A Question for the Evolutionist (of any stripe)

[John Bauer]

You mentioned Adam. If he wasn't evolved, what was he?

He was not evolved because evolution happens to populations over generations, not to individuals in their lifetime. Adam was just a guy, like you or me, who lived roughly 6,000 years ago.

How about the biblical Adam?

Well, yes ... <confused look> ... that is precisely what I said ("pointing to the first few chapters of Genesis").

I fail to see any type of evolution there, theistic or otherwise.

Same here.

Theistic evolution or typical evolution cannot explain death, except by borrowing from biblical revelation.

All right, I am putting a stop to this by calling out the fallacy of equivocation here (invoking rule 4.4). In this discussion, you may no longer fail to distinguish between physical and spiritual death.

In order for me to respond, you must specify which of the following were you saying:

1. Theistic evolution or typical evolution cannot explain physical death, except by borrowing from biblical revelation.

2. Theistic evolution or typical evolution cannot explain spiritual death, except by borrowing from biblical revelation.

Was that when the primates became man?

Primates never became man.

The problem with your question is that it treats "primates" as if they were a single creature that later turned into humans. That is not how this works. Primates didn't turn into humans. Rather, humans are one species inside the primate group (which includes lemurs, lorises, tarsiers, monkeys, and other apes). Lineages branch, not transform.

And that happened several million years ago. Adam lived roughly 6,000 years ago.

 

[John Bauer]

Although it's accurate that we can draw a spiritual connection concerning federal headship, that wasn't the message the author of the Pentateuch intended to communicate. Moreover, the idea of spiritual death was entirely unfamiliar to the children of Israel. It would take thousands of years before this was elaborated on in the Pauline epistles.

Correct. Later revelation unpacks what earlier revelation assumed, implied, or signified in seed form. The Pentateuch often states realities without giving their later, Pauline-level conceptual vocabulary. Paul did not invent spiritual death; he was explicating its covenantal implications.

 

[Carbon]

We seem to? You said there was death before the fall with animals and plants and wondered how I would explain that in light of Romans 5. Your question carries the implication that the death spoken of by Paul applies to animals and plants—otherwise, why would it be something that needs to be explained?

I believe, you misunderstood. I believe there was death before the fall, ie. animals and plants died.
Mankind did not die until after the fall.

Since you believe we came from Apes ( - you say). Then I said, ape's would be an animal species giving birth to humanist. And since there are no links proving this, that would be, punctuated equilibrium, which is nonsense IMO.
Then you said, apes are not human, mankind is human.

Agreed, because it's not a logical identity but rather a relation. That makes it a one-way street: All humans are apes, but not all apes are human. In other words (as it relates to your question), the death spoken of by Paul applies to only one genus of ape: mankind. It doesn't apply to plants or other animals, such as "chimpanzees, baboons, gorillas, etc."

Prove this using scripture.

 

[John Bauer]

I believe you misunderstood. I believe there was death before the fall, ie. animals and plants died. Mankind did not die until after the fall.

So, unless you're trading on an equivocation—and I sincerely hope that isn't the case—you believe there was physical death before the fall but not among mankind until after the fall. And the reason you believe there was no physical death among mankind until after the fall is because of Romans 5.

Do I have that right, now?

Since you believe we came from apes ...

That is incorrect. See post 30 (here), where I denied "an ape to a human" evolution, as you called it. We did not evolve from apes. We are evolved apes.

So, let's change your question to reflect my actual position:

Since you believe we [are evolved] apes, then [an ape species gave] birth to humans. And, since there are no links proving this, that would be punctuated equilibrium—which is nonsense, in my opinion. Then you said apes are not human, mankind is human.

1. You're right, that certainly is nonsense.

2. However, it is not punctuated equilibrium. It is a crude caricature of saltationism, the idea (rejected long ago) that a new species appears in a single generation (Wikipedia, s.v. "Saltation"). That is not something affirmed or taught in evolutionary biology, nor do I accept or believe it.

3. I did not say "apes are not human"—I said, rather, "All humans are apes, but not all apes are human" (post 40).

4. And saying "mankind is human" is like saying water is H₂0—it's tautological (i.e., repeats the same idea in different words). It is not something I would ever say.

Note: I would like to formally request that my views be accurately represented when interacting with them. If criticizing something I believe, please quote my belief verbatim first.

Prove this using scripture.

Which part of that paragraph are you asking me to prove from Scripture? That the logic of the claim is a one-way street? That not all humans are apes? That not all apes are human? That the death spoken of by Paul applies only to mankind?

 

[prism]

In order for me to respond, you must specify which of the following were you saying:

1. Theistic evolution or typical evolution cannot explain physical death, except by borrowing from biblical revelation.

2. Theistic evolution or typical evolution cannot explain spiritual death, except by borrowing from biblical revelation.

God made no distinction between spiritual and physical death when He told Adam, "of every tree of the carton you make freely eat
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Since then, man has died both spiritually and physically. So the answer is both.

 

[John Bauer]

God made no distinction between spiritual and physical death when He told Adam, "of every tree of the carton you make freely eat
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Since then, man has died both spiritually and physically. So the answer is both.

Does later revelation (e.g., Romans) unpack what earlier revelation assumed, implied, or signified in seed form (Genesis)?

 

[prism]

Does later revelation (e.g., Romans) unpack what earlier revelation assumed, implied, or signified in seed form (Genesis)?

No, because God's truth is a unified whole. i.e., God's Spirit, being the Author of all Scripture, knew what needed to be revealed from the beginning, to draw His elect unto Himself.

 

[Carbon]

Note: I would like to formally request that my views be accurately represented when interacting with them. If criticizing something I believe, please quote my belief verbatim first.

Fair enough. I hope I wasnt to out of line. I think its best if I bow out of the convo we were having.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

So, unless you're trading on an equivocation—and I sincerely hope that isn't the case—you believe there was physical death before the fall but not among mankind until after the fall. And the reason you believe there was no physical death among mankind until after the fall is because of Romans 5.

Do I have that right, now?



That is incorrect. See post 30 (here), where I denied "an ape to a human" evolution, as you called it. We did not evolve from apes. We are evolved apes.

So, let's change your question to reflect my actual position:



1. You're right, that certainly is nonsense.

2. However, it is not punctuated equilibrium. It is a crude caricature of saltationism, the idea (rejected long ago) that a new species appears in a single generation (Wikipedia, s.v. "Saltation"). That is not something affirmed or taught in evolutionary biology, nor do I accept or believe it.

3. I did not say "apes are not human"—I said, rather, "All humans are apes, but not all apes are human" (post 40).

4. And saying "mankind is human" is like saying water is H₂0—it's tautological (i.e., repeats the same idea in different words). It is not something I would ever say.

Note: I would like to formally request that my views be accurately represented when interacting with them. If criticizing something I believe, please quote my belief verbatim first.



Which part of that paragraph are you asking me to prove from Scripture? That the logic of the claim is a one-way street? That not all humans are apes? That not all apes are human? That the death spoken of by Paul applies only to mankind?

We did not evolve from apes. We are evolved apes.

So we are apes?

Please explain this.

 

[John Bauer]

Does later revelation (e.g., Romans) unpack what earlier revelation assumed, implied, or signified in seed form (Genesis)?

No, because God's truth is a unified whole. i.e., God's Spirit, being the Author of all Scripture, knew what needed to be revealed from the beginning, to draw His elect unto Himself.

We might not be able to continue this discussion, then, for that is so far outside of orthodoxy that there is almost no way forward. As I understand it, orthodox Christianity—from patristic through medieval to Reformed—has always affirmed that revelation is organic, not static. Your view, as stated here, would shipwreck the whole rationale of typology, ordinances, covenant development, prophetic anticipation, and apostolic interpretation.

For example, if Genesis and Romans contain an identical level of revealed content, then the incarnation, the cross, the resurrection, and the apostolic witness add no new cognitive content about redemption. Not just my view of Adam and Genesis but my entire theology rests on the biblical idea that mysteries once hidden are now revealed (Rom. 16:25-26; Eph. 3:4-6; Col. 1:26-27).

Concerning this salvation, the prophets who predicted the grace that would come to you searched and investigated carefully. They probed into what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating when he testified beforehand about the sufferings appointed for Christ and his subsequent glory. They were shown that they were serving not themselves but you, in regard to the things now announced to you through those who proclaimed the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things angels long to catch a glimpse of. (1 Pet. 1:10-12)
​

 

[John Bauer]

Fair enough. I hope I wasn't too out of line. I think its best if I bow out of the convo we were having.

I don't think it would have been out of line if it was corrected. But you now have me curious: Why would you choose bowing out over accurately representing my position?

 

[John Bauer]

So we are apes?

Please explain this.

Taxonomically, yes. We are animals (Kingdom); we are chordates (Phylum); we are mammals (Class); we are primates (Order); we are apes (Family); we are Homo sapiens (Genus and Species).

 

[prism]

We might not be able to continue this discussion, then, for that is so far outside of orthodoxy that there is almost no way forward. As I understand it, orthodox Christianity—from patristic through medieval to Reformed—has always affirmed that revelation is organic, not static. Your view, as stated here, would shipwreck the whole rationale of typology, ordinances, covenant development, prophetic anticipation, and apostolic interpretation.

For example, if Genesis and Romans contain an identical level of revealed content, then the incarnation, the cross, the resurrection, and the apostolic witness add no new cognitive content about redemption. Not just my view of Adam and Genesis but my entire theology rests on the biblical idea that mysteries once hidden are now revealed (Rom. 16:25-26; Eph. 3:4-6; Col. 1:26-27).

​

​

I guess one of us is a bit confused. In any case how does a constancy in revelation lead one into theistic evolution when the author of Hebrews states?…

Hebrews 11:3 KJV
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

 

[Carbon]

I don't think it would have been out of line if it was corrected. But you now have me curious: Why would you choose bowing out over accurately representing my position?

I just don’t have the time to dig deep into these things you mentioned, which would be unfair and or disrespectful to you if I continued. I disagree on these things, but another time would be better to continue this discussion. I’m presently into another study where most of my time is going.

Blessings

 

[John Bauer]

I guess one of us is a bit confused. In any case how does a constancy in revelation lead one into theistic evolution when the author of Hebrews states?…

Hebrews 11:3 KJV
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

I am not sure what you intend by "a constancy in revelation." If you mean your earlier claim—that revelation does not progress, that there is no real difference between OT and NT clarity—then I genuinely don't see how your view would "lead one into theistic evolution." Your view collapses all revelation into a single, undifferentiated deposit, leading to hyper-literalism, not away from it.

My position is different. I affirm that revelation does progress. And my theistic evolution doesn't conflict with Hebrews 11:3, which is making a metaphysical point, not a mechanistic one—that the visible world has its origin in the invisible God. My view affirms the same thing. The text affirms God as the unseen origin of the visible order; it doesn’t deny providential means of governing natural order or history. Just as I believe that a baby is the product of human reproduction AND that God knits us together in the womb, so I believe that species arise from biological evolution AND that God is the one who forms and makes them.

 

[John Bauer]

I just don’t have the time to dig deep into these things you mentioned, which would be unfair and or disrespectful to you if I continued.

Fair enough, brother. I hope that one day you can find the time to press me on my views. Iron sharpens iron, especially when it is someone I admire and respect.

 

[JesusFan]

I am not sure what you intend by "a constancy in revelation." If you mean your earlier claim—that revelation does not progress, that there is no real difference between OT and NT clarity—then I genuinely don't see how your view would "lead one into theistic evolution." Your view collapses all revelation into a single, undifferentiated deposit, leading to hyper-literalism, not away from it.

My position is different. I affirm that revelation does progress. And my theistic evolution doesn't conflict with Hebrews 11:3, which is making a metaphysical point, not a mechanistic one—that the visible world has its origin in the invisible God. My view affirms the same thing. The text affirms God as the unseen origin of the visible order; it doesn’t deny providential means of governing natural order or history. Just as I believe that a baby is the product of human reproduction AND that God knits us together in the womb, so I believe that species arise from biological evolution AND that God is the one who forms and makes them.

Would you hold then that Adam and Eve were first humans, via special direct creation, and not evolved from prior r primates? Would you agree that while there is evolution in a sense within the species, they never changed into a distinct different species?

 

[prism]

I am not sure what you intend by "a constancy in revelation."

Seeing it is one author, the Holy Spirit, with one intention (To point to Christ), this is what I mean by constancy in revelation. That would not be outside orthodoxy (your post #50). I would contend that theistic evolution is outside orthodoxy, seeing that the theory of evolution is quite recent, even after the Puritans,(about the same time as the dispensationalists). So what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

" If you mean your earlier claim—that revelation does not progress, that there is no real difference between OT and NT clarity—then I genuinely don't see how your view would "lead one into theistic evolution."

Correct (on the red).

Your view collapses all revelation into a single, undifferentiated deposit, leading to hyper-literalism, not away from it.

That is your opinion.
My opinion is that spiritualizing the text leads one down all kinds of rabbit holes. The Old Testament prophecies were literally fulfilled not spiritually or metaphysically.

 

[Carbon]

Fair enough, brother. I hope that one day you can find the time to press me on my views. Iron sharpens iron, especially when it is someone I admire and respect.

is it accurate that to say you're an advocate of theistic evolotion?

 

[Carbon]

is it accurate that to say you're an advocate of theistic evolotion?

@John Bauer

Curious brother, have you heard of and listened to Stephen C. Meyer?