Theistic Evolution and its Implications for Adventist Eschatology

Kwabena Donkor

In some quarters of contemporary culture, evolution has been taken as fact, and this has

the effect of making the interdisciplinary conversation between Christian theology and science

an increasingly important theological topic. It may come as a surprise that this resurgence is

happening in the context of postmodern pluralism with its disillusionment with comprehensive

systems of thought. Nevertheless, this interest has risen, on the one hand, partly because of the

seemingly successful postmodern challenge of the assumed superiority of the rationality of the

natural sciences. The result has been openness to dialogue. Also, because of developments in

contemporary studies in cosmology which treat the universe as a single object, a way seems to

have been paved for meaningful dialogue between science and theology.1 Theistic evolution

represents one of the more serious attempts to reconcile the Christian view of reality as

expressed in the Bible with the scientific view as represented by contemporary evolutionary

thought.

Among Christian thinkers, theistic evolution has been advocated and condemned at the

same time. Bemoaning the prospect of having to choose between the Christian gospel and

evolution, which he describes as a highly credible scientific concept, Howard J. Van Till writes,

“If scientifically knowledgeable persons are led to believe that in order to accept the Christian

Gospel they must also reject a scientific concept that they have judged, by sound principles of

evaluation, to be the best way to account for the relevant observational and experimental

1
J. Wentzel Van Huyssteen, for example, argues for an evolutionary epistemology, contending that rightly
understood, evolutionary epistemology “reveals the biological roots of all human rationality and should therefore
lead precisely to an interdisciplinary account of our epistemic activities,” see his Duet or Duel, Theology and
Science in a Postmodern World (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1998), xiii-xiv.

1
evidence, then a monumental stumbling block has I believe, been placed in their path.”2 At the

same time, no less than a dozen Christian scholars have recently embarked on an all front

scientific, philosophical, and theological critique of theistic evolution.3 In the introductory

chapter where theistic evolution is defined, Stephen Meyer comments that the form of theistic

evolution which accords creative power to neo-Darwin and/or other evolutionary mechanism,

“generates either (1) logical contradictions, (2) a theologically heterodox view of divine action,

or (3) a convoluted and scientifically vacuous explanation.”4

Seventh-day Adventist scholars, however, have for the most part distanced themselves

from all forms of theistic evolution.5 Given the centrality of the doctrine of creation in Seventh-

day Adventists’ theological system, it is understandable why theistic evolution is seen to

represent such a serious theological threat to the church’s belief system. For obvious reasons

protological questions are generally connected with eschatology. But for Seventh-day Adventists

in particular, their interpretation of the Genesis creative account is so intricately connected to

their configuration of eschatology that without it, the latter would simply disappear. Since

theistic evolution’s protology stands in sharp contrast to Adventist interpretation of origins, it

would be instructive to examine what the implications might be for Adventist eschatology if

theistic evolution were to be embraced. The goal of this presentation is to explore this very issue.

So, what is Adventist eschatology which cannot be friends to theistic evolution? And what is it

about theistic evolution that makes it stand in a dialectic relation to Adventist eschatology.

2
Stanley N. Gundry, J. P. Moreland, and John M. Reynolds (eds.) Three Views on Creation and Evolution (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), 179-180. Van Till writes as a proponent of theistic evolution although he prefers to
brand it a “the fully gifted creation.” Among the eminent Christian thinkers who have advocated some form of
theistic evolution are Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, John C. Polkinghorne, John F. Haught, Richard Swinburne, Alister
McGrath, and Arthur Peacocke.
3
See J. P. Moreland et. al, (eds.) Theistic Evolution, A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique (Wheaton,
IL: Crossway, 2017).
4
Stephen C. Meyer, “Scientific and Philosophical Introduction, Defining Theistic Evolution,” in ibid,
5
See for example L. James Gibson, “Theistic Evolution: Is it for Adventists?” Ministry Magazine, January 1992.

2
Procedurally, I will first outline Adventist eschatology. Next, I will give a sketch of some key

evolutionary principles that inform theistic evolution, and finally I will compare and contrast

Adventist eschatology with some outlines of theistic evolution’s eschatology.

Adventist Eschatology: An Overview

I should begin by exploring the general concept of eschatology. The term is derived from

the Greek word eschatos, with the basic meaning of “last” or “final.” But the word has a variety

of meanings. Within a broad frame of reference, it may mean farthest extent in space, final

element of time, or last piece of money. In theological discussions, however, it refers to “the last

things in a worldwide and historical sense, e.g., an apocalyptic, cosmic cataclysm and a new age

of conflict followed by utopian bliss.”6 Eschatology, then, for our purposes is the branch of

Christian teaching about “the last things,” but in terms of content, “It refers to a time in the future

when the course of history will be changed to such an extent that one can speak of an entirely

new state of reality.”7 Most religions address “last things” in some respect, yet more specifically,

“the term eschatology is usually linked to the Abrahamic tradition and, most often, is associated

with Christian doctrines concerning the Second Coming of Christ and God’s final judgment of

mankind.”8

The wide variety of theological views within the Abrahamic tradition requires that, for

the purpose of this conference, we delineate Adventist views on eschatology. In his Christian

Theology, Millard Erickson provides some helpful key questions by which Christian

eschatologies may be distinguished.9 Taking a cue from Erickson’s questions, we will distill four

6
David L. Petersen, “Eschatology: Old Testament,” in D. N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary,
vol. 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 576.
7
Ibid, 575.
8
Jill Stevenson, “Eschatology,” Ecumenica 7(2014), 13.
9
Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998), 1161. Among the key
questions Erickson raises are the following: Is eschatology thought of as pertaining primarily to the future or the
present? Is the view of the future of life here on earth primarily optimistic or pessimistic? Is divine activity or human

3
themes with which Adventist eschatology will be outlined: in terms of form, it is historicist; in

content it looks for a general worsening of the circumstances of human existence under human

control, until God intervenes and rectifies what is occurring; from the point of view of agency it

is supernatural and looks for the genuinely transcendent working by God; and in terms of focus it

is otherworldly.

The Form of Seventh-day Adventist Eschatology

As noted above, biblical eschatology has to do with issues pertaining to the “last things”

or “the end of times.” The Bible has quite a bit of material that speaks to the future, especially in

its prophetic and apocalyptic portions. By introducing the issue of the form of Seventh-day

Adventist eschatology, we wish to approach the subject of how Seventh-day Adventist configure

biblical material regarding the future. Our view is that, to a large extent, Seventh-day Adventist

eschatology may be described as historicist. Basically, the historicist view “holds that the events

described [in biblical prophecies] were in the future at the time of writing, but refer to matters

destined to take place throughout the history of the church.”10 Hans La Rondelle saw great

hermeneutical significance attaching to L. E. Froom’s view that among the three unique

characteristics that the early church, the Reformation, and the Second Advent Awakening

recognized in the apocalyptic books of Daniel and Revelation was that “both books contain

several series of outline prophecies that unfold an unbroken sequence of events leading up to the

establishment of the eternal kingdom of God.”11 Jon Paulien, likewise, states that “the Seventh-

effort thought to be the agent of eschatological events? Is the focus of eschatological belief this-worldly or
otherworldly? Does the eschatology hold that we will come into the benefits of the new age individually, or that
their bestowal will be cosmic in character?
10
Ibid. Writing about the futuristic, preterist, historicist, and idealist views as a system of classifying the various
interpretations of prophetic or apocalyptic material in Scripture, Erickson observes, “While it is most often used as a
means of classifying interpretations of the Book of Revelation or, more generally, all such prophetic literature, the
system can also be applied to distinguish views of eschatology.”
11
Hans K. La Rondelle, “Interpretation of Prophetic and Apocalyptic Eschatology,” in Gordon M. Hyde (ed.) A
Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics (Washington, DC: review and herald Publishing Association, 1974), 231.

4
day Adventist Church derives its unique witness to Jesus Christ from a historicist reading of the

apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel and Revelation.”12

Although currently the Seventh-day Adventist church is one of the major Christian

denominations that officially endorses the use of the historicist method,13 Adventists often point

out that the historicist method was not their invention, listing some of the prominent interpreters

who used the historicist approach to include the following: Jewish apocalyptic writings (e.g. 1

Enoch and 2 Baruch), Jesus (e.g. in Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14; and Luke 21:21); Early Church

Fathers (e.g. Epistle of Barnabas, Irenaeus on Daniel 2 and 7; Clement of Alexandria on Daniel

9, and Cyril on the fourth kingdom in Daniel).14

The historicist approach has its home in prophetic and apocalyptic material, and

scholarship both within and without the church on these subjects engender discussions among

Adventists on the proper use of the historicist approach. It appears that a key focus in these

discussions involve the question of the proper genre of books and passages, especially in Daniel

and Revelation. Paulien admonishes in the context of recent scholarship,

Seventh-day Adventist interpreters have had the tendency to treat most or all of Daniel
and Revelation as historical apocalyptic, without specific attention to the textual markers
that would indicate such interpretation. As a result, texts like the seven letters of
Revelation 2 and 3 or the “seven times” of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream were interpreted in a
historicist fashion even though there was no specific textual evidence for doing so. This
approach was plausible when Daniel and Revelation were thought of as completely
apocalyptic. But a more nuanced approach is now called for by the evidence.15

12
Jon Paulien, “The End of Historicism? Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 14/2 (2003), 15..
13
See the official position of the Church on the historicist approach in the guidelines for interpreting prophecies that
were outlined in the report submitted by the “Methods of Bible Study Committee” and approved by the 1986 Annual
Council of the General Conference, in Adventist Review (January 22, 1987), 19.
14
For a succinct summary see Reimar Vetne, “A Definition and Short History of Historicism as a Method of
Interpreting Daniel and Revelation,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 14/2 (2003), 9-13.

15
Paulien, 33. Another way to view this problem is the way Remar Vetne presents it. Whereas in the past
historicism for Adventist interpreters meant that one had to choose one method and stick with it for all of Daniel and
Revelation, Vetne finds the proposal of those who would argue to “cut up the pie in smaller pieces” appealing,
“showing which sections Adventists agree on placing in John’s own day, noting in which sections eschatological

5
As important as these discussions are, I do not think they are particularly opposed to my core

description of Adventist eschatology as historicist. Using “historicist eschatology” as a formal

hermeneutical identity marker for Seventh-day Adventists serves to bring out what is critical to

the church’s understanding of biblical prophetic/apocalyptic material, namely, its predictive

element. Paulien is correct in his assessment that the Adventist “view of God-ordained prophetic

history is dependent on the possibility of predictive prophecy,”16 or that “the primary point of

difference between the Adventist understanding of Daniel and the scholarly majority has to do

with the date of the book, whether the visions are predictive or interpretations of history after the

fact.”17

The Content of Adventist Eschatology

In most standard theological treatments of eschatology, one finds such topics as the

Second Coming of Christ, the millennium, judgment, and the final states of the redeemed and the

lost. Adventists also speak about these topics when dealing with eschatology, although in some

cases, there are significant differences on each of these subjects. To review Adventists teachings

on these topics,18 they believe that the Second Coming of Christ represents the grand climax of

the gospel, after He ends His high priestly mediatorial work in the heavenly sanctuary. The

coming will be literal, personal, visible, and worldwide, during which time the righteous dead

will be resurrected, and, together with the righteous living, will be glorified and taken to heaven,

Parousia-related events are described, and then going on to argue for historicism only in the very sections where
Adventists find predictions of the course of history”, see Vetne, 7.

16
Paulien, 24
17
Ibid, 33-34.
18
See https://szu.adventist.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/28_Beliefs.pdf, Accessed April 9, 2018. The following
is an abridged form of Seventh-day Adventist fundamental belief nos. 25-28, using as much as possible the exact
wording of the statements. Supporting Bible texts have been left out.

6
but the unrighteous will die. Furthermore, Adventists believe that, on account of their historicist

reading of most lines of prophecy, together with the present condition of the world, Christ’s

coming is near. It is imminent. When Christ appears, the resurrected righteous and the living

righteous will be glorified and caught up to meet their Lord. The will be a second resurrection,

the resurrection of the unrighteous, which will take place a thousand years later. This thousand

years is the millennial reign of Christ with His saints in heaven between the first and second

resurrections. The wicked dead will be judged at this time; the earth will be utterly desolate,

without living human inhabitants, but occupied by Satan and his angels. At the close of the

millennium Christ with His saints and the Holy City will descend from heaven to earth. The

unrighteous dead will then be resurrected, and with Satan and his angels will surround the city;

but fire from God will consume them and cleanse the earth. This will be the new earth, in which

righteousness dwells, an eternal home for the redeemed and a perfect environment for everlasting

life, love, joy, and learning in His presence. For here God Himself will dwell with His people

and suffering and death will have passed away. The great controversy will be ended, and sin will

be no more. All things, animate and inanimate, will declare that God is love; and He shall reign

forever.

Several of the views expressed above are unique to Adventists but our interest is not to

compare and contrast Adventist teachings on these topics with other Christian views. Our interest

is to point out the distinctive Adventist approach to these teachings with the view to

understanding how they fare in the face of theistic evolution. What is distinctive about Adventist

teaching on these topics is that they are framed by what is called the great controversy or cosmic

conflict motif. Christ’s parable of wheat and tares (Matt 13:27-30; 36-43), tersely outlines the

cosmic conflict narrative. In the parable, a farmer sows only wheat in his field but he is surprised

7
by a report from his servants that tares have sprung up among the good seed. The servants

enquire from the master how such a thing could happen, whereupon the master replies, “an

enemy has done this.” The servants would just as quickly go in and uproot the tares, but the

master instructs them to allow both the wheat and tares to grow together, warning, “for while you

are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. Allow both to grow together

until the harvest.” When Christ later interprets the parable, he identifies the “one who sows the

good seed” as “the Son of Man” (Matt 13:37) and “the field is the world” (Matt 13:38) and the

“enemy that sowed” the tares as “the devil” (Matt 13:39). Some Bible commentators see an

explicit depiction of a conflict between Christ and Satan in this parable.19

The Cosmic Conflict For Seventh-day Adventists, the full chronological

exploration of the cosmic conflict motif begins with the wisdom of God by which he predestined

“the mystery of the gospel” (Eph. 6:19) “before the ages” (1 Cor. 2:7).20 The “mystery”

anticipated God’s creation of a universe (heaven and earth, Gen. 1:1) with intelligent, free, and

moral beings capable of either rendering loving allegiance to the Creator or rejecting his

authority. To provide an antidote to the possibility of rebellion on the part of the creatures, a

rescue plan was also put in place. The latter plan, rooted in God’s mercy and lovingkindness,

involved the atoning death of Christ which would provide salvation and character restoration for

penitent sinners (2 Tim. 1:9-19).

The conflict proper began in heaven, with the fall of Lucifer, an angelic being (Isa. 14:4-

21; Ezek. 28:12-19), over the issues of God’s law (1 John 3:4, c/f. 1 John 3:8), and by

19
John Nolland, for example, remarks on Matt. 13: 25 that “The figure of ‘his enemy’ suggests that standing feud is
involved.” The Gospel of Matthew. NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 544.
20
I am dependant on Frank B. Holbrrok’s account of “The Great Controversy,” in Raoul Dederen (ed.), Handbook
of Seventh-day Adventist Theology (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 2000), 969-1008.

8
implication His character, and the autonomy of the creature (Isa. 14:13, 14). Lucifer’s

questioning ultimately led to an insurrection in heaven which resulted first, in his physical

expulsion from heaven to the earth, together with his loyal angels (Rev. 12:3-4; c/f. 2 Pet. 2:4,

Jude 6), and subsequently his spiritual banishment (Luke 10:18; Rev. 12:7-9).

The conflict eventually moved onto the earth where Adam and Eve, who like the angels,

had been the first created free moral beings placed in the garden of Eden. The temptation by

Satan (Lucifer) of the first human pair in the garden, designed to plant seeds of doubt in them

about God’s integrity, yielded the results he was hoping for. Adam and Eve fell (Gen 3:1-7). The

result of humanity’s fall, which in sum meant estrangement from God, involved death (Gen.

3:19), Satan’s wresting of the rulership of the earth from humans (2 Cor. 4:4,5; John 12:31), and

depravity of human nature (Jer. 17:9; Eph. 4:18).

Humanity, however, was not abandoned to doom. With the fall in the garden of Eden

came the promise of deliverance (Gen. 3:15), in anticipation of the Seed to “descend through the

line of Abraham (Gen. 12:3; 22:18; cf. Gal. 3:16), his great grandson Judah (Gen. 49:10); and

through the latter’s descendant David (Ps. 89:20-37; Jer. 23:5, 6).” 21 With sacrificial rituals

(Gen. 4:4; Heb. 11:4) and prophetic representations (Micah 5:2; Dan. 9:24-27; Isa. 42:1-7; 53;

61:1-4) the promise of the Seed (the Messianic Redeemer) was kept alive. But Satan was not to

be outdone, at least not yet. With his “spirit…now at work in the sons of disobedience” (Eph.

2:2), wickedness, idolatry, and corruption of true worship became rampant, not only in the

people who lived before the flood (Gen. 6:5-12), but even among the chosen people of God,

Israel (Ps. 106:34-40). Yet throughout the history of the nation of Israel God always maintained

21
Ibid, 981.

9
a faithful “remnant” through whom the knowledge and worship of the true God was preserved

(see for example 1 Kings 19:18; Ezra 9:15; Amos 9:9-12).

Finally, “when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son [the promised

Messiah], born of a woman, under the law so that He might redeem those who were under the

law, that we might receive the adoption of sons” (Gal. 4:4-5). This was the first “coming”

[advent] of Christ. The conflict intensified and would eventually come to a crisis at the cross. In

the meantime, Christ registered systematic defeats over Satan, first, in His temptation in the

wilderness (Matt. 4:1-11) and subsequently in daily victories over demons (Matt. 8:29; 25:41;

Mark 3:11-12; Luke 4:33-35, 41). And, on the cross, several of the goals of Christ, the Messiah

were accomplished: judgment secured against Satan (John 12:31-32,) the plan of salvation

confirmed (Rev. 12:10-12), atonement made for human sin (2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:24, cf. Isa.

53:6-12), and the moral law and character of God upheld (Rom. 3:25-26, cf. Heb. 9:15).

From a historicist point of view, Revelation 12 depicts the church phase of the cosmic

conflict following the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. William Shea agrees “with the

majority of commentators who see the woman as the church,”22 and sees three phases of conflict

involving the church—the early church (vss. 1-5), the pure church of the middle Ages (vss. 6-

16), and the church of the last days (vs. 17).23 Revelation 12:17 simply says that “the dragon was

enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the

commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ (NKJV). Revelation 13 and 14

depict just how the conflict will unfold. While the devil brings heavy oppression and persecution

to bear on God’s people (Rev. 13), God’s two major actions include first, the proclamation of

22
William H. Shea, “Time Prophecies of Daniel 12 and Revelation 12-13,” in Frank B. Holbrook (ed.), Symposium
on Revelation (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1992), 349.
23
Ibid.

10
God’s last worldwide warning and invitation to accept the gospel (Rev. 14:6-13), and second, the

first of three phases of the final judgment (Rev 14:6-7). Revelation 14 ends with the second

coming of Christ depicted as a farmer who comes to reap the harvest of His redeemed, but also

hinting at the reaping and destruction of the impenitent (Rev. 14:14-20).

To summarize the content of Adventist eschatology, the eschatological topics of the

Second Coming of Christ, the millennium, judgment, and the final states of the redeemed and the

lost are cast within the context of the cosmic conflict motif. These topics acquire their

intelligibility through this motif, which is really a philosophy of history. The motif is a

philosophy of history, a worldview developed by Adventists out of the application of the

historicist method to apocalyptic materials of the Bible, especially Daniel and Revelation. It is a

metanarrative of cosmic and world history which has a specific temporal, historic beginning and

a definite historic end. As we have seen, the beginning goes back to the fall of the intelligent

beings which God’s created in the universe. Thus, the cosmic conflict motif inextricably links a

creation protology to a re-creation eschatology. More importantly, the cosmic conflict narrative

is marked by genuine historicity, meaning, it involves entities and events in real space and time.

In this way, it is distinguished both from an idealized as well as a realized eschatology.

The Agency of Adventist Eschatology

One of the clear implications of the Adventist cosmic conflict motif is God’s overarching

control of history. Although the conflict may be severe, and more so as history winds down to a

close, its outcome is never in question. God will be victorious. This is the expected role of God

within the cosmic conflict motif, nurtured as it were, in the apocalypticism of the books of

Daniel and Revelation. As a worldview that characterized a strand of religion in Second Temple

11
Judaism and early Christianity24, apocalypticism saw the present world order as evil and under

the control of Satan and his human collaborators. That world order would shortly be destroyed

by God and replaced with a new one.25 The replacement was not envisioned as one that would

occur naturally over a prolonged period of time, but something that would happen supernaturally

in the form of God ordained cataclysmic events preceding the new order.26 The view is correctly

expressed that “for Adventists the books of Daniel and Revelation are not marginal works; they

are foundational to the Adventist worldview and its concept of God.”27 God’s agency in

Adventist eschatology, then, is based on a view of a God who transcends His creation and yet

governs it providentially through indirect and direct means.28 It is a view that runs counter to

conceptions of God’s activity that are pantheistic as well as panentheistic in nature.29 It will be

through God’s direct providential activity that the eschaton will be realized.

The Focus or Goal of Adventist Eschatology

24
Christopher Rowland, “Apocalyptic,” in Kevin J. Vanhoozer (ed.) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the
Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: BakerAcademic, 2005), 51.
25
Paulien, 26.
26
Rowland, 52.
27
Paulien, 26-27. It is significant though, that the apocalyptic worldview that characterizes Adventists was true to
the convictions of the early Christians. Rowland remarks that “Despite attempts over the years to play down the
importance of apocalypticism in early Christianity, the indications suggest that its thought forms and outlook were
more typical of early Christianity than is often allowed. In the earliest period of Christianity, resort to the
apocalyptic language and genre enabled the NT writers to have access to the privilege of understanding the
significance of events and persons from the divine perspective. Apocalypticism, therefore, was the vehicle whereby
the first Christians were able to articulate their deepest convictions about the ultimate significance of Jesus Christ in
the divine purposes,” Rowland, 53.
28
See Ellen G. White, Education. “In the annals of human history the growth of nations, the rise and fall of empires,
appear as dependent on the will and prowess of man. The shaping of events seems, to a great degree, to be
determined by his power, ambition, or caprice. But in the word of God the curtain is drawn aside, and we behold,
behind, above, and through all the play and counterplay of human interests and power and passions, the agencies of
the all-merciful One, silently, patiently working out the counsels of his own will. The Bible reveals the true
philosophy of history.”
29
Pantheism, which means “all is God” identifies nature with God. Although like pantheism, panentheism conceives
God as immanent within nature, it posits at the same time that God also transcends nature. Still panentheism sees
nature as a part of God.

12
 The issue at stake here concerns whether the promises of God will be fulfilled on this

earth in a fundamental continuity with the life we know now.30 The focus and goal of biblical

eschatology from an Adventist perspective is the restoration of creation to God’s original

intended state.31 In the New Testament Paul presents a cosmic sense of the fall, depicting

creation in its present state as in bondage, hence it groans and awaits to be set free from its

bondage to decay (Rom. 8:20-22). His depiction of the fall’s effect on humans is captured

cogently by J. D. G. Dunn. “[H]ere, the primary allusion is to the Adam narratives: µαταιότης

[mataiotes] in the sense of the futility of an object which does not function as it was designed to

do (like an expensive satellite which has malfunctioned and now spins uselessly in space), or,

more precisely, which has been given a role for which it was not designed and which is unreal or

illusory”32 (emphasis, mine). Consequently, humanity is unable to alter their life situation by

determination, exercise of will power, or self-reformation.

Any hope for the restoration of creation to its original ideal must point away from

creaturely resources. The resolution of creation’s problem, from the viewpoint of the apocalyptic

worldview of biblical eschatology, requires the supernatural intervention of God in a re-creative

act. So, Isaiah says that God will make the heavens and the earth new (Isa. 65:17), and the

apostle Peter speaks about the coming of the day of the Lord “in which the heavens will pass

away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and [its

30
Erickson, 1161, asks a set of questions that help to distinguish eschatologies on this point. “Is the focus of
eschatological belief this-worldly or otherworldly? In other words, is it expected that the promises of God will
largely come to pass upon this earth in a fundamental continuity with life as we now experience it, or is it expected
that there will be a deliverance from the present scene and that his promises will be fulfilled in heaven or some place
or situation radically different from what we now experience? Eschatologies of the former type pursue more secular
hopes; those of the latter type are more spiritual in nature.”
31
Daegeuk Nam, “The New Earth and the Eternal Kingdom,” in Raoul Dedereen (ed.), 957.
32
James D. G. Dunn, Word Biblical Commentary, Romans 1–8, vol. 38a (Dallas, TX: Word, Incorporated, 1988),
470.

13
works will be [burned up” (2 Pet. 3:10). Although what is in view here is clearly not a creation

ex nihilo, it is a divine act that renews or regenerates the world (Matt. 19:28). “…[i]t is very

clear in 2 Peter that we are not talking about repeating cycles, but about linear history punctuated

with divine judgment. We are also not talking about a necessary and natural process (and that is

especially the case in Stoic materialism), but about the divine word being the cause of these

judgments.”33

Having given a sketch of Adventist eschatology in its particulars, I will now try to outline

the concept of theistic evolution before drawing its implications for Adventist eschatology.

Theistic Evolution

In the creation-evolution version of the ongoing debate between religion and science, the

issue is usually cast simply as an either-or conflict.34 There are those, however, who while

refusing to accept such polarization, provide a third alternative, suggesting evolution as the

physical process that God initiated and sustained to create the universe. It is this mediating

position that has been referred to as “theistic evolution.” Theistic evolutionists are all in

agreement on the foundational point that evolution is the means by which God initiated and

sustains the created universe. Different meanings of evolution, however, lead to different

conceptions of theistic evolution. Out of the three main conceptions of evolution, two are

33
Peter H. Davids, The Letters of 2nd Peter and Jude (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2006),
273.
34
Michael A. Harbin, “Theistic Evolution: Deism Revisited, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40/4
(1997), 639. Harbin explains, “This simplification probably occurs because the classic evolutionist position is both
naturalistic and atheistic. It is naturalistic because it argues that the entire universe is a product of natural processes
that are currently being observed through science and that may be extrapolated back for an extremely long period of
time. It is atheistic because a universe of natural causes seems to lead logically into a position that there is no God.
The antithesis of this position is creationism, normally formulated in terms of a literal understanding of the first two
chapters of Genesis and usually associated with what is called a young earth.” See also, David H. Lane, “Special
Creation or Evolution: No Middle Ground,” Bibliotheca Sacra 151 (1994), 11.

14
particularly relevant to our discussion—evolution as common descent and evolution as the

creative power of natural selection.35 Besides these two conceptions of evolution which in their

essence concern biotic evolution, evolutionary thought on contemporary physics and cosmology

need to be taken into account as we try to understand theistic evolution.

Some Basic Concepts in Evolutionary Thought

Since theistic evolution is based on the scientific concept of evolution, it would be

helpful to outline some key concepts in evolutionary thought that must of necessity be of interest

to theistic evolutionists. A first key evolutionary theme is that of common descent. Evolution as

common descent is a view shared by many biologists today, and that was the basic sense in

which Charles Darwin conceived of his notion of evolution. The idea of common descent,

depicted as a great branching tree, has the bottom of the trunk representing the primal organism

whereas the branches stand for the new forms of life that have grown out of it. If this idea were

to be portrayed graphically, we would have a vertical axis on which the tree is plotted to be the

“arrow of time” while the horizontal axis would represent changes in biological form.36 Since

common descent requires all organisms to be related as a single family, this meaning of

evolution leads to what is called a “monophyletic” view of the history of life. Furthermore, this

view of evolution implies gradual, continuous, and virtually infinite biological change.

A second important evolutionary theme is the fact that the creative power by which the

change mentioned above occurs has been accorded to the mechanism of natural selection.

Natural selection works on random changes that occur in the chemical units of DNA to bring

35
J. P. Moreland et. al, (eds.), 34-40. Stephen C. Meyer classifies the three meanings of evolution as follows: 1.
evolution as “change over time” (such as we see in microevolution); 2. Evolution as “common descent” (meaning,
all living organisms have descended from a single common ancestor in the distant past; 3. Evolution as “the creative
power of the natural selection/random variation mechanism (with attention on natural selection, acting upon genetic
mutation, as the mechanism that produces change, even the macro evolutionary change implied in evolution as
common descent.
36
Ibid, 36.

15
about the adaptive complexity of life.37 Furthermore, evolutionary biologists account for the

appearance of design in biological systems by the same mechanism of natural selection and

random variation.38 The idea is that nature itself, through environmental changes and other

factors has the same effect on organisms as an intelligent agent would.39When discussion on

evolution centers on common descent and the mechanism of natural selection, it is usually the

history of “life” that is in view.40 Similar evolutionary thinking, however, lies behind the

conception of the world of galaxies, stars and planets. The American physicist Howard J. Van

Till writes in support of his claim for the validity of biotic evolution, that “It is a conclusion

entirely consistent with the conclusion reached by physical scientists regarding the formational

history of the universe of galaxies, stars, and planets.”41 The scenario he puts forth for this

formational path includes movement from quarks to protons and neutrons, to atomic nuclei, to

different atomic nuclei, to atoms, to molecules, and in the large context of space, to massive

clouds of atoms and molecules that act and interact to form immense physical structures such as

galaxies, planets, and the like.42

37
Ibid.
38
Ibid, 37
39
Francisco Ayala explains, “It was Darwin’s greatest accomplishment to show that the directive organization of
living beings can be explained as the result of a natural process, natural selection, without any need to resort to a
Creator or other external agent,” in “Darwin’s Greatest Discovery: Design without Designer,” Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences USA 104 (May 15, 2007), 8567-8573; quoted in J. P. Moreland et. al, (eds.), 39.
40
Indeed, it is even more accurate to say that “natural selection does not account for how biological forms and
phenotypes arise in the first place. The Darwinian narrative of evolution does not concern the origin of life, but its
subsequent development. See, Alister E. McGrath, Darwinism and the Divine: Evolutionary Thought and Natural
Theology (West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 188.
41
Howard J. Van Till, “The Fully Gifted Creation, ‘Theistic Evolution,” in Stanley N. Gundry et. al (eds.) Three
Views on Creation and Evolution (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), 183. Van Till writes about creation’s
formational economy by which he means “a particular set of resources and capabilities with which the creation has
been gifted by God ,… the creation’s resources and capabilities that contribute to its ability to organize or transform
itself into a diversity of physical structures and life-forms,” 184.
42
Ibid, 184-185. See also McGrath, 188. Alister McGrath confirms that both organic and inorganic things are one
piece of the same evolutionary process. “The process of evolution at the physical, chemical, and biological levels
shows a marked and essentially irreversible trend towards complexity. The initial cosmic “big bang” created a
rapidly expanding universe consisting primarily of hydrogen, helium, and small quantities of lithium. These three
elements are incapable, individually or in any known combination, of supporting or leading to life. After the initial
period of rapid expansion, clumps of cosmic material began to aggregate, creating the dense regions of very high

16
 A third notable theme of discussion in evolutionary thought is the notions of chance. The

concept is used generally in connection with the description of Darwinian evolution as a

“random” process. Thus, the French atheist biologist Jacques Monod (1910-2002) proclaimed

that the evolutionary process is governed and directed by “pure chance, absolutely free, but

blind.”43 This understanding of randomness or chance suggests that it is meaningless to talk

about purpose and direction in the evolutionary process. But others, such as Arthur Peacocke,

have interpreted the concept of chance in a more positive light. For him, it is through the agency

of rapid and frequent randomization/chance at the molecular level of DNA that the potentialities

of living matter are explored.44 Charles Darwin had argued that daily and hourly, natural

selection scrutinizes the world for every variation and rejects what is bad, while preserving and

adding up all that is good.45 Meanwhile, those variations are caused by chance, although the

outcomes are not determined by it, since the evolutionary process has a tendency to navigate its

way to certain apparently predetermined outcomes. 46

A fourth significant theme in evolutionary thought is the notion of teleology. The word

teleology is used to describe behavioral observations in phenomena that appear to be purposeful,

directional, or tending towards goals, whether driven by internal or external forces. Already in

pressure and temperature that we call “stars.” These conditions led to the emergence of stellar nucleosynthesis, in
which nuclear fusion led to the gradual formation of heavier elements, such as carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen—all of
which are essential to life. Chemical complexity thus developed over time.”
43
Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity: An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology (New York:
Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), 112-12; quoted in McGrath, 192.
44
Arthur Peacocke, Creation and the World of Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), 94; discussed in
McGrath, 192.
45
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection (London: John Murray, 1859), 84.
46
McGrath, 192-193. McGrath reflects on the work of the paleobiologist Simon Conway Morris who argues that the
evolutionary process possesses a propensity to navigates its way to certain apparently predetermined outcomes.
Thus, Morris speaks about “convergent evolution,” meaning, “the recurrent tendency of biological organization to
arrive at the same solution to a particular need.” Simon C. Morris, Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely
Universe (Cambridge: Cambridge University press, 2003), xii. Thus, although evolutionary routes are many, the
destinations are limited.

17
the days of Darwin, Thomas H. Huxley (1825-1895) argued for what he called a “wider

teleology” in the theory of evolution.

“The teleological and mechanical views of nature are not, necessarily, mutually
exclusive. On the contrary, the more purely a mechanist the speculator is, the more firmly
does he assume a primordial molecular arrangement of which all the phenomena of the
universe are the consequences, and the more completely is he thereby at the mercy of the
teleologist, who can always defy him to disprove that this primordial molecular
arrangement was not intended to evolve the phenomena of the universe.47

McGrath insists that we distinguish teleology from design. While the former may simply be

interpreted as evidence of function or purpose within nature, the latter involves intent applied

externally to the order of nature with the view of achieving some end or external goal.48 On this

account of teleology, the interrelations of structures and processes in organisms, the adaptation

of organisms, and natural selection itself have been considered to be teleological processes.49

With regards to natural selection as a teleological process, “it is directed to the goal of increasing

reproductive efficiency and generates the goal-directed organs and processes required for this.

Teleological mechanisms in living organism are thus biological adaptations, which have arisen

as a result of the process of natural selection.”50 But the universe as a whole is considered to

embody a “wider teleology.” The idea is that the properties of elements and compounds that

scientists consider to be critical to the origin and development of life, were fixed at the origins of

the universe, thus placing the Darwinian mechanism in a wider context that enables one to speak

of a wider or deeper teleology.51

A fifth scientific idea that is relevant to our topic is the concept of emergence. Emergence

47
Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, vol. 2, 201; quoted in McGrath, 186.
48
McGrath, 189.
49
Ibid, 190.
50
Ibid, 191.
51
Ibid, 197.

18
theory was formed as a meta-scientific interpretation of evolution in all its forms: cosmic,

biological, mental, and cultural.52 Generally, the term is used to refer to “the appearance in

natural history of more and more intricately organized physical and living systems over the

course of time.”53 It relates to the development, over time, of new and unpredictable properties

and behaviors that incorporate increasing levels of complexity within the natural world.54 It now

believed that everything that exists in space and time is made up of particles that are known to

physics. When these particles aggregate and attain a certain level of organizational complexity,

new properties appear. The properties that emerge, however, cannot be reduced to or predicted

from the lower level phenomena from which it appeared. Nevertheless, entities are higher levels

have causal influence over properties of the lower level elements.55 Biophysicist Harold

Morowitz is noted to have observed that the history of the universe shows evidence of at least

twenty-eight clear stages of emergence.56

On the basis of these concepts of evolutionary thought, scientific naturalism comes to the

conclusion that nature is all that there is, and science is the only reliable way to understand it.57

Embodied in such scientism is an antagonistic approach to the science-religion debate. Theistic

evolution, however, interprets these ideas differently, based on an understanding that both

disciplines can have a mutually enriching dialogue. John C. Polkinghorne, for example, is

committed to a principle of the unity of knowledge which leads him to observe that

God is the ground of all that is, every kind of human rational investigation of reality must
have something to contribute to theological thinking, as the latter pursues its goal of an
adequate understanding of the created world, understood in the light of the belief that the

52
Niels Henrik Gregersen, “Emergence and Complexity,” in Philip Clayton (ed.) Oxford Handbook of Religion and
Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 767.
53
John F. Haught, Is Nature Enough? Meaning and Truth in the Age of Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2006), 77.
54
McGrath, 230.
55
Ibid, 230-31
56
Haught, 78
57
Ibid, 4.

19
 mind and purposes of the Creator lie behind cosmic order and history. Every mode of
rational exploration of reality will have an offering to make.58

Consequently, he shares the view that the search for the knowledge of God must be anchored in

experience; “that theology stands in need of data which in George Tyrrell’s words are ‘not

tacked down to the table by religious authority’”59 Along these lines, many scientists who feel

committed to both science and religion have explored possible ways and means of connecting

scientific insights with religious/theological beliefs. So, Arthur R. Peacocke, a panentheist, quite

early suggested that the new scientific perspective requires a reinterpretation of the classical

version of creation to mean that the cosmos which is sustained and held in being by God “is a

cosmos which has always been in process of producing new emergent forms of matter.”60

Furthermore, he suggests that the most meaningful theological account ought to emphasize “that

God is immanent, that his action in the world is continuously creative, and that the coming of

Christ and the role of the Church are to be understood in such dynamic terms, rather than in the

more classical and static images of earlier theological exposition.”61 Peacocke’s theological

reinterpretation exploits three key concepts, including that of emergence, which he himself was

influential in developing. He sees parallels between the natural world and the world of

theological studies. These parallels involve, “first, emergent ontological features; second, higher

levels of causal influences; and third, transformation of lower-level components by means of

downward influences from the emergent ontological levels.”62 Peacocke expounds further on his

58
John C. Polkinghorne, Theology in the Context of Science Theology (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
2009), 9.
59
John C. Polkinghorne, The Faith of a Physicist: Reflections of a Bottom-Up Thinker (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1996), 35.
60
Arthur R. Peacocke, “Chance, Potentiality, and God,” Modern Churchman, ns 17 no 1 Oct 1973, 20-21.
61
Ibid.
62
See Nancey Murphey, “Arthur Peacocke’s Naturalistic Christian Faith for the Twenty-First Century: A Brief
Introduction,” in Zygon 43/1 (2008), 69.
-

20
work by clarifying his motivation to be the result of

perceiving a certain connectedness between the theology [he had] been developing,
constructed in relation to the scientific account of the world, and the way the natural world
itself, as perceived through the sciences may be interpreted. . . . The hierarchy of complexity
of the natural world, increasingly explicated by the sciences both in detail and through wider
concepts, has made apparent how new realities emerge at higher levels of complexity, with
all their interactions and ramifications and how these higher levels of complexity can
influence, and even trans- form, the behavior of the lower-level entities that constitute them.
It has occurred to me that this same “scenario,” if I may so put it, is also manifest in those
situations we denote as spiritual or religious experiences, which theology then attempts to
analyze and to formulate intellectually and conceptually.63

Peacocke is only one of many thinkers (theistic evolutionists), who try to bring science and

religion together by interpreting Christian teachings in the context of scientific findings. Our

interest in this presentation, however, focuses on theistic evolution and its impact on the

Seventh-day Adventist teaching on eschatology as outlined above. To facilitate this reflection, it

would be helpful, now, to explore theistic evolution’s approach to eschatology vis-à-vis

Adventist eschatology.

Theistic Evolution’s Eschatology in Relation to Adventist Eschatology

In defining Adventist eschatology, I explored it in terms of its form as historicist; its

content as looking for a general worsening of the circumstances of human existence under

human control, until God intervenes and rectifies what is occurring; its agency as supernatural

and a genuinely transcendent working by God; and its focus as otherworldly. I will try to follow

the same procedure in relating Adventist eschatology to theistic evolution’s eschatology, using

63
Arthur Peacocke, “A Naturalistic Christian Faith for the Twenty-First Century: An Essay in Interpretation,” in
Philip Clayton (ed.) All That Is: A Naturalistic Faith for the Twenty-First Century (Minneapolis: Fortress), 3, quoted
in Murphy, 69.

21
primarily Polkinghorne’s eschatological vision, because he has engaged more explicitly with the

question of eschatology.64

The Form of Adventist Eschatology versus Theistic Evolution’s Eschatology

I have already characterized Adventist eschatology as historicist in form, which is in

reference to the way prophetic and apocalyptic material in the Bible, especially Daniel and

Revelation, are interpreted. As mentioned earlier, historicism takes the view that the events

described in prophetic/apocalyptic materials were in the future at the time of writing but refer to

matters destined to take place throughout the history of the church. The focus here is on the

events. From the historicist point of view, these events are not actions that occur by

happenstance or on account of processes of present reality. They are prophetic events, and

“Prophecy necessarily assumes that God is able to speak and that the God who speaks is the one

who acts”65 In sum, the suggestion of the form of Adventist eschatology as historicist presents a

view of eschatology as God-ordained prophetic history, dependent on the possibility of

predictive prophecy.

I wish to suggest, however, that theistic evolutionist eschatology, on the whole, is a

Christian attempt to formulate a response to the eschatological implications of scientific

cosmology.66 In general, these responses take the form of transformational processes that have

64
See, John Polkinghorne and Michael Welker (eds), The End of the World and the Ends of God: Science and
Theology on Eschatology (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000). For a more extensive discussion on
Polkinghorne’s eschatology vis-à-vis his protology see H. Nicholas De Lima, Protology and Eschatology in the
Writings of John C. Polkinghorne: a Study of Contrastive Roles of Scripture, Master’s Theses, Andrews University,
2012 at http:// digitalcommons.andrews.edu/theses.
65
David W. Pao, “Prophecy and Prophets in the NT” in Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Craig G. Bartholomew, Daniel J.
Treier, and N. T. Wright, (eds.) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academic, 2005), 624.
66
See Robert John Russell, “Eschatology and Scientific Cosmology: From Deadlock to Interaction,” in Zygon 47/4
(2012), 999. “When we expand the domain of eschatology from an anthropological and even an ecoterrestrial
context to a cosmological horizon, we encounter the grim reality of a universe in which all life must inevitably and
remorselessly be extinguished. Following this, the prognosis for far cosmic future is either “freeze or fry” (i.e.,
either endless cold as the universe expands forever or unimaginable heat as it recollapses), and as we shall see
following, current cosmology strongly points to “freeze” through an eternal and accelerating expansion.”

22
roots in the present world and into a transformed future. One such approach is the so-called

“physical eschatology” of Frank Tipler. Polkinghorne crystallizes the core position of Tipler as

follows

Humanity, and carbon-based life generally, will certainly disappear, but might not
‘intelligence’ be able to engineer further embodiments of itself, appropriate to changing
cosmic circumstances and permitting either its infinite continuance within the decaying
phase of an expanding universe, or processing of an infinite amount of information
during the hectic, highly energetic, final moments of a collapsing cosmos?67

Tipler’s approach has been described as reducing Christian eschatology to physical cosmology

and Polkinghorne has criticized it as having physical, anthropological, teleological and intuitive

difficulties.68 On his own part, Polkinghorne presents an eschatology also based on the

transformation of the universe into the new creation, using the analogy of the bodily resurrection

of Christ. He distinguishes the old creation from the new creation with the phrases creation ex

nihilo and creation ex vetere (from the old) respectively and explains, “the old creation is God’s

bringing into being a universe which is free to exist ‘on its own,’ in the ontological space made

available to it by the divine kenotic act of allowing the existence of something wholly other; the

new creation is the divine redemption of the old.”69

Clearly, Polkinghorne is committed to seeing eschatology in the form of a

transformational process in such a way that there will be continuity between the old and the new

creation.70 His evolutionary framework comes through when he postulates regarding the new

67
Polkinghorne, The Faith of a Physicist, 164-165.
68
Ibid.
69
Ibid.
70
Russel sheds some light on Polkinghorne on this aspect of his program. “Involved in its [a resurrected world
created ex vetere] coming to be must be both continuity and discontinuity, just as the Lord’s risen body bears the
scars of the passion but is also transmuted and glorified”… Polkinghorne then focuses on the element of continuity
that will characterize the transformation of the universe into the new creation, since it is here that science can offer a
partial perspective on these elements of continuity. He starts with such theories as special relativity, quantum
mechanics, chaos theory, and thermodynamics and “distills‫ ״‬out of them some very general features of the universe

23
creation, “its process can be free from suffering, for it is conceivable that the divinely ordained

laws of nature appropriate to a world making itself through its own evolutionary history should

give way to a differently constituted form of ‘matter,’ appropriate to a universe ‘freely returned’

from independence to an existence of integration with its Creator” (emphasis mine).71 It is

correct that in describing the new creation, the Bible intends the renewal and not abolition of

creation. Nevertheless, the cosmic dissolution that the Bible describes in 2 Peter 3:10-12, for

example, emphasizes such radical discontinuity between the old and the new that it is hard to see

it as processive in form.72

From the point of view of the form that eschatology takes, theistic evolutionary

eschatology and Adventist eschatology take different paths. While theistic evolution’s

commitment to evolutionary science inclines it to adopt a developmental/processive approach to

eschatology, Adventists’ commitment to historicism sees eschatology as the active work of God

in a God-ordained prophetic history. The two approaches are clearly incompatible.

The Content of Adventist Eschatology versus Theistic Evolution’s Eschatology

Earlier on, I presented the content of Adventist eschatology as comprising the topics of

the Second Coming of Christ, the millennium, judgment, and the final states of the redeemed and

the lost, cast within the context of the cosmic conflict motif. I argued that these topics acquire

their intelligibility through this motif, which is really a philosophy of history. I emphasized that

as a philosophy of history, the cosmic conflict motif is a metanarrative of cosmic and world

that might be a clue to the new creation: relationality and holism, energy, pattern (form), and mathematics.” See
Russell, 1006.
71
Polkinghorne, The Faith of a Physicist, 167.
72
See Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter; Word Biblical Commentary vol. 50 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983),
326. “The cosmic dissolution described in vv 10, 12, was a return to the primeval chaos, as in the Flood (3:6), so that
a new creation may emerge (cf. 4 Ezra 7:30–31). Such passages emphasize the radical discontinuity between the old
and the new, but it is nevertheless clear that they intend to describe a renewal, not an abolition, of creation (cf. 1
Enoch 54:4–5; Rom 8:21).”

24
history which has a genuine specific, temporal, historic beginning and a definite historic end.

Thus, the cosmic conflict motif inextricably links a creation by fiat protology to a re-creation

eschatology.

Polkinghorne’s notion of the new creation as creation ex vetere is a clear indication that

theistic evolutionists also link protology to eschatology. “The new creation is the divine

redemption of the old,”73 Polkinghorne observes. Consequently, it is critical, however, to

understand the nature of the “old creation” since the content of eschatology will necessarily be

defined by it. After all, eschatology (new creation) is the redemption of the old creation.

It is well known that theistic evolutionists make several substantive and interpretive

claims about biblical protology (Gen. 1-3): Genesis 1-3 should be read as “poetry and allegory,”

and not as historical narrative;74 creation was “brought into being in a relatively formless state,

but brimming with awesome potentialities for achieving a rich diversity of forms in the course of

time;”75 “…Adam and Eve would not necessarily be envisioned as the first human beings, but

would be elect individuals drawn out of the human population and given a particular

representative role in sacred space.”76 It seems that after denying the historic specificities of

biblical protology as outlined in Genesis 1-3, theistic evolution’s account of the content of

eschatology is bound to be vacuous.

The Adventist approach to all the topics of eschatology outlined above reflect the

understanding that those supernatural interventions of God in history, especially towards its end,

represent the resolution of the cosmic conflict. These are the redemptive responses of God to the

73
Polkinghorne, The Faith of a Physicist, 167.
74
Francis Collins, The Language of God (New York: Free Press, 2006), 206, quoted in J. P Moreland et. al, 791.
75
Van Till, 203
76
John Walton, “A Historical Adam: Archetypal Creation View,” In Matthew Barrett and Ardel B. Caneday (eds.),
Four Views on the Historic Adam (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 109.

25
fall of Adam and its consequences on the creation. On the other hand, a theistic evolutionist,

such as Polkinghorne, while using the language of eschatology to describe the new creation as

“the divine redemption of the old,” can still object to the biblical portrayal of the new creation in

2 Corinthians 5:17 and Revelation 21:1-4 as “pie-in-the-sky.”77 Indeed, because Polkinghorne is

committed, formally, to the view that eschatology is dependent on evolutionary/developmental

processes, albeit an act of God, he is not able to accord any real historical status to the realities of

eschatology. Regarding heaven he observes that “the patient process of this world will find its

reflection in the redemptive process of the world to come. Our notion of heaven is delivered

from any static, and potentially boring, conception.”78 Similarly, while affirming the Christian

hope that the resurrection of Jesus is the vindication of the hopes of humanity, he warns that the

language of Christ ascended and sitting at the right hand of the Father (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:6-11;

2:34-36; Heb. 8:1) is so heavily symbolic that

We are not committed to the quaint picture, sometimes found in medieval stained glass,
of the Lord’s feet projecting from the underside of a cloud, as he sets out on his space-
journey to the heavenly realm. In Scripture a cloud is the symbolic presence of God
(Exod. 19:16; Dan. 7:13; Mark 9:7), and its role in the story of the ascension is to
emphasize the divine authority of the exalted Christ.79

So, if Jesus ascending to heaven with the clouds is a quaint picture that we are no longer

committed to, it is hard to know what to make of Acts 1:10-11, a core eschatological text for

Adventists. The historical, literal understanding of topics such as Jesus’ second coming,

resurrection of the dead, heaven, judgment, and the new earth have always characterized

77
Polkinghorne, The Faith of a Physicist, 166.
78
Ibid, 170.
79
Ibid, 123. Polkinghorne continues to observe that “A similar purpose is served by the mythological language of
the heavenly session. The words of Psalm 110:1: ‘The Lord sys to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, till I make your
enemies your footstool,” ‘ afforded the early Church some clue to how the Lordship of Christ was related to the
fundamental Lordship of God.”

26
Seventh-day Adventist eschatology. Theistic evolution, by denying the literal, historic reading of

Genesis 1-3, would so undercut the theological foundation of the Adventist historicist approach

to these eschatological doctrines as to make Adventism unrecognizable.

The Agency of Adventist Eschatology versus Theistic Evolution’s Eschatology

I distinguished God’s agency in Adventist eschatology on the basis of a view of a God

who transcends His creation and yet governs it providentially through indirect and direct

supernatural means. This manner of God’s agency or involvement in history is a theological

derivative of traditional Christian understanding of a supernatural fiat creation and direct divine

providence. The manner of God’s activities regarding “last things” are correlated to the nature of

His “beginnings” activities. On these two points, the approach of theistic evolution stands,

necessarily, in stark contrast to the Adventist view, if only we remind ourselves that the

formulators of theistic evolution intend for it to qualify as an alternative to neo-Darwinism.80 It is

true that theistic evolutionists generally affirm that it was God who created the universe and the

laws of nature. Nevertheless, their commitment to the validity of evolutionary science restrains

them from affirming direct divine supernatural involvement in the history of the created order.

That prospect will imply a “God of the gaps” situation which would be unsatisfying for the

nature of God’s work. But, once one makes the commitment to explain “beginnings” and

providence not by direct supernatural causes, but by “secondary causes” such as the laws of

nature and evolutionary mechanisms (natural selection and random mutations, etc), consistency

would demand that the “last things” be explained in similar terms.81 So Polkinghorne explains,

80
Stephen C. Meyer, “The Difference It Doesn’t Make: Why the “Front-End Loaded” Concept of Design fails to
Explain the Origin of Biological Information,” in J. P. Moreland, et al., 217.
81
I think Philip Clayton is correct in observing that for one who attempts a theology of nature in the light of
contemporary science, “at the points at which one may wish to break with the (apparent) implications of the
scientific results, it mandates that one either finds reasons inherent within the sciences themselves for making that
break, or that one supply reasons that might be held to be convincing in other fields (history, the human sciences,

27
“the history of this universe is that of an enfolding process, and we have already said that the life

of the world to come may also be expected to involve a similar unfolding process.”82 The notion

of the universe as an unfolding process has implications for God’s knowledge that would seem to

undercut the very notion of prophecy. This issue must be pointed out before proceeding further.

Polkinghorne remarks that

If the universe is one of true becoming, with the future not yet formed and existing, and if
God knows that world in its temporality, then that seems to me to imply that God cannot
yet know the future. This is no imperfection in the divine nature, for the future is not yet
there to be known. Involved in the act of creation, in the letting-be of the truly other, is
not only a kenosis of divine power but also a kenosis of divine knowledge.83

Back to Polkinghorne’s rejection of the “pie-in-the sky” understanding of the new

creation, the logic he employed is quite instructive on how he suggests one ought to think about

the new creation and the manner of God’s involvement in it. After recognizing that in traditional

Christian thought the resurrection of Christ within history is understood as the anticipation of a

great event lying beyond history, he suggests that there is an obvious difficulty in such a

conception, and queries,

Does the future hope not devalue the present reality, by making the former the true
existence and the latter only an unsatisfactory prelude to it? Indeed, one might add, an
unnecessary prelude, for if the new creation is going to be so wonderful—and its nature is
expressed in terms of a picture where ‘death shall be no more, neither shall there be
mourning, nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away’ (Rev.
21:4) —why did God bother with the old?84

ethics or philosophy) which point in the direction of the theological conclusions one wishes to defend.” See his God
and Contemporary Science (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1997), 8.
82
John Polkinghorne and Michael Welker (eds), The End of the World and the Ends of God: Science and Theology
on Eschatology (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000), 40. Indeed, Polkinghorne feels unhappy about
apocalyptic theology because “it introduces a surd-like rift into the story of creation,” ibid, 38.
83
John Polkinghorne, Belief in God in an Age of Science (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 73.
84
Polkinghorne, The Faith of a Physicist, 166.

28
Polkinghorne seems committed to the notion of God’s use of secondary causes, even in the new

creation, by suggesting that the “matter” of that world to come must be such that it will not

“enforce recapitulation of the deadly raggednesses and malfunctions of the present universe.”85

He lays it down as a non-negotiable principle that “what we must be at pains wholly to exclude is

any magical notion of a divine tour de force simply putting right, through the exercise of naked

power, something which had otherwise got out of control.”86 Yet, it must be made clear that

Polkinghorne seems committed to the view that eschatological hope cannot be based on a kind of

evolutionary optimism that depends solely on the extrapolation of present process.87 Thus in

critiquing Frank Tipler he remarks categorically, “I regard physical eschatology as presenting us

with the ultimate reduction ad absurdum of a merely evolutionary optimism.”88 How, then, shall

we reconcile Polkinghorne’s apparent commitment to the use of secondary causes in the new

creation and his denial of basing eschatological hope in evolutionary optimism? It seems that the

constitution of the “new matter” of the new creation is the work of the Spirit of God, but the

unfolding of the new creation is subsequently the activity of appropriate laws of nature. “If the

world to come is to be free from death and suffering, its “matter-energy” will have to be given a

different character. There will have to be a discontinuous change of physical law.”89

The Focus of Adventist Eschatology versus Theistic Evolution’s Eschatology

The concern in this section is to enquire about the end point of theistic evolution’s

eschatology and relate it to Adventist eschatology. I have just spent some time emphasizing that

for Adventist eschatology, God is the agent who acts directly and supernaturally in the eschaton.

85
Ibid.
86
Ibid, 169.
87
See H. Nicholas De Lima, 87, footnote 22.
88
Polkinghorne, The Faith of a Physicist, 165.
89
Polkinghorne and Welker (eds.), 39.

29
He does all this for the purpose of resolving the problem of the creation’s futility in a new

creation which Polkinghorne characterized as “pie-in-the-sky.” So, what is the end game of

theistic evolution? For Polkinghorne, the end game is “an existence of integration with its

Creator.”90 He sets this in contrast to the goal of the old creation. The old creation did not lie

outside the sustaining and providential care of God, but it was “endowed with the ability through

the shuffling explorations of its happenstance to ‘make itself.’”91 Suffering was a necessary part

of that process. The new creation, however, is constituted with a form of “matter” that leads into

an existence of integration of the world into its creator. It is a universal return, a theosis

(deification), brought about by the cosmic Christ. Thus, according to Polkinghorne, “One might

say that panentheism is true as an eschatological fulfilment, not a present reality.”92

While espousing panentheism as a true eschatological fulfilment, Polkinghorne seems to

be uncertain about universal salvation. He incorporates judgment in his eschatological vision, but

he seems to prevaricate on the subject of universalism, noting: “I cannot believe that God will

ever foreclose on his loving offer of mercy, but equally I do not believe he will override the

human freedom to refuse.”93 Also, “there cannot be a kind of curtain which comes down at

death, dividing humanity irreversibly into the companies of the saved and of the damned.”94 His

solution seems to be an existential interpretation of the judgment, based, in part, on the parable

of sheep and goats (Matt. 25:31-46).

Take that haunting parable of judgement, the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46). To the
sheep the Lord says . . . To the goats, the Lord says the opposite. . . . These words present us
with a formidable challenge, but if we take them seriously, do we find ourselves
unambiguously in one company or the other? . . . We are neither wholly sheep nor wholly
goat. Perhaps then, judgement is not simply a retrospective assessment of what we have been
but it includes the prospective offer of what we might become. . . . Perhaps judgement builds

90
Ibid, The Faith of a Physicist, 167.
91
Ibid.
92
Ibid, 168.
93
Ibid, 171.
94
Ibid.

30
 up the sheep and diminishes the goat in each one of us.95

If judgment includes the prospective offer of what we might become as well as builds up the

sheep and diminishes the goat in each one of us, then it seems to be an evolutionary or

developmental process and not something indicative of an end state in the eschaton. From the

point of view of Polkinghorne’s panentheism as a true eschatological fulfilment and judgment as

an “unfinished business,” we are far away from the Adventist understanding of the goal of

eschatology as outlined above.

Conclusion

Doctrines such as the second coming of Christ, judgment, the millennium, and the new

earth are well known to be in the DNA of Seventh-day Adventist beliefs. They constitute what is

sometimes referred to as the pillars of Adventist belief. These are also some of the doctrines that

are generally discussed under the subject of eschatology. Thus, Adventist theologically is

fundamentally eschatological, and in the first part of this paper, I tried to outline the nature of

that eschatology. One of the key points I tried to bring across is the fact that Seventh-day

Adventist understanding of the eschatological doctrines mentioned above are shaped by a

historicist perspective on the Bible, with particular emphasis on its prophetic parts. A historicist

perspective, however, has clear implications for our understanding of the nature of God and His

activities in both creation and providence. Furthermore, the Adventist cosmic-conflict motif

provides the metanarrative within which to understand, with a significant degree of specificity,

the nature of God and His activities in the history of our world. Adventists understand God to be

a transcendent God who spoke, and thereby brought the world and its laws into being at a point

in time. He has since intervened to care for the creation, following its fall from the created ideal,

95
John C. Polkinghorne, The God of Hope and the End of the World (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
2002), 129-130; quoted in H. Nicholas De Lima, 100.

31
in both direct and indirect ways. His goal is, through such eschatological events as the second

coming of Christ, the judgment, the millennium, and the creation of the new earth and the new

heaven, to restore the creation to its original ideal. All of these ideas hang together as a coherent

theological system, and a change in one aspect of it will necessarily result in a reconfiguration of

the whole system.

Theistic evolution, as a theological system however, construes the nature of God and His

activities both in creation and providence in a way that seeks to accommodate the findings of

science on matters of origins and cosmology. Reality as we know it today is the result of

evolutionary processes, based, for many theistic evolutionists, on God’s “giftedness” to the

original stuff of the Big Bang. All things, including sentient beings, have evolved through

evolutionary mechanisms and phenomena such as the laws of nature, natural selection, and

emergence. The biblical narrative of Adam and Eve is not literal history; and so is the fall. Under

this scheme, God cannot be allowed to intervene in natural processes since it will evoke the

“unsatisfying” specter of “the God of the gaps.” In conclusion to an essay on eschatology,

Polkinghorne makes an observation that appears to underscore his underlying methodology.

In eschatological discourse, science mostly poses some of the questions and looks to
theology principally to provide the answers. Yet the form these answers take will have to
bear a sufficiently consonant relation to the process of this present universe so as to be
persuasive that, amid the redemptive transformation of the old through God’s gracious
action, there is enough continuity to make sense of the conviction that it is indeed
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who live everlastingly in the divine presence.96

Adventist eschatology and theistic evolution’s eschatology are built on such contrasting

hermeneutical foundations that they cannot coexist coherently. To adopt theistic evolution and its

eschatological vision into the Adventist belief system would mean a reworking of Adventist

96
Polkinghorne and Welker (eds.), 41.

32
eschatology in a way that will bear no resemblance to what we know it to be presently.

33