Help with believing?

[PRmerger]

Right…Barthian. So explain again how death, an unnatural evil which is man’s greatest enemy which entered the world through sin and the thing for which Christ was sent to suffer for the world and conquer as the last Adam turns out to be a natural process built into creation as “very good” which the holy and all loving Trinity uses for causing life by evolution?

The Christian perspective is that this was not a natural process but a supernatural process. Evolution can be supernatural. Not merely natural.

 

[Anthony_V]

Right…Barthian.

Hey, that’s a compliment! Whether or not I agree with him, he was a rather incredible theologian.

So explain again how death, an unnatural evil which is man’s greatest enemy which entered the world through sin…

Unnatural to whom? To animals? Or to rational creatures with a spiritual soul? In the original sin, Adam and Eve forfeited sanctifying grace as well as the preternatural gifts. Among the preternatural gifts was the gift of bodily immortality, not due to the human nature but according to the gratuity of God. Thus, through sin, physical as well as spiritual death entered into the world.

…and the thing for which Christ was sent to suffer for the world and conquer as the last Adam turns out to be a natural process built into creation as “very good” which the holy and all loving Trinity uses for causing life by evolution?

Some assumptions are being made here: a natural process–but for whom? Neanderthals? Cows? Or humans? The gulf between the first two is much smaller than the first and the last. Certainly they don’t all possess the same nature, and, as it applies to humans, certainly we share in the spiritual order as well (for being spiritual beings). It was of divine justice which is gratuity, not necessity, that Christ came. And so it is by supernatural gratuity that man is restored to eternal life. Eternal life is not something natural to humans, because it is, by virtue of being God’s own life–indeed, God himself (John 14:6), above the human nature. That is to say, eternal life is not something natural to humans because it is something supernatural in which we merely participate. We are grafted into his life.

Your fundamental assertion is all that which is incomplete is evil. Read “The Pulley” by George Herbert. Everything relies on God, not only by cause/effect, but even in the here and now where God sustains us as we talk about him. That shows to me his insistence on being connected intimately with creation. Otherwise would be Deism. You’re not a Deist, are you?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

The Christian perspective is that this was not a natural process but a supernatural process. Evolution can be supernatural. Not merely natural.

Not according to the theory. Injecting God into it makes it supernatural, yes, but why subject divine revelation to a naturalistic theory, only to turn the theory around and say it doesn’t work how science says it works, I.e., that it requires billions of years of death to function?

 

[Anthony_V]

I think the Catholic Church rejects common ancestry (correct me if I’m wrong). However, I fail to see the problem. At some point along evolution, we would have the genetic makeup of what we now call humans. However, we didn’t become human beings with value until God infused a soul into our human ancestors. Simply put, God gives a soul to the beings He designed to be His. We have been given dominion over all other animals to fit our needs. Perhaps you my wonder why God wanted humans instead of horses to be His chosen people, but I’m not sure why that would inhibit theological belief.

On a side note, polygenism is rejected, but that’s for another thread.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Hey, that’s a compliment! Whether or not I agree with him, he was a rather incredible theologian.

Agreed on his intelligence. Can’t say I much agree with anything he believed though.

Unnatural to whom? To animals? Or to rational creatures with a spiritual soul? In the original sin, Adam and Eve forfeited sanctifying grace as well as the preternatural gifts. Among the preternatural gifts was the gift of bodily immortality, not due to the human nature but according to the gratuity of God. Thus, through sin, physical as well as spiritual death entered into the world.

Unnatural to everything in creation, Anthony. Death is simply not according to God’s plan or holy character. God is life itself. Romans 8 makes it clear that Adam subjected the entire cosmos to death, suffering, decay., etc. The entire creation groans for redemption. Christ’s victory over the grave is not only victory for humans. God loved the cosmos this much…

Some assumptions are being made here: a natural process–but for whom? Neanderthals? Cows? Or humans? The gulf between the first two is much smaller than the first and the last. Certainly they don’t all possess the same nature, and, as it applies to humans, certainly we share in the spiritual order as well (for being spiritual beings). It was of divine justice which is gratuity, not necessity, that Christ came. And so it is by supernatural gratuity that man is restored to eternal life. Eternal life is not something natural to humans, because it is, by virtue of being God’s own life, above the human nature. That is to say, eternal life is not something natural to humans because it is something supernatural in which we merely participate. We are grafted into his life.

I understand the nature of Catholic theology behind the creation of man. But none of that solves the problem that death simply did not exist before sin, which death is the wages of. Evolution, whether human or animal, still requires death, disease and decay in order to function.

 

[Anthony_V]

Unnatural to everything in creation, Anthony. Death is simply not according to God’s plan or holy character. God is life itself. Romans 8 makes it clear that Adam subjected the entire cosmos to death, suffering, decay., etc. The entire creation groans for redemption. Christ’s victory over the grave is not only victory for humans. God loved the cosmos this much…
I understand the nature of Catholic theology behind the creation of man. But none of that solves the problem that death simply did not exist before sin, which death is the wages of. Evolution, whether human or animal, still requires death, disease and decay in order to function.

I must disagree with you on this point. The material soul of an animal breaks down as part of its nature. As far as I understand, the animal experience is mechanistic (philosophically debatable). There is no scripture (at least, not that I’m aware of) that explicitly concerns non-human death. Animals just aren’t essential constituents, eschatalogically speaking. God is life, yes, that is established. But God certainly had no problem asking the Israelites for animal sacrifices as a way of establishing what would be an “Old” Covenant that would foreshadow the New Covenant. It wouldn’t be out of God’s character to “sacrifice”, so to speak, an animal lineage that would result in humanity, by which nature God would condescend and choose to become incarnate in as a cosmic sign of love**.

Original sin, surely in some way yes, did affect the entire cosmos, but I am not sure that it was in death. What was it? I don’t know, but it certainly has something to do with what St. Paul is talking about in Colossians 1:20 and St. John in Revelation 21. I have a hunch it has to do with human stewardship over creation. That is another topic though, and I’m not sure we’ll get a clear answer until the Last Judgment.

**Please be advised I am not trying to assert this whole evolution thing dogmatically. I am trying to show that there is the possibility within orthodox Christian theology that it can coexist.

P.S.
Are you self-taught (in regards to theology) or did you attend a university/college/seminary somewhere? I was surprised you’d heard of Barth!

 

[PRmerger]

Not according to the theory. Injecting God into it makes it supernatural, yes, but why subject divine revelation to a naturalistic theory, only to turn the theory around and say it doesn’t work how science says it works, I.e., that it requires billions of years of death to function?

What is so awesome about the Catholic Church, GB, is that it typically (but not always) takes a both/and approach.

That’s what makes it so hard to argue against. It’s not Scripture OR Tradition. But Scripture AND Tradition. It’s not Faith OR Works. But Faith AND Works. It’s not Faith OR Reason. But Faith AND Reason.

And that makes it formidable to argue against.

So regarding evolution, the Church says it’s not the Bible or Evolution but the Bible AND Evolution.

We simply reject Darwinism and accept evolution.

 

[PRmerger]

Not according to the theory. Injecting God into it makes it supernatural, yes, but why subject divine revelation to a naturalistic theory, only to turn the theory around and say it doesn’t work how science says it works, I.e., that it requires billions of years of death to function?

Incidentally, science only presents a theory of how “it works”. Darwin’s proposals are merely a philosophy of evolution. It is his approach that Catholicism rejects. Not evolution itself, which is, clearly hard to argue against.

 

[Anthony_V]

What is so awesome about the Catholic Church, GB, is that it typically (but not always) takes a both/and approach.

That’s what makes it so hard to argue against. It’s not Scripture OR Tradition. But Scripture AND Tradition. It’s not Faith OR Works. But Faith AND Works. It’s not Faith OR Reason. But Faith AND Reason.

And that makes it formidable to argue against.

So regarding evolution, the Church says it’s not the Bible or Evolution but the Bible AND Evolution.

We simply reject Darwinism and accept evolution.

I’d like to add on to that.
air pressure lock releasing
Behold, Fides et Ratio! A 40 page encyclical on all things faithful, rational, and synergistic.

(Colors may vary. Batteries not included.)

 

[PRmerger]

I’d like to add on to that.
air pressure lock releasing
Behold, Fides et Ratio! A 40 page encyclical on all things faithful, rational, and synergistic.

(Colors may vary. Batteries not included.)

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

I must disagree with you on this point. The material soul of an animal breaks down as part of its nature.

I do not see a philosophical or theological basis for this assertion. There is nothing within the data of revelation itself that insists that it is the nature of animal life to break down. That would be speculation. You could be right, of course. I just don’t think it could be dogmatically stated, given that any form of death is not introduced until after the account of the fall. If animal life died and was consumed by other life prior to the fall, the permission under the Noahic Covenant to consume animals would be superfluous.

As far as I understand, the animal experience is mechanistic (philosophically debatable). There is no scripture (at least, not that I’m aware of) that explicitly concerns non-human death.

Mechanistic in comparison to humanity, sure. It is, however, within God’s character to care for His creation. Considering a pristine condition, I do not see it within His character to allow it to destroy itself when entropy was not introduced.

Animals just aren’t essential constituents, eschatalogically speaking. God is life, yes, that is established. But God certainly had no problem asking the Israelites for animal sacrifices as a way of establishing what would be an “Old” Covenant that would foreshadow the New Covenant. It wouldn’t be out of God’s character to “sacrifice”, so to speak, an animal lineage that would result in humanity, by which nature God would condescend and choose to become incarnate in as a cosmic sign of love**.

I agree of course that God instituted sacrifice to point to Christ but it was precisely the corruption of the fall that necessitated the sacrifices in the first place. Such a condition that required death to satisfy sin is only possible in a fallen environment. Prior to the fall, death would not be needed since there was no sin for death to satisfy. The cosmos being disordered the way that it is, is demonstrated in the fact that an innocent had to die for the crimes of another (animal life first and then the Messiah which they typified).

Original sin, surely in some way yes, did affect the entire cosmos, but I am not sure that it was in death. What was it? I don’t know, but it certainly has something to do with what St. Paul is talking about in Colossians 1:20 and St. John in Revelation 21. I have a hunch it has to do with human stewardship over creation. That is another topic though, and I’m not sure we’ll get a clear answer until the Last Judgment.

**Please be advised I am not trying to assert this whole evolution thing dogmatically. I am trying to show that there is the possibility within orthodox Christian theology that it can coexist.

I know you’re not saying it dogmatically. However, the effect original sin had on creation is throughout the Pauline corpus. Adam was the head of creation, not only humanity. When he fell, all creation fell with him. In Christ, all creation is glorified in His resurrection. Death is defeated in Him. Death would not need to be defeated if it was a part of the world before the fall.

P.S.
Are you self-taught (in regards to theology) or did you attend a university/college/seminary somewhere? I was surprised you’d heard of Barth!

Liberty University. I don’t know if that still qualifies as self taught though lol.

 

[Anthony_V]

I do not see a philosophical or theological basis for this assertion. There is nothing within the data of revelation itself that insists that it is the nature of animal life to break down. That would be speculation. You could be right, of course. I just don’t think it could be dogmatically stated, given that any form of death is not introduced until after the account of the fall. If animal life died and was consumed by other life prior to the fall, the permission under the Noahic Covenant to consume animals would be superfluous.

Mechanistic in comparison to humanity, sure. It is, however, within God’s character to care for His creation. Considering a pristine condition, I do not see it within His character to allow it to destroy itself when entropy was not introduced.

I agree of course that God instituted sacrifice to point to Christ but it was precisely the corruption of the fall that necessitated the sacrifices in the first place. Such a condition that required death to satisfy sin is only possible in a fallen environment. Prior to the fall, death would not be needed since there was no sin for death to satisfy. The cosmos being disordered the way that it is, is demonstrated in the fact that an innocent had to die for the crimes of another (animal life first and then the Messiah which they typified).

I know you’re not saying it dogmatically. However, the effect original sin had on creation is throughout the Pauline corpus. Adam was the head of creation, not only humanity. When he fell, all creation fell with him. In Christ, all creation is glorified in His resurrection. Death is defeated in Him. Death would not need to be defeated if it was a part of the world before the fall.

I understand your points. I cannot counter-argue your proposals without this quickly falling into a debate about the nature of God, what paradigms to use, etc… I think we both know the paradigmatic issues that would be brought forth because our systematic understandings of nature and grace are different, and this would quickly derail to something as pure nature or a discussion of Henri de Lubac’s Surnaturel, certain tenets of Nouvelle Theologie, and our good friends Karl Barth and Hans Urs Von Balthasar.

In the spirit of the communal sharing nature of theology, I will offer this article written by Jimmy Akin and this article Thomas Aquinas. I also know that C.S. Lewis has written on this, being a theistic evolutionist.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

I understand your points. I cannot counter-argue your proposals without this quickly falling into a debate about the nature of God, what paradigms to use, etc… I think we both know the paradigmatic issues that would be brought forth because our systematic understandings of nature and grace are different, and this would quickly derail to something as pure nature or a discussion of Henri de Lubac’s Surnaturel, certain tenets of Nouvelle Theologie, and our good friends Karl Barth and Hans Urs Von Balthasar.

In the spirit of the communal sharing nature of theology, I will offer this article written by Jimmy Akin and this article Thomas Aquinas. I also know that C.S. Lewis has written on this, being a theistic evolutionist.

Sure, and we don’t have to. I just had to lay out why, exactly, I think evolution and Christianity are incompatible. Having said that, I don’t think that things like a literal 6 day creation are necessarily de fide required as a test case for orthodoxy. The problem with evolution, IMO, is not that it contradicts Genesis 1, but that it contradicts Christ.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I’ve made multiple threads on this and you guys have really helped me.

I’ve been starting to drift away from God lately and it’s the fact of evolution. I really don’t get it.
If we evolved from one species how is it possible when God said he made humans. And since we are considered animals why arent the pigs or horses have sins and what not too since we evolved from them?

As with any Scientific proposal. It must be reproduced in order to validate the results and affirm the theory and/or proposal.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

What is so awesome about the Catholic Church, GB, is that it typically (but not always) takes a both/and approach.

That’s what makes it so hard to argue against. It’s not Scripture OR Tradition. But Scripture AND Tradition. It’s not Faith OR Works. But Faith AND Works. It’s not Faith OR Reason. But Faith AND Reason.

And that makes it formidable to argue against.

So regarding evolution, the Church says it’s not the Bible or Evolution but the Bible AND Evolution.

We simply reject Darwinism and accept evolution.

This has little to do with Catholicism, PR (other than it taking place in a Catholic forum). The liberal Protestants had you guys beat by 70 years in allowing theistic evolution.

But I hope you’re not suggesting that theistic evolution is a part of apostolic tradition are you?

 

[aspirant]

If we evolved from one species how is it possible when God said he made humans.

You may find this a helpful starting point. In the words of Pope Pius XII:
"Humani Generis:

…the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

In other words, Catholicism allows that it’s possible that the human body came to be through evolutionary processes. Human souls are directly created by God.

I think this is not really so startling as it may appear to some people at first. Even if a religious person reads Genesis literalistically and does not believe in evolution, he would still believe that the human body was made of pre-existent matter and God directly created the soul. Meanwhile, even an atheist who believes in evolution believes that there was some point at which a human came into being where previously there were no humans. In other words, regardless how they believe it happened, everyone believes:

1. there was once a time when no humans existed, only non-human stuff
2. later, some of that non-human stuff became a component of human beings.

As far as the Church is concerned, you’re welcome to believe the “stuff” from which humans were composed was either dirt (as in a literalistic reading of Genesis) or some kind of apes (as in an evolutionary theory). The soul of the human, the primary component which distinguishes humans from other stuff, is directly created by God.

More details at the link above, though.

And since we are considered animals why arent the pigs or horses have sins and what not too since we evolved from them?

No one believes humans are descended from pigs or horses. In fact, no one believes humans are descended from any modern animals. Our non-human ancestors, if we had any, were some kind of hominids that are now all dead and gone.

The idea that humans are a kind of animal is not a new idea and long predates modern theories of common descent. The Christian belief that humans are capable of sin and other animals are not is based on our belief that we are a different kind of animal than others, we are animals capable of reason, persons.

So explain again how death, an unnatural evil which is man’s greatest enemy which entered the world through sin and the thing for which Christ was sent to suffer for the world and conquer as the last Adam turns out to be a natural process built into creation as “very good” which the holy and all loving Trinity uses for causing life by evolution?

The idea that other animals are mortal by nature is not a new one. St. Athanasius, for example, clearly believed that only humans were created immortal:
"St Athanasius:

Grudging existence to none therefore, He made all things out of nothing through His own Word, our Lord Jesus Christ and of all these His earthly creatures He reserved especial mercy for the race of men. Upon them, therefore, upon men who, as animals, were essentially impermanent, He bestowed a grace which other creatures lacked—namely the impress of His own Image, a share in the reasonable being of the very Word Himself, so that, reflecting Him and themselves becoming reasonable and expressing the Mind of God even as He does, though in limited degree they might continue for ever in the blessed and only true life of the saints in paradise. But since the will of man could turn either way, God secured this grace that He had given by making it conditional from the first upon two things—namely, a law and a place. He set them in His own paradise, and laid upon them a single prohibition. If they guarded the grace and retained the loveliness of their original innocence, then the life of paradise should be theirs, without sorrow, pain or care, and after it the assurance of immortality in heaven. But if they went astray and became vile, throwing away their birthright of beauty, then they would come under the natural law of death and live no longer in paradise, but, dying outside of it, continue in death and in corruption.

I’d like to add on to that.
air pressure lock releasing
Behold, Fides et Ratio! A 40 page encyclical on all things faithful, rational, and synergistic.

(Colors may vary. Batteries not included.)

Cool! Mine is blue.

 

[PRmerger]

This has little to do with Catholicism, PR (other than it taking place in a Catholic forum).

Of course it has to do with Catholicism, GB. I suggest you read GK Chesterton’s assessment of the Church’s role here.

The Church has always been the guardian of doctrinal orthodoxy. In regard to science, it is mediately concerned with weeding out falsehood from truth, to quote Dr. Benjamin Wiker.

Just as the Church stepped in to correct Calvin’s heresy of double predestination, which essentially denies the existence of free will, the Church has also intervened in correcting another form of denial of our free will: that of all things being predestined by the laws of materialism or nature.

The liberal Protestants had you guys beat by 70 years in allowing theistic evolution.

Ok.

 

[josh987654321]

I’ve made multiple threads on this and you guys have really helped me.

I’ve been starting to drift away from God lately and it’s the fact of evolution.

I strongly recommend this for everyone not just the post I am replying to.

please watch this short video free online here - youshallbelieve.com/?page_id=70

It is of Katya Rivas’ stigmata caught on film and is featured in the documentary Sign’s From God by Mike Wilesee.

There is also more video’s of mircales and testimonies from those who were there and witnessed these miracles - youshallbelieve.com/

Many have tried to discredit Katya Rivas, this is why they have this here for those who are skeptical - youshallbelieve.com/A-plea-to-humanity.pdf

There are also many short books by Katya Rivas In which Jesus Christ dictates to her, they truly are remarkable, words cannot describe, I have grown spiritually deeper in enourmous ways in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church from these video’s and her short books, which are free to read and download online here - youshallbelieve.com/?page_id=921

This is quoted from - loveandmercy.org/

IMPRIMATUR is Latin for “Let It Be Printed”
When a Roman Catholic Bishop grants his “Imprimatur” to a printed work, he assures the reader that nothing therein is contrary to Catholic Faith or Morals. This Imprimatur is not given lightly, but only after a thorough review process. All books offered on this site have been granted the Imprimatur.

All of katya’s short books have this IMPRIMATUR.

These links are also in my signature, please don’t be affraid to view these links.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[shaky]

I’d like to correct you that animals do not sin because animals other than homosapiens do not have the intelligence to follow Christ or know nothing about sin. They strictly work off of instinct.

I am not saying Animals are Guilty of Any Sin. Sin is wrong doing. Doing wrong is unrighteousness. Doing Right is Righteousness.

Christianity did not get to America till 1500. Since Christ The Indigenous People for 1500 years did not know about Christ or Sin.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I’ve made multiple threads on this and you guys have really helped me.

I’ve been starting to drift away from God lately and it’s the fact of evolution. I really don’t get it.
If we evolved from one species how is it possible when God said he made humans. And since we are considered animals why arent the pigs or horses have sins and what not too since we evolved from them?

For myself, I don’t view Genesis as a scientific manual. God created us, and all life. The how of it is not scientifically described in Genesis, or anywhere.

I view science as us humans unfolding, discovering and describing what God has created. I don’t hold to the ideas of “Intelligent Design” because frankly it is too L. Ron Hubbard for my tastes. Specifically, it denies grace.

I also like very much this quote from our Little Flower:

“Just as the sun shines simultaneously on the tall cedars and on each little flower as though it were alone on the earth, so Our Lord is occupied particularly with each soul as though there were no others like it. And just as in nature all the seasons are arranged in such a way as to make the humblest daisy bloom on a set day, in the same way, everything works out for the good of each soul.”

So I view all of creation in the same way, a blossoming, metaphorically speaking of course. I’m OK with the idea that the human species blossomed over time, with God occupied particularly in such a way that it works out for Good. As God is Good. All of nature is a grace.

Hope that helps.