What about theistic evolution?

Daniel Morgan said:

“Note that both Swinburne and Craig are theistic evolutionists, so I know there are Christians who would disagree with you. What would you say to them?”

There are a number of different issues here:

i) Is Craig a theistic evolutionist? Or are you defining that very broadly in terms of cosmic evolution (i.e. the Big Bang) rather than biological evolution?

ii) There is a continuum of hypothetical options:

flat earth>geocentrism>YEC>OEC>theistic evolution>process theology> deism>naturalistic evolution.

iii) There’s a difference between saying that a Christian can believe x and saying that x is a Christian belief.

iv) Apropos (iii), there’s a difference between what is psychologically consistent with a credible profession of faith, and what is theologically consistent with a credible profession of faith.

v) Apropos (ii), professing Christians relate to each other as well as unbelievers at various social levels.

We break down into various opposing or intersecting subsets. Not every theological disagreement rises to the level of an excommunicable offense.

A Christian might subscribe to YEC, and belong to an organization which promotes that view. Subscription to YEC would be a condition of membership.

Yet that same Christian might well attend the same church as another Christian who subscribes to OEC.

A Presbyterian seminary might include the works of Warfield in the core curriculum, but refuse to hire a theistic evolutionist.

The criteria might be higher for ordination than church membership.

vi) There are differences of natural character. In addition, liberal, moderate, and conservative are relative terms.

The US is the headquarters of the creationist movement. It doesn’t have the same foothold in the UK, much less the Continent.

In addition, a man like Swinburne or McGrath would be considered a conservative by Oxford standards, yet be too liberal to belong to certain Evangelical denominations is the US.

This issue is no different than other disagreements between professing believers (e.g. inerrancy, abortion, just-war theory, environmentalism, the spiritual gifts, theonomy, dispensationalism, ecumenism, hell, the sacraments, the doctrines of grace, the millennium, the ordination of women and/or homosexuals), and where we draw the line is an individual and institutional matter that varies from one individual or institution to another. These are policy questions as well as personal questions.

Likewise, a position can be out of bounds at one level of social affiliation, but not another.

If my brother is an atheist, he is still my brother. I will relate to him as a blood brother, but not as a spiritual brother.