Evangelical Theistic Evolution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 14917
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

I agree about the plain reading of the text.

Again I feel the need to clarify that "day-age" =/= evolution of species. I know day-age and framework are indeed prevalent in Reformed circles. Theistic evolution is not.
 
"Plain reading of the text" is not so plain when someone gets an idea into their mind that the text is actually speaking about something else. If someone holds to the framework hypothesis or something similar it is because they feel they have reasons for adopting that approach. To answer it one must show why that approach is not feasible.

I say this as someone who upholds a literal six day creation in terms of the express statement in the fourth commandment.

Also, Brad is correct. The day-age view preceded the acceptance of evolutionary theory. It was more an accommodation to geological ages.
 
"Plain reading of the text" is not so plain when someone gets an idea into their mind that the text is actually speaking about something else. If someone holds to the framework hypothesis or something similar it is because they feel they have reasons for adopting that approach. To answer it one must show why that approach is not feasible.

I say this as someone who upholds a literal six day creation in terms of the express statement in the fourth commandment.

Also, Brad is correct. The day-age view preceded the acceptance of evolutionary theory. It was more an accommodation to geological ages.

The bolded was also a critical piece for me as well. Plain reading in conjunction with totality of plainly read Scripture interpreting Scripture. No verse left unconsidered for contribution before settling on a view.
 
"Plain reading of the text" is not so plain when someone gets an idea into their mind that the text is actually speaking about something else. If someone holds to the framework hypothesis or something similar it is because they feel they have reasons for adopting that approach. To answer it one must show why that approach is not feasible.

I say this as someone who upholds a literal six day creation in terms of the express statement in the fourth commandment.

Also, Brad is correct. The day-age view preceded the acceptance of evolutionary theory. It was more an accommodation to geological ages.
OK - the actual discussion is for another thread, I guess. But here we need definitions in this thread now. Day-age theory is being green-lit as orthodox thought (and not considered "evolution" because it doesn't involve the living things, I suppose). But evolution of living things is out. Is that the consensus?
 
OK - the actual discussion is for another thread, I guess. But here we need definitions in this thread now. Day-age theory is being green-lit as orthodox thought (and not considered "evolution" because it doesn't involve the living things, I suppose). But evolution of living things is out. Is that the consensus?

I was making an historical observation to show that day-age isn't necessarily tied to evolution. It isn't "orthodox," in my opinion. So far as the Westminster Standards are concerned the work of creation was commenced and completed within the space of six days. This is the historic reformed teaching.
 
OK - the actual discussion is for another thread, I guess. But here we need definitions in this thread now. Day-age theory is being green-lit as orthodox thought (and not considered "evolution" because it doesn't involve the living things, I suppose). But evolution of living things is out. Is that the consensus?

Day-age is not considered orthodox by us in 1689 tradition either.

2LCF 4.1:

"In the beginning it pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,1 for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power,2 wisdom, and goodness, to create or make the world, and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days, and all very good.3

1 John 1:2–3; Heb. 1:2; Job 26:13
2 Rom. 1:20
3 Col. 1:16; Gen. 1:31

Also,

Baptist Catechism Q. 12:

"Q. What is the Work of Creation?

A. The Work of Creation is God's making All Things of Nothing, by the Word of his Power, in the space of six Days, and all very Good."

In the 17th Century, there was debate over "how long is it since the World was made", and the issue was not considered a "Matter of Faith" but "the probable conjectures of some".

But really look into some of the works that included long discourses on the age of the earth (eg. Ussher's Annals of the World and Thomas Hardcastle's Expositions of the Assembly's Shorter Catechism) and you see not even a whiff of ancient earth to the point of millions of years, but hearty (and very dense) discussions on the exact period of time (in the order of thousands of years) and lots of minutiae on what season the time of creation occurred with Ussher arguing for autumn and Walker (and I think de Moor) argued for springtime.

"Day-age" is as modern as "the Enlightenment" despite what Hugh Ross and others mistakenly claim re: Augustine and others.
 
@MW do you know whether any earlier theologians in the history of the church dealt with that connection to the 4th commandment? Particularly whether any patristic or medieval theologians who held to a non-literal view (such as Augustine) noticed that clause and connected it to the hermeneutic of the creation account?
 
@MW do you know whether any earlier theologians in the history of the church dealt with that connection to the 4th commandment? Particularly whether any patristic or medieval theologians who held to a non-literal view (such as Augustine) noticed that clause and connected it to the hermeneutic of the creation account?

As I remember City of God is more allegorical, with the Sabbath itself being a symbol of eternal rest. In the Literal Meaning of Genesis he ties the six days to the Sabbath command in a way that leads to an actual day of rest. I've often wondered if he contradicted himself in that work (but he has been read in different ways). Apart from Aquinas I don't recall coming across this in the medieval tradition. He was a literalist but not shy to allegorise. From secondary literature I get the impression there was a mixture between literal and symbolic views.
 
We have the plain testimony of Scripture, "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" (Gen 1:5 KJV), which phrase "the evening and the morning" was repeated every day of the creation.

Then, in Exodus 20:8, 9, 10, 11 KJV, we have this clear statement:

"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." [emphasis added]

These are simply stating the facts. How He did this we can comprehend by His omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence.

And I believe we shall see wonders as great as these when, after the burning away of the pollution and sin in His universe, He restores the universe and the solar system of earth to their pristine beauty and glory, such that He and the Bride of Christ may dwell on New Earth paradise, and there partake of the consummation of our union with Him at the great marriage supper of the Lamb.
 
@MW do you know whether any earlier theologians in the history of the church dealt with that connection to the 4th commandment? Particularly whether any patristic or medieval theologians who held to a non-literal view (such as Augustine) noticed that clause and connected it to the hermeneutic of the creation account?
Is it possible one might pause and consider Augustine's non-literal view was one of a day being so much less than 24 hours as to be an instant.

(This is due to his lack of Hebrew knowledge leading to his insistence that "bara" includes an instantaneous act outside of time measurement, and J.H. Taylor pointed out that not everyone embraced his theory because "rega" was used in other places and would have been used in creation if that is what God intended to mean. See Taylor's introduction to Augustine's The Literal Meaning of Genesis)

In City of God, Augustine was responding to his contemporary evolutionists of his day as he wrote the sections on creation and origin of man, (but his contemporary pagan evolutionists were very different from ours today.)

Those ancient evolutionists believed in cycles of catastrophies and re-births as most pagans do, so that in their anthropology, modern man was more recent than the world with previous cycles of pre-modern men buried beneath the then-current layer of crust. It differs only slightly from Darwin and, in their ancient pagan writings, all the seeds of Darwinism are there long even before the birth of our Lord.

Augustine defines it here and actually counters them with an age of the earth less than 6000 years:

... for they hold that, just as the world is reborn out of its previous matter, so a new human race would arise from the elements of nature and only thereafter would a progeny of mortals spring from parents. And the same would be true of the rest of the animals.

There are some who complain when we claim that man was created so late. They say that he must have been created countless and infinite ages ago, and not, as is recorded in Scripture, less than 6000 years ago ...

It was this controversy that led the natural philosophers to believe that the only way they could or should solve it was by a theory of periodic cycles of time according to which there has always been and will be a continual renewal and repetition in the order of nature, because the coming and passing ages revolve as on a wheel.

- City of God Books VIII - XVI, pp. 265, 267

In point of fact, Augustine taught a very young earth.

In volume XII, p. 10:

Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World's Past

"Let us, then, omit any conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race ... They are deceived too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.

Further reading on proto-Darwinism in ancient Greece:

Osborn, Henry Fairfield. From the Greeks to Darwin New York: Scribner and Sons, 1929.

For more on the misappropriation of church fathers for "day-age" theory, (and my primary source for organizing this post):

Sarfati, Jonathan. Refuting Compromise Powder Springs, GA: Creation Book Publishers, 2014. Foreword by Douglas Kelly.
 
Last edited:
In the Literal Meaning of Genesis he ties the six days to the Sabbath command in a way that leads to an actual day of rest

This is true. While he taught that basically Creation Week was one day made up of "moments" or "instants", he still interpreted the Sabbath as an actual day of rest and not a non-literal entity.

And yes, Aquinas disagrees with Augustine's non-literal "instantaneous" creation "week = one day" theory:

Summa Theologica Part One, Q. 74 All the seven days in common:

... It is written, "The evening and the morning were the second day ... the third day" and so on. But where there is a second and third, there are more than one. There was not, therefore, only one day.

I answer that: On this question, Augustine differs from other expositors. His opinion is that all days that are called seven, are one day represented in a sevenfold aspect (Gen. AD lit iv, 22; De Civ. Dei xi, 9; AD Orosium xxvi); while others consider there were seven distinct days, not one only. Now these two opinions, taken as explaining the literal text of Genesis, are certainly widely different.

Bolded added for emphasis.
 
Last edited:
And I believe we shall see wonders as great as these when, after the burning away of the pollution and sin in His universe, He restores the universe and the solar system of earth to their pristine beauty and glory, such that He and the Bride of Christ may dwell on New Earth paradise, and there partake of the consummation of our union with Him at the great marriage supper of the Lamb.
This is a fascinating point. I do not often ponder eschatology when thinking about creation. It stands I direct contrast with evolutionary theorists. For them, the created realm is all but eternal, existing far before man and persisting in some form after man. Their "eschatology" is the inevitable extintion of mankind and the destruction of all things due to entropy. Yet for the Christian, the created universe is made by God and for man, and its escatological endpoint involves complete destruction and renewal. Thank you for this post!
 
Is it possible one might pause and consider Augustine's non-literal view was one of a day being so much less than 24 hours as to be an instant.

That was his stated view, but then he also seems to place events on certain days. He said himself he didn't know how to interpret the days. So the secondary literature comes up with different ways of explaining it. I have wondered if there was an Aristotelian type of form/matter distinction running in the background, which is also present in some medieval discussions. But I'm not sure this could be demonstrated from what Augustine has written. Overall he seems confused rather than coherent.

At any rate, in accord with your observation, it runs in the opposite direction of day-age theory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top