Church membership for one who adheres to theistic evolution...

[Caroline]

Caroline is correct about BBW.

I had just posted this recently in another thread, but its worth repeating just so you know how some Reformed look at it....

Evolution

An example of mediate creation in Warfield’s thought would be the creation of Adam. His body could have been created by a long evolutionary process as postulated by Darwin, et al. However, the creation of his spirit, by divine in-breathing, was a supernatural act of creation. He gives the formation of the God-man Jesus Christ as another example. And as a "creationist" rather than a "traducianist" he also saw the ongoing formation of human beings as acts of mediate creation.

Warfield believed that there was nothing in the first chapters of Genesis that could not be properly interpreted in a way consistent with the evolutionary development of the present world. The only caveat he allowed was that the creation of Eve (Out of Adam’s rib by a special act of God) was hard to reconcile with an evolutionary interpretation of man’s development. But he obviously did not consider this a serious enough objection to cause him to reconsider evolution as a viable interpretation of the Genesis creation account.

Personally I find this doctrine horrifying, to say that Adam nursed at the breast of Mommy primate, and death had been going on for millions of years, but they will say "death" is talking about spiritual death. But you can't fight BB Warfield fans, and you sure can't toss him out as not Reformed.

I do think this is a terrible deception, but it is all over the Reformed community.

What people who believe in this don't stop to consider is that it means God created death from the very beginning and even used it to create. That is not the God we serve.

I understand (and also the previous poster who said that it seemed repulsive to think of Adam having a primate mother), but to be fair, many people are not Calvinists because they think the doctrine of election is repulsive. "I can't believe that God would pass over some", "it is disturbing to think that God would harden pharoah's heart", etc.

God is whoever He is, whether we like Him or not. If He created in six days and that is unappealing to some, then that is not an argument for theistic evolution. But it is also not an argument for six-day creation to say that theistic evolution gives one the heebie-jeebies, so to speak.

In regard to membership, I think the Apostles Creed is a good guideline. If people are in error in their theology ... well, they can be taught better, but that usually takes time.

 

[au5t1n]

Caroline is correct about BBW.

I had just posted this recently in another thread, but its worth repeating just so you know how some Reformed look at it....

Evolution

An example of mediate creation in Warfield’s thought would be the creation of Adam. His body could have been created by a long evolutionary process as postulated by Darwin, et al. However, the creation of his spirit, by divine in-breathing, was a supernatural act of creation. He gives the formation of the God-man Jesus Christ as another example. And as a "creationist" rather than a "traducianist" he also saw the ongoing formation of human beings as acts of mediate creation.

Warfield believed that there was nothing in the first chapters of Genesis that could not be properly interpreted in a way consistent with the evolutionary development of the present world. The only caveat he allowed was that the creation of Eve (Out of Adam’s rib by a special act of God) was hard to reconcile with an evolutionary interpretation of man’s development. But he obviously did not consider this a serious enough objection to cause him to reconsider evolution as a viable interpretation of the Genesis creation account.

Personally I find this doctrine horrifying, to say that Adam nursed at the breast of Mommy primate, and death had been going on for millions of years, but they will say "death" is talking about spiritual death. But you can't fight BB Warfield fans, and you sure can't toss him out as not Reformed.

I do think this is a terrible deception, but it is all over the Reformed community.

What people who believe in this don't stop to consider is that it means God created death from the very beginning and even used it to create. That is not the God we serve.

I understand (and also the previous poster who said that it seemed repulsive to think of Adam having a primate mother), but to be fair, many people are not Calvinists because they think the doctrine of election is repulsive. "I can't believe that God would pass over some", "it is disturbing to think that God would harden pharoah's heart", etc.

God is whoever He is, whether we like Him or not. If He created in six days and that is unappealing to some, then that is not an argument for theistic evolution. But it is also not an argument for six-day creation to say that theistic evolution gives one the heebie-jeebies, so to speak.

In regard to membership, I think the Apostles Creed is a good guideline. If people are in error in their theology ... well, they can be taught better, but that usually takes time.

I agree, that is what I meant in my first post on this thread. In this last post, I was only commenting on the implications of theistic evolution, which many don't stop to consider.

 

[Brian Withnell]

[WIKI][WIKI][WIKI][WIKI][WIKI][/WIKI][/WIKI][/WIKI][/WIKI][/WIKI]

Ahh, you edited after I wrote my post. Nevermind about the OPC allowing it. Obviously, if he was deposed - they didn't!

Yes, I had been doing searches for the original documents while I had started the post, could not find them, and thought I'd put the result I remembered in the post, realized I had not. I'm getting old!

I spent most of my Christian life in the OPC. I think they allow for progressive creationism or day-age creationism.

I'm sure they allow day-age and find that it need not be stated as an exception. I'm near sure they also allow the framework as in concert with the confession. While some interpretations might fall outside the bounds, it appears the GA Report of
the Committee to Study the Views of Creation did not discount views that held to other than 6 literal 24 hour days.

Note: This is NOT intended to start a creation debate, but only state what it appears the OPC is willing to accept for officers.

 

[Brian Withnell]

God is whoever He is, whether we like Him or not. If He created in six days and that is unappealing to some, then that is not an argument for theistic evolution. But it is also not an argument for six-day creation to say that theistic evolution gives one the heebie-jeebies, so to speak.[emphasis added]

I heartily approve of the statement. What God did is what he did. If what he did "fits" better with an evolution theory (which is wrong no matter what) we should not interpret scripture just to eliminate one of the supports for evolution. Those that even mention that it "fits" with a young earth and therefore contradicts evolution ought to search their heart diligently to see if they are trying to interpret the Bible for what it says, or are bringing their world view to the Bible and looking for support. While a young earth is possible, looking to the Bible and reading the Bible to support that view is wrong even if the view is right.

The ARP should judge what they make requirements for their membership; it is up to the ARP; it is not something in which anyone else has a say. My only problem with vows that require full knowledge subscription is that it may take years for a person who recently has been seized by grace to understand the doctrines, and so it would be years before they were able to partake in the LS. I don't believe that a positive good. The grace offered in the supper is real, and while not salvific in any sense, it works to the ongoing sanctification of our lives.

There is a find line between fencing the table to keep out those that do not rightly discern the body and blood, and keeping out those that in their struggle with sin need the grace offered therein. I pray for the elders of my church regularly that they make neither error.

 

[kevin.carroll]

That was a cheap shot.

I fail to see how it was a cheap shot. Has not the Administration and Faculty of Erskine embraced evolution over the Bible in direct defiance of the General Synod?

 

[Skyler]

I'd appreciate thoughts on accepting one who adheres to theistic evolution and Genesis as allegory instead of history.

Should this individual be accepted for membership with his current beliefs?

Thanks.

This is where being a Baptist comes in handy. You can hold him in the baptistry until he changes his views.

I would analyze the rest of his theology; if that's the only point of difference(unlikely), then I suppose it'd be up to the church leadership. Though I wouldn't hesitate to [good-naturedly] pester him about it at every opportunity.

 

[Archlute]

I have met some Reformed ministers who don't like this statement, but Warfield was wrong.

 

[Zenas]

They might have faith, but they have irrational and illogical faith. Holding that Genesis is an allegory removes all basis for believing the rest of the Bible. One might, against all reason, still believe it though.

Another problem arises in that holding to a non-literal interpretation brings one into contradiction with inspired, New Testament Scripture. Consider Paul in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians,

2 Cor 11:3

But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

Here, Paul references the temptation of Eve as a historical event. I don't see a reason for reading what he's saying as an allegory.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

That is the reason I have a weird feeling about Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God". He affirms that he believes in theistic evolution in it, so I am skeptical of him.

I believe that theistic evolution is opposed to the bible because it requires death as a natural part of designed life for it to be true. The bible is clear that man dies because of his sin.

 

[LeeJUk]

Yes they should be accepted. No where in scripture does it require we interpret genesis in any way to be a christian or to be fully part of a local church, to say you cannot get church membership is like saying your a second class christian, even though they may be perfectly orthodox everywhere else and is in my opinion disgusting if they got rejected and going beyond what is written and be one of the greatest examples of legalism ive ever heard of.

 

[Jon Peters]

It depends. We all hold theological positions that contradict the Bible's teaching. We will have perfect theology once we are glorified; until then we will be inconsistent.

With that said, one would need to flesh out this person's position to see to what extent their reading of Genesis affects thier understanding of the gospel and the nature of God.

 

[Archlute]

Lee,

What would you say of the individual who insists that his Christian profession should be accepted for granting him membership in the local church, and yet who uses the same approach to affirm the validity of modern homosexual relationships? There are those who say there are different ways to interpret the passages on sexual ethics as well, and yet no orthodox Christian would feel compelled to grant them their case.

 

[Montanablue]

That is the reason I have a weird feeling about Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God". He affirms that he believes in theistic evolution in it, so I am skeptical of him.

I believe that theistic evolution is opposed to the bible because it requires death as a natural part of designed life for it to be true. The bible is clear that man dies because of his sin.

Where? Do you have a page number?

I read the book pretty closely and I think I would have remembered that, but perhaps I missed it.

 

[Tripel]

That is the reason I have a weird feeling about Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God". He affirms that he believes in theistic evolution in it, so I am skeptical of him.

Are you sure about this? Can you please quote him directly?

I read the book 6 months ago, and I do not recall Keller saying that. I know that he quotes Francis Collins a good bit in his chapter on scientific objections to Christianity, but I don't think Keller specifically states what he personally believes.

 

[LeeJUk]

It depends. We all whole theological positions that contradict the Bible's teaching. We will have perfect theology once we are glorified; until then we will be inconsistent.

With that said, one would need to flesh out this person's position to see to what extent their reading of Genesis affects thier understanding of the gospel and the nature of God.

Theres a very big difference between the homosexual argument and the arguments over genesis so please don't compare the 2.

We're talking about a true believer not trying to liberalize scripture here, who for very good reasons, has come to the conclusion that the bible is true, but genesis can be interpreted metaphorically and we've got people proposing he doesn't get full membership to a local church. If he's a born again believer and is protestant in every way, then why shouldn't he be allowed full heatedly, unless you want to depart from sola scriptura and use church tradition as your authority.

 

[Jon Peters]

Lee,

What would you say of the individual who insists that his Christian profession should be accepted for granting him membership in the local church, and yet who uses the same approach to affirm the validity of modern homosexual relationships? There are those who say there are different ways to interpret the passages on sexual ethics as well, and yet no orthodox Christian would feel compelled to grant them their case.

Of course I can't answer for Lee, but I think my answer would be: It depends. It depends on how their opinion on homosexuality affects their view of the gospel. I know orthodox, conservative, Reformed Christians who take a very different view of homosexuality than many on this board.

Frankly, I would be more concerned about someone who rejected the historicity of Adam and the fall (if that was in fact what their allegorical method of interpreting Genesis was doing) than someone who supported the civil right of a homosexual to be married or some similar arrangement.

 

[Archlute]

It depends. We all whole theological positions that contradict the Bible's teaching. We will have perfect theology once we are glorified; until then we will be inconsistent.

With that said, one would need to flesh out this person's position to see to what extent their reading of Genesis affects thier understanding of the gospel and the nature of God.

Theres a very big difference between the homosexual argument and the arguments over genesis so please don't compare the 2.

We're talking about a true believer not trying to liberalize scripture here, who for very good reasons, has come to the conclusion that the bible is true, but genesis can be interpreted metaphorically and we've got people proposing he doesn't get full membership to a local church. If he's a born again believer and is protestant in every way, then why shouldn't he be allowed full heatedly, unless you want to depart from sola scriptura and use church tradition as your authority.

That's where you problem lies then, Lee. If you understand anything about the history of interpretation of Genesis' opening chapters in modern times, and the various underlying agendas, you would be able to affirm that it is indeed a liberalizing of Scripture. They are very much the same spirit, if not the same issue.

In particular, it is a desire to change the interpretation of the opening chapters to find favor with peers in the secular academy, which is not any different than Christians attempting to liberalize sexuality issues in order to find favor with their socially liberal friends/institutions. Both originate from social pressure, and not competent exegesis. It has nothing to do with church tradition.

-----Added 10/5/2009 at 06:02:02 EST-----

Lee,

What would you say of the individual who insists that his Christian profession should be accepted for granting him membership in the local church, and yet who uses the same approach to affirm the validity of modern homosexual relationships? There are those who say there are different ways to interpret the passages on sexual ethics as well, and yet no orthodox Christian would feel compelled to grant them their case.

Of course I can't answer for Lee, but I think my answer would be: It depends. It depends on how their opinion on homosexuality affects their view of the gospel. I know orthodox, conservative, Reformed Christians who take a very different view of homosexuality than many on this board.

Frankly, I would be more concerned about someone who rejected the historicity of Adam and the fall (if that was in fact what their allegorical method of interpreting Genesis was doing) than someone who supported the civil right of a homosexual to be married or some similar arrangement.

Jon,

Why do you think it should matter if it affects their view of the gospel or not? We don't evaluate active sins by virtue of their relationship to other issues. Encouraging someone to continue in, or continue promoting, a sinful lifestyle by that criteria is exceedingly unwise. I would say that you don't really know any orthodox, conservative Reformed folk who hold your view. They may attend orthodox, conservative Reformed congregations (maybe), but by definition they cannot be orthodox, nor conservative if they support homosexual unions of any sort.

 

[JennyG]

Just as regards the OP question, many true Christians especially in the heyday of evolution have believed some version of it perforce - sometimes trusting on in an utter absence of light - see Green Eye of the Storm by John Rendle Short.
I often thank God for letting me be alive at the right time to see Darwin's hegemony finally on the skids!
It is bliss to be on a site where people can actually see that the Gospel no longer makes any logical sense if you try to weld it onto an evolutionary world-view.
It's late here in Scotland, but I just wanted to say that...

 

[Osage Bluestem]

That is the reason I have a weird feeling about Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God". He affirms that he believes in theistic evolution in it, so I am skeptical of him.

I believe that theistic evolution is opposed to the bible because it requires death as a natural part of designed life for it to be true. The bible is clear that man dies because of his sin.

Where? Do you have a page number?

I read the book pretty closely and I think I would have remembered that, but perhaps I missed it.

That is the reason I have a weird feeling about Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God". He affirms that he believes in theistic evolution in it, so I am skeptical of him.

Are you sure about this? Can you please quote him directly?

I read the book 6 months ago, and I do not recall Keller saying that. I know that he quotes Francis Collins a good bit in his chapter on scientific objections to Christianity, but I don't think Keller specifically states what he personally believes.

I'm pretty sure. I'll recheck the book when I get home and reference where he writes that.

 

[MMasztal]

That is the reason I have a weird feeling about Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God". He affirms that he believes in theistic evolution in it, so I am skeptical of him.

I believe that theistic evolution is opposed to the bible because it requires death as a natural part of designed life for it to be true. The bible is clear that man dies because of his sin.

Where? Do you have a page number?

I read the book pretty closely and I think I would have remembered that, but perhaps I missed it.

That is the reason I have a weird feeling about Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God". He affirms that he believes in theistic evolution in it, so I am skeptical of him.

Are you sure about this? Can you please quote him directly?

I read the book 6 months ago, and I do not recall Keller saying that. I know that he quotes Francis Collins a good bit in his chapter on scientific objections to Christianity, but I don't think Keller specifically states what he personally believes.

I'm pretty sure. I'll recheck the book when I get home and reference where he writes that.

Here's an interview with Keller where he addressed this issue.

Interview with Timothy Keller | Uncommon Descent

 

[Osage Bluestem]

That is the reason I have a weird feeling about Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God". He affirms that he believes in theistic evolution in it, so I am skeptical of him.

I believe that theistic evolution is opposed to the bible because it requires death as a natural part of designed life for it to be true. The bible is clear that man dies because of his sin.

Where? Do you have a page number?

I read the book pretty closely and I think I would have remembered that, but perhaps I missed it.

That is the reason I have a weird feeling about Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God". He affirms that he believes in theistic evolution in it, so I am skeptical of him.

Are you sure about this? Can you please quote him directly?

I read the book 6 months ago, and I do not recall Keller saying that. I know that he quotes Francis Collins a good bit in his chapter on scientific objections to Christianity, but I don't think Keller specifically states what he personally believes.

I'm pretty sure. I'll recheck the book when I get home and reference where he writes that.

Ok, I'm home from work now .

It's on page 93 and 94 of the book The Reason for God by Tim Keller (Hardcover).

On 93: "I personally take the view that Genesis 1 and 2 relate to each other the way Judges 4 and 5 and Exodus 15 and 15 do. In each couplet one chapter describes a historical event and the other is a song or poem about the theological meaning of the event." --Tim Keller

On Page 94: "For the record I think God guided some kind of process of natural selection, and yet I reject the concept of evolution as All-encompassing Theory". --Tim Keller.

In other words, he said he believes in theistic evolution.

 

[MMasztal]

On 93: "I personally take the view that Genesis 1 and 2 relate to each other the way Judges 4 and 5 and Exodus 15 and 15 do. In each couplet one chapter describes a historical event and the other is a song or poem about the theological meaning of the event." --Tim Keller

On Page 94: "For the record I think God guided some kind of process of natural selection, and yet I reject the concept of evolution as All-encompassing Theory". --Tim Keller.

In other words, he said he believes in theistic evolution.

When I hear this type (Keller's) of reasoning, I have to ask, "Then why didn't God just say so? Would it make him any less God? Were it not for the evolution zeitgeist, would a believer inevitably exegete Gen 1 and 2 in a couplet fashion?"

Evolution has many bullet holes in their theories. Unfortunately,much of the likely clergy lacks a strong science background to identify and refute the evolution canard.

 

[Archlute]

And you don't even need a background in science to discredit any attemps at comparing Gen. 1/2 with either Exodus 14/15 or Judges 4/5. The latter two groups are clearly marked off in the narrative as being songs of praise given by God's people to celebrate His victory over their enemies. Genesis 2 has no such relationship with Genesis 1. It is not a song, it is not marked off in form, style, or with narrative pointers as being any sort of metaphorical reinterpretation of the earlier chapter.

Take time to read the interview with Keller that was linked above. He comes out of the gate sounding confused before he even really gets going.

 

[au5t1n]

Where? Do you have a page number?

I read the book pretty closely and I think I would have remembered that, but perhaps I missed it.

Are you sure about this? Can you please quote him directly?

I read the book 6 months ago, and I do not recall Keller saying that. I know that he quotes Francis Collins a good bit in his chapter on scientific objections to Christianity, but I don't think Keller specifically states what he personally believes.

I'm pretty sure. I'll recheck the book when I get home and reference where he writes that.

Here's an interview with Keller where he addressed this issue.

Interview with Timothy Keller | Uncommon Descent

That interview is just bizarre. I would hate to be so confused. Poor guy.

 

[JennyG]

When I hear this type (Keller's) of reasoning, I have to ask, "Then why didn't God just say so? Would it make him any less God? Were it not for the evolution zeitgeist, would a believer inevitably exegete Gen 1 and 2 in a couplet fashion?"

That's exactly the thought which to me has always seemed a light cutting through all the confusion.
If God had created via evolution (which beyond all doubt he could have done if he had so pleased) then WHY WOULD HE SAY DIFFERENT?
Seriously - is there a good answre to that point of Michael's?

 

[Tripel]

On 93: "I personally take the view that Genesis 1 and 2 relate to each other the way Judges 4 and 5 and Exodus 15 and 15 do. In each couplet one chapter describes a historical event and the other is a song or poem about the theological meaning of the event." --Tim Keller

On Page 94: "For the record I think God guided some kind of process of natural selection, and yet I reject the concept of evolution as All-encompassing Theory". --Tim Keller.

In other words, he said he believes in theistic evolution.

I disagree with your "in other words" summary. Theistic evolution is quite a leap from "I think God guided some kind of process of natural selection". In that interview linked above, Keller clearly states the problems he has with the theistic evolution theory. He said he believes in an Adam and Eve. He believes in a real, historic fall.

-----Added 10/6/2009 at 10:02:22 EST-----

Take time to read the interview with Keller that was linked above. He comes out of the gate sounding confused before he even really gets going.

Sounding confused? I don't think he sounded confused. He admitted that all of the various interpretations are confusing, but I had no problem following what he was saying. I think he said it well, and for the most part, I agree with him.

That interview is just bizarre. I would hate to be so confused. Poor guy.

Was that comment really necessary? How wonderful that you have it all figured out.
I, on the other hand, admire that someone as well-respected as Keller can admit that he doesn't have all the answers.

 

[lynnie]

Natural selection IS evolution. He just thinks it was not 100% statistical chance, but God helped roll the dice.

He is a great preacher with some marvelous (biblical!) tapes available but he is not a creationist. My pastor got saved in his church and I am in his presbytery, and its generally known.

Of course they all believe in a real Adam and Eve and a historic fall, yes indeed. At some point in the process God took a primate and breathed into that evolved primate a human soul. But he had a primate Momma and Daddy; he nursed at the breast of a creature born to creatures who all died. Death means spiritual death.

That Adam disobeyed and fell as the first man, yeah, they DO believe that. But this is not classic creationism, not at all.

BB Warfield was a genius and considered one of the greatest Reformed theologians ever by many. Hodge also was duped by Darwin. It is not uncommon at all to hold to theistic evolution.

We are (if unregenerate) born living but dead, often to parents who are alive but in death. Until we are born again by the holy spirit we are truly dead. We live as creatures who are truly dead until God breathes life into us. Life is from the Holy Spirit. So extrapolate that back to Adam as a monkey and it all works. At least it works for some......

 

[Tripel]

Of course they all believe in a real Adam and Eve and a historic fall, yes indeed.

No "they all" don't. That is one of Keller's gripes with theistic evolution.

At some point in the process God took a primate and breathed into that evolved primate a human soul.

Did Keller say he believes that? Perhaps you can provide a quote.
I certainly do not believe mankind evolved from apes.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Did Keller say he believes that? Perhaps you can provide a quote.
I certainly do not believe mankind evolved from apes.

On page 94 of The Reason for God he is clear that he believes in "Natural Selection" that was guided by God. Natural selection is a way to say evolution without having to use to word, it sounds less controversial.

Do you own the book? Read pages 93 and 94 in detail. He leaves no doubt.

 

[Tripel]

On page 94 of The Reason for God he is clear that he believes in "Natural Selection" that was guided by God. Natural selection is a way to say evolution without having to use to word, it sounds less controversial.

Do you own the book? Read pages 93 and 94 in detail. He leaves no doubt.

Yes, I own the book. Yes, I read 93-94. Though I don't know how you can say he leaves no doubt. He is purposefully vague in how he describes what he actually believes. Why? Because he is admittedly uncertain of how exactly God created the earth. He says he believes that there was "some kind of process of natural selection." That doesn't sound definitive to me.
What I don't understand is why some of you have to take that statement, and run with it to suggest he is a theistic evolutionist who believes man evolved from apes.