Can a Darwinian Be a Christian?

Actually evolution does not contridict Genesis. In fact, the compliment each other. Both Genesis Cp.1 and and evolution state that creation was from the simple to the complex.

If you approach both subjects with an open mind you will find there is no real contridiction. Science tells us how God created and Genesis tells us why God created.

The confusion and contridiction is only in people's mind who have not looked at each subject to see how they compliment each other.

 

I suppose one could say that a Darwinian could be a Christian about as much as a Calvinist could be a Christian.

Salvation is not dependent on the issue of how God created but the fact that salvation is in Jesus Christ. Jesus being Lord is not dependent on the methodology of God creating. Nobody really knows how God created other than the fact that he did create.

 

Creation is historical. You cannot prove creation by the scientific method.

The evolutionists today do not agree with much of anything of the past evolutionists. Evolution is in a state of evolution in an effort to try and expalin creation without God.

 

Originally Darwins theories concerned only simple biological evolution.

As time progressed, the theory of evolution itself has evolved.

Neo-Evolution (the modern form of evolution) can be defined in a number of different ways.

One of the more popular definitions states that Evolution is a purposeless, random, natural process.

Given this definition, even a theistic evolutionist would be excluded.

Rob

 

Rom 10:9-10
(9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
(10) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.


Nothing in there about not being a Darwinian...

As a matter of fact if we had to have all our doctrines correct to be saved... it would be a works based Salvation.

The plan of salvation is simple...
God made it simple for us...

It is us that puts up obstacles so others can't get it.
We put up so many hoops that people must jump through, it is ridiculous.

Read the verses I posted again...
That's it.. that is all a person needs to be saved.

 

What does this mean ?

 

I took it to mean, there are many doctrines, but only one way to be saved...

 

I beg to differ. That is one of the confusions that may people have and it is a mistake. It is also a mistake for scientists to say there is no God. They are talking outside their area of expertise. Also, pastors are talking outside their area of deep knowledge when they make pronouncements about science. Scientists should stick to science, the how things happened, and pastors should stick to the why God did something. The two are complimentary if viewed correctly, each within its own context.

In fact, if you do a bit of research you will find that a growing number of scientists are concluding that God did create the universe and the big bang theory has been part of the reason this is true. Einstein said he did not like the idea of a big bang as he was uncomfortable with the logical conclusion it led to ... that a creator did create the universe.

 

This is a strawman, in that modern evolutionary theory say the process is anything but random. Natural selection is not random.

 

Can a D be a C?

It is interesting how we change the definitions to suit our lifestyles.

In as much as the "modern" definition of Christian has become very watered down and ambiguous, there is no real comparison without further definition of terms. As an example: there are some "Christians" who have an alternate lifestyle, some are ordained. Most Christians regard such as an abomination--the Bible still does.

Judgement must begin first at the House of God.

Darwin is a good example of a deluded soul. He has many followers in high places.

The basic premise that the Word of God must be corroborated by discoveries of men is absurd. This is a black and white issue--there is no middle ground and they both cannot be right.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Both can be correct. The two areas are speaking of totally different truths. Science is concerned with the how. Thrology is concerned with the why ... the why God did it. But you have to step back and look at both rationally and without emotion. There is no contridiction between the two. Good science never makes pronouncements about whether God exists or not.

 

Please give an experimental plan to demonstrate how God spoke and things came to be.

Another interesting experiment would be to show how God formed man from the dust and breathed in him such that he became a living soul.

The living from the dead will always confound an evolutionist--who always has trouble with origins.

The theistic evolutionist is not without a dilemma: God says(Book of Genesis) He created the whole universe including fully developed, intelligent(?) man in six days. The "science guy" says it took billions of years with not a few punctuated equilibriums, mutations, random selections and survival of the fittest--which man certainly ain't) for us to arrive at over 6.7 billion homo sapiens--about half of them starving.

Pseudo-science comes in many flavors.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Errata: the statistic about starving is more like: 1 in 6, of those who are countable.

Point is: we still have more mouths than food--a situation which increases hourly.

However, the obese outnumber the starving--not much consolation.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

I don't think one has to be a young-earth creationist to be saved. I do believe that Christians who believe in evolution are wrong, but I don't doubt their salvation.

 

Not necessarily so. Evolution deals with changes over time within living things. The origin of life is a separate matter altogether. These kinds of statements show a gross misunderstanding of what evolution teaches, and why we need better education in our schools.

 

'Zackly!

Ed

 

Martin, the Great Princeton theologian BB Warfield was a theistic evolutionist and a well-bred Calvinist. What a combination!

 

The brilliant Dr. Hugh Ross, an astronomer and astrophysicist, is a theistic evolutionist. He's an evangelical.