In a discussion concerning theistic evolution and Scripture a comment was made that the more I think about it makes absolute sense, yet it was rejected.


Like I said, this statement was rejected, by saying something like (among other things).

I agree with the first quote, mainly because you can't separate God from His Word. Clearly if theistic evolution is true it would be in direct contradiction with Scripture; thus making God's Word less than reliable. This has other far reaching consequences related to other essential doctrines of Scripture.
Agree or disagree?

Tom

Well, the only possible way that I could find out 100% certain that theistic evolution is true is if God tells me Himself--which can only happen after I die. I won't walk away from the faith in that case.

So you don't see the problem with reconciling theistic evolution with Scripture?

In order for theistic evolution to be true it would (among other things) mean that the description of how God created man in Scripture would need to be rejected. This is especially significant considering that the literal understanding of creation (especially of Adam and Eve) play a big part in understand other essential doctrines of the Christian faith. In other words if we find out theistic evolution is true; we would need to adjust our understanding of other doctrines.
Also, based on what I have read about what "theistic evolutionists believe. They reject a literal Adam and Eve, in favor of other theories because a literal Adam and Eve do not fit with the Scripture narrative.

Basically the only difference between evolutionists and theistic evolutionists is theistic evolutionists believe God directed evolution.
They start with accepting evolution as fact and try to make Scripture fit with it. This is bad hermeneutics.

Tom, I didn't get that from Myshkin's post at all. In fact, I sensed that he rejected theistic evolution.

Perhaps you are correct, I should have picked up on that when he said "after I die",
When I looked at what he said the first time, it looked to me that he was opening up a possible window.
Even thinking about this in the way he put it, if The Lord told him theistic evolution was correct, it seems to me that The Lord would also need to reconcile how theistic evolution doesn't conflict with Scripture.

Tom

Why would God "need to reconcile" anything He spoke or did? For whatever God speaks/does is perfect and without contradiction. The fact that is, God has infinite wisdom and we have an infant/finite wisdom and thus the problem is ours and not His. For example, there is no need for God to have to "reconcile" the truth of His absolute sovereignty and our responsibility, nor the doctrine of the Trinity and/or the Incarnation, nor any other teaching of Scripture that appears to be inconsistent with what WE hold to be true.

The point is simply that if GOD HIMSELF told you that theistic evolution is true, then it is the truth and 100% consistent with all that He has already revealed. He is under no obligation to "reconcile" anything which logically implies that there contradictions attributable to God.

Alas, another of my failed attempts at concise wit.

I was trying to point out the absurdity of the hypothetical situation. I'm not sure there is such a thing as a reasonable response to an absurd situation. A voice from heaven would not be something I'd be 100% certain of (indeed, I'd be very skeptical of it) and science cannot prove anything about the past with 100% certainty. As for those who claim God speaks directly to them, well, let me suggest a good website I found recently: http://www.the-highway.com/charismatic_index.html. In this life, the Bible is the only thing that can give 100% certainty, and it clearly teaches that Adam and Eve were real, the first humans, and they were not born.

But, I have no doubt there are some things we have misunderstood. In humble boldness, I'm quite certain this isn't one of the things we've misunderstood, but if God tells me otherwise after I die, I'm not going to argue with Him. I don't think I've opened any doors by making such statements.

Anyway, that's why I'd reject the first statement. I'd also reject the second statement, especially the last sentence. On the contrary, I believe specifically because the Bible says it.

Personally, I didn't find your 'attempt' to be less than concise, although I admit the 'wit' part escaped me.

Yes, we all 'misunderstand' some things that God has revealed due to the fact that we still possess a remnant of that sin nature that clouds our understanding, perception, desires and affections and our strength to do those things we know are right but don't. It has been said that John Calvin claimed he only had 85% correct. So, if Calvin was only 85% right, where does that leave us?

And lastly, you can be sure that "after you die" you will offer no argument, for you will then possess all that you should know perfectly and embrace it most willingly and with great joy. Doubtless, there is going to be even more that we will learn... throughout eternity, and that's no less exciting.

PS. I, nor most most here, entertain any such idea that God speaks audibly nor in any other manner directly to individuals. The Spirit does give 'promptings' and guides all those in whom He dwells, but all that is to be known about God in regard to faith and practice is to be found ONLY in the inspired, written Word; the Bible. I like the old adage: "God doesn't send postcards or make house calls."

I guess when you put it that way it is hard to argue with.
My problem is more in the here and now; in what He has revealed to us in His Word.
Would you not agree, based on His revealed Word that Theistic Evolution is not compatible with not only the creation story and other doctrines it affects.

Forgive me if what I am trying to say doesn't sense (I think it does), I am just trying to work these out in my mind. I try to have a high view of The Word of God and because of that and how many seem to have such a low view of God's Word; perhaps I am erring too much the other way?
Tom

Absolutely!!

Pilgrim

So you don't think what I am trying to say makes sense?
Or you are not sure what I am trying to say?

Just had another thought that might make sense.
As far as we can tell from the revealed Word of God in the here and now, theistic evolution does not fit with Scripture. Yet, after we are with the Lord He will reveal any errors we have in our understanding of Scripture. At that time, if indeed theistic evolution is true; it will be revealed to us how it fits.
God being God does not owe us anything; but what I see from Scripture we will know a lot more about Him and His creation than we will now.
These thoughts are kind of abstract to me, so I am not even sure I am communicating them properly.

Tom

As Pilgrim said, Absolutely!


Absolutely not. How could one err too much in that direction? My point was that the only authority we have regarding origins is God's Word and that only He can speak with 100% authority. Is there a higher view possible?

My concern is that the statement "If I found out with 100% certainty that theistic evolution is true ..." implies there could be a higher authority or source of truth than God's Word. IMO, that "opens a door." I suppose one could say the "Thankfully, that will never happen" serves the same function as my "after I die" but, IMO, is even less clear because it gives no hint as to why it will never happen.

I think we are all in agreement on basics, just trying to agree on how to best express our beliefs.

Neither!

Here is what you wrote:
And I responded with ... in other words, I do not think you are erring too much the other way.

Thank you, you and Pilgrim have helped me a lot in thinking through these matters.
Its kind of funny, because at times as I write these things, I am aware that I am making myself vulnerable. Yet, for the most part I feel fairly comfortable writing these things on the Highway, because I believe the people who answer do so in love.
Iron sharpening iron.

Tom