Theistic Evolution & Framework Hypothesis

Theistic Evolution & Framework Hypothesis The belief that God used the process of evolution to bring about mankind and all living life forms Proof: Science has proven evolution is true so it must be the way God used to created everything Claims of Theistic Evolution… 1 - Genesis is not historical narrative, but is instead metaphoric 2 – Adam and Eve are metaphoric and did not actually exist

2: The character of God goes against the evolutionary theory 4 – Evolution through natural selection created different species Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods. Theistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God.

We are going to first look at a brief over-view of the theory of evolution, and the science side of it, and then move on for the Biblical side History of Evolution Charles Darwin “God father” of biological evolution Properly understanding what evolution teaches Evidence for evolution? Evidence against evolution?

Problems with Theistic Evolution Problem 1: Misrepresentation of the Nature of God The Bible reveals God to us as our Father in Heaven, who is absolutely perfect, holy, and omnipotent Matthew 5:48: “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Isaiah 6:3: “And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!”

Jeremiah 32:17: “‘Ah, Lord God! It is you who have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your outstretched arm! Nothing is too hard for you.” The Apostle John tells us that ‘God is love’, ‘light’, and ‘life’ When this God creates something, His work is described as ‘very good’ and ‘perfect’. Genesis 1:31: “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.”

Deuteronomy 32:4: “The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he. Theistic evolution gives a false representation of the nature of God because death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as principles of creation. Problem 2: It makes God a “God of the Gaps” The Bible states that God is the Prime Cause of all things. ‘But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things… and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him’ (1 Cor 8:6).

However, in theistic evolution the only workspace allotted to God is that part of nature which evolution cannot ‘explain’ with the means presently at its disposal. In this way He is reduced to being a ‘god of the gaps’ for those phenomena about which there are doubts. Problem 3: Denial of Central Biblical Teachings The entire Bible bears witness that we are dealing with a source of truth authored by God (2 Timothy 3:16), with the Old Testament as the indispensable ‘ramp’ leading to the New Testament

The biblical creation account should not be regarded as a myth, a parable, or an allegory, but as a historical report, because: Biological, astronomical and anthropological facts are given in didactic [teaching] form. In the Ten Commandments God bases the six working days and one day of rest on the same time-span as that described in the creation account In the New Testament Jesus referred to facts of the creation (e.g. Matthew 19:4-5)

Nowhere in the Bible are there any indications that the creation account should be understood in any other way than as a factual report. The doctrine of theistic evolution undermines this basic way of reading the Bible, as vouched for by Jesus, the prophets and the Apostles. Events reported in the Bible are reduced to mythical imagery, and an understanding of the message of the Bible as being true in word and meaning is lost.

Problem 4: Loss of the way for finding God The Bible describes man as being completely ensnared by sin after Adam’s fall Romans 7:18-19: “For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.” Only those persons who realize that they are sinful and lost will seek the Saviour who ‘came to save that which was lost’ (Luke 19:10).

However, evolution knows no sin in the biblical sense of missing one’s purpose (in relation to God). Sin is made meaningless, and that is exactly the opposite of what the Holy Spirit does—He declares sin to be sinful. If sin is seen as a harmless evolutionary factor, then one has lost the key for finding God, which is not resolved by adding ‘God’ to the evolutionary scenario. Problem 5: The Biblical basis for Jesus work of redemption is mythologized The Bible teaches that the first man’s fall into sin was a real event and that this was the direct cause of sin in the world.

‘Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned’ (Romans 5:12). Theistic evolution does not acknowledge Adam as the first man, nor that he was created directly from ‘the dust of the ground’ by God (Genesis 2:7). Most theistic evolutionists regard the creation account as being merely a mythical tale, albeit with some spiritual significance. However, the sinner Adam and the Saviour Jesus are linked together in the Bible—Romans 5:16-18. Thus any theological view which mythologizes Adam undermines the biblical basis of Jesus’ work of redemption.

Problem 6: Loss of Creation Concept Certain essential creation concepts are taught in the Bible. These include: God created matter without using any available material. God created the earth first, and on the fourth day He added the moon, the solar system, our local galaxy, and all other star systems. This sequence conflicts with all ideas of ‘cosmic evolution’, such as the ‘big bang’ cosmology.

Theistic evolution ignores all such biblical creation principles and replaces them with evolutionary notions, thereby contradicting and opposing God’s omnipotent acts of creation. Problem 7: Missing the point In no other historical book do we find so many and such valuable statements of purpose for man, as in the Bible. For example: Man is God’s purpose in creation (Genesis 1:27-28). Man is the purpose of God’s plan of redemption (Isaiah 53:5).

Man is the purpose of the mission of God’s Son (1 John 4:9) We are the purpose of God’s inheritance (Titus 3:7). Heaven is our destination (1 Peter 1:4) However, the very thought of purposefulness is anathema to evolutionists. ‘Evolutionary adaptations never follow a purposeful program, they thus cannot be regarded as teleonomical.’Thus a belief system such as theistic evolution that marries purposefulness with non-purposefulness is a contradiction in terms.

The doctrines of creation and evolution are so strongly divergent that reconciliation is totally impossible. Theistic evolutionists attempt to integrate the two doctrines, however such syncretism reduces the message of the Bible to insignificance. The conclusion is inevitable: There is no support for theistic evolution in the Bible. Much of the intelligent design movement that we see today are promoters of Theistic Evolution While much of the information is good that ID produces, they are not exclusively “Christian”

The Framework hypothesis as an interpretation of Genesis 1 Since the early 1800s, many Christians have accepted the idea that the Earth is billions of years old. This notion contradicts a plain reading of the biblical text so many have searched for a way to harmonize the early chapters of Genesis with the idea of long ages. Many theories have been proposed, such as the Gap Theory, the Day-Age Theory, and Progressive Creationism. However, as these views were promoted, it became apparent that each view was based on arbitrary methods of interpretation and forced contradictions with the biblical text.

In 1924, a new view, The Framework Hypothesis, was developed by ArieNoordtzij, which sought to eliminate these problems. Approximately thirty years later, Meredith Kline popularized the view in the United States while N. H. Ridderbos did the same in Europe. It is currently one of the most popular views of Genesis 1 being taught in seminaries. Despite its popularity in academia, people in our churches have not heard this view fully explained, though they have heard of some of its claims. The Framework Hypothesis is essentially an attempt to reclassify the genre of Genesis 1 as being something other than historical narrative.

they make the claim that Genesis 1 simply reveals that God created everything and that He made man in His own image, but it gives us no information about how or when He did this. The Two Triads of "Days" argument is a premise that all Framework advocates agree with. Framework supporters claim that the two triads of "days" is a topical parallelism where the topics of days 1–3 are parallel with those of days 4–6. In other words, days 1 and 4 are simply two different ways of stating the same event, as are days 2 and 5, and days 3 and 6.

Here is a chart showing it

At first glance, it may seem as if these writers are on to something. However, a closer look reveals some problems with this argument. First, this supposed semi-poetic construction is inconsistent with the fact that Genesis 1 is a historical narrative. Hebrew poetry commonly utilizes a high percentage of imperfect and perfect verbs. By contrast, Hebrew narrative is marked by a high frequency of waw-consecutive preterite verbs that indicate a sequence of events in past tense material. Comparing Judges 4 and 5 shows a good example of these differences.

In Judges 4, the account of Deborah and Barak defeating the forces of Sisera is explained in historical narrative. The following chapter is a poetical song describing the same event. The difference in language is readily apparent even in English translations. The same is true with the historical narrative of Genesis 1 and poetic descriptions of creation activities such as those found in Psalm 104.

The above chart is inconsistent with the text of Genesis 1:1–2:3. Water was not created on the second day, but the first. Genesis 1:2 states, "The Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." This occurred prior to the creation of light on the first day. So perhaps days 1 and 5 should be viewed as parallel. Another problem with this chart is that the "heavenly light-bearers" of day 4 were placed in the "heavens" of day 2 (Genesis 1:14).

This is problematic for the Framework advocate who believes days one and four are the same event viewed from different perspectives, because this must have occurred prior to the event described in days 2 and 5. How could the stars be placed in something that did not exist yet? The order of events is crucial here. The Framework proposes that the days are not chronological, but theological. However, if one rearranges the chronology, then it breaks down into absurdity.

The waters of day 1 must exist for them to be separated on day 2 The sun, moon, and stars of day 4 were placed in the heavens (expanse, firmament) of day 2. The birds of day 5 flew on the face of the firmament of day 2 and multiplied on the land of day 3. While it sounds good initially, when you dig deeper into the text the framework doesn’t make sense Another argument they use is the continuing seventh day

Memory verse: Genesis 1:31: “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.”

Theistic Evolution & Framework Hypothesis