Deep Theistic Evolution

[George Murphy]

It's been suggested that a thread be started here to discuss theistic evolution (henceforth TE) theologically. I'm happy to do that, & will lead off with some comments about my own approach.

1) Like many Christians who are labelled TEs, I'm not wild about the term. Among other things, it reduces God's activity to adjectival status. But it's hard to change established terminology. We should realize, however, that there's a very wide range of views among people called TEs, as following discussion will probably reveal.

2) I called this thread "Deep TE." What I mean by "shallow" TE is simply being content with saying "Evolution is God's way of creating." IMO that is true, but in itself is quite inadequate to deal with the important theological issues that arise.

3) Science is relevant - indeed essential - for this discussion. & that means science done without theological (or anti-theological) presuppositions -
"secular science" if you will. In fact, one of the things I'll argue is that the hiddenness of divine action toward which the cross of Christ points means that we should be able to understand the world etsi deus non daretur, "though God were not given." (The phrase was popularized by Bonhoeffer, though he didn't originate it.)
But conversely, science is only of theological relevance when placed in an explicitly theological context. In particular, science in itself does not talk about "creation", which is a theological concept.

4) In what theological context is discussion to take place? My fundamental claim is that it should be the theology of the cross, as expounded by Luther (but by no means limited to him or to the Lutheran tradition): "True theology and recognition of God are in the crucified Christ"(LW 31, p.53).
It may be appropriate to note that I've presented this view in other forums at some length, most recently & in detail in The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross (Trinity Press International, 2003). I'm glad to exppand here on my statements that follow, but a lot of references &c are in this book.

5) What are the implications of such a theology for an understanding of evolution? Here I'll just sketch, briefly & inadequately, a few points.
a) God's activity in the world is characteristically hidden - cf.Is.45:15 (a verse emphasized both by Luther & by Pascal). As I argued above, this means that the world can be understood without reference to God.
b) That claim will be offensive to many Christians who think that the idea of God is "necessary" in order to understand the world. No. Part of the divine kenosis (Phil.2:5-11) is that God is willing to be considered unnecessary. As Bonoeffer puts it, God is willing to be pushed out of the world onto a cross.
c) As God Incarnate, Christ is fully divine and fully human. & if evolution is right (as I think it is), "fully human" means that God has become part of the evolutionary process - an idea that of course is offensive to many Christians.
I argue that that is essentially the scandal of the cross. Furthermore, on the cross God experiences the suffering & death that are part of that process -
a crucial consideration for theodicy challenges often directed against TE. & the resurrection of Christ is the reason for hope - not only for humanity but for the world.

6) Some will be surprised that I've said nothing yet about Gen.1 & 2. There are 2 reasons for that.
a) We are to interpret Genesis in the light of the NT, and specifically in the light of Christ, not vice versa.
b) While the Genesis texts are of course important, they are by no means the only important ones dealing with creation. Starting somewhere else can have the advantage of avoiding getting stuck in well-worn ruts of familiar debates. In an earlier book, The Trademark of God, I started with the exodus tradition & Is.40-55 before moving to Genesis.

7) Briefly on Gen.1 & 2. Recognizing this as part of true & authoritative scripture, we then have to ask what types of literature we're dealing with. Are we to read these as historical narrative, liturgy, theological polemic, or what? Here I'll just make the following points:
a) Gen.1:1-2:4a & 2:4b-25 (briefly, Gen.1 & Gen.2) are separate creation texts that talk about God's creation of the world and life in different ways. They cannot be "harmonized" as historical narratives without doing violence to one or both.
b) These accounts, read as historical/scientific accounts, do not agree with what science has overwhelmingly shown us about the development of the universe & life.
c) a & b together point to the conclusion that we should not read the Genesis accounts as historical or scientific accounts. They are true & authoritative statements about God & our world & our lives, but they are fundamentally theological statements about those things.
d) Thus I'm not terribly interested in talking about how Eve could have really (qua historical event) been created from Adam's side. That's an important statement about the unity of humanity & relations between the sexes, & when I read that text when I preside at a wedding it has profound & true meaning. But I see no reason to talk about some divine transplant surgery + cloning as a scientific event.
e) While Gen.1 is not an historical account of the way life developed, it's important that the picture that's given of the creation of life is one of mediated creation, God commanding the elemnts of the world to bring forth life in accord with the capabilities he's given them. This understanding was quite common among the church fathers.
e) As Westermann has argued, the culmination of the 1st creation story is the Sabbath, which in Jewish & Christian thought has always been understood as pointing toward the eschaton. That fact that this of course is not yet accomplished (though the risen Christ is its prolepsis) means that the creation story looks toward the future. It's open ended. In particular, it doesn't mean that God stopped doing anything at some point near the beginning of the universe - cf.Jn.5:17.

That should be enough to get things started.

Shalom,
George

[Dee Dee Warren]

Just as a word of introduction, I asked George to start this as ongoing dialog trhead to understand TE without the baggage that comes with it in science and to have this on a scholarly exegetical level and not a spitball context as this conversations go. I am really hoping that those knowledge in the Hebrew will be able to comment as well.

[George Murphy]

Just as a word of introduction, I asked George to start this as ongoing dialog trhead to understand TE without the baggage that comes with it in science and to have this on a scholarly exegetical level and not a spitball context as this conversations go. I am really hoping that those knowledge in the Hebrew will be able to comment as well.

I appreciate Dee Dee's encouragement to start this thread. While exegesis of individual texts is important, a basic hermeneutic issue needs to be dealt with first: Can biblical texts be something other than historical narrative, history wie es eigentlich gewesen ist, & still have truth & authority as Christians have traditionally believed scripture to have?

My own answer is "Yes," & I would cite many of the parables of Jesus as just a few examples of this. Of course that does not mean that everything in the Bible can be interpreted as parabolic, fictional, &c, so this is not a drop-dead argument for the claims that Gen.1 & 2 are not to be read as historical narratives. But it does mean that that is a possibility that deserves to be considered.

One implication of that is that questions about the relationship of a text to the world cannot be decided simply by studying how words are used within the text. As a simple example, the word yom in Gen.1 means a 24 hour day.
It can have broader senses in other texts, but within the Genesis story there's no justification for making it a period of billions of years, a geological age, &c.

But one cannot move immediately from there to say "God literally created the world in 6 24 hour days." One has to decide whether or not that text is to be read as an historical account, & only if it is can the 24 hour days within the story be taken as referring to 24 hour periods in the history of the universe.

& one thing that has to be considered there is what science says about the history of the universe. This is not a matter of letting science dictate to theology, but one of theology using science to help (N.B.) to determine which interpretation of the text is to be preferred.

Shalom,
George

[Warcraft3]

This is a good start I think and there are good arguments for views like "the framework view" that disagree with Mortons view.

Im an advocate of Mortons view myself, even though that view does not necessarily explain everything in the text. I do believe though, that such a view is permissable within the context of Genesis specifically, and also permissable within the whole of scripture.

George gave an interesting into, which brings us into the larger context of the theology of the cross. This is a fitting context for Christians to debate these issues, since scripture ultimately centers on that doctrine.

Im curious to see how everyone (including myself) will argue their point while keeping in mind this larger context. Hopefully we will have alot of participation from each respective viewpoint.

I will write more thoughts at a later time (maybe tonight or tomorrow...)

Thanks for starting the thread George.




Russ

[Dee Dee Warren]

Here is what another TE has said in another thread. I would like to hear from people who know Hebrew if this is legitimate:

Attention TEs - well specifically I am referring to TEs such as Glenn who hold to a very similar view of inspiration that I do - that Genesis is primarily historical and not primarily mythological or allegorical. I am not close-minded to hear your theological arguments. I would like to see them vigorouslly debate in Biblical Languages where those who are knowledgeable in the original languages can give their comments.

I will play here on two counts. First we don't play games of who said what when and where and 2 I will play here because in a science forum science can be brought into the equation. I simply don't think one should interpret scripture in isolation. I appreciate George Murphy's comment about the RC theologian who felt that many of the early church fathers saw a mediate creation by God. Here is my defense of that concept.

The issue to me is grammatical, not the Hebrew. The issue lies in what is the subject (the active agent) in the sentence.

Lets start with Genesis 1:11
And GodH430 saidH559, Let the earthH776 bringH1876 forthH1876 grassH1877, the herbH6212 yieldingH2232 seedH2233, and the fruitH6529 treeH6086 yieldingH6213 fruitH6529 after his kindH4327, whoseH834 seedH2233 is in itself, upon the earthH776: and it was soH3651.

In Hebrew this is Elohim amar erets, dasha dasha deshe eseb zara zera periy ets asa periy miyn asher zera erets ken

Elohim amar is God said. Well what did God say? He said,

GOD

“earth bring bring grass herb yielding seed fruit tree yielding fruit kind that seed earth thus so.”

© source where applicable

That is a brute non-punctuated translation. What is the subject of the sentence God spoke? Why it is earth! The subject of the sentence is erets/earth. So what does it mean that ‘erets’ (the earth) is the subject of a sentence. Well according to an internet definition of subject it says

webster.commnet.edu/grammar/subjects.htm

The subject of a sentence is the person, place, thing, or idea that is doing or being something. You can find the subject of a sentence if you can find the verb. Ask the question, "Who or what 'verbs' or 'verbed'?" and the answer to that question is the subject.

© source where applicable

Regardless of whether a language is head first or head-last, regardless of whether it has prepositions or postpositions, the rules of what a subject does is the same. It is the actor or the acted upon. In this case it is the actor.

OK, where is the verb of the sentence God spoke? It is bring bring. Dasha dasha. It is apparently used only 2 times in Scripture—here and in Joel 2:22.

What does Brown-Driver-Briggs say this means?

Brown-Driver-Briggs

to sprout, shoot, grow green
1a) (Qal) to sprout, grow green
1b) (Hiphil) to cause to sprout, cause to shoot forth

© source where applicable

In Joel 2:22 it is Qal.

Regardless of whether it is qal or Hiphil in Genesis 1:11, secondary causation is not ruled out. If it is Hiphil, then it means ‘earth cause to sprout,” which clearly indicates secondary causation. If it is Qal imperative, then it means, Earth sprout vegetation, which also can be interpreted as secondary causation.

So what is the verb in Genesis 1:11? It is hiphil according to one person I checked with who is a Hebrew scholar. That actually strengthens my case. The passage means ‘Earth cause to bring bring grass...’ So the earth is apparently doing the actual causation. God ordered the earth to cause grass to come forth. I can’t think of a better way to say that evolution occurred.


I think that is why the Jewish Rabbi(and surely he knew a bit of Hebrew grammar) , Nachmanides said,

Ramban, (Nachmanides), “Commentary on the Torah,” Transl. By Rabbi Dr. Charles R. Chavel, (New York: Shiloh Publishing House, 1971), p. 40

“It is possible that the name’ earth’ mentioned in the first verse already contains a hint that a force which causes things to grow should spring up from the earth, and it was from this force that the foundations of all vegetations according to their kinds emanated.”

© source where applicable

Now that we know what the verb is, what is the subject. What is it that is bringing forth? Is it God directly? Not according to the Bible. It is the ‘erets’ which is actually doing the bringing forth regardless of whether it is Qal or Hiphil. So what does erets mean? According to Brown-Driver-Briggs, it means:

Brown-Driver-Briggs

1) land, earth
1a) earth
1a1) whole earth (as opposed to a part)
1a2) earth (as opposed to heaven)
1a3) earth (inhabitants)
1b) land
1b1) country, territory
1b2) district, region
1b3) tribal territory
1b4) piece of ground
1b5) land of Canaan, Israel
1b6) inhabitants of land
1b7) Sheol, land without return, (under) world
1b8) city (-state)
1c) ground, surface of the earth
1c1) ground
1c2) soil
1d) (in phrases)
1d1) people of the land
1d2) space or distance of country (in measurements of distance)
1d3) level or plain country
1d4) land of the living
1d5) end(s) of the earth
1e) (almost wholly late in usage)
1e1) lands, countries
1e1a) often in contrast to Canaan

© source where applicable

In what sense should we understand the word ‘erets’? I think we can rule out 1d and 1e since that wouldn’t make much sense in the context. Given that we are talking about the origin of the earth, the logical interpretation is 1a1 or 1a2 is probably the most likely interpretation.

This verse also illustrates the fact that there is NO verse in Scripture which says, Plants yield plants after their kind. By that I mean where plants is both the subject and object of the sentence. Grammar requires that if plants are incapable of evolution, that there should be a statement in which plants are said to reproduce plants after their kind. What the Bible actually says is:

‘earth bring forth... fruit tree yielding fruit kind’

The tree yields fruit kind. What kind of tree is it? A fruit tree. Well, fruit trees bring forth fruit kind today but that is not the same as saying ‘fruit trees reproduce fruit trees after
their kind.’

What I think we have in the YEC interpretation of Scripture is lack of attention to the details of what is subject, what is object, what a subject does and what is not said, i.e. animals reproduce animals after their kind.

Like with the geological pictures, if the YECs could point me to one verse in which it says "animals reproduce animals after their kind" or "plants reproduce animals after their kind" one would have to give up the idea that the Bible possibly teaches evolution. But so far no one has done that. The above verse doesn't have plants as the subject of the phrase and so I don't think there is anything in scripture to rule out the concept of speciation or evolution.

Thus, I will stand by my interpretation. And the fact that dasha is Hiphil in Genesis 1:11 and Qal in Joel 2:22 re enforces my case.

[Dee Dee Warren]

The controversial part of the above is that Glenn, the author, is attributing the work of creation to the land, indirectly by God. I do not think that is legitimate or possible within the text. But I don't know Hebrew. The comment about speciaton is a red herring. YEC do not deny speciation.

[George Murphy]

The controversial part of the above is that Glenn, the author, is attributing the work of creation to the land, indirectly by God. I do not think that is legitimate or possible within the text. But I don't know Hebrew. The comment about speciaton is a red herring. YEC do not deny speciation.

I think there may be an error in transcription of the text in Glenn's post. Gen.1:11 begins :

wayomer 'elohim tadeshe' ha'aretz deshe ...

But I think Glenn's interpretation is sound. Being quite literal, one might render it something like "The earth shall green forth green things ..." I don't have every Bible translation available but all those I've looked at, including LXX & Luther as well English versions, have something equivalent to "Let the earth put forth vegetation ..."

Is this creation? In a fundamental sense only God can create or, in Hebrew terms, only God can bara'. That verb is not used here - but it is used in 1:21 where, after God has said that the waters should swarm with living things, it's said, "so God created (wyibhera') the great sea monsters ..."

The creative action is ultimately God's, and nothing would happen without that action. But it takes place with & through created agencies. Each one of us can say that we have been created by God, but God has done that through the processes of embryological development &c. (& of course there I've had to move from bare exegesis to theological interpretation.)

Shalom,
George

[Warcraft3]

From what I can tell Glenns view does explain alot of the text, including why certain passages are worded like they are.

The one verse Id like to see explained from Glenns perspective is the verse ..."and the spirit of God was hovering above the surface of the deep".

In a "Days of Proclamation" viewpoint....what is the purpose of that verse? What is it trying to tell us?



Russ

[LeiLani]

3) Science is relevant - indeed essential - for this discussion. & that means science done without theological (or anti-theological) presuppositions - "secular science" if you will.

That rules out evolution then, since the main reason for believing it was to disallow "a divine foot in the door".

In fact, one of the things I'll argue is that the hiddenness of
divine action toward which the cross of Christ points means that we should be able to understand the world etsi deus non daretur,"though God were not given." (The phrase was popularized by Bonhoeffer, though he didn't originate it.)

Bonhoeffer is not Scripture. Paul said that the evidence for God from creation was so clear that people are "without excuse" (Rom. 1:18-32).

a) God's activity in the world is characteristically hidden - cf.Is.45:15 (a verse emphasized both by Luther & by Pascal). As I argued above, this means that the world can be understood without reference to God.

But as Paul argued, the world can't be understood without clearly pointing to God's eternal attributes and divine power.

b) That claim will be offensive to many Christians who think that the idea of God is "necessary" in order to understand the world. No. Part of the divine kenosis (Phil.2:5-11) is

This is an abuse of the kenosis, and is more like the kenotic heresy. First, it was only the Second Person of the Trinity that "emptied himself"; second, this emptying was really an addition of human nature not any subtraction of the divine attributes. In reality, Jesus merely gave up independent exercise of these divine attributes without the Father's authority (which is why He didn't know the day or the hour). See Meaning of kenosis: emptying by adding.

that God is willing to be considered unnecessary.

This is rank blasphemy, grossly violating the First and Greatest Commandment. And what about Proverbs 1:7 "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge." Proverbs 10:9 says "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom." GM says exactly the opposite. His evolutionary "theology" is so anti-biblical that it can't be called "Christian" any more than Spong can.

As Bonoeffer puts it, God is willing to be pushed out of the world onto a cross.
c) As God Incarnate, Christ is fully divine and fully human. & if evolution is right (as I think it is), "fully human" means that God has become part of the evolutionary process -

No, the Second Person of the Trinity He especially became "the last Adam" (1 Cor. 15:45), because He specifically took on human nature, not angelic or any other nature (Heb. 2:14). GM's view is the heresy of panentheism, not biblical theism. It commits the ultimate authority of blurring the foundational distinction between Creator and Creation (Rom.1:25).

an idea that of course is offensive to many Christians.

Yes, true Christians (as opposed to liberal modernists) are offended by modernistic ideas that contradict the Bible!

I argue that that is essentially the scandal of the cross. Furthermore, on the cross God experiences the suffering & death that are part of that process - a crucial consideration for theodicy challenges often directed against TE. & the resurrection of Christ is the reason for hope - not only for humanity but for the world.

This is similar to the Patripassian heresy, where the Father suffers in the Son. I have grave doubts about whether GM is a Trinitarian since he blurs the Persons.

6) Some will be surprised that I've said nothing yet about Gen.1 & 2. There are 2 reasons for that.
a) We are to interpret Genesis in the light of the NT, and specifically in the light of Christ, not vice versa.

Yes, and Christ interpreted the people and events as real history, and said that people were there "from the beginning of creation" not billions of years after a mythical big bang.

7) Briefly on Gen.1 & 2. Recognizing this as part of true & authoritative scripture, we then have to ask what types of literature we're dealing with. Are we to read these as historical narrative, liturgy,theological polemic, or what? Here I'll just make the following points:
a) Gen.1:1-2:4a & 2:4b-25 (briefly, Gen.1 & Gen.2) are separate creation texts that talk about God's creation of the world and life in different ways. They cannot be "harmonized" as historical narratives without doing violence to one or both.

Prove it! Maybe refute articles harmonizing them such asTwo Creation Accounts? This looks like GM denies biblical inerrancy, which means he has departed from the historic evangelicalism.

b) These accounts, read as historical/scientific accounts, do not agree with what science has overwhelmingly shown us about the development of the universe & life.

Everything my textbook claimed as a "proof" of evolution is no such thing - oh, do tell me about the peppered moths, similar embryos, Miller's Experiment, dog breeding and all the other things And even before I was a Christian, my science teacher couldn't answer my questions about evolution!

c) a & b together point to the conclusion that we should not read the Genesis accounts as historical or scientific accounts. They are true & authoritative statements about God & our world & our lives but they are fundamentally theological statements about those things.

Right, this shows that GM's true authority are the human opinions of "science" rather than God's Word.

d) Thus I'm not terribly interested in talking about how Eve could have really (qua historical event) been created from Adam's side. That's an important statement about the unity of humanity & relations between the sexes, & when I read that text when I preside at a wedding
it has profound & true meaning. But I see no reason to talk about some divine transplant surgery + cloning as a scientific event.

But Paul treated it as real history in 1 Tim. 2:13-14 - both the order of creation and the fact that Eve was really deceived while Adam was not. And if Adam was not a real historic first man, then what about Jesus, the Last Adam? Where do the mythical people end and the real people start in Luke 3?

e) While Gen.1 is not an historical account of the way life developed, it's important that the picture that's given of the creation of life is one of mediated creation, God commanding the elemnts of the world to bring forth life in accord with the capabilities he's given them. This understanding was quite common among the church fathers.

No way! They all believed in God's instantaneous creative acts using material He had created, which were different from the way God now sustains His creation. Here is an article
The patristic teaching on evolution

What do the holy Fathers say about this? I have already quoted St.Ephraim the Syrian, whose whole commentary on Genesis describes how all God's creative acts are done in an instant, even though the whole "Days" of creation last 24 hours each. Let us now see what St. Basil the Great says about God's creative acts in the Six Days.

In speaking of the Third Day of creation, St. Basil says: "At this saying all the dense woods appeared; all the trees shot up. Likewise, all the shrubs were immediately thick with leaf and bushy; and the so-called garland plants - rose, myrtle and laurel - all came into existence in a moment of time, although they were not previously upon the earth" (Hexaemeron,V, 6). Again, he says: "'Let the earth bring forth.' This brief command immediately became mighty nature and an elaborate system which brought to perfectionmore swiftly than our thoughts the countless properties of plants" (V, 10). Again, on the Fifth Day: "The command came. Immediately rivers were productive and marshy lakes were fruitful of species proper and natural to each" (VII, 1).

Likewise, St. John Chrysostome, in his commentary on Genesis, teaches:"Today God goes over to the waters and shows us that from them, by His word and command, there proceeded animate creatures. What mind, tell me, can understand this miracle? What tongue will be able worthily to glorify the Creator? He said only: 'Let it bring forth' - and there appeared a great variety of flowers, grasses, and seeds, and everything occurred by His words alone; so also here He said: 'Let the waters bring forth' and suddenly there appeared so many kinds of creeping things, such a variety of birds, that it is impossible even to enumerate them with words" (VII, 3).

Here I reiterate: I believe that in the majority of cases modern science knows more than did the saints Basil the Great, John Chrysostome, Ephraim the Syrian and other fathers concerning the characteristics of fish and similar specific facts; no one will deny that. But who knows more of the ways in which God created: modern science, which is not even sure whether God exists and, in any case, attempts to explain everything without Him; or these divinely-inspired fathers? When you say that God does not create instantly, then I believe that you propound the teaching of contemporary "wisdom" and not the teaching of the holy fathers.

In a certain sense, of course, God's creation is not instantaneous work; but even here the holy fathers are quite precise in their teaching. I have cited St. Ephraim the Syrian, who said: "It is just as intolerable to say that something was created instantaneously which, according to the Scriptures, was created in the course of six days."

Thus St. Gregory the Theologian, asserting, just as did St. Ephraim the Syrian, that creation was not "instantaneous," teaches: "Therefore, the days of creation are counted as something that is first, second, third and so onto the seventh day, and with these days is divided all that has been created and set in motion by indescribable laws, and not produced instantaneously by the Almighty Word, for Whom to think and to speak already means to accomplish in fact. If man, who was honored in being made by God and in His image, was the last to appear in the world, this is in no way amazing; because for him, as for a king, it was necessary to prepare a kingly abode, and only then lead into in the king accompanied by all the other creatures."

And St. John Chrysostome teaches: "The Almighty hand of God and His boundless wisdom would not have had any difficulty in creating everything in one day. But what am I saying? Not even in one instant. But as He had created all existing things not for His own benefit, because He, being all-satisfied, has no need of anything, - but on the contrary, created everything in accordance with His goodness and love for mankind, so He creates in stages, and through the mouth of the blessed prophet (Moses) presents us with a clear exposition of creation.. Why was man created last, if he is the most perfect of all creatures? For a just reason. When a king intends to enter a city, his arm-bearers and other members of his entourage must preceed him, so that the king might enter into a prepared place; similarly God, intending to place a king and master over all earthly creatures, first prepared all the decorations, and then created the master" (III, 3; VIII, 2).

Thus, the patristic teaching clearly tells us that God, although quite able to create everything instantly, preferred to create in stages of increasing perfection, with each stage being accomplished not in an instant, nor in the course of an indefinitely long period of time, but between these two extremes, specifically in six days.

In their commentaries on the book of Genesis, saints Ephraim the Syrian and John Chrysostome clearly look upon God's creation as the work of six regular days, each one of which God creates "immediately" and "instantaneously." Likewise St. Basil the Great, contrary to the widely-accepted opinion of Christian evolutionists, regards the acts of God's creation as immediate and sudden, believing the duration of the Six Days to have been 24 hours each, for he says in regard to the First Day: "And there was the evening, and the morning. The prophet means the duration of day and night. 'And there was the evening and the morning of one day.' Thus is determined the measure of day and night, and is gathered into a single period of time, for 24 hours fillthe duration of one day, if under day one also understands night" (Hexaemeron, II, 8).

As I have already said, I do not believe this question to be of primary significance in examining the problems of evolution; nevertheless, it is an eloquent testimony to the influence of modern philosophy on Christianevolutionists, who cannot wait to re-interpret these Six Days so as not to appear foolish in the eyes of the "wise men" of this world, who have "scientifically proved" that, no matter how creation occurred, it took place throughout millions of years. Of greater importance is the fact that these
Christian evolutionists have such a difficult time believing in a six-day creation, which presented no problems to the holy fathers, because the evolutionists do not understand what precisely occurred in these Six Days: they believe that lengthy natural processes of development took place, in accordance with the laws of our current decaying world; in fact, according to the holy fathers, the nature of that first-created world was totally different from ours, as I will show below.

Let us examine in greater detail another patristic commentary on the book of Genesis, belonging to St. John Chrysostome. Note that I do not cite little-known or dubious fathers, but only the very pillars of Orthodoxy, who present our Orthodox teaching with the greatest clarity and holiness. And in St. John's writings we do not find any "allegories" either, but a very strict interpretation of the text as it has been written. Like other fathers he speaks of Adam having been created literally out of dust, and Eve literally from Adam's rib.

He writes: "If the enemies of truth shall insist that it is impossible to produce something out of nothing, then we shall ask them: was the first man created out of earth or something else? Undoubtedly they will agree with us and will say out of earth. Then let them tell us, how could flesh be formed out of soil? Soil can only produce mud, brick, clay, tile; but how did flesh appear? How did bones, nerves, veins, fat, skin, nails, hair appear? How did so many different materials come from one essence? They will be unable to offer any reply to this" (II, 4). And again St. Chrysostome writes: "God took a single rib, it is said; but how from this single rib did He form a whole creature? Tell me, how did the taking of the rib occur? How did Adam not feel this taking?

"You can say nothing about this; this is known only by Him Who created. God did not produce a new creation, but taking from an already existing creation a certain small part, from this part he made a whole creature. What power the highest Artist God has, to produce from this small part (a rib) the composition of so many members, make so many organs of sense, and form a whole, perfect and complete being" (XV, 2-3).

If you wish, I can quote many other passages from this work, showing that St. John Chrysostome - is he not the chief Orthodox interpreter of Sacred Scripture? - everywhere interprets the sacred text of Genesis as it is written, believing that it was nothing else than an actual serpent (through whom the devil spoke) who tempted our first parents in paradise, that God actually brought all the animals before Adam for him to name, and "the names which Adam gave them remain even until now." (But according to evolutionary doctrine, many animals were extinct by the time of Adam - must we believe that Adam did not name "all the wild beasts" [Gen. 2:19] but only the remnant of them?}

St. John Chrysostome says, when speaking of the rivers of paradise: "Perhaps one who loves to speak from his own wisdom here also will not allow that the rivers are actually rivers, nor that the waters are precisely waters, but will instill in their listeners that they (under the names of rivers and waters) represented something else. But we shall not heed those people, but will believe the Divine Scripture, and following what is written in it, shall strive to preserve in our souls sound dogmas" (XIII, 4).

Is there need to quote more from this Divine Father? Like St. Basil and St. Ephraim he warns us: "Not to believe what is contained in the Divine Scripture, but to introduce something else from one's own mind - this, I believe, subjects those who hazard such a thing to great danger" (XIII, 3).

Before going on I will briefly answer one objection which I have heard from those who defend evolution: they say that if one reads all the Scripture "as it is written" one will only makeoneself ridiculous. They say that if we must believe that Adam was actually made from dust and Eve from Adam's rib, then must we not believe that God has "hands," that He "walks" in Paradise, and the like absurdities? Such an objection could not be made by anyone who has read even a single commentary of the holy Fathers on the book of Genesis. All the holy Fathers distinguish between what is said about creation, which must be taken "as it is written," and what is said about God, which must be understood, as St. John Chrysostome says repeatedly, "in a God-befitting manner." For example, St. Chrysostome writes: "When you hear, beloved, that 'God planted paradise in Eden in the east,' understand the word 'planted' befittingly of God: that is, that He commanded; but concerning the words that follow, believe precisely that paradise was created and in that very place where the Scripture has assigned it" (Homilies on Genesis, XIII, 3).

St. John of Damascus explicitly describes the allegorical interpretation of paradise to be part of a heresy, that of the Origenians. But what, then, are we to understand of those holy Father of profound spiritual life who interpret the book of Genesis and other Holy Scriptures in a spiritual or mystical sense? If we ourselves had not gone so far away from the patristic understanding of Scripture, this would present no problem whatever to us. The same text of Holy Scripture is true "as it is written" and also has a spiritual interpretation. Behold what the great Father of the desert, St. Macarius the Great, says: "That paradise was closed and that a cherubim was commanded to prevent man from entering it by a flaming sword: of this we believe that in visible fashion it was indeed just as it is written, and at the same time we find that this occurs mystically in every soul" (Seven Homilies, IV, 5).

And here is another example of the same. The divine Gregory the Theologian, in his Homily on the Theophany, writes concerning the tree of knowledge: "The tree was, according to my view, contemplation, upon which it is only safe for those who have reached maturity of habit to enter." This is a profound spiritual interpretation, of which our academic scholars might say that St. Gregory completely "allegorizes" the story of Adam and paradise. But now I am going to present an interpretation of the words of St. Gregory the Theologian by a great holy Father who lived a thousand years after him: St. Gregory Palamas, archbishop of Thessalonika. Against St. Gregory Palamas and the other hesychast Fathers who taught the true Orthodox doctrine of the "uncreated light of Mt. Tabor," there rose up the Western rationalist Barlaam. Taking advantage of the fact that St. Maximus the Confessor in one passage had called this light of the Transfiguration a "symbol of theology," Barlaam taught that this light was not a manifestation of the Divinity, not "literally" a divine light, but only a "symbol" of it.This led St. Gregory Palamas to make a reply which illuminates for us the relation between the "symbolical" and "literal" interpretation of Holy Scripture, particularly with regard to the passage from St. Gregory the Theologian which I have quoted above. He writes that Barlaam and others "do not see that Maximus, wise in divine matters, has called the light of the Lord's Transfiguration 'a symbol of theology' only by analogy. In theology, which uses analogies and intends to elevate us, objects which have anexistence of their own become also spiritual symbols; it is in this
sense that Maximus calls this light a "symbol".. Similarly, Gregory the Theologian has called the tree of knowledge of good and evil 'contemplation,' having in his contemplation considered it as a symbol of this contemplation which is intended to elevate us; but it does not follow that what is involved isan illusion without existence of its own. For the divine Maximus also makes Moses the symbol of judgment, and Elijah the symbol of foresight! Are they too then supposed not to have really existed, but to have been invented 'symbolically'?" (Triad II, 3:21-23).

Thus the patristic interpretation of the book of Genesis makes it quiteimpossible to harmonize the account of Genesis with the theory of evolution, which requires an entirely "allegorical" interpretation of the text in many places where the patristic interpretation will not allow this. The doctrine that Adam was created, not from dust, but by development from some other creature, is a novel teaching which is entirely foreign to Orthodox Christianity.

At this point the "Orthodox evolutionist" might try to salvage his position by trying to say that we now know more than the holy Fathers about nature and therefore we really can interpret the book of Genesis better than they. But even the "Orthodox evolutionist" knows that the book of Genesis is not a scientific treatise, but a divinely-inspired work of cosmogony and theology. The interpretation of the divinely-inspired Scripture is clearly the work of God-bearing theologians, not of natural scientists. It is true that in the book of Genesis many "facts" of nature are presented. But it must be carefully noted that these facts are not facts such as we can observe now, but an entirely special kind of facts: the creation of the heaven and the earth, of all animals and plants, of the first man. I have already pointed out that the holy Fathers teach quite clearly that the creation of the firstman Adam, for example, is quite different from the generation of men today; it is only the latter that science can observe, and about the creation of Adam it offers only philosophical speculations, not scientific
knowledge.

According to the holy Fathers, it is possible for us to know something of this first-created world, but this knowledge is not accessible to natural science. I will discuss this question further below.

I have to say that George dismays me. His dogmatic belief in evolution hasled him to positions that are overtly heretical. I don't use this wordmerely of views that contradict YEC, but only of views that contradict the foundational truths of Christianity. Overt heresies are all too common among TEs while they are rare among OECs. And GM has grossly misrepresented the views of the great leaders of the early church to the opposite of what they really taught, but that is something he has in common with a number of OECs.

[Warcraft3]

I would agree that the majority of the church fathers who addressed this particular issue (the issue of the length of the days) were most likey YEC.

The problem I see with some of the quotes is I read alot of general comments about the text without ever reading an explanation of the text.

Many of the comments (despite the eloquent speech, allusions to deep spiritual truths, and references to symbolism) do not address the reasons why a YEC view is troublesome within the text.

I see no explanation for how there can be a "day" and "night" or an "evening" and "morning" without a literal sun.

Impressive sounding language is irrelevant to me unless specific problems are addressed and explained.




Russ

[jkendall]

The problem with this discussion is the faith in science Christians have. Science has its place, but it cannot be used to disprove the evidence of scripture. Science is afterall a discipline developed by fallible men and women who were not there at the time of creation. Only one was present, God, and he has given us His personal eyewitness account of how he created heavens and the earth--the bible.

It amazes, although it shouldn't, how well-educated individuals often miss the simple truth of scripture. When the text reads "so the evening and the morning were the first day." It simply means one single 24-hr day. Recently, I read an article on how a group of scientists are trying to recreate the evolutionary beginnings of life. They are trying to accomplish this using hi-tech equipment designed by intelligent people! They are trying to recreate a random act by intelligent means. The irony of that is laughable.

Unfortunately, Christians are poisoned with the lie evil-lutionary theory that it taints their theology with the concept of millions and billions of years of evoutionary development was necessary for humans and other life to exist. Evolutionary theory is no longer a scientific discipline that has been disproved time and time again. It's sole purpose now is to remove God out of the equation completely in order for man to continue living his life without ever being accountable for his sin to a holy God who abhors his sin.

Science neither proves nor disproves the bible and it never can. It can only confirm what scriptures has already stated about how life came into being.

[Warcraft3]

Hey there jkendall......


Just to let you know.....this thread is about the text mainly, not to debate evolution.

It amazes, although it shouldn't, how well-educated individuals often miss the simple truth of scripture. When the text reads "so the evening and the morning were the first day." It simply means one single 24-hr day.

Then please explain how there can be an "evening" or "morning" without the sun?

Unfortunately, Christians are poisoned with the lie evil-lutionary theory that it taints their theology with the concept of millions and billions of years of evoutionary development was necessary for humans and other life to exist. Evolutionary theory is no longer a scientific discipline that has been disproved time and time again. It's sole purpose now is to remove God out of the equation completely in order for man to continue living his life without ever being accountable for his sin to a holy God who abhors his sin.

Science neither proves nor disproves the bible and it never can. It can only confirm what scriptures has already stated about how life came into being.

This thread is not about evolution. Please stick to the text itself.



Russ

[George Murphy]

I don't think I've ever before had so many heresies attributed to me at one shot! But serious theology requires more than polemic. I'll respond briefly to each point but serve notice now that in the future I will not feel obligated to spend my time replying to posts of people who haven't bothered to read what I've written, who distort it, &c.

That rules out evolution then, since the main reason for believing it was to disallow "a divine foot in the door".

This is so hilariously false that it's not worthy of response.

Bonhoeffer is not Scripture. Paul said that the evidence for God from creation was so clear that people are "without excuse" (Rom. 1:18-32).

Who said Bonhoeffer was scripture? To say that the world points to God as creator (a "pointing" that everybody distorts, which is Paul's real point) does not mean that God has to be invoked as an element of scientific explanation.

Paul argued, the world can't be understood without clearly pointing to God's eternal attributes and divine power.

No, he does not say this & the explanatory power of science in cases quite apart from evolution show that this isn't true. One adds nothing scientifically
to an explanation of planetary motion in terms of the laws of gravitation & mechanics by adding "God does it" - though as a matter of putting science in a larger theological context that's true.

This is an abuse of the kenosis, and is more like the kenotic heresy. First, it was only the Second Person of the Trinity that "emptied himself"; second, this emptying was really an addition of human nature not any subtraction of the divine attributes. In reality, Jesus merely gave up independent exercise of these divine attributes without the Father's authority (which is why He didn't know the day or the hour). See Meaning of kenosis: emptying by adding.

This assumes that kenosis was merely a temporary tactic by one person of the Trinity who in general does insist on clinging to the privileges of divinity. It is better understood, in the context of the theology of the cross, as a revelation of the character of God. "For in 'pouring himself out' and 'humbling himself to death on the cross' Christ Jesus has revealed the character of God himself." [Gordon D. Fee, Paul's Letter to the Philippians (William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids MI, 1995), pp.196.]

This is rank blasphemy, grossly violating the First and Greatest Commandment. And what about Proverbs 1:7 "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge." Proverbs 10:9 says "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom." GM says exactly the opposite. His evolutionary "theology" is so anti-biblical that it can't be called "Christian" any more than Spong can.

You might try reading Eberhard Juengel, God as the Mystery of the World (Eerdmans, 1983), though it may be a bit taxing. I can hardly do justice to it here but he makes the point that to say that God is "necessary" means that the existence of God depends on certain things other than God, and that therefore God should really be said to be "more than necessary." But at the same time the hiddenness of God means that we can operate in the world without recognizing God, & that therefore God can be considered unnecessary. I confess though to being a bit casual with my language previously.

No, the Second Person of the Trinity He especially became "the last Adam" (1 Cor. 15:45), because He specifically took on human nature, not angelic or any other nature (Heb. 2:14). GM's view is the heresy of panentheism, not biblical theism. It commits the ultimate authority of blurring the foundational distinction between Creator and Creation (Rom.1:25).

It would be interesting to know when panentheism has ever been declared a formal heresy - which of course has nothing to do with whether or not I'm a panentheist. & it would be interesting to have you point out the formal error in this argument:

Christ is fully divine & fully human (Jn.1:1-14, &c, Chalcedon).
Evolutionary theory says that humans are part of the evolutionary process.
If evolution is true, Christ qua human is part of the evolutionary process.
Because of the communication of attributes, what is true of the human nature is true of the person.
Therefore the divine Second Person of the Trinity is part of the evolutionary process & God can be said to be part of that process.
(If one accepts a genus tapeinoticum an even stronger statement can be made but I won't insist on that here.)

Yes, true Christians (as opposed to liberal modernists) are offended by modernistic ideas that contradict the Bible!

Those who hold a theology of glory (& as Luther says "do not deserve to be called theologians") are offended by the cross.

This is similar to the Patripassian heresy, where the Father suffers in the Son. I have grave doubts about whether GM is a Trinitarian since he blurs the Persons.

Just knowing the names of heresies doesn't qualify one as a theologian. The patripassian heresy was a type of modalism that says that the Father was crucified. I have not said that It is not the same as what might be called theopaschianism, which says, inter alia, that the Father as well as the Son suffered the separation attendant upon the cross. The really fundamental question is whether God is capable of suffering or whether our theology is to be constrained by the assumptions of Greek philosophy (to state the matter with slight prejudice!) That is indeed an issue but if it's to be discussed, let's do so without all the innuendo. (Of course you know that the theopaschite formula, "One of the Trinity was crucified," was approved at II Constantinople.)

Your statements about my lack of trinitarian belief are horse apples. In fact, my understanding of the Trinity emphasizes the distinction of persons more than some traditional formulations. Moltmann is helpful here, though I certainly don't go all the way with his social view of the Trinity.

Yes, and Christ interpreted the people and events as real history, and said that people were there "from the beginning of creation" not billions of years after a mythical big bang.

No, he didn't. Mk.10:6 is best understood as meaning that from the beginning of creation of humanity God made them male & female. If you insist on interpreting it as "from the beginning of the creation of the universe" it's wrong even on a YEC view because there humanity wasn't created till Day 6, not on Day 1.

& of course the phrase "mythical big bang" is typical YEC smokescreen, like the apocryphal note in the margin of a sermon: "Argument weak here - shout like hell!"

Prove it! Maybe refute articles harmonizing them such asTwo Creation Accounts? This looks like GM denies biblical inerrancy, which means he has departed from the historic evangelicalism.

I don't know why I'm bothering to reply at length since you aqpparently haven't read what I wrote before with any case. Specifically, "Recognizing this as part of true & authoritative scripture, we then have to ask what types of literature we're dealing with."

As to "prove it" - well, just the order of creation of living things is one pointer.
Land plants - sea creatures - land animals - male & female humans isn't the same as male human - land plants - animals - female human.

[quote] Everything my textbook claimed as a "proof" of evolution is no such thing - oh, do tell me about the peppered moths, similar embryos, Miller's Experiment, dog breeding and all the other things And even before I was a Christian, my science teacher couldn't answer my questions about evolution! [quote]

I doubt that you know what constitutes "proof" in science. Fossil distribution
(vertically & horizontally), geographical distribution of extant species, homologies in gross anatomy, biochemical relationships, & embryological similarities (yes - though not in a simplistic Haeckelian sense) are some things that provide considerable supporting evidence for evolution. It is of course not a perfect scientific theory - there is no such thing - but vastly better qua science than proposed alternatives.

Right, this shows that GM's true authority are the human opinions of "science" rather than God's Word.

What I said was, "c) a & b together point to the conclusion that we should not read the Genesis accounts as historical or scientific accounts. They are true & authoritative statements about God & our world & our lives but they are fundamentally theological statements about those things.'

Any fair reader, whether he/she agrees with my view of the genre of the Genesis accounts or not, will see that my view is the opposite of what has been attributed to me.

But Paul treated it as real history in 1 Tim. 2:13-14 - both the order of creation and the fact that Eve was really deceived while Adam was not. And if Adam was not a real historic first man, then what about Jesus, the Last Adam? Where do the mythical people end and the real people start in Luke 3?

The term "mythical is used rather carelessly here but waiving that I'd say, probably around Abraham.

[quote] No way! They all believed in God's instantaneous creative acts using material He had created, which were different from the way God now sustains His creation. Here is an article
The patristic teaching on evolution

'What do the holy Fathers say about this? I have already quoted St.Ephraim the Syrian, whose whole commentary on Genesis describes how all God's creative acts are done in an instant, even though the whole "Days" of creation last 24 hours each. ....'[quote]

It was very generous of you to include this long article but it was also irrelevant. What I said was:

"While Gen.1 is not an historical account of the way life developed, it's important that the picture that's given of the creation of life is one of mediated creation, God commanding the elemnts of the world to bring forth life in accord with the capabilities he's given them. This understanding was quite common among the church fathers."

If you had read this with any care you would have seen that I attributed no evolutionary theory to the Fathers nor did I say anything about the speed with which they believed life to have come forth at God's command. I am not trying to say that the Fathers understood biological evolution or the big bang: We have learned some things since the 4th century. I referred only to their understanding - which is quite clear from Gen.1 itself - that living things were created mediately from the earth & waters. Since your article cites St. Ephrem, I'll quote just the following:

"Thus, through light and water the earth brought forth everything. While God is able to bring forth everything from the earth without these things, it was His will to show that there was nothing created on earth that was not created for the purpose of mankind or for his service." ("Commentary on Genesis" in St. Ephrem the Syrian: Selected Prose Works (The Catholic University of America, Washington, 1994), p.82.)

Ernest Messenger's Evolution and Theology (Macmillan, 1932) has a detailed treatment of the patristic evidence from a fairly conservative RC standpoint.

I have to say that George dismays me. His dogmatic belief in evolution hasled him to positions that are overtly heretical. I don't use this wordmerely of views that contradict YEC, but only of views that contradict the foundational truths of Christianity. Overt heresies are all too common among TEs while they are rare among OECs. And GM has grossly misrepresented the views of the great leaders of the early church to the opposite of what they really taught, but that is something he has in common with a number of OECs.

Just to take the latter point, I have just shown that my supposed misrepresentation of the Fathers is due to your failure to read what I wrote. I try to be reasonably careful with my statements. You don't seem to be so concerned about that.

Shalom,
George

[rogero]

George,

Your last post (#13) was an interesting one and contained valuable counter arguements, but it really needs to be gone through and formatted properly -- dangling "[quotes]" and the like. It would be good to have this done so that it could be used for future reference.

Roger

[Dee Dee Warren]

Can we please keep the thread on topic? I am not the thread starter but am pretty close since I requested it to be started. I do not wish to go through the Hornbook of Heresies, but to examine the Scriptural arguments for TE.