Evolution and Its Implications for a Christian worldview

[~candice~]

Shiloh,

Thanks for being patient with me.

We appear to be running into brick walls, however I am motivated to continue because of what I consider to be excessive eternal consequence applied to TE'ers, without first examining what they actually believe and the intent of their heart.

Primarily, I am still quite alarmed at the view you have of TE'ers and refusal to acknowledge their heterogeneity in beliefs and intent. The interactions you describe, and ones I see you have on the boards, are frightening. I think if all I knew of TE'ers were this:

I guess you assume that my only contact with them is on this board. I have worked and lived around them and have seen their lives.

Two of them are homosexuals, others enjoy going to bars and have girl friends they sleep with on a regular basis

, but I am still expected to accept them as Christians. They all assert vigorously that they are Christians and will fight tooth and nail to be received as such.

They don't recognize God as revealed in Genesis and it is reflected in their indifference to God's moral laws and the reality that they will be judged.

Oh, but they have a "get out of jail free" card. They feel they are covered because they "believe" the right things about Jesus.

They don't see their actions as "sins.' They don't recognize the Bible's authority to define sin, much less having any authority to dictate to them how to live. They see the Bible as a book with a lot of expendable information.

then I would probably think as you do, that TE beliefs automatically infer a lack of authentic faith. That would be a no brainer and we could shake hands and leave the debate.

Your failure to acknowledge the diversity of intents and beliefs amongst TE'ers is disheartening.

You said: I don't acknowledge it because I have never seen it.

Pardon me for drawing the logical conclusion here, but if you don't acknowledge the diversity, then your view of TE'ers is limited to the vacuous case above. Given we have already reached concensus on those people, we've nothing to debate. You need to acknowledge the diversity or concede.

But I don't think that focussing on what is a small subset of TE'ers helps in a debate about the impact of TE on the Christian worldview. What of the TE'ers not a part of that subset, what is the impact of TE on their Christian worldview?

I don't think that it is a small subset of TE.

Can you acknowledge that it is at least a subset. Can we get an agreement on heterogeneity, or are we going to paint them all the one colour?

...I dont think anything you have said is a lie. I just think that you probably have not gone deep enough ( and they probably don't want to) to see what they really believe when you take claims of evolution and the claims of the Bible and put them side by side and ask them to choose what they believe. Some TE'ers, like many of the ones we have here, want to debate and are slightly more militant.

I disagree with your assertion that I probably don't know what they believe and the consequences of their error. I understand not just because of my interaction with them on a personal level, but because I have walked in those shoes myself. I have been a TE'er, I've grappled with it and understood the idea in depth, the consequences it has on theology. I really don't think you understand how liberal I was!

I've come at this from a different angle, I know that I have had genuine faith while holding those liberal beliefs because of the fruit of my own life in that time. I look back over that time cringing because I can see the danger of adopting that position. In hindsight, I can see that the theory is not as cohesive as some make it out to be, and the violence it does to the Word. I can see that now, but I didn't back then. I was happily moving along, blind to it, while the Lord was dealing with other major errors in my life. I am still trying to decide whether to reveal the massive change in theology I had during the time when I was open to TE.

You have already made concession for those people who are new to faith and still finding their feet so I'm going to carry on with the expectation that my statements be applied to those who are TE and are not newbies.

Faced with the enormous claims of science contradicting a literal six day creation, Christians have three options: 1 - conclude that the multitude of scientific findings are wrong [ergo, that the literal bible reading is RIGHT and scientists are WRONG], 2 - conclude the bible is wrong, or 3 - conclude their interpretation of the bible is wrong.

Or they can conclude that not all relevant information is available to us. There are missing pieces of information, gaps of knowledge that we simply have not resolved yet. There may be a way to reconcile both and

until then we can hold both views in tension

and continue searching until we get the final answer.

Yes, and often TE'ers adopt this excuse for why their theory doesn't reconcile perfectly with the Word. Why is this acceptable for you, and not them?

They simply are deceived and their lack of theological prowess has blinded them to just how dangerous their view particularly when it comes to how they handle the Scriptures in general.

If this is deception, it is not an intentional dismissal of scripture as you claim. Deception, and a lack of theological prowess, is not the same as "pick n choose". One is intentional, the other is not.

Oh,

they ALL claim to believe the Bible. I have never met a TE'er who doesn't claim to believe the Bible

. The problem is that we disagree over the substance the Bible contains. They believe that Genesis is an allegory.

They don't reject the Bible at all,

but they don't think Genesis is what it purports to be. So the believe the Bible, but they believe it on THEiR terms.

Thank you for acknowledging this!

Here is the problem I have. We have a bunch of people running around claiming to believe the bible, and (stick with me here) I believe they believe they believe the bible. You have stated that no one needs perfect theology to be saved. But that's what we have here... a belief in imperfect theology.

And my argument is that you are setting up a false dichotomy. It seems to be you underpin belief in TE on a rejection of clear biblical teaching.

No, they are the ones doing that.

They are the ones claiming that portions of the Bible are simply not true.

I'm getting dizzy! What is their claim (not the reality, but their claim) about scripture? Belief or not? Rejection or not? You can't answer consistently because there is not a consistent answer...

Of course it challenges God's authority. When Genesis one is treated as fictional, and Adam Eve are not really the first people, and that the creation account is just another ancient near eastern creation myth, and the fall of man is not really a part of the true history of man, then yes, it is a challenge to His authority.

They are essentially claiming that the Bible got it wrong

and by extension that is a challenge to God's integrity and authority. If Genesis got it wrong, then God's authority as Creator is challenged.

But look up. You said they claim to believe the bible, but here the claim is the bible got it wrong. You can't have it both ways. Either there is heterogeneity among the ranks, and assessment of their faith can hence only be conducted by revealing their fruit/heart/intent, OR, you conclude they are a homogeneous mob who consciously pick and choose which scriptures are right and wrong, for which discernment of their true spiritual condition is rather obvious.

Thee is a difference

between someone who struggles with the problem of reconcilig the Bible with Evolution in a sincere desire to know the truth and someone who has summariily assigned the creation account to myth and allegory and have decided that the Bible means what it means to them

and they discard any part of it that is inconvenient to their naturalistic worldview.

The latter is already convinced and there si really not much to say, as they do not feel any need to repent or be convinced otherwise.

Do I read an acknowledgement of heterogeneity here?!? If there is a difference, then there is by definition an absence of homogeneity. And again, we are back to a discussion about whether or not they are discarding (many claim they are NOT, and you even stated so yourself) scripture, and use of word 'inconvenient' conveys to me an idea that there is actual intent to pick and choose scripture based on how personally challenging it is to them. Some of the TE'ers you know might do that, but it would be wrong to assume they all do that. I certainly didn't. I'm still trying to decide whether or not to reveal some of the theological thinking that He fixed in me while I believed, or at least gave space for, TE. It was by no means convenient in the slightest.

It is a doctrinal battle to say the least. It comes down to taking God at His word or seeing how much of the Bible you can live without and still claim to be an authentic believer. If the latter is true about a person, then it exposes the darkness of their heart.

I agree. I just don't think that ALL TE'ers are trying to see how much of the bible they can live without. Certainly some of the TE'ers you've met in real life seem to do this, but many of those I related to on a weekly basis flee from this kind of thinking. In fact, most that I know loudly proclaim that there is no contradiction between TE and the bible. Thus, they aren't trying to live without part of it, they are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

We are commanded to flee from sin, not see how close we can get without being burned. The true believer seeks ever more purity of faith, but faith is impossible in a Bible that cannot be trusted to mean exactly what it says.

I agree.

If Genesis 1-3 is an allegory, or just another creation myth, then we have no grounds for trusting what it says anywhere else.

If we think Genesis is just a flat out lie, then yes we have no grounds for trusting what the rest of it says. But you are still equating allegory with distrust of scripture, and for a large body of TE'ers, this is not their attitude towards Gen 1-3. You stated that they all claim to believe the bible. I think an allegorical stance is wrong, but to fail to acknowledge their trust of scripture, albeit misplaced, you fail to see the true intent. Intent tells you whether or not someone is doing damage to scripture out of inauthenticity or genuine misinterpretation that could be addressed by Him in time.

With respect to this issue not far at all, that correct. The road is narrow. When one starts believing that the Bible is unreliable at Genesis 1-3, it is not long before more and more of it becomes unreliable.

Yeah, I agree, for those people who consider it unreliable. But you have already stated that TE'ers believe the bible (albeit on their own terms) and that they exhibit few skills in hermeneutics. So, I do not agree that TE'ers consider Gen 1-3 unreliable.

When a Christian who purports to believe in evolution runs into portions of the NT that stand to confirm the literal nature of Genesis 1-3, they have to make a decision about what they believe.

Whatever happened to "holding ideas in tension" as you spoke of earlier? Why do you give liberty to hold some ideas in tension and not others? It is inconsistent.

Another note on this issue... some TE'ers recognise the contradictions that TE introduces in the NT, some do not (hey what do you know, more heterogeneity!). For those who do, there is a smorgasbord of sloppy arguments online FOR TE, that can serve as a tool to lessen the tension that TE creates. I know this all too well. For every misinterpretation of scripture that is possible, there is a website dedicated to defending it. For every view of creation, there are literally thousands of websites to defend it. So yeah, TE introduces contradictions, and at some stage a Christian who reads the NT should realise this, but this won't necessarily be enough to convince them to lay down their errant doctrine.

A true Christian will always hold to the integrity of Scripture, even when confronted with so-called evidence that says the Bible is wrong.

I agree.

This is not something a person can afford to be wrong about.

Your statement is the reason why I get the idea you really are stating that perfect theology in this area is required to be saved, even if you don't realise it.

I have not met one TE that believes we are born by default separated from God and on that basis, in need of a Savior.

I have not met one TE that does NOT believe this. Don't claim you are right and I am blind. Just admit to heterogeneity and move on.

The problem is not that a person's notion of sin would not be as rich. The problem is that it would be entirely wrong. There isn't any lattitude for this in Scripture. Their concept of salvation does not stem from believing they are sinners. It stems from simple mental assent.

Shiloh, whoever believes this needs witnessing to and prayer. Honestly, I'd evangelise them as though they were unsaved. I'd never suggest that a person believing in such a thing be comfortable in their own salvation. If this is the kind of person you believe represents TE's, then it isn't a wonder your opinion is what it is.

That is what allegorizing the fall of man leads to. It leads to an incorrect view of just how sinful we really are.

Well, this is what their allegorizing lead to. It is atypical of the allegorical understanding of sin that many TE'ers hold. As I stated in an earlier refutation, there is the notion of Adam being a representative of all man kind. This leads to the understanding of all of man kind falling and being in need of individual, personal redemption through faith in Christ.

They believe that what we call "sin" death, and decay are engineered into creation and as such it doesn't follow that man needs to be redeemed from something that God intended to occur in the first place. They believe thag God made them gay or made them in whatever way in order to accommodate their sin.

Yeah the specific people you are talking about here are in serious error, but thankfully not all believe as these guys do. Pray for them. They are so deluded it boggles the mind.

And by the way, the TE'ers I have encountered are not avid Bible readers either.

Have you ever met evangelical theistic evolutionists? It's the subset of TE I am most familiar with. I know many of them pour over the Word daily. No lie they really do.

I have no problems calling a TE'er saved, if I can see their underlying intent is not one of challenge to His authority, nor of a conscious desire to skirt around challenging / inconvenient truths, if they freely acknowledge the sin of mankind and of themselves, believe in salvation only through the free gift of Christ by faith. You have repeatedly failed to acknowledge the existence of such a person, and I think that it is sad you cannot trust my discernment and experience enough to realise my testimony of their existence is true. And not just my testimony, but their own testimony and the testimony of thousands of TE'ers you can find at the click of a button online.

Our disconnect does not seem to be coming together. We don't agree on the heterogeneity of TE'ers beliefs and intents, and I believe that their beliefs [let me be clear here, what they claim to believe] and their intent is required to honestly assess their claims of authentic faith. It's not really evolution that is the issue here, but their dealing with the Word, and without knowing their intent you cannot really assign consequence to them.

The other huge area of disconnect we still have, even if we can conclude there does exist a subset of TE'ers who claim to believe the bible with no ill intent and with honest of heart, the consequence of their belief, because you do not recognise the role of their NT beliefs in informing them about sin and redemption in addition to their allegorical understanding of Gen 1-3.

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh,

Thanks for being patient with me.

We appear to be running into brick walls, however I am motivated to continue because of what I consider to be excessive eternal consequence applied to TE'ers, without first examining what they actually believe and the intent of their heart.

Many of my discussions with TE'ers include a discussion of what they actually believe. In fact, if you let them talk long enough, as I do, you will find that as they defend their evolutionist beliefs, you will find that they give themselves away. I dig into their belief system and hold their views up to Scripture. In fact, you will notice in my debates with them here on this board, our discussions revolve primarily around theology and it is only when I challenge them on that level that I find what their theology really is, and often it is some very, very dangerous stuff. And when I say "dangerous" I mean dangerous in terms of what it means for one's eternal future.

Pardon me for drawing the logical conclusion here, but if you don't acknowledge the diversity, then your view of TE'ers is limited to the vacuous case above. Given we have already reached concensus on those people, we've nothing to debate. You need to acknowledge the diversity or concede.

If my interactions were limited to 3 or 4, I would be open to acknowledging that there must be SOME TE'ers that hold to the authority of Scripture. But I have seen in dozens of cases both on the boards and off, that when you probe and question and patiently interrogate them in terms of theology that the theme is basically the same.

You have to understand that this is not a debate over something like the rapture question where everyone has an equal chance at being wrong. It is not a debate over speculative issues of eschatology or which version of the Bible is the best or what not. Holding to Evolution, no matter how they try to spin it, always leads to the same common disbelief of Scripture and a challenge to God's authority and integrity.

Now there are those who struggle. They are after the truth, and even though they have an evolutionist bent, they are open to being wrong and are willing to go whereever the evidence leads. They are searching for truth and they will find it. Their belief in Evolution is not so ingrained and entrenched that it is a stumbling block. However, the ones I am primaily referring to are the ones whose belief in evolution has led them to see the Bible as an expendable book that has limited relevance and applicability to the modern world. They generally view it from a very liberal bent wherein its moral commandments are outdated, and have been nullified by science (as in the "homosexual gene"). They reject Genesis in favor of Evolution, and view many of the supernatural events as myth. They participate in the Christian community, have been baptized and are active in their local church. While they assent to the overall claims of the Christians faith, they reserve the right to adjust or modify that assent in area that they find is inconvenient for them.

These are the ones who are the most studied and in whom evolution is an embedded view that they are not going to surrender. It is their worldview and they mold the Bbile and Christianity around it, not the other way around. TE'ers are not believers first and evolutionists second. In their view, it is the Bible that has to adjust to reality because the Bible was written at a time when men did not have the benefit of modern science. So the Bible needs to be adjusted, cropped, and molded to fit the current reality. The idea that the Bible is God's Holy Word and should be accepted as written and as divinely inspired and inerrant text is absurd to the evolutionary mindset. They simply have no point of reference for it.

I disagree with your assertion that I probably don't know what they believe and the consequences of their error. I understand not just because of my interaction with them on a personal level, but because I have walked in those shoes myself. I have been a TE'er, I've grappled with it and understood the idea in depth, the consequences it has on theology. I really don't think you understand how liberal I was!

But you are a person who searches for truth. I know some TE'ers on the same journey as you have been on. I don't think they are not genuine believers. They are open to being wrong. They are not so entrenched and stubborn that they are unwilling to change. I am talking about people who are steadfast and will not change and who mock creationism as much as traditional mainstream evolutionists.

Yes, and often TE'ers adopt this excuse for why their theory doesn't reconcile perfectly with the Word. Why is this acceptable for you, and not them?

TE'ers typcially don't make that claim. I was simply offering a fourth option pertaining to the six days of creation view. I was not addressing the issue of TE in those remarks. Usually, TE'ers argue that TE is reconcilable with the information we currently have.

If this is deception, it is not an intentional dismissal of scripture as you claim. Deception, and a lack of theological prowess, is not the same as "pick n choose". One is intentional, the other is not.

It is a self-deception, a lie they tells themselves. A self-imposed delusion they have lived in for so long they believe it. Not all deception is involuntary.

Oh, they ALL claim to believe the Bible. I have never met a TE'er who doesn't claim to believe the Bible. The problem is that we disagree over the substance the Bible contains. They believe that Genesis is an allegory. They don't reject the Bible at all, but they don't think Genesis is what it purports to be. So the believe the Bible, but they believe it on THEiR terms.

Thank you for acknowledging this!

I was not acknowledging anything good. I was simply explaining the nature of their delusion.

Here is the problem I have. We have a bunch of people running around claiming to believe the bible, and (stick with me here) I believe they believe they believe the bible. You have stated that no one needs perfect theology to be saved. But that's what we have here... a belief in imperfect theology.

And my argument is that you are setting up a false dichotomy. It seems to be you underpin belief in TE on a rejection of clear biblical teaching.

No, they are the ones doing that. They are the ones claiming that portions of the Bible are simply not true.

I'm getting dizzy! What is their claim (not the reality, but their claim) about scripture? Belief or not? Rejection or not? You can't answer consistently because there is not a consistent answer...

Of course it challenges God's authority. When Genesis one is treated as fictional, and Adam Eve are not really the first people, and that the creation account is just another ancient near eastern creation myth, and the fall of man is not really a part of the true history of man, then yes, it is a challenge to His authority. They are essentially claiming that the Bible got it wrong and by extension that is a challenge to God's integrity and authority. If Genesis got it wrong, then God's authority as Creator is challenged.

But look up. You said they claim to believe the bible, but here the claim is the bible got it wrong. You can't have it both ways.

What I am saying is that don't they believe the Bible the way you and I do. They believe it on their terms. Their "belief" comes with qualifiers. They don't believe the Bible as written. They believe the whole Bible in the light of their evolutionary worldview which attempts to mold the Bible around it. I am not saying that the believe the Bible as authentic Bible believers. They don't believe it the way you and I do. I am saying that instead of simply rejecting the Bible out of hand like an atheist, they simply try to recast the Bible into something they can accept and THEN they claim to "believe" the Bible.

Thee is a difference between someone who struggles with the problem of reconcilig the Bible with Evolution in a sincere desire to know the truth and someone who has summariily assigned the creation account to myth and allegory and have decided that the Bible means what it means to them and they discard any part of it that is inconvenient to their naturalistic worldview. The latter is already convinced and there si really not much to say, as they do not feel any need to repent or be convinced otherwise.

Do I read an acknowledgement of heterogeneity here?!?

What you are reading is the same acknowledgement I have made over and over again. I make a moral and necessary distinction between those who struggle with evolution because they want to believe the Bible and those who see Evolutoin as the current reality and the Bible needs to be adjusted and parts need to be discarded or rearranged to fit the reality of evolution.

I just don't think that ALL TE'ers are trying to see how much of the bible they can live without. Certainly some of the TE'ers you've met in real life seem to do this, but many of those I related to on a weekly basis flee from this kind of thinking. In fact, most that I know loudly proclaim that there is no contradiction between TE and the bible.

When I have challenged that claim, I have discovered a lot of really, really bad nonChristian "theology" behind that claim.

If we think Genesis is just a flat out lie, then yes we have no grounds for trusting what the rest of it says. But you are still equating allegory with distrust of scripture, and for a large body of TE'ers, this is not their attitude towards Gen 1-3. You stated that they all claim to believe the bible. I think an allegorical stance is wrong, but to fail to acknowledge their trust of scripture, albeit misplaced, you fail to see the true intent. Intent tells you whether or not someone is doing damage to scripture out of inauthenticity or genuine misinterpretation that could be addressed by Him in time.

In this particular issue there is an ulterior motive to claiming it is allegory. If Evolution were reconilable with the Bible, there would be NO reason to claim that Genesis 1-3 is an allegory. The claim it is an allegory is to get around the clear problem that a literal reading of Genesis 1-3 poses to the evolutionary worldview. It is a rejection of the intent of the passage, which is a challenge to the integrity of the Word of God and by extension a challenge to God's integrity and authority.

If they could provide a well-reasoned textual argument for how the text iprovides internal indicators of allegorical devices, I would gladlly review such an argument. I have invited them on numerous occasions to do so, but as I said before, they usually change the subject.

[Guest shiloh357]

Yeah, I agree, for those people who consider it unreliable. But you have already stated that TE'ers believe the bible (albeit on their own terms) and that they exhibit few skills in hermeneutics. So, I do not agree that TE'ers consider Gen 1-3 unreliable.

They would have no need to resort to callling the text "allegorical" if they thoght it was reliable. It is precisely because they believe the Bible on their own terms that they cannot claim it to be reliable. They believe the parts they choose to believe and find alterantive ways of handling the rest.

When a Christian who purports to believe in evolution runs into portions of the NT that stand to confirm the literal nature of Genesis 1-3, they have to make a decision about what they believe.

Whatever happened to "holding ideas in tension" as you spoke of earlier? Why do you give liberty to hold some ideas in tension and not others? It is inconsistent.

Because issues we can hold in tension (rapture, length of creation days, Bible versions, etc.) are not fundamental issues to the Christian faith. Genesis 1-3 are fundamental to how we understand the scope of redemption. Being wrong about the rapture is not going to cost you much of anything. Being wrong about issues like the plan of redmemption can potentially cost you everything. This not an issue anyone can afford to be wrong about. If you think that Adam and Eve in the Garden is just an allegory, then you have to come up with an alternative view of the origin of sin.

This is not something a person can afford to be wrong about.

Your statement is the reason why I get the idea you really are stating that perfect theology in this area is required to be saved, even if you don't realise it.

Not perfect theology, but there are some essentials that one must believe. One does not have to adopt a creationist view to get saved. One does not have to cleam themelves up to come to Christ. Having said that, if a person claims to have been saved, but demonstrates a consistent pattern of rejecting portions of the Bible and favors views that contradict the plain revelation of Scripture, they need to reexamine the authenticity of their profession faith.

I have not met one TE that believes we are born by default separated from God and on that basis, in need of a Savior.

I have not met one TE that does NOT believe this. Don't claim you are right and I am blind. Just admit to heterogeneity and move on.

I can only go off of the people I have talked to. The reason they make the allegory argument is because the Bible ties death directly to sin and not to the creative event. They need a world where death and decay was already there for millions of years before Adam and Eve came on the scene. Because man's sinful condition is tied directly to a literal reading of Genesis, they need the allegory argument to answer that claim.

I don't think you are blind. I think if you probed and interrogated the peope you know and really put their views to the test, you might be surprised what will bubble to the top. For example, you might discover that they are not even TE'ers in that they don't really understand what it means or the far reaching implications of TE. Or you might discover something about their theology that they had preferred you not find out about.

That is what allegorizing the fall of man leads to. It leads to an incorrect view of just how sinful we really are.

Well, this is what their allegorizing lead to. It is atypical of the allegorical understanding of sin that many TE'ers hold. As I stated in an earlier refutation, there is the notion of Adam being a representative of all man kind. This leads to the understanding of all of man kind falling and being in need of individual, personal redemption through faith in Christ.

Believing that Adam is a representative of all mankind is not allegory. The problem once again is that the allegory argument is based on an ulterior motive by the TE'ers I have encountered. Namely, they need a way to show that death is part of creation and not tied directly to any action by any one person.

I have no problems calling a TE'er saved, if I can see their underlying intent is not one of challenge to His authority, nor of a conscious desire to skirt around challenging / inconvenient truths, if they freely acknowledge the sin of mankind and of themselves, believe in salvation only through the free gift of Christ by faith. You have repeatedly failed to acknowledge the existence of such a person, and I think that it is sad you cannot trust my discernment and experience enough to realise my testimony of their existence is true.

but I have acknowlged their existence. I already told you that I know of those who have a biblical world view but struggle with their views on evolution.

And let me say this: I would be willing to accept the notion that there are Christians who claim to hold to TE but do so in naivete. They are not really genuine TE'ers in that they really don't know what it means. It sounds plausible, but they know little about evolution and they accept it with an uncritical mind. To me they are not TE'ers. They are just Christians who don't know what they are talking about and were they better informed, would readily abandon the theory. It is possible that such a scenario would explain why our experiences are at such a variance.

We don't agree on the heterogeneity of TE'ers beliefs and intents, and I believe that their beliefs [let me be clear here, what they claim to believe] and their intent is required to honestly assess their claims of authentic faith.

I don't think any TE'ers have malicious intent. I don't see them as sinister villains at all. They are in most cases, sincere, but sincerely wrong, and you don't get any credit from God for being sincere if what you are sincere about contradicts His word on such a fundamental level. And that is the thing. A lot of bad theology out there centers around issues that don't necessarily threaten us in any big way, but the evolutoinary world view strikes at the very core of so many essential areas of the Christian faith; areas that cannot be compromised that to hold to such fundamentally flawed theology, that one needs to be challenged. Those that have a works-based salvation view are in the same boat. Their view strikes at the very heart of Christian faith and practice. Edited May 26, 2011 by shiloh357

[~candice~]

There is very little I disagree with from your last two posts.

I agree with the picture you are painting of those militant TE'ers who know the lay of the land and are comfortable with it. To know the cost of TE but accept it willingly is not the attitude of a true believer.

I agree with the picture you paint of those new to Christ who are still getting their legs.

I've been focussing primarily on those naive believers, who fit into neither category, and you'd be surprised how many there are. Have a look at the denominations that support ToE or TE (wiki ain't clear) and you will get an idea of the numbers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

And have a look at the plot titled 'Religious Differences on the Question of Evolution (United States)'. Please don't crucify me for citing wiki.

I think there are a lot of Christians holding onto evolution from a position of naivety. My question is on the impact this has on their worldview, and we have already touched on that, on the lack of richness they have in their understanding, and the contradictions they generate for themselves. I think it is a disaster. As for their salvation, that depends on their intent and their genuine belief in Christ.

Have I missed a disagreement we have, or have we reached somewhat of a conclusion in this debate?

[Guest shiloh357]

What?!?!? wiki?!?!? (looks for hammer, nails and suitable crucifixion site)

just kidding

Any way, I think we have have come to good spot to conclude. I think we have said about all we can say and we mostly agree, to be sure. I think I have been sharpened by your comments and you really did make me think about some things and make some adjustments I had not thought about. It is one of the better debates I have been a part of.

[~candice~]

Shiloh thanks for your time and effort in discussing this. It really does help to see the danger that TE (in it's many forms) does to the Word and our doctrine. I hope it blesses others and brings clarity to the issue. Til next time .