Evolution Corrupts the Gospel

BobRyan writes:

Bob you need to define your terms.

“Evolutionism” can be defined as a form of religion that certainly does attack the foundations of theism. It is an atheistic religion. In it’s extreme form it invokes faith in the god of “chance”.

Here you have confused what evolutionism teaches. A theory becomes a theistic religion when it acknowledges a creator god.

Study the terms, know what you are battling. Some forms of evolution are acceptable to Christians. Even Young earth creationist will usually agree that evolution occurs within certain well defined bounds.

 

Well Bob, then you are talking to me.

I'm an old earth creationist. I think there is overwhelming evidence for the antiquity of the earth. (Please don’t post scientific evidences to the contrary, I’ve kept up to date in the debates and know most of the proofs-—both for and against).

Until Darwin’s theory was proposed the issue was rarely debated in the Christian community; it was a side issue that was considered very speculative. Many early Christian theologians felt differently about the literal 6/24 creation interpretation. While their beliefs don’t prove anything, it does confirm in my mind that their can be a difference in opinion and still be fellowship within the fold.

Name calling and derisive comments about the opposing view are rarely effective.

Rob

 

I will doubtlessly be described as a fence sitter. Although I am personally convinced that there are ample evidences for an old earth, I can’t take a passionate stance in support of any of the current O.E. theories.

As you have mentioned in your previous posts there is occasionally some compromise involved when Christians take various stances closely associated with evolution. It is a slippery slope that is trod.

Theistic evolutionists generally display their theological weaknesses in some the areas you have mentioned; particularly the fall of man. There are however some theistic evolutionists (even on this board) who will maintain that it is possible to have a ‘physically evolved yet spiritually empowered’ man who spiritually represented all mankind in the fall. I see this as a major weakness.

Progressive creationist still defend the ancient antiquity of the earth (as the Theistic evolutionists and the Evolutionist themselves uphold) but propose that God worked throughout the creation process in direct and indirect ways. These indirect ways would allow the processes of evolution to work “within each kind”.
Progressive creationism does acknowledge the death of plant and animal life prior to the fall of man.

Evolutionism, the quasi-religious stance that the universe created itself, can be credited with providing a reasonable excuse for those who want to deny the Creator and His power over His works. This is the evil that needs to be confronted.

Rob

 

That view might be called a Gap theory. It has some unique problems too.

But to continue the thought of this thread; Can you list those “details” which are undeniably expressed in N.T. scripture.

…And perhaps express what the unbiblical views are too.

For a start I will submit that Adam and Eve were historical people, to say otherwise would create problems with the understanding of Genesis 1:26-30 (OT) and I Corinthians 15:22, 45f, 1 Timothy 2:13 (NT). If this literal interpretation is tinkered with it effects (1) the idea of a fall, (2)man’s responsibility and (3) God’s plan for redemption (Romans 5:14-21). To call the matter a myth compromises the events surrounding the life, burial and resurrection of Christ as discussed in 1 Corinthians, and doctrinally involves the aspects of the natural and federal headship of Adam.

Rob

 

Well, perhaps in this thread we'll agree not to discuss the evidence, just the consequences of acknowledging the scientific evidence for evolution and the age of the earth.

There are many of us, life-long christians, who have decided at some point or another it is necessary to accept the reality of what science has discovered concerning evolution and astronomy and the age of the earth.

I find that I am so constructed that the mere threat of being unorthodox, or being called false to the Bible, or whatever, is not sufficient to cause my reason to deny what I believe I know to be true.

Surely you would not want me to give up truth in order to be credited with doctrinal correctness by men, would you? In my mind, that is what you are asking me to do.

So in my mind, I have to ask - having expressed these opinions about the unworthy docrtinal position of such as myself, what would be the ideal way of dealing me? Would you subject me to church discipline on account of my science? Would you forbid me from playing the piano, from collecting offering plates, teaching a sunday school class, being a deacon, preaching from the pulpit? Would my tithes be acceptable in your vision of the ideal church?

These are not just rhetorical questions, for in my present church situtuation I have done every one of these from time to time.

 

It's not so much what anyone does with you, Paul, it's what you do with the Bible that is strange. You have decided that science is true and therefore there are areas in which the Bible, read in a straightforward way, are false.

Now, there are a few points that can be made about this:

1. Science is constantly 'self-correcting.' This is a euphamism for saying "we were wrong before and now we have found more information and we are right this time." This isn't a bad thing, until science supporters start saying that they have discovered the truth. They make a mockery of the entire idea of truth by doing that. Truth does not change. It is simply, objectively, there. The very fact that science finds itself and its theories in a constant state of change means that they are attempting to discover the truth, not that they have. Therefore to believe in what science says becomes a rather risky venture if one is looking for the truth about much of anything. We do the best we can with what we've got, but that does not make it the truth.

2. The Bible does not change. It purports to be the Word of God. If it is, then it contains the truth about whatever it talks about.

3. The minute something needs to be interpreted away from its clear and straightforward meaning in the Bible, man is depending on his own mind and understanding and he may as well not have the Bible at all if he is going to do that.

4. There is too much evidence in science itself which denies both evolutionary mechanisms and the time needed for evolution as presented to the public, to be the truth about the history of life on earth.

Given all of the above, the plain truth is that evolution does more than almost anything else to undermine the clear presentation in the Bible regarding origins and meaning where man is concerned. When these key points are challenged, then the gospel itself is challenged, as has been mentioned here.

I think the point that is being made is that you cannot pick and choose what parts of the Bible you prefer and ignore or 'reinterpret' other parts. It comes as a cohesive and unique whole. It also happens to contradict much of what evolutionay concepts declare as true regarding life on earth.

So a choice must be made. Is the Bible telling the truth, or is current evolutionary presentation telling the truth? They cannot both be true; if one is true, the other is false.

 

Well, I'm willing to share how I handle these matters.

I accept the Bible as determinative for matters of doctrine and practice; this I do as a matter of faith. I simply do not consider it appropriate to take scriptures as determinative about the nature of the natural world, more authorative than the natural world itself!

I accept Adam and Eve as the first of our species whom God raised to the level of being uniquely in His image, becoming living souls. I accept their fall as the first sin of our race, which each of us recapitulates in turn as we come into awareness of what sin and righteousness are.

I accept the Noah narratives as a divine intervention into all the world as known to the recorder of the narrative, which does not have to include the globe as we know it. The animals spared were local animals only.

I consider the transmission of the narratives of Genesis to have gone through minds and cultures so differently oriented from ours to time and space that the translation from one culture to another has become problematic. The ages of the patriarchs, for example, I consider to be a statement of the honor and primacy due to them in our thoughts rather than a literal number of earth orbits for their lives.

In this fashion, I read and learn of God from the scriptures even today, and I marvel at His provision of His Word that can transcend the ages in teaching us all about Him.

I dispair for those whom people such as Helen and Bob are asking to give up their knowledge so they can come into the kingdom of heaven. May God help us all to find a way to unite with Him against the forces seeking to bring ever greator darkness into this world.

 

No, Paul -- I'm asking them to ADD to their knowledge instead of simply taking the evolutionary propaganda at face value! It is propaganda, and it is wrong, and it has always been founded on the concept that God is a myth, even though theistic evolutionists are trying their best to straddle the fence.

There is a lot more science out there which denies evolution completely. People need to know it, too!

 

So...

We are here, now, in this form...

What are we changing into?
What will we be when Jesus returns?

 

LOL, no, I won't ruin this thread with actual science, don't worry, Bob! After all, it's all over the whole rest of the forum!

 

JAMES] . . . If you're asking about evolution between now and the time Jesus returns, I don't expect the human race to be given enough time to make much evolutionary change! Hmmm - when Paul of Tarsus talked about the time coming when we shall all be changed - does that count as evolution? Naah.

 

Amen to that, Paul !!

Thanks