What is Theistic Evolution

Three basic views seek to explain the origin of the universe: Theism (creation ex nihilo), pantheism (derivation ex Deo) and materialism (origin ex materia). As a model of origins theistic evolution combines elements from the first and the last previous views. Generally speaking, theistic evolution is the belief that God used evolutionary processes as his means of creating the various forms of physical life existing on our planet, including human life.¹ Two major versions of this belief are:

Minimal Theistic Evolution

According to which God performed two supernatural acts of creation: (1) the creation of matter out of nothing, and (2) the creation of first life. After that every other living thing, including human beings, emerged by natural processes that God had ordained from the beginning.

Maximal Theistic Evolution

Which holds that God performed at least three supernatural acts of creation: matter, first life, and the human soul. After the initial creation of matter and life, all animal organisms, including the human body, evolved by natural laws God established from the very beginning

It follows, however, that not all forms of evolution involving God technically amount to the same kind of theistic evolution, since many of them do not involve a theistic concept of God.² “Theistic” is a term used to imply various degrees of God’s involvement.³ On the one hand, it may resemble a deist reference to God’s initial action and subsequent non-interference. On the other hand, it may refer to God’s continual activity throughout the processes of life’s origin and development resembling more a progressive creationist model.⁴ For theistic evolutionists all material processes are divinely governed and directed, and “evolutionary processes are no exception.”⁵

A Widespread Theory

Theistic evolution is a broadly widespread theory held by both Catholic and non-Catholic believers including evangelical thinkers. The closest to becoming official among Roman Catholics was Pope John Paul II’s message, delivered on October 22, 1996, in this very city (Rome), to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in plenary session, that there is no real conflict between the Scripture (and theology) and the findings of science.⁶ Therefore, “In order to mark out the limits of their own proper fields, theologians and those working on the exegesis of the Scripture need to be well informed regarding the results of the latest scientific research,”⁷ affirmed the Pope.

John Paul II went beyond Pope Pius XII—who had called evolution “a hypothesis”—by declaring it “more than a hypothesis,” meaning a theory. However, he quoted and endorsed his antecessor’s “essential point” in his 1950 Humani Generis Encyclical letter on the origin of humanity: “If the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God.”⁸

The “living matter which existed previously,” i.e., before the creation of man, is a veiled but quite clear reference to a most highly developed specimen among primates, who, after God’s bestowal of his Spirit on him [“the spiritual soul”], became conscious of having come to be a human being. This interpretation of the origin of man is a verbal echo of Gen. 2:7 from a theistic evolutionist perspective, also maintained by some evangelical thinkers.

Theistic evolution is a reigning paradigm among Protestant —even evangelical— scholars.⁹ This realization surprised me for the first time and amazed me as I conducted my doctoral dissertation research at Andrews University. Believed among Roman Catholics, Protestants—including evangelicals—¹⁰ and others, the influence of theistic evolution has continue to grow and to strengthen ever since.

Theistic evolution is not only expanding its influence. It is actually shaping the worldview of multitudes around the globe on the issue of origins. It is being taught in the classrooms, published in magazines, books, and scholarly papers, fervently exposed by its advocates, and colorfully and persuasively spread through massive media. Widely watched worldwide television channels like Discovery and National Geographic expose it alongside atheistic or naturalistic evolution. It is being funded by influential academic organizations and economically powerful Foundations, like the John Templeton Foundation, and many others. “Theistic evolution is also, of course, the way that accommodationist organizations like the US National Center for Science Education have chosen to go.”¹¹

These moves are intentional. As an evolutionist University of Chicago professor, Jerry A. Coyne affirms: “The only reason that TE [theistic evolution] even exists, unlike ‘theistic physics’ and ‘theistic chemistry,’ is that biology is uniquely placed to hit religion in the solar plexus.”¹²

Such a broad and widely spread influence and aggressive advance has missiological implications for Seventh-day Adventism. Theistic evolution as school of thought cannot, must not, be ignored by Adventist scholars. Never should have been in the past, and certainly not nowadays when it is making inroads among our ranks.

Core Tenets of Theistic Evolution

Even though various forms of theistic evolution may differ in detail,¹³ the following basic tenets are common in the model as a whole:

1. The Bible is NOT a reliable source of scientific knowledge about the origin of the earth and the universe, including living things—because it was never intended to teach us about science.
   Comment: This statement regarding the origin of the earth and the universe applies also to their future. Theistic evolutionists consider biblical passages about a blissful future for the universe as merely illusions from people less informed than we.

2. The Bible IS a reliable source of knowledge about God and spiritual things.
   Comment: This apparently broad and inclusive statement has definite limits because even in spiritual things Bible statements are not supposed to be taken at face value. In fact, there is “a canon within the canon” and literal biblical language about the end of the world is rejected just as a literal reading about creation is rejected. The same applies to a final judgement in which humans will be saved or damned.

3. Scientific evidence is irrelevant to the Bible—it is simply not a science book.
   Comment: That the Bible is not a science book means that it is intended to convey only spiritual teachings, but even so it is not to be interpreted literally. With this approach some theistic evolutionists maintain that all humans will be changed through purgation and sanctification in sheol and paradise following death, implying a continuing of evolution after death.

4. The creation story in Genesis 1 is a confession of faith in the true creator, intended to refute pantheism and polytheism, not to tell us how God actually created the world.
   Comment: This belief motivates many Christian Theologians, including evangelicals, to claim that science and theology are equal and mutually interacting approaches to reality and, therefore, to teach that the Bible does not prohibit God’s use of evolutionary mechanisms to accomplish his creative will.

5. The Bible tells us THAT God created, not how God created. Belief in God the creator is consistent with science, and even supported by some aspects of science; but, it is not a substitute for scientific explanations.¹⁴
   Comment: What this belief is directly addressing is that “God actually created life through evolution, although Genesis plainly says otherwise.” Here evolution equates natural selection and the transformation of species.¹⁵ Evolution is an ever upward process, hence, there is no need of a future golden age made possible by a substitutionary atonement.¹⁶

According to theistic evolution, in order for us to be able to gain insights regarding God’s modus operandi in the creation of the world, we have to resort to science. And here is why: God directly intervened at the beginning of the creative process, and ever since has worked from within through evolution.¹⁷ There may have been at some subsequent point a direct creative act modifying some living creature by giving it a soul or a spiritual nature; thus the first man came to be. Other than such an exception, however, theistic evolution views God’s later creative work as occurring through immanent means.¹⁸

In theistic evolution death is generally conceived as a divine institution rather than as the result of sin. Death anteceded Adam. Ideal conditions may have existed within the Garden but not outside of it. The premise underlying this conviction is that death is essentially good and not evil. That is why death is expected to be present even in the millennial age.¹⁹

It is commonly held by theistic evolutionist scholars that the other creation stories in Mesopotamia, such as the Enuma Elish account, form the basis for the biblical account of creation. The fact has been noted that theistic evolutionists look at the Genesis account of creation as either myth, saga, or poetry, in which the only factual information is that God created through natural processes.

Implications for Adventist Eschatology

I concur with Norman Gulley when he writes that “to proclaim Christ as Creator as Scripture does (supernaturalism), necessitates questioning the naturalism of evolution.”²⁰ Evolution is now questioned in its theistic version by pointing out implications for Adventist eschatology.

First, we will refer to basic principles for eschatological interpretation, and then we will look at Adventist eschatological beliefs and see how they are impacted by theistic evolution.

Implications for Key Principles of Eschatological Interpretation²¹

The “Now and not yet” principle. Theistic evolution does not take the Scripture at face value and dismisses the future fulfilment of biblical events.

The Bible interprets itself. The Bible cannot interpret itself because for theistic evolutionist interpreters there is a canon within the canon. Thus, it is the interpreter who has to determine what is acceptable as truth and what is not.

The Christological fulfillment. Belief in theistic evolution invalidates this principle because evolution is an ever upward process that renders Christ’s transforming, intercessory, and saving work unnecessary.

The ecclesiological fulfillment. The church is a community of faith; faith in supernatural realities ruled out by theistic evolution’s naturalistic and materialistic emphasis.

The universalization of territorial promises. A principle cancelled because according to theistic evolution the biblical characters to whom God’s promises were given were not real, did not exist, to begin with.

The literal, historical fulfillment. No literal fulfillment can be expected in the interpretation of prophecies framed in written texts that have evolved over a long time and of whose real origin no one can be certain.

The difference between the “time of the end” and “the last days.” This principle is negated and becomes no more than a word-play because from the perspective of theistic evolution there is no end as announced in the Bible; no final days to be concerned about.

Type meets antitype. A principle nullified by theistic evolution teaching that people from the past, who were less informed than we, have been naturally superseded by modern people who know better.

The “gospel hermeneutics.” Theistic evolution’s teaching that death is a natural phenomenon and not the result from sin, makes void the need of salvation from sin through the death of Jesus, which is the essence of the gospel. Therefore, textual interpretation in light of such a gospel is ruled out.

Correlation between the OT and the NT (between Daniel and Revelation). This principle is out of place in a theistic evolution worldview in which prophetic and apostolic claims for divine inspiration and supernatural revelation are negated and replaced with the teachings of the natural sciences.

Implications for Adventist Eschatological Beliefs

We will now consider the impact of theistic evolution on Adventist eschatology in light of ten distinctive eschatological teachings:

Old Testament Messianic prophecies and their fulfillment. Theistic evolutionary theory of an ever upward process of human development and betterment renders unnecessary the Old Testament promise of a Messiah coming to save his people from the consequences of the Fall. Thus, God’s amazing demonstration of love in sending his Son is not appreciated and the extraordinary miracle of the incarnation is denied. “Naturalism has no place for this supernatural event into human history.”²²

Prophecies are extraordinary occurrences. They are utterances of the divine mind, in themselves evidence of the supernatural interaction of God with humanity (John 13:19), a concept that do not fit in the methodological naturalism of theistic evolution which calls into question not only Messianic prophecies, but other biblical prophecies as well.

Additionally, by accepting death as a natural reality before the sin of Adam, as theistic evolution does, the theological validity of the New Testament analogy between Adam as the originator of death and Christ, the long expected Messiah as the author of restoration of life, is nullified.²³

Jesus’ teachings on the time of the end. Jesus’ perspective and teaching about the time of the end presuppose a deterioration of the world’s condition as time advance toward the close of history. This scenario as outlined in the Gospels (cf. Matt. 24; Mark 13; Luke 21) does not square with the ever-increasing betterment implied in theistic evolutionary theory. The prophetic picture of the moral conditions prevailing at the time of the end, foreseen by Jesus and echoed by his apostles (for example, 2 Tim. 3:1-5), are the opposite to what should be the case if evolution was true. Both cannot be right. Acceptance of one negatively affects the other.

If theistic evolution is accepted along with the uniformitarianism which is proper to it, then Jesus’ predictions of extraordinary upheavals in nature by the time of the end (Luke 21:11), including the heavenly bodies (Matt. 24:29; Mark 13:25; Luke 21:26), are denied and the Savior’s credibility is seriously questioned.

The great controversy between good and evil. The great controversy theme and its overarching integrative character is probably the greatest contribution of Adventism to theology. Therefore, an Adventist believer who accepts theistic evolution as a viable theory of origins must be aware of implications in this area. Adventists have been given divine revelation regarding the great controversy and its origin in Lucifer’s heart as he harbored jealousy toward Christ on not having been consulted by God for the creation of man. Ellen G. White writes:

“I saw that when God said to his SON, Let us make man in our image, Satan was jealous of JESUS. He wished to be consulted concerning the formation of man. He was filled with envy, jealousy and hatred. . . Until this time all heaven was in order, harmony and perfect subjection to the government of GOD.”²⁴

According to this God-given revelation the great controversy originated over the issue of the creation of humanity. If theistic evolution is right and man has evolved, the Adventist understanding of the origin of the controversy is wrong and the end-time angelic proclamation of God as the Creator (Rev. 14:7) is not right and loses its power.

Norman Gulley is correct in warning: “If the Seventh-day Adventist church ever accepted theistic evolution it would unwittingly find itself on the wrong side of the cosmic controversy by contributing to a worldview that distorts the truth about God, the hallmark of the controversy”²⁵ He asks, “if death is the last enemy to be destroyed at the end of the great controversy (1 Cor. 15:26), then how could God use it to create before and after the beginning of the controversy?”²⁶

The great controversy theme is so central to Adventist theology that it is important to look at implications not only related to its beginning but also to its end. Theistic evolution, as does progressive creationism, involves the concept of a creatio continua through vertical radiation. The concept concerns not only physical betterment; it includes humanity’s continual spiritual growth until we reach what Pierre Teilhard de Chardin called “the Omega point;” when we will finally reach oneness with God.

It is quite difficult to guide persons whose minds are dominated by these ideas and think of themselves as so illuminated, to accept their condition as fallen sinners in need of salvation. Any invitation to admit their sinful condition is as offensive to them as their sinful condition is offensive to God. This situation might explain the attitude of multitudes who, in facing the divine judgements of the time of the end, will refuse to repent of what they have done and give glory to God (Rev. 16:9, 11).

We mentioned above that the broad and growing influence of theistic evolution has missiological implications for us as Seventh-day Adventists. The end result of our mission is for the salvation of souls. However, belief in theistic continual evolution will prevent people from accepting the salvation that Christ offers and is willing to give them; and not only that. As a deadly component of Babylon’s maddening wine (Rev. 17:5; 14:8), evolution is a belief with the fearful potential to neutralize the understanding of the soteriological purpose of eschatological events and concepts. These include, the beast, her mark and her image, the anti-Christ, the wrath of the Lamb, the last plagues, the seal of the living God, and so forth.

The close of probation. As Adventists we believe that the end of all things is near (1 Pe 4:7) and that we have but a relatively short time, of which even Satan knows about (Rev. 12:12), to announce the good news of the gospel to those around us and to secure our own salvation in the fear of the Lord (Phil. 2:12). Such a vital conviction is difficult to maintain and to live by if one entertains the concept of deep time inherent in theistic evolution, to say the least.

Christ’s intercessory ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. The fall of humanity set in motion the divine plan designed from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8) for their rescue should man fall into sin. An important phase of the plan is Christ’s intercessory ministry on our behalf in the heavenly sanctuary (Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:25). The significance of that ministry has been illustrated in the rituals performed daily in the Israelite sanctuary, and its solemnity, in the yearly service of the day of atonement (Lev. 16; 23:26-32).

The object of Christ’s ministry and the entire plan of redemption is to save us from the consequence of sin, which is death (Rom. 5:9-12; Heb. 2:14). Embracing theistic evolution negatively impacts such ministry. First, because death anteceded sin; it is not connected to it. Second, because death is not the wages of sin, though Scripture says it is (Rom. 6:23). Third, if follows that we have no need to be saved from death as the consequence of sin. And, finally, as a result of all of the former, Christ’s heavenly ministry becomes unnecessary.

Ed Zinke, summarily, points out,

Theistic evolution nullifies Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, in His church, and in the new earth. First, if God does not create by fiat creation, if He does not communicate directly to humanity, if He does not become incarnate, if there is no fall from the image of God and therefore no need for a substitute to bring about reconciliation, then surely God does not do such things as minister on humankind’s behalf in a heavenly sanctuary.²⁷

The remnant and its mission: The Three Angels’ message. As God’s people, we have been given a mission to accomplish in the world (Mat. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16). That mission is spelled out in the message of the Three Angels of Rev. 14. By contrast, the message implicit in theistic evolution is one opposed to the Remnant’s message and the accomplishing of its mission. This can be noted in the following contrasting points:

The pre-Advent judgement. The distinctive Seventh-day Adventist belief in a cosmic judgement taking place in heaven prior to the Second Coming of Jesus is negatively affected if theistic evolution is accepted. This decisive judgement centers on, 1. Christ as the Judge (John 5:22), 2. God’s Law as the judgement Code (James 2:12), and 3. humanity as the Law breakers (James 2:8-11) being judged.

Jesus centers his pre-Advent judgement on humanity’s response to him as revealed in their attitude to his Law (John 14:15; Matt. 19:17; 1 John 2:4; 3:24). Since such Law is the reflection of God’s character, conformity with it leads to life eternal whereas disconformity with it leads to eternal death (Rom. 6:23). Theistic evolution rules out such a judgement because death is not the result of breaking God’s holy Law; it is merely a natural phenomenon that anteceded sin. Therefore, Christ’s death did not atone for the breaking of God’s Law and death cannot be its just penalty.

The Second Coming of Jesus. Jim Gibson makes the following statement:

The Bible describes the second advent of Christ as a dramatic, spectacular event. Theistic evolution postulates a God who uses gradual processes to accomplish His will. A dramatic, world-ending Second Coming seems inconsistent with theistic evolutionary theory. It is more consistent with theistic evolution to expect and earthly millennium of peace to be brought about through human efforts in direct contra diction to biblical prophecy.”²⁸

I agree with this reasoning as well as with Gibson’s advice in light of this implication: “Those who are examining theistic evolution should insist on an explanation for the Second Advent that is compatible with the teachings of Scripture.”²⁹

Accepting theistic evolution would make it necessary to reinterpret Seventh-day Adventist eschatology. If God did not break into history in a literal creation, then surely He will not do so in a literal Second Coming.³⁰

The millennium and the end of death and sin. During the millennium a ratification of the pre-Advent judgement takes place (Rev. 20:4); at its end the final judgement of Satan along with his evil angels occurs (vv. 7-10); and the final, executive judgement is meted out to the wicked (vv. 11-15). Belief in theistic evolution compromises this doctrine. First, the reinterpretation of the days of creation in Genesis calls into question the literality of the 1000 years in Revelation. Second, Satan, the originator of sin, has no place in theistic evolution because sin is not the transgression of the Law and its wages are not death as the Bible affirms (Rom. 6:23). Rather, God is the author of death. So, if Satan matters at all, he is no villain.

On the one hand, the necessity of death and its disconnection from sin in theistic evolution and, on the other hand, the biblical teaching of the destruction of death and sin at the end of the millennium (Rev. 20:14) contradict each other and are mutually exclusive.

The new earth and God’s glorious and eternal Kingdom. God promises to create a new earth (Isa. 65:17). John Baldwin asks the questions, What length of time will be required to accomplish this new creation? Will God take another six hundred million years in creating the new earth as he allegedly needed to guide the evolution of the first earth to completion according to evolutionary claims?³¹

Many theistic evolutionists scholars have accepted the death of animals for the feeding of other animals as God’s good plan for his lower creatures. Usually for these scholars, a peaceful predator-prey relationship on the earth made new, as described by Old Testament prophets, is to be interpreted as “great poetry and true mythology.” They are in agreement with Charles Moule’s reasoning that “if we believe at all in God as creator, and in the evolution of species as part of his design, it seems we must accept universal predation as integral to it.”³² Genesis teaches otherwise (Gen. 1:30-31).

When God recreates the earth there will be no more curse (Rev. 22:3) and no more death (21:4); both are linked to sin and have nothing to do with God’s method of creation.³³ Theistic evolution clashes with the biblical teachings on the new earth and God’s sinless, deathless, and eternal Kingdom where there will be no predation (Isa. 65:25).

Conclusion

Many are the biblical and theological problems for Adventist eschatology if theistic evolution is accepted.³⁴ From a theistic evolutionary perspective, eschatology is not the decisive entrance of God into history. It is rather the continuing process of evolution for a better life; something that humanity accelerates by bringing about a moral and just society either through rebellion and revolt, or through education and the redistribution of wealth, and other means.³⁵

Paul K. Jewett insightfully remarks that, were the theologian to make the theological affirmation of creation rest on the natural sciences,³⁶ consistency would compel him/her to embrace a scientific view of the end of the end of the world as well. This view would amount to an eschatology dismal beyond imagination and shrouded in nihilistic darkness.³⁷

Adventist eschatology entails events that in the providence of our loving God will take place in order to bring the great controversy to a close and to bring about the glories of the new creation. That is why its study gives us what science cannot give us, that is, hope. I suggest that we continue to study Adventist eschatology with this perspective in mind.