Evolution and God's Sovereignty (and the BioLogos view)

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@Eddie
@Christy

Excuse me for butting in (but it is my blog and you have refused to stay on topic.)

Eddie, when you talk about sovereignty you are talking about God’s relationship to God Creation.

There are traditionally two ways to see God’s relationship to the Creation. The first is to say that God has absolute control. That seems to be the way Eddie tends to cast this problem, but absolute control borders if not becomes monism or pantheism and determinism.

In his recent response to Albert he toned down this view and said that God does not have absolute control, just general control.

The other view is Western dualism which no one likes but everyone basically practices, if not espouses, especially modernists. God controls the spiritual, while nature has its own realm. Christians claim that God is sovereign over nature, but how we have not worked out. It just is.

A new view is the triune view of reality. God and Nature are separate, but related. Just as God created humans with a triune nature, God created the universe with a triune nature. God governs humans by divine moral law and the Spirit. God governs nature by natural law and the Spirit.

God does not govern by direct control, even though God could govern by direct control, thus it is a triune system or systems.

Eddie, if you are going to make the question that of Sovereignty, you have not changed it. The question is still cosmology/world view or monism, dualism, or triune.

It is an important question, but it is not one that you have solved. You need to solve it before you can expect Christy to address it.

[GJDS]

@Christy

The main ‘sticking point’ that BioLogos has not dealt with in terms of their stated goals (i.e. ‘faith and science’ and ‘evolution is not contrary to God as creator’), is the notion that evolution is truly random - if we think this through, it removes God as creator in a formal theological sense. What at times seems to me is this; articles posted on this forum seem to skirt the issue (e.g. stochastic as random, or God uses chance, and so on). An interesting article (I hope my cut and paste works) that gives a somewhat subtle treatment of God and the creation is by BRIAN D. ROBINETTE, THE DIFFERENCE NOTHING MAKES: CREATIO EX NIHILO, RESURRECTION, AND DIVINE GRATUITY, Theological Studies 72 (2011). This article also examines claims by some who believe God is weak. is sometimes ‘stumped’ by His creation, and perhaps He gets into trouble with evil, and so on - putting these somewhat humorous outlooks to one side, I think BioLogos has real theological problems in this area - it is not a bad thing to remind BL of this.

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@Christy
@Eddie

@Eddie

I’m merely reporting what is universally agreed upon by all the Fathers, all the Scholastics, all the Reformers, and even Arminius and Wesley – that God’s sovereignty – at least over nature (free will is a more complex question) – is complete. If you have a problem with that view, your problem is with the Christian tradition, not with me.

First of all I never said that traditional theology was wrong, even though it is flawed. Its problem is that it does answer some of the key questions that people have today, in large part because it is based on outdated philosophy.

Second, you cannot hide behind tradition. That is what the Pharisees said, and they were dead wrong. If you insist in living before 1800, that is your decision.

Third, before Paley and Darwin were theologians really concerned as to how God created the platypus. If they thought that God created species individually, then of course God willed each one into being.

Four, however once it has been determined that God works through scientific natural laws, then the idea that God wills individual events life causing the sun to shine and the rain to fall to happen. That does not mean that God is not behind these events, but God doe not need to micromanage or micro-will.

And God saw that there was something missing in His plan. So God made some dinosaurs bipedal and gave some of these feathers, not for flying, but for insulation. Then God willed that these dinosaurs shrink in size, while He made the others grow quickly in size.

Then God caused an asteroid to hit the earth so the large dinosaurs without feathers would slowly die out. God willed that the small dinosaurs with feathers to develop their upper limbs as wings and their dinosaurs bills into beaks for eating insects, seeds, and small animals. And so God willed birds into existence.

Five, what I keep telling you is that you have break out of your dualist view, that life is either random or determined. That is a false dichotomy. There is a middle ground, and that middle ground is “freedom,” which is both structured and not determined.

You continue to associate TE’s and me with Wesleyan theology, because it does assert freedom over against predestination of your friend Calvin. However neither theology is adequate to justify freedom. This is why I suspect your opponents except for me are silent an sovereignty.

Six, Sovereignty has traditionally meant predestination, but nature ruled by divine natural law is too
complex to be understood that way, which is the reason that Lou gives for rejecting God. Thus it is understood as ruled by freedom or random chance. The right understanding is freedom, but this can only be explained by the complex/one cosmology, that you refuse to consider.

Seven, I am critical for scientists for rejecting scientific evidence contradicting Darwinism. I am critical of philosophers and theologians for rejecting philosophical and theological reasons for questioning Darwinism.

Please respond rather than just asserting that your views are traditional.

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@Christy

@Christy

Over many generations the dog population in that area has a much higher concentration of corn digesting dogs in it than in populations of dogs where meat is available.

Even using this example the dogs in this situation who able to adapt by whatever way to a corn diet, are selected in by Natural Selection. No one says that they asked for this gift. Usually a species is malleable to some extent and those who have the right genes or right abilities are selected in by Natural Selection because they are BETTER ADAPTED to take advantage of the resources found in the ENVIRONMENT.

My point is that it is the environment that determines which genes will survive, Without the environment of poverty, the tortilla gene would not be selected in.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@Eddie

I’m not at all “insecure” as you suggest.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I wasn’t suggesting you were insecure. Just that sometimes your argumentation style brings out other people’s insecurity, and that may be one reason why they drop out of conversations. If someone feels like they have to spend an hour on Wikipedia and check out and read a few library books in order to be worthy of responding to your points (not saying you made them feel that way on purpose, it’s their issue) they will probably just bow out. It’s my impression that most people are pretty insecure and defensive and tend to take things more personally than was intended, and that makes communication a challenge.

@Eddie

Or rather, studying DNA and coming up with a veto on doctrine, a ruling on what Christian theology is allowed to say?

It’s not the first time a doctrine has been reevaluated. Is it really that awful to say you think Christian theology is only “allowed” to say true things? I don’t think of that as imposing an unwarranted hierarchy of science over theology so much as applying the definition of Christian theology. Theology is the pursuit of the truth about God and his actions in the world. By definition, it can’t assert demonstrably false things. That’s not telling theology what it’s allowed to do, it’s being coherent. So yes, if traditional doctrine asserts that women are less human than men or Africans are less human than Europeans and we come to believe that is demonstrably false, we “veto” the traditional thought on the matter. I understand primageniture is more central and reevaluating it creates bigger theological waves, and the whole thing should be approached with appropriate caution and humility. I understand not everyone accepts that the traditional doctrine is demonstrably false. But no, I don’t agree that just because a pattern of thought has a long tradition in the church, it can never be “vetoed” by something true.

I think the discussion of sovereignty is important and interesting. But it will inevitably involve some conjecture and lack of clarity, because there is a lot about sovereignty that is not clear from Scripture. And unlike science which has continually developing avenues of investigation, theology has a finite revelation and a finite tradition. So there should be room in the discussion for people to admit that their way of conceiving things and relating an objective discipline to a subjective discipline is not airtight. Pretty much every attempt to describe sovereignty consistently will fall apart somewhere under scrutiny.

@Eddie

Rather, the claim is made, but the working definition of the term is not revealed. And that is just not the way theology is done. “Defining your terms” is as important a procedure in theology as in any other subject.

Good point. Though sometimes easier said than done. And a lot of time the conversation derails on the definitions.

@Relates

Excuse me for butting in (but it is my blog and you have refused to stay on topic.)

Sorry. You could see if Brad can make it a new topic. I agree that we need a more robust conception of sovereignty than the ones that are currently available.

@GJDS The discussions of how random is still subject to sovereignty have hurt my brain sometimes. I think the word is used in different senses too often and it muddies the waters a bit. It seems to me there is random as a mathematical term (not able to be predicted by us) and random as a naturalistic philosophical claim (not controlled by God) and it is not always clear in what sense the word random is being used by a particular writer or commenter.

@Relates

what I keep telling you is that you have break out of your dualist view, that life is either random or determined. That is a false dichotomy.

Yes, I think so too.

@Relates

My point is that it is the environment that determines which genes will survive, Without the environment of poverty, the tortilla gene would not be selected in.

Yes, that is my understanding too.

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@Christy

@Christy

Yes, that is my understanding too.

Good, so we agree that natural selection and thus evolution is based on adaption.

[BradKramer]

@Christy @GJDS @Eddie @Relates

Your wish is my command.

@Christy

You could see if Brad can make it a new topic.

[GJDS]

@Christy

You attracted many comments - I think you have more stamina for these discussions than I, but getting back to random. I suggest a random/sovereignty approach again avoids the issue, which is that “God is the Creator”. Such a phrase is not simply a matter of tradition that is subject to revision, but a dogma that defines the Christian faith. Put simply, all Christians will agree with the phrase, but making that into an article of faith, a core belief, can lead to outlooks that eventually contradict the meaning of God as Creator. Random becomes one issue that we can obsess and argue. The notion of creation goes back to all major philosophies and beliefs - Christianity shows the creator has acted in a way that cannot be related to anything we know and can test. This approach takes us to the dogmatics of the Church and eventually we are left with discussions on human agency, and some erroneous views emerge to attribute agency to God. When people reach such a point, they indulge in further error, in that they put forward ‘how God’ has done this or that, placing God in either a causal chain, or as someone who is more powerful, but only in degree, than us (and on and on it goes, we are in the image of God, we too can create, nature is free to become, process theology, knowledge from science provides proof, etc. etc). My short remarks show why such outlooks develop into notions that the theology of the Church may be wrong, and become part of great confusion and error (not a personal remark Christy, simply a response to your comments).

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@Eddie

And it doesn’t matter what the genetic evidence says; if Paul etc. say otherwise, there is a theological problem that can’t be just swept away.

You’re absolutely right. But I don’t think most people are downplaying the fact that it’s a theological problem. Peter Enns used those exact words in that Historical Adam roundtable that was linked here a while back.

@Eddie

What I’m saying is that if genetics has proved a theological teaching false, it is important to say that openly rather than to pretend that genetics is perfectly compatible with what the tradition has taught all along.

Do you really think that is what BioLogos is doing? It seems to me that’s what AiG is doing.

@Eddie

If the BioLogos leaders would be frank about that – if they would say outright that certain past theological teachings are false and that science has proved it – I would not have a dialogical problem. I might disagree over what science has “proved,” but I would not object to the frankness and directness. What I do object to is pussyfooting around.

But those be fightin’ words, and it’s so much more gracious to say “that interpretation is less preferable.” As I see it, and I don’t have any inside information or anything, BioLogos’ main focus has been trying to expand the Evangelical tent a bit so that their view is an option on the menu that isn’t treated like fried rat or dog food, but maybe more like sushi. Not for everyone, but some people like it, and that’s okay. I don’t think they (in contrast to other groups) have been focused on arguing that their view is the best or right-est, though undoubtedly most of them believe it is. But your rhetoric is shaped by your purpose and your intended audience and the place you feel you have or don’t have in the existing structure.

@Eddie

you said “primogeniture”, presumably accidentally

Yes, I’ve been reading ethnographies and must have kinship systems on the brain.

@Eddie

I’m asking for clarity of position – and that is a very, very hard thing to obtain from the scientist-TEs who dominate BioLogos and the TE/EC movement generally.

But can you blame people for wanting to stick to their field. Kenton Sparks and Peter Enns and other NT and OT scholars whose names I have not memorized have come out and said as much. They have said in black and white that Paul was mistaken (understandably so) and so was the church for most of its history (understandably so), so now let’s talk about how that’s relevant to how we understand the Bible and the Christian message.

@Eddie

Always there is a tendency to “fuzz” things so that what modern science says is represented as what the Bible or tradition was saying all along.

I have never seen this. Do you remember a specific post you could point out as an example of what you mean?

@Eddie

Wouldn’t that apply to every orthodox Christian doctrine – Trinity, Providence, Incarnation, Eschatology, Sacraments, Election, Fall, etc.? So do we stop binding Christians of the various confessions (Reformed, Anglican, Lutheran, Catholic, etc.) to the doctrines of their confessions, because “Pretty much every” doctrine will not bear scrutiny when analyzed for consistency?

Well, I think that is one of the reasons we put our faith in the Person of Jesus Christ, not in our preferred systematic theology. In every attempt to systematize theology you end up pounding some square pegs into round holes and telling yourself it sort of fits. If we’re honest, we know the Bible is messy, and the Church is messy, and our Christian history is messy, and it’s never all going to line up in neat little rows.

@Eddie

I would hope that you are not saying: “Christian theology is far too filled with vagueness and uncertainty to be very definite on any of these big issues, so we might as well just go with what science says (because science, unlike theology, is precise and clear), and adjust our Christian theology to whatever science declares to be necessary.”

No, I think science is a lot messier and full of fallible human constructs than scientists pretend it is. That’s why science and theology need to be in dialogue. And yes, a no holds barred free-for-all where everyone picks their favorite theological flavor of the month is no good. But, I would say spiritual authority rests with the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit. That is what we are bound by and to, not by or to a tradition or a confession. I believe The Holy Spirit has been and is moving in history and through the Church to bring us more and more in line with God’s peace and justice. This whole discussion is taking place as the Church is wrestling with the questions of our time and place, as the Church has done throughout history. The Church is an organic and responsive body with a mission, not something static and decontextualized.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

I’m not sure I grasp all of what you are saying, but I agree with the idea that saying God is the Creator has to have a lot of meaning in it. To affirm God is the Creator is to assert more than God is the First Cause or God is the Designer or God is the Source. If you end up with a Creator who doesn’t really do anything creative, somewhere you’ve messed things up.

[GJDS]

@Christy
I cannot use the cut and paste for some reason.

God as Creator places us in a dependent position, but we can only speak of God as absolute, and thus there is no reciprocal dependence that causes God to be related to His creation in some way – the absolute negates such concepts. God as Creator is a phrase that points us to this absolute – what we say is ‘less than complete’. My previous reference (Robinette) approaches this by discussing (among other things) power, transcendence and immanence - thus power cannot be discussed as greater strength than something else, or a means to dominate or enforce others into subjection. Transcendence cannot mean a larger distance, while immanence cannot mean God cannot ensure His creation is good, or He is trying His best to make some things good (theodicy). The power to create is far more than the power of a Sovereign (to enforce), although this point is at times mixed up.

St. John of Damascus discusses our limitations when we use terms related to God. Getting back to what I think is the topic; sovereignty is contrasted to an evolving system in which outcomes are unpredictable, and the term ‘random’ (you feel it is scientific, and also philosophical?) provides this false contrast. Sovereignty in this context cannot relate to God, as this makes it appear that He has servants that obey Him and the outcomes are related to this, or the term may mean that God is working daily and the outcomes can enable us to how well (or good) this ‘god-activity’ has become (a bit like process theology). A ‘God activity’ deals with the Kingdom of God, which is not of this world – that is where we can legitimately speak of the Sovereign and His Kingdom.

Obviously the discussion can be lengthy – the points that should define these discussions, to ensure they are theologically relevant, are:

(a) God as creator is absolute, and the Church has formulated dogma that seek to provide a clear understanding of this – I include doctrines such as the Trinity, eternity, Law of God, and all discussions that speak of the Kingdom of God.

(b) All knowledge of the Universe provided by science are derived from the creation and speak to our capability to access the creation as a material thing (this world) and the legitimate response for a Christian is that the Creation point to its Creator - and we go back to point (a).

© Nothing that we as human beings obtain as knowledge can show us how and what God has done as Creator – science is a product of human activity and intelligence – specifically evolution cannot provide insights that clarify or modify Christian dogma – nor does the Christian faith prevent or force anyone to avoid any knowledge obtained from any of the sciences or any other human activity – this freedom is also part of the creation and this takes us again, back to (a).

If we accept ©, discussions on evolution, or Darwin’s paradigm, must be limited to what can be examined scientifically – all scientists (theists or atheists) are free to provide opinion and theory. Atheists do not have any other concerns, so their comments of theology are nonsense – theists otoh are obligated to either become theologically literate, or should avoid making theological statements derived from any scientific investigation. I prefer scientists to understand enough theology to at least fit in with points (a)-©. If they do not, or cannot, it is legitimate to point this out and negate their opinions.

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@Eddie,

You love to create and attack straw men.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@Eddie

On another of your points, no, I don’t blame people for wanting to stick to their field. But you can’t argue it both ways. You can’t say that it’s good when BioLogos scientists won’t comment on theology because it’s not in their field, but also good when BioLogos columnists do comment on theology but then won’t defend their statements.

Not what I said. I said it’s good for people to reflect on their field in light of their faith, and it’s good for people to share their thoughts. It wasn’t a point in an argument, it was an opinion.

Again I think the goal of the communication is important. Are they always “making claims” and arguing for a position, or are they sometimes “sharing thoughts”? People who make claims should be expected to defend their claims. But we should also create space where people can process and share their thoughts without the expectation that every thought they put into words is an argument of firmly held beliefs they intend to defend to the bitter end.

@Eddie

You say that spiritual authority rests with the Church. But that is a meaningless concession unless the Church has authority to enforce its understanding on its members. “Authority” means that individuals don’t get to say or do what they want, but are bound by rules made by the collective.

We undoubtedly have different conceptions of Church and authority. My husband’s sister and her husband are Roman Catholic academics. I have seen way more “fuzziness” and “pussyfooting” in the way they defend, justify, and obfuscate their (what I think are) not-Pope-approved beliefs than I have seen from Protestants, but that’s beside the point. Just because a church insists on doctrinal unity, doesn’t mean their members all believe the same thing. Protestants just have more freedom to be renegades. Almost every Protestant I know disagrees or has a different understanding than the official position of their denomination on some issue. Most people draw lines between primary and secondary theological issues. Putting Adam and Eve into the secondary issue category is a debatable choice, but a lot of Protestants would put it there.

Greg Boyd is from my denomination. So is John Piper. So, yeah, the idea of the denomination micromanaging the theology of its members is foreign to my experience. We have a high tolerance for diversity.

Points taken. I understand the frustration. I am off to enjoy my weekend and I will let you all finish off this discussion that I’m not exactly sure how or why I got into in the first place.

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@GJDS
cited the following work:

[quote=“GJDS, post:
16, topic:2555”]
BRIAN D. ROBINETTE, THE DIFFERENCE NOTHING MAKES: CREATIO EX NIHILO, RESURRECTION, AND DIVINE GRATUITY, Theological Studies 72 (2011).
[/quote]

After a google search I found this text in Academia.edu, which is an excellent resource.

I agree with much of Robinette writes. He does not explicitly use the Trinitarian methodology which I use, but he rejects traditional dualisms such as immanence and transcendence in favor of a both/and point of view to which I ascribe.

I think that he represents a new wave of Trinitarian theological thinking found on Academia.edu, including my writing and that of Ryan Mullins. Theology is far too important to allow to stultify because of old outdated philosophical concepts. God is not God of the dead, but of the living, as Jesus said.

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@GJDS

You cannot make an absolute separation between God and Humanity, the Spiritual and the Natural, Theology and Science. Jesus Christ Himself is both God and Human. He is God with us.

While God might be exhausted in Jesus Christ, He is fully God, we cannot say that we thoroughly understand God and Jesus Christ based on human theology, just as we cannot say that we completely understand God Creation based on today’s science.

The problem I find with Darwinian evolution is not that it leads to bad cosmology, but that it is bad science and for this reason leads to bad cosmology. Current science, the Big Bang Theory, points to the creation out of nothing. Certainly that is not the only or even the primary reason why we believe in God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it is an important one and a gift we should accept and proclaim.