even from a scientific perspective, evolution is untenable. It is both bad theology and bad science. The theory is obsolete; it only persists because it is a basic tenet of faith in humanism/atheism. Since the unraveling of DNA we now understand that the mechanism behind the development of enhanced function in cells and organs is not a random physical process. It requires a highly complex set of instructions. That is, it requires highly complex instructions that are forward looking, purposeful, and goal oriented. The information presupposes a perfectly detailed end product. The mechanism is the exact opposite of the randomness of evolution. The question is now, “where does the information come from?” There is no known physical process for creating “intelligent” instructions. The only known source is a mind. Check out the Discovery Institute https://www.discovery.org/.

 

[Ploutos]

Even from a scientific perspective, evolution is untenable. It is both bad theology and bad science. The theory is obsolete; it only persists because it is a basic tenet of faith in humanism/atheism. Since the unraveling of DNA we now understand that the mechanism behind the development of enhanced function in cells and organs is not a random physical process. It requires a highly complex set of instructions. That is, it requires highly complex instructions that are forward looking, purposeful, and goal oriented. The information presupposes a perfectly detailed end product. The mechanism is the exact opposite of the randomness of evolution. The question is now, “where does the information come from?” There is no known physical process for creating “intelligent” instructions. The only known source is a mind. Check out the Discovery Institute https://www.discovery.org/.

I would say that evolution is better as theology than it is as science, but the untenability of it comes in part from the inability of its followers to recognize that.

Evolution is a theory of origins. Evolution is a theory of meaning and purpose. Evolution requires faith in something outside of and beyond us. It tells a great story. As theology, evolution is excellent, compelling, and gripping.

There are just two problems:
1) Like all other false religions, evolution might make for an exciting narrative, but it is dead wrong - an inaccurate, hopeless, and ultimately damning worldview.
2) Evolution is TERRIBLE science, and its followers are unable to see that it is a theology and not a science.

I would have more respect for evolutionists if they called their belief a religion and admitted the faith presuppositions that undergird their belief in it as that - faith presuppositions.

Lastly, as with all other false religions, attempts to syncretize evolution with Christianity are not viable. Some people reject the theological tenets of evolution and try to combine its scientific findings with Christianity, but since evolution is ultimately a religion, its scientific "findings" are rooted in a theology very much opposed to the theology of Scripture. As a result, all such marriages of the bad terrible pseudo-science of evolution and the truth of Christianity are going to be quite uncomfortable.

You can believe in day-age, gap, framework, or whatever variant interpretation of Genesis 1 you want, and they might be inconsistent, but only evolution in any of its varieties presents a premise that cannot be reconciled in any way with the account not just of Genesis but of all of Scripture. That said, the popularity of those other beliefs stems, I suspect at least in part, from the success of the evolutionary narrative in discrediting or rendering unfashionable a more literal reading of the creation account. If you take away evolution and its direct and indirect influence, you have a lot less motivation to believe some of those other takes.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

I would be shocked if any TE’s in the OPC were theistic evolutionists. As mentioned above, don’t conflate OEC with theistic evolution.

In the PCA, I’ll allow for a handful of theistic evolutionists, but they certainly aren’t common.

But are there plenty of OEC’s in both demons? Absolutely. There is also a problem of definition here - how far beyond 6,000 years may one go before one is no longer a YEC?

I've never met anyone who held to an old earth but did not believe one animal or life form evolved into another. Reconciling the Bible with "science" is the principal reason any of these views exist or are popular.

 

[Ploutos]

I've never met anyone who held to an old earth but did not believe one animal or life form evolved into another. Reconciling the Bible with "science" is the principal reason any of these views exist or are popular.

Hugh Ross.

 

[arapahoepark]

I've never met anyone who held to an old earth but did not believe one animal or life form evolved into another. Reconciling the Bible with "science" is the principal reason any of these views exist or are popular.

There are tons. Most old earthers are that way. The day age theory is quite prominent.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

If my memory serves me right, somewhere in the PCA "rules" theistic evolution is allowable. Thus allowing Tim K. to continue his view. He used to say that Adam was a hominoid in whom the image of God was planted, while Eve was a creation of God, using one of Adam's ribs.

 

[Ploutos]

There are tons. Most old earthers are that way. The day age theory is quite prominent.

I really enjoy Hugh Ross's writings (I read 2 of his books about a decade ago). I don't know how much of a following he has now or how widely adopted his view is. He is a very intelligent and original thinker who came up with a really well-thought out way of reconciling the Bible with the findings of modern science. Essentially, his take is that science has correctly discerned the age of the earth, but that evolution can't be true because of its incompatibilities with Scripture. So, he essentially posits a non-evolutionary day-age theory that largely aligns with the consensus timeline - but instead of evolution being the mechanism, direct divine intervention in the form of supernatural creative acts, making new species out of nothing. This is why the fossil record is missing the transitional species - because God just created certain species from scratch at various points.

I really appreciate his commitment to Scripture and from what I read of him I had no reason to doubt the sincerity and earnestness of his faith. I also particularly appreciated his comments about the stridency of the fundamentalist anti-intellectual breed of YECers and the way in which they turn this issue into the key litmus test of orthodoxy. As I've moved closer and closer to a literal reading of Genesis 1 over the years, I have kept that in mind because I thought (and think) that it was a very good point that he made.

As that last sentence implies though, despite my appreciation for him, I absolutely don't think he's on the right track. I know it's a cheap argument in some ways because it can never be proven, but I come back to the idea of uniformitarianism. Just like Kline, Ross just assumes that we can extrapolate the laws of physics back in time. He also doesn't seem bothered by the idea of death and suffering prior to the fall - and I'm not talking about plants dying because they get chewed on. I'm talking about animals killing and eating each other. I forget his exact reasoning but I sort of recall that he qualifies the concept of death in ways that are rather a stretch. Scripture clearly links shedding of blood with sin, and as long as my copy of Isaiah talks about the wolf lying down with the lamb in paradise, I will continue to believe that pre-fall the wolf and the lamb existed in harmony and peace. And then there's the idea so prevalent as to be nearly universal among such views - that Scripture and nature are equally valid sources of authority. I can't remember who I read recently that referred to the "book of revelation" and the "book of nature" to verbalize that concept.

But that said, I appreciate that Ross rejects the idea of evolution out of hand, and I appreciate the work he did. If I had to adopt an OEC view, I'd probably find him more useful than Meredith Kline. I'd rather see a scientist put nature on par with Scripture than to see a theologian do that, I suppose. It's less embarrassing for me to see a scientist dabble in Hebrew exegesis than to see an exegete re-write creation history because it had not rained.

 

[Taahanni]

I read Hugh Ross's Fingerprint of God and Why the Universe Is the Way It Is when I was in high school, along with a group of other individuals of varying ages from my church. I was the only one in that book study of 8-9 people who adhered to YEC, and I will say it was very eye-opening to hear valid, Scriptural arguments for OEC. None of the individuals in that study with me believed in theistic evolution, which, as has already been mentioned a few times in this thread, is distinct from OEC.

 

[Deleted member 14917]

Hmm. Maybe I shouldn't be too surprised by the subreddit on this issue considering quite a few users speak well of Biologos, Peter Enns, and Francis Collins...

 

[Ploutos]

A lot of people have a sincere desire to see the world through a Christian lens but lack the intellectual formation to develop that lens robustly. Ideas like this that reconcile science and Scripture are appealing for that reason.

Of course, I'm sure a lot of people are deliberately and wilfully compromising their faith, but I like to assume that a lot of this is done with at least a measure of good faith.

 

[No Other Name]

I've never met anyone who held to an old earth but did not believe one animal or life form evolved into another. Reconciling the Bible with "science" is the principal reason any of these views exist or are popular.

There are actually quite a lot. The OPC report you shared does not contain theistic evolution, but day-age and framework views that accept the "science" of the age of the earth, solar system, universe, etc. but not the "science" of lower-form animals into higher-formed.

 

[No Other Name]

If my memory serves me right, somewhere in the PCA "rules" theistic evolution is allowable. Thus allowing Tim K. to continue his view. He used to say that Adam was a hominoid in whom the image of God was planted, while Eve was a creation of God, using one of Adam's ribs.

I am no expert on PCA legislation, but the one piece I read posted here a long while ago allowed OEC but disallowed theistic evolution. I have no idea if that was always so (or is true presently), but I would be shocked if it were. Theistic evolution denies several Scriptural truths outright.

the subreddit on this issue considering quite a few users speak well of Biologos, Peter Enns, and Francis Collins...

I am confident you already know this but accept this as confirmation for you: mark and avoid these, brother. False teachers and wolves in sheep's clothing, all of them.

Hugh Ross is not a false teacher, and I will be grateful to him for his guidance early on by way of correspondence, but he has been shown to approach the issue "science-first" and it has not gone over for him very well in a few areas.

 

[toddje]

I recently had a discussion (in a 1689 church) where there were at least a couple day-age proponents, and the elders apparently didn't seem to think this was an issue at all. Seems in direct contradiction to the text in Genesis + the confession to me, but I guess it's OK for them.

 

[No Other Name]

I recently had a discussion (in a 1689 church) where there were at least a couple day-age proponents, and the elders apparently didn't seem to think this was an issue at all. Seems in direct contradiction to the text in Genesis + the confession to me, but I guess it's OK for them.

The day-age compromise with secular science is subtle but not non-existent. It is possible that a faithful brother can genuinely be aware of no compromise.

 

[toddje]

The day-age compromise with secular science is subtle but not non-existent. It is possible that a faithful brother can genuinely be aware of no compromise.

Just for clarity, I'm not doubting anyone's faith. I'm doubting how this can be held up against the plain reading of the text, but more importantly for this thread I'm just pointing out that I don't think the injection of day-age theory, evolutionary 'science' and such is all that rare, even in reformed circles.