SavedSinner
Puritan Board Freshman
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?
Is Theistic Evolution heresy?
- Thread starter Anglicanorthodoxy
- Start date
- Status
SavedSinner
Puritan Board Freshman
He is probably criticizing non-reformed protestants "evengelicals"
Gforce9
Puritan Board Junior
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....
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
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.
Von
Puritan Board Sophomore
Now you're just making it impossible NOT to click on it...
SRoper
Puritan Board Graduate
Sorry, it was unfair of me to bring it up without the context. It was from years ago.
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
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.
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.
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!
As for the instantaneous creation of Adam, it is there in plain black and white. Dust thou art!
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.
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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!
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
Cancelled Commissioner
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.
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
Puritan Board Junior
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.
ZackF
Puritan Board Doctor
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.
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.
Don't they both teach evolution?
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
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,
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
Puritan Board Junior
ZackF
Puritan Board Doctor
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
Puritan Board Doctor
Six literal and consecutive days...
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?
Last edited:
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
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.
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
