Substitutionary Atonement and Evolution, Part 2 | The BioLogos Forum

Faith & Science Conversation
23

@jabankard
@sygar

Joe,

Thankfully the scenario you gave of aggressive groups of hominids is basically out of date and wrong. I refer you to the last Special Evolution Issue of the Scientific American (Sept, 2014) where there are several articles which debunk this old theory which was based on speculation going back to Darwin and not on scientific facts. Science has been doing much research on the origins of humans through the study of bones and climate which seems not yet to have penetrated the thought of evolutionary biology which deals with genes.

What this research indicates is that humans like other creatures had to overcome and adapt to changes in climate and environment, rather than other creatures. This is the struggle that defined and created humans, not the struggle against one another as Darwin and Darwinism would have it.

This research also indicates that humans were able to successfully adapt because they became basically monogamous which greatly reduced the conflict between males. The creation of the family unit was an important step in the making of humanity.

This research also indicates that humanity was able to outcompete out animals because they worked together beyond familial groups. Peace rather than war was the norm for humans from the beginning. With the use of language conflicts could be worked out mutually without fighting.

Thus this research refutes the Darwinian understanding of Natural Selection as survival of the fittest as the continuous struggle between members of a species. Sadly the science of evolution has done what people accuse Christians of doing, accepting ideas on faith (rather than because they have been scientifically tested) because they seem to be true and other people accept them as true.

Thus there is a basic moral basis for natural humanity before the Fall. Again it would seem that the Fall took place when some humans, a significant number, consciously challenged that moral foundation, and claimed that their self centered way was better than the family centered old way. Individual death is not the enemy as long as it does not disrupt the family and cause harm, so necessary by “old age,” and other natural causes is acceptable, though not good.

24

Joseph, you said:

However, I don’t believe that a loving and just God would will or command the death of Jesus.

Fortunately for us, this is what God chose to do, as clearly indicated by scripture, by the prophets, and by the apostles, and by Jesus himself. Your definition of love is different than God’s definition, just as your definition of justice and retribution seems to be different than God’s. While we may debate the extent of free will and predestination, etc., this issue of justice and God’s wrath on sin, is not really debatable in the same way.

For centuries the Israelites had to offer sacrifices of lambs, bulls, and doves as sin offerings, in payment for their sin. This also is not true justice, since how could the death of an animal pay for the sin of a human? Yet God required it. And it did provide a small measure of justice in that the sinner had to pay for the sacrifice. But every sacrifice was a prophecy of the death and sacrifice of Christ. (This was especially made clear to Abraham, who was asked to sacrifice his own son, thought he would, and then was given a ram as substitute.) It was God’s love that forbid them from offering their children as many did to Baal. (God would offer his own son instead.) You cannot judge God’s love on the basis of your own philosophy or psychology. God is love, and his actions can only be seen in the light of that understanding. God is just, and his actions can only be seen as a reflection of that. We cannot judge God; rather God judges us. As our creator, he has the right to love and judge by his own standards.

God prophesied the death of Christ from the beginning. Did God will it? Yes. Did God want it? Yes and no. God wanted it because he did not want to destroy all of mankind. God did not want it because his son would have to die… it was his son… it was himself who would suffer. But the willingness of God to humiliate himself and his son (which was the same thing) became the means of pure justice and pure grace, and also became the way of demonstrating true obedience at the same time. In our limited faculties, we have difficulty seeing the holistic and comprehensive and integrated way of blending and melding all of these concepts and truths into one great mix. We see contradictory truths, while God sees great harmony.

25

@jabankard wrote:

I certainly agree it does not seem right, however we do it as society every day and no one seems to think it is wrong. In time of war we sent out our innocent sons and daughters knowing that dome of them will die. We employ police and fire fighters to fight the crimes they did not cause and the fires that they did not start. We ask doctors and nurses to tend people with diseases that might kill them.

Sin by definition harms innocent people. If it did not, then it would not be wrong. Sin harms God in that God suffers with those who suffer from sin. God the Father did send God the Son into the world. I am sure that neither the Father nor the Son had any illusions the depth and power of sin in that world or this. They knew what would probably happen and They had a plan for how to handle it if it did. Neither wanted that to happen, but when that was the choice was to die or abort the mission, the choice was to die.

Part of the problem seems to be that we think that the death of Jesus changed God by making forgiveness of humanity possible. I don’t think so. God did not change, but humans changed by learning how deep their sin is and how strong is God’s Love. We are saved through the death of Jesus Christ not because God has changed, but because we are changed by His life, death, and resurrection and the Holy Spirit.

26

Thanks for the reply, Joe. I think you’re on pretty solid ground when you say the witness of the scriptures is that God’s justice is restorative justice. And I think you’re right that it’s hard to see how an atonement theory based on retributive justice can be satisfied by killing an innocent man. (Although the idea that justice is done so long as somebody gets punished might go a long way toward explaining the American criminal justice system.)

On the other hand, there’s a vast amount of scripture and tradition that insists that Christ’s suffering and death in particular–the Cross–have accomplished something instrumental to our salvation. The Gospels and other New Testament writers tell us this was a sacrifice Jesus made intentionally and willingly, and for some purpose.

I think you can say, like Jacob, that the crucifixion was an evil act that God was able to use for good. And I think we can speculate about whether God could have saved humanity in some other way if the people had not rejected and crucified Jesus. But I think you have to go pretty far from scripture and tradition to deny that, as things turned out, the Cross was somehow central to our salvation.

27

Precisely!! Archaic Homo sapiens were not some Nobel Savages (per Rousseau) living in an Eden. They were the most advanced primates (perhaps slightly ‘ahead’ of Neanderthals) and did show evidence of altruism to close kin, but their behavior was still largely instinctual. Only when they ‘ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil’ (i.e. acquired a Conscience) were they able to extend the feeling of kinship beyond immediate family members, thus forming larger, more effective societies which eventually made them ‘Masters of the Planet’ (as Tattersall’s book proclaims). Of course as human societies became larger and more powerful, individuals became subject to ‘Social Conscience’ and the laws that result from it. We must be sure our youth does not believe “it’s OK because everybody is doing it.”
Al Leo

28

Roger, I believe most Christians need to take to heart what you declare here. Jesus death may not have been necessary to ‘change Gosd’s attitude towards humanity’–to atone for humanity’s past offenses–as much as to impress on humanity how important it is to fight against our ‘lower nature’ to reach the ‘higher nature’ God has planned for humanity’s future.
Al Leo

29

One needs to consider what there is variety of opinion of and what is a non-negotiable. Obviously, there are gray issues and black and white issues. To have more than one opinion of mode, purpose and function of baptism is one thing. To have the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate in the church is one thing. To even take sides in the account of Genesis 1 and 2 (24/7 Yec or old earth/theistic evolution) is one thing. BUT, to demote the volitional death of Christ (by God, the Father and God, the Son) as the only path of salvation and the intended purpose of His birth, to a 1st century practice of Palestine and previous cultures is to rend the fabric of grace and make salvation a matter of faith and merit. This is a non-negotiable in my view. I think the testimony of Scripture is clear on this.

30

@aleo

Al,

If you think that the gospel means to fight against our lower nature, I would disagree.

God calls us to love ourselves, which includes our “lower nature,” which is why Darwin and Dawkins are wrong about the “war of nature” and the selfish gene.

Works is working against nature. Faith is working with God and nature.

31

@David_Schwartz

Paul makes salvation through Christ a matter of grace and faith, as against the Law and merit.

I do not see how you can construe anything that we are saying here as making “salvation a matter of faith and merit.” Please explain.

32

How is sin forgiven if not by action (even if we’re talking about the offer of forgiveness)? The question then is whose action forgives. If God does not act to forgive sin by propitiation for our works than how does He forgive if He is just. The Judge does not wink at sin anymore than a judge winks at crime. The human judge would be unjust to do so. God does not will sin away. He deals with it, hence the reason for the substitutionary atonement. Any other way makes the burden of pardon our load to bear or makes God unjust if the crime is not dealt with. It is not a matter of understanding Gods Justice through the working of the American penal code but human understanding of crime and punishment pointing us to an absolutely just and offended Sovereign. It is within this context that we can truly understand mercy and forgiveness. This is His work of grace that if accepted by faith absolves us of all sin and imputes to us His very righteousness and makes us “accepted in the Beloved”.

33

Thanks for your post Roger. I think you make an important correction to my response about evolution and human nature. Early human groups were very good at cooperating with in-group members. This included kin, but it extended beyond kin as well. This type of altruism is not often found in other animals and it certainly helped early human groups out compete other animals and other, more selfish, rival groups. However, the in-group cooperation (altruism) that you highlight was contrasted with incredible aggression and competition with out-groups. This required violence, selfish instincts (me and my tribe first), etc… And this is exactly what we see in humans today. We are very good are cooperating, sharing, and helping in-group members. But we are very harsh on out-group members. We can see this in large scale behaviors like racism, slavery, sexism, etc… But we can also see it in little things like sports allegiances, religious affiliation, etc… Before the first sin, early humans would have instincts that made it very difficult to treat all humans equally, to love all equally, etc… It would’ve been a very harsh and difficult existence filled with outside threats that required behavior not necessarily in line with Christ or the kingdom of God. So my question continues to be, what did the early humans fall from? It wasn’t a state of perfection (if evolution is true). This doesn’t mean original sin or the fall is totally incompatible with evolution, but it does make things more difficult.

Thanks again.

34

The subject can only be discussed as Sin and Redemption. Except for Jesus Christ, God’s ‘own Son,’ (and God Himself) all have sinned; from Adam downwards our race has been in bondage under sin and death. Sin is breaking, or living, contrary to the Law of God, and the universal aspect of this is often discussed as the ‘works of the flesh’ which are in conflict with the Spirit. Unless these matters are understood, discussions of so called “theories of atonement” are vacuous.

This site has provided many odd and often un-Christian notions of the Law, and when this takes place, subsequent discussions become pointless. This is made obvious by statements that seek to question God’s justice – the act of killing Christ, innocent of breaking the Law, was one performed by human beings. The reason why the Son of God submitted to human injustice is because He knew what would happen – He offered Himself and effected ‘reconciliation (atonement)’ for mankind—a fact certified by His resurrection. This is why faith in Him who thus ‘died and rose again’ for us, makes the individual man participator in the common salvation and brings peace with God '(Ro 3:22-25; 5:1, 2; Eph 2:13-18, etc.); faith is the trustful and submissive hand of the sinner meeting God’s outstretched hand of grace in Christ. The act of God in saving ‘him who is of faith in Jesus,’ Paul speaks of as ‘justification.’ This is forgiving of past sins and granting (act of grace) the sinner the status of a righteous man and is set thereby in the way of becoming righteous in life and conduct in Christ. Hence justification implies ‘adoption,’ as God’s children. This restitution of the sinner is not merely an act of love on God’s part: He is ‘just’ though He ‘justifies the ungodly’, and His action is legal in the highest sense. The redemption that is in Christ Jesus includes completing man’s salvation, the resurrection of Jesus given as the pledge.

The birth of Christ shows us that God creates a human being and in Christ, the human being is without sin throughout His life – this counters Adam, who was also the human God created, but such a human being could not live according to God’s will. The entire subject is understood within the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ –and the power of the Law, since Christ showed the Law could not have the power of death over Christ – because He was without sin.

I have adopted language that most Protestant/evangelical Christians would understand – but these comments are mirrored by Orthodoxy.

35

@jabankard

Thank you for your response. We are discussing what happened before history, so it is difficult to get a clear picture of exactly what really happened. One thing that I find very problematic is that you say that because people are sinful today after the Fall, they must have been sinful before the Fall. This does not follow.

The other thing is you still are assuming that the conflict scenario of Darwinian evolution holds when it does not. Science if it means anything must follow certain rules, one of them is testing of all ideas and rejection if they do not prove to be right. This aspect of Darwinian evolution has not been tested and there is much evidence to indicate that it is false. If we are going to relate theology to science, we must be careful to make sure the science is good science.

The primary lesson of the Fall that I take away from the Genesis narrative is that Eve and Adam consciously disobeyed YHWH and of course the rule was very simple. This does not mean that Adam did not stub his toe and let out some choice swear words, or Eve did not do something else that we might call a sin today. Life was simple and the rule was simple.

Until the serpent appeared on the scene there is no evidence that eve and Adam even considered eating the fruit, but the words of the serpent forced them to think about it and they agreed with the serpent that YHWH was keeping them from being like YHWH by telling them not to eat the fruit.

Really Eve and Adam had the knowledge of what was good and what was evil, because YHWH told them what was evil and what was good. What they did not have was an existential knowledge of sin, because sin was not a part of their lives. Sin was not a part of the life of YHWH either, but YHWH knew the results of sin, which they did not.

Eve and Adam accepted the serpent’s story about the fruit and ate it. Then they rationalized their behavior and did not take responsibility for it. This sin alienated them from God and each other and brought sin and shame into the world.

Rationality generally is good, but it does have a negative side. When people do wrong they often invent a reason to justify that wrong. This lie then takes a life of its own and becomes the source of sin, rather than the result of sin. Thus sin begets sin and the whole thing mushrooms. Humans generally hate to admit that they are wrong or were wrong.

A couple of other points. Scientists say that modern humans grew out of a population of a few thousand, which is not the same as two people, but still not a very large population. What I am suggesting is that this relatively small and probably close knit group that shared the same genes was more like a family or a tribe, rather than the diverse warring populations that you seem to suggest, which would come into existence after the Fall.

A test of your theory could be the relationship between Homo Sapiens and the Neanderthals. I do not think that there is evidence that we committed genocide against them. There is genetic evidence that Homo Sapiens intermarried with them, which would seem to indicate that they were not a separate species. Thus it would seem that there is some evidence that the conflict between them was not that as great as Darwinism would predict.

History past, present, and future indicates that hatred and war are not in the interest of humanity! They may be necessary on occasion because many people have not learned this lesson, but once we begin rationalizing war and making it the norm as Jihadists and Dick Cheney are doing, then we are lost in an endless cycle of violence. When we accept the Darwinist view of nature, that is what we are doing.

36

Dr. Bankard,

It is of course highly suggested to 1) go back to the original sources and also 2) ask “What did (so-and-so) mean when he/she/they used the term, ‘X’?”

For instance, “how does Athanasius in ‘On the Incarnation’ describe something like “the Fall”?” or “How did Augustine in Enchiriddion, chapter 118, describe the four stages of the Christian’s life, and how does that elucidate pre-Fall and fallen man?” or “How did various Reformers describe Original Sin?”

Modern Evangelicals and the above tend to agree on certain key points: 1) the image of God was not destroyed, but was damaged by the First Sin, the “original sin”, 2) pre-Fall man was not a sinner and capable of obeying God but also capable of sinning (posse non peccare et posse peccare), 3) as soon as Adam sinned, all sinned (Romans 5:12, 19). (Now I know that the eph’o [“through whom” or “in whom” is debated.) 4) All human beings subsequent to the first sin are born in a state apart from the life of God, and therefore cannot but sin – they lost the ability not to sin. However, their sin also precludes them from the life of God (I’m paraphrasing a modern articulation and interpretation of Romans 5:12, 19, Thomas R. Schreiner’s Baker Exegetical Commentary on Romans [BECNT series]).

My articulation of the four spheres of the effects of sin is from N. T. Wright and I believe he was exegeting from Genesis 3. Sin affects 1) our relationship with God, 2) our relationship with others, 3) our relationship with ourselves, and 4) our relationship with Creation. Creation itself became twisted (Genesis 3:17-19).

When you talk about selfishness, that is a symptom of original sin, not talking about original sin and a sinful nature. As Augustine puts it, we are only posse peccare, only has the power to sin. It doesn’t mean we are as sinful as possible, but everything we do is tainted with sin – we do not do things with perfect motives, we are not as loving as possible, etc. Surely the symptoms of original sin – self-CENTEREDness, preoccupation with our own interests to the exclusion of others, etc. – are evident. I’d go out on a limb and say that the “carnal Christian” or what the Bible speaks of as “the flesh” would be exhibit selfishness and behaviors of “evolutionary advantage.”

I can conceive of a world that there is animal death, decay and extinction prior to the arrival of homo sapiens sapiens. I do not think that you have to extrapolate current behaviors to what Adam and Eve were like (or the first humans and their instincts). I point this out as an extrapolation.

[Survival of a species is not exactly a “zero-sum game,” or “someone has to win and someone has to lose.” There are some species that have symbiotic relations such that within two or more species, both (or two or more members of multiple species) have to “win” or at least do well for everyone to survive. Or both members of species benefit from each other without affect the other one. (Speaking of mutualism and commensalism respectively.) But this is a rabbit trail I do not wish to chase.]

For whatever reason, until God names the Tree of Knowledge-Of-Good-And-Evil, there is no sin. That it is a tree and that there is fruit are probably significant details that theologians have observed over the years. It is very specifically a transgression against Special Revelation that marks the first sin, the original sin, such that Adam’s and Eve’s (and humanity’s) nature was radically and forever changed (= the Fall) as well as the rest of Creation.

Schreiner’s posit (my paraphrase) that “Adam’s sin changed us such that every human being thereafter does not have the life of God in him or her [they are separated from God], and therefore as a result of this alienation, they sin. And this sin precludes them from the life of God.” (BECNT, Romans, p. 277) The exact quote is, “Paul does indeed claim that people die because of sin, but he also insists that they sin because they are dead (i.e., separated from God). All human beings enter the world alienated from God, and as a result of this alienation, they sin. It is also true that they will experience eschatological death if they sin.” This avoids the Augustinian view of inherited guilt or transmission of sin through biological means.

37

Thanks Michael. The key is HOW is the cross central to our salvation? I don’t deny the centrality of the cross (along with the entire Christ event which includes incarnation, teachings, death and resurrection) as central to our salvation. But if we mean the cross is central because God was not able to forgive without blood, then I disagree. I don’t think the blood of the cross is what appeases God’s anger or wrath. But I think the cross is central for other reasons. Namely, the way it represents the way of our salvation. It represents God’s kenotic love (God’s nature) and it is a call for us to live likewise (through the power and grace of the Holy Spirit that gets unleashed at the Cross).

Thanks again.

Joe

38

Joe,

This is HOW the cross is central, “For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through BLOOD OF THE CROSS.
21 And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled 22 in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight—23 if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.”

1 Like
39

@Agapetos

Thank you for your comment.

Concerning the rabbit trail that you for good reason did not want to go down because it denies a basic tenet of Darwinian evolution. I would submit that not some species are symbiotic, but almost all of not all do. For instance humans have symbiotic relationships with their pets and domesticated animals. We also have literally billions of symbiots living in our body. Predators and prey are symbiots. Herbivores and the plants they eat are interdependent or symbiotic.

Life is a non-zero sum game, which is what Dawkins refuses to accept. Other species are blessed by God-given instinct to accept this so all may flourish. While it is true that not some flourish more than others. Humans for some reason expect that all their offspring will live a long happy life, but this is not possible or even desirable for most species. Nature overproduces offspring for more than one good reason, one of them being to facilitate evolution.

Also evolution takes place according to group selection, another thing that Dawkins does not accept. Extinction takes place when a species loses its environmental niche, not when it is defeated by some rival. Look at the dinosaurs.

Sin which is being self-centered came about though the Fall, when humans developed the ability to think and decide that their way was better then God’s way. It was not the result of the need to survive as Darwin would have it, because that is false. Humans did not survive and flourish because they were selfish, but because they were not selfish.

God hated sin because sin is bad for humans. God does not want to punish us, God wants to change us so we no longer sin and hurt ourselves and others. Thus the Cross is about reconciliation based on forgiveness and repentance, not punishment.

40

@David_Schwartz

David,

You should use the @ which will bring us my name when you respond to what I have written.

Not to disagree with most of what you say, but the problem is that human judges can not and do not for the most part provide restorative justice. The best they can do is provide closure, which certainly is worthwhile and good.

On the other hand God can and does provide restorative justice. After Job suffered the loss of his family, wealth, and health, YHWH restored him with health and a long life, a big family, and twice as much wealth after he forgave his friends and prayed for them.

God is not concerned about punishment but he is concerned about restoration of relationships damaged by sin. This does mean sacrifice. This does mean that God sacrifices his right to punish us for all the evil we have done against God. Also it means that we must sacrifice our right to punish others for the evil they have done to us.

We must forgive as we have been forgiven. We must show forth the fruits of salvation. This is what I thought that you meant by merit. Salvation is free in that it is not earned, but a gift. However salvation means a change in relationships between us and God and us and others, so if this change is not evident by a change in attitude and behavior there can be question as to we are saved or not.

Nota bene. This change in behavior can take time, so that we need to be patient with ourselves and God if we do not always behave the way we should.

The Fruit of the Spirit is not works as we think about them. It is not standing up for the right causes as our church defines them or being on fire for the Lord. (Galatians 5:22-23)
“22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness,
23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.”

Forgiveness is not letting sin dictate who we are and what we do. While it is costly, it is well worth the cost for us and for God.

41

Can you arrive at this idea from Scripture or the tradition of the apostles, though, or is it something you can only arrive at through logical deduction based a on premises of human ideas of what God must be like?

Why would Jesus pray “please take this cup from me…not my will, but yours be done” in the Garden, if the cross were not in some sense genuinely willed by God the Father? Why would we speak of the Son’s death in terms of obedience (in the great Christological hymn of Philippians 2) if his obedience was only to the will of sinful men, not God’s plan?

I understand the revulsion at certain charicatures of penal substitution which present an angry God who takes out his hostility and vengeance on an innocent victim in order to satisfy the demands of his righteous wrath. I would submit that the most vocal proponents of this view have major issues with their Trinitarian theology, as can be seen by the acceptance of the Subordinationalism nonsense some of them propose, where the Son is eternally and ontologically subordinate to the Father. But I don’t think that the appropriate response to people going off the deep end in one direction is going off the deep end in the other.

It sounds like this post is saying the whole point of Christ’s suffering and dying was just to know what suffering and dying felt like so God can be more sympathetic to humans. How do you reconcile this with the repeated contention in Scripture that it is by spiritual union with Christ in his sacrificial death and resurecction that we are made right with God, made fit for life in the Kingdom, and guaranteed hope in the Resurrection to come? Why has the cross been the historical symbol of the Christian faith if in actuality, it was not God’s will and it did not really accomplish anything in the spiritual realm, if it was not really a victory over evil?

2 Likes
42

@Relates

Yes, I’ve got to work on my # and @'s.

As far as restorative vs. punitive justice I would say I agree with what you said about restorative justice. He delivers the widow and the orphan from the oppression of the wicked. But He also punishes the wicked for their oppression. Mans justice is almost solely punitive while Gods is both. We, as Christians, are to pursue both.

1 Like