Jump to content
IGNORED

Evolution and Its Implications for a Christian worldview


IslandRose

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  476
  • Topics Per Day:  0.06
  • Content Count:  5,266
  • Content Per Day:  0.68
  • Reputation:   63
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/22/2003
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  03/21/1954

Welcome to the Soapbox.

Guidelines for the discussion!

1) This will be a "polite" discussion. This means that neither party will engage in namecalling, ad-hominem attacks, or resort to any manner of character assassination at any point in time.

2) Time to reply will not be a consideration. However, please be considerate enough to at least try to reply in a timely manner, or otherwise concede the discussion.

3) This is not a "win/lose" discussion. The nature of a debate is to argue your points clearly and to the best of your ability. Nobody is right or wrong. Even though you may use the words "right" and "wrong" in the process of disputing a point, the purpose of debate is to get your point across, and support that point with evidence. It is up to the reader to decide who's argument is more weighty.

4) Books and online articles may be used as source material. However, those articles may be referenced in accordance with the Terms of Service. Links to inappropriate material will be removed. Material that is plagiarized will not be considered at all. At all times participants will cite their source material completely.

5) Wherever possible, please try to avoid leading the course of discussion "off track," or "off topic." In order to have a clear and concise debate it is necessary to stick to the topic until such time as the issues involved have been completely discussed and all points have been exhausted. When such a point in the discussion has been reached then other issues can be brought into the discussion and debated.

Participants..Candice and Shiloh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  955
  • Topics Per Day:  0.16
  • Content Count:  11,318
  • Content Per Day:  1.90
  • Reputation:   448
  • Days Won:  33
  • Joined:  12/16/2007
  • Status:  Offline

Thank you to IslandRose for setting this debate up for us. I pray it blesses us all and draws us closer to the Lord and His truth.

<>

I want to start by stating that Shiloh357 and I already have much in common when it comes to beliefs about evolution. That is, neither of us believe that it accurately describes the process by which God brought this creation into being. I also believe that both of us are driven to our positions on this topic by a deep respect for the Word of God, and a very strong distaste of anything that is contrary to solid biblical teaching.

So as you read this debate, please keep in mind that we have that level of unity. Remember that I am not an evolutionist, and I do not believe we have the right to pick and choose what we believe in the bible, nor are we at liberty to twist scripture to make it read in a way that is easier to mesh with modern science or social expectations.

I believe the bible is inerrant, inspired and infallible, that it says what it means and means what it says, and we have no liberty in interpretation. That said, let's move ahead with the substance of the debate.

<>

It is undoubted that taking an evolutionist stance on creation of view requires a view of scripture that renders the opening chapters of Genesis (and many more parts of the bible!) as either allegorical, or flat out wrong. Those Christians who believe the bible is true and believe in evolution are faced with a mind boggling amount of 'fixing' to get all the biblical writings to mesh together into a single, unified, non contradictory message. Those who believe the creation account is flat out wrong are faced with the disunity of believing only a portion of text that in reality is presented as one unbreakable unit.

This necessarily introduces a question

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  955
  • Topics Per Day:  0.16
  • Content Count:  11,318
  • Content Per Day:  1.90
  • Reputation:   448
  • Days Won:  33
  • Joined:  12/16/2007
  • Status:  Offline

Thank you for your speedy reply.

It is one thing to be new in the faith and to find one's self at the front of the process, still holding on to old ways of thinking

... (snip) ...

It is quite another thing to possess a claim, determined, stubborn refusal to continue in a view that is contrary to fundamental, core Christian/biblical principles while demanding to be recognized as an authentic Christian.

It seems we have readily reached agreement on the salvation issue for those Christians new to the faith whom we can see the Lord at work in their lives. I intended to share my testimony regarding this issue, how I was saved a raving liberal but have been slowly changed by the Lord, as a way of boulstering this point. Since we agree, I will skip this part and move on to the more contentious issue of the authenticity of the faith of mature Christians who are dogmatic in their belief and support of "theistic evolution" (herein TE).

I will however return to the point that TE'ers hold to a claim that is in contrary to core Christian principles.

One theme I have noticed in your reply is the framing of theistic evolution in terms of it's historical roots in (atheistic) evolution. Here is your description of the nature evolution (emphasis mine):

Evolutionistic theory, at its heart, precludes the existence of God. The theory of Evolution is designed to exclude God entirely from the history of origins. It was designed by people who don't believe in God and the theory is based on a wholly naturalistic worldview. This physical, natural world is all there is and nothing that cannot be discovered within the boundaries of science is real. The process of evolution is thus entirely naturalistic, impersonal, unplanned, unguided, and has no outside intelligence to either serve as its catalyst or influence the outcome. That is how the mainstream scientific community presents the theory of Evolution.

This may be the mainstream scientific communities theory of evolution, but it is vastly different from the nature of TE and does not accurately capture the beliefs that TE'ers hold about our Creator. I believe the difference between the two understandings of evolution is part of the reason why there is so much heated debate on the topic - some fundamentals think TE is contradiction much like atheistic Christianity, and that is simply not the case.

Theistic Evolutionists simply try to claim that God could have used evolution as the means of bring about life. The first problem is that Evolution is not a creative theory and thus does not speak to how things were created. So it would appear that Theistic Evolutionists have a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory of Evolution at the outset.

Atheistic Evolution is not a creative theory, TE is. TE'ers will speak all day long if you can stomach it, on just how beautiful and amazing it was that God used mutations, survival of the fittest, accumulating in macro evolution, to bring about the diversity of life we see in creation.

So how did this TE theory come about, and how can it realistically be different from atheistic evolution?

The second problem is that the theory Evolution is a denial of the existence of a personal Creator. Evolution only comes in one flavor. It is not something you can add to or subtract from. The same is true with the Bible. Both the Bible and Evolution are designed to be accepted as they are presented. A Theistic Evolutionist must alter and/or diminish both the Bible and the theory of Evolution in order to find something he/she can accept. What you get is a deformed hybrid ideology that is neither "Theistic" nor "Evolutionary."

Actually, you got it here. It IS a deformed hybrid of theism and evolution. It is not evolution as it was originally presented: Instead of a random force behind mutations, TE'ers have God designing the evolutionary process in such a way that this process would bring forth creation. TE came about because people subtracted the atheistic, cold, impersonal elements from evolution and tried to match it with the bible. You say they can't do this, it is more correct to say that people SHOULDN'T do this because the result is a terrible mess. But they have done it, and we must acknowledge the difference between the scientific understanding of evolution, and the train wreck called TE.

Continued in the next post...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  955
  • Topics Per Day:  0.16
  • Content Count:  11,318
  • Content Per Day:  1.90
  • Reputation:   448
  • Days Won:  33
  • Joined:  12/16/2007
  • Status:  Offline

God is the Creator according to Scripture. Being a Creator implies, personality, planning, purpose, intelligence, influence, etc.

See above. TE'ers still manage to somehow cram in belief in the Creator as you have described here. I get the impression you think this is an academically / scientifically / scripturally logically-inconsistent thing to do. I agree, it is! But this is what they really do believe and to them there is no contradiction between a personal Creator, and TE.

So the question is why would a person indwelt by the Holy Spirit want to cling to a theory that is designed to preclude God from origins of man? I am not talking about new believers. I am talking about people who have been believers for years and have actively sought to make evolution fit the Christian faith. Why seek to reconcile a theory that was designed to remove God as Creator with the Scriptures?

I believe this stems largely from the "two books" hypothesis, that God has (Ro 1) given us creation to reflect His glory, and if He truly is the Creator, than we should see agreement between biblical creation accounts, and scientific findings.

I said all of this to say that it is not, in my mind, an issue about what is required for salvation. Rather it speaks to, "what are the true marks of an authentic follower of Christ." Just as in the early days of the Christian faith, there were false teachers who infiltrated Christian ranks and tried to lead people away from the doctrine of Christ, modern Evolutionary theory is no less insidious. It requires us to reject Christ as Creator, and thus by extension to reject Him has Moral Law Giver, Judge, and ultimately as Redeemer. His role as Redeemer is inextricably linked to Creation. To adopt a theory that precludes Him as Creator, is to reject Him as Redeemer as well. The Bible is a layered and interlocking system of progressive revelation. Every doctrine depends on every other doctrine. You cannot discard one without doing immense violence to all of the others. A true mark of an authentic believer is trusting the Word of God as it is.

Shiloh, I hate to belabor the point here, but can you please define what you mean by someone who is not an authentic believer? Are you suggesting they are unsaved? I am still unclear on the difference between unsaved and inauthentic.

TE'ers do not reject Christ as creator. They believe He created through TE. There is a huge difference. One is disbelief, the other is misinterpretation. TE'ers trust the Word of God but incorrectly attribute allegorical meaning to something that is physical literal. It is my strong belief that the understanding TE'ers gather from their allegorical reading, still asserts Christ as creator, law giver and redeemer. Thus, their erroneous belief does not knock over the house of cards in terms of doctrine, as it would if they flat out did not believe in Christ as creator, law giver and redeemer.

It is for this reason that I reject the notion that they have strayed from fundamental Christian theology to such a degree that it could be construed as reflective of inauthentic faith.

Sadly, belief in evolution really does warp the view that some people have of God, not to a point of being a salvational issue, but certainly a relational issue.

This really understates the issue. It does not merely warp the view people of God. It is an enabler for atheism. It erodes belief that God even exists, and thus by extension challenges the integrity of Scripture. It is far, far more dangerous than how you are presenting it.

Again, if we were to differentiate between Evolution and TE, I agree that Evolution is an enabler for atheism and is as such far more corrosive than a mere relational issue. But until we can agree to separate out TE beliefs from the origins of evolution, it will be difficult to see how people can hold true to faith and TE at the same time.

TE does challenge the integrity of Scripture, in that by making an allegory out of something that is lacking textural evidence of an allegorical nature, the reader becomes free to determine the meaning of the allegory (or so they think). Additionally, it creates contradictions in latter passages that would no be an issue if a plain reading (physical literal reading) were adopted.

This has a huge impact on the Christian's worldview and it is something I am very concerned about. When we change he nature of the bible in such a way that we somehow allow ourselves to determine the meaning, it has become meaningless. After all, if it just says what we want it to say, how is it different from man's opinion? It's not. So I agree with you here, when I hear of the hermeneutics that result in the reconciliation of evolution and the creation accounts, I feel a deep concern for what else they might take liberty in interpreting.

I believe Ravenhill sums this up nicely

"The Bible is either absolute, or it's obsolete." -Leonard Ravenhill.

The the group of people who believe in evolution are not homogeneous, they arrive at their common position from all different directions, and we are unable to make blanket statements about the motives they bring with them.

It is not about their motives in most cases. The issue being discussed here is the results of rejecting the biblical creation account.

I raised motives as an issue only because it helps to discern between what seems to be two "camps" in this issue: the new believer grappling with issues of science, and the dogmatic evolution promoter. It seems to me that the potential consequences are different for those in each camp.

There may be even more camps than this, I do not know. But part of my goal here was to reassure those Christians in the first "camp", that they can be secure in their faith while a work in progress, and the consequences attributed to those in the second "camp" need not be applied to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
This may be the mainstream scientific communities theory of evolution, but it is vastly different from the nature of TE and does not accurately capture the beliefs that TE'ers hold about our Creator. I believe the difference between the two understandings of evolution is part of the reason why there is so much heated debate on the topic - some fundamentals think TE is contradiction much like atheistic Christianity, and that is simply not the case.
As I have said previously in other threads, Evolution only comes in one flavor. I don
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
See above. TE'ers still manage to somehow cram in belief in the Creator as you have described here.
Yes, but He is a Creator, but on their terms. They accept Him insomuch, as they can fit Him into their Evolutionary worldview. Anyone can pay lip service to the Creator.

I get the impression you think this is an academically / scientifically / scripturally logically-inconsistent thing to do. I agree, it is! But this is what they really do believe and to them there is no contradiction between a personal Creator, and TE.
Yes, I understand they really believe it. That they are too deluded to see the internal inconsistencies and inherent contradictions doesn
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  955
  • Topics Per Day:  0.16
  • Content Count:  11,318
  • Content Per Day:  1.90
  • Reputation:   448
  • Days Won:  33
  • Joined:  12/16/2007
  • Status:  Offline

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  955
  • Topics Per Day:  0.16
  • Content Count:  11,318
  • Content Per Day:  1.90
  • Reputation:   448
  • Days Won:  33
  • Joined:  12/16/2007
  • Status:  Offline

I have separated my response to this portion because I think it is the central crux of our debate.

[T]hey have God as the engineer of Evolution. The problem is that as I have stated before in other threads, it is a challenge to God's integrity. There is an entire theological package that accompanies this view and I have seen it in every TE'er I have ever encountered:

  • The Genesis account is a mythical story or it is an allegory or a metaphor (Gen. 1 and 2); This is a direct challenge to God's integrity and defamation of His character, which is not characteristic of a genuine follower of Christ.
  • The fall of man in the Garden is not a literal, historical event; which strikes at the heart of the plan of redemption. The NT treats the fall of Adam as a literal, historical event and the remedy of that event was the sacrifice of Jesus (the "Last Adam) to satisfy God's justice and to bear the penalty of death that Adam's sin brought upon the corporate head of humanity. If the fall of man in the Garden is the only explanation the Bible offers for existence of sin. If there was no fall, then the death of Jesus on the cross makes no sense.
  • Genesis 1-11 is not a physical history and is at best poetic literature. There may be kernels of truth, but Genesis 1-11 is an exaggeration of those stories (universal flood, Tower of Babel, etc; Those chapters demonstrate the helpless condition of humanity and sets the stage for the plan of redemption to go into full swing with the call of Abraham. If man is not really as sinful as the Scriptures reveal, then it casts a shadow on the need for a plan of redemption.
  • The Bible has inspired material, but is not wholly inspired and is not of Divine origin. Again, an authentic follower of Christ does not challenge the plenary inspiration of Scripture.

Shiloh, I fear we are going to get off topic here but I will comment anyway. Jesus as Creator is asserted in Col 1:16. Man's state as a fallen sinner is asserted in Ro 3:23. The consequence of sin is asserted in Ro 6:23. That Jesus' redemption was planned from the beginning is in 1 Pe 1:19-20.

What we have in most TE'ers beliefs is an allegorical / mythological understanding of the first few chapters of Genesis (usually Ch 1-11). They glean from this an understanding that mankind has fallen, as a result of that fall, they are out of fellowship with God and in need of redemption. Usually they read the making of skins by way of animal sacrifice as a type of foreshadowing of the crucifixion of Christ.

If they were to stop there, we would have some issues. But they don't. They still have those new testament verses I presented, to reinforce the truth of sin and redemption. Thus, TE'ers, and in fact anyone who rejects a (physical) literal reading of the Genesis accounts, should at least have those passages to add to whatever meaning they gleaned from their allegorical interpretation.

As such, it's not the case that their understanding of Genesis has made their understanding of sin and redemption totally void. It hasn't. That teaching is clear in the NT. It probably isn't as rich as it could be when considering the weight of scripture together, but the central thrust is still there.

As for your final point, about inspiration, I am not aware that all TE'ers are of this belief. Those that are, are in some pretty serious error. If we do not have an inspired bible, we have nothing solid and concrete by which to understand the truth of God. I would ask how they know to be saved, if not for an inspired text.

TE'ers are in error. But so are we. And we don't have the right to determine which nature of God we can be wrong about, and not lose salvation, whilst maintaining that what TE'ers are wrong about, is enough to render them 'inauthentic'.

The bible itself mandates what is and what isn't essential areas of doctrine. We don't make that choice, it is dictated to us. The central issues we get from proper soteriology are an understanding of salvation by faith alone in the atoning work of Christ on the cross, who came to earth as fully man and fully God, the Son of God, bodily, died and rose again bodily three days later, of the need for redemption (sin), the consequence of sin (death), and the gift of God (eternal life). Stepping outside of this bound is going beyond what proper soteriology should lead us to.

There is mistaken view among TE'ers that as long as you believe the right things about Jesus, you can pretty much believe anything else you want about the Bible and you are covered. The Bible is a smorgasbord for them and they will pick and choose according to their taste. I know a lot of who believe the right things, but that does not really mean they have a genuine relationship with Christ. It is one thing to assent to the truth, but it is quite another to actually have a dynamic, transformational relationship with Christ. Rejecting HUGE portions of Scripture and denying the inspiration of the Scriptures (except for the few that they like), does not fit with one who claims to be an authentic follower of Christ.

I know you don't agree with me here, but they do not reject Scripture. They assign improper literary type to it. This is wrong but it isn't rejection. I'm going to have to ask you what you believe are the minimal, essential elements of salvation. Because in essence, it is about beliefs about Jesus, not about the bible.

If one is going to claim belief in the God of the Bible, then the Bible needs to be where they form their understanding of whom God is and how He operates. They need the Bible to correctly understand His nature, character and operations.

I heartily agree.

You simply cannot get the "god" of the TE'ers from the Bible. That "god" does not exist.

Ahh.. I am not so sure I agree here. There is far more to God than just His role as Creator. There are many ways in which TE's and other Christians can join together an agree upon characteristics of God. The God they have is the God of the bible, but poorly understood and sometimes erroneously understood. But He is their God nonetheless.

Yes, inauthentic would mean that a person is not a genuine believer (or unsaved). They may have religion and participate in the external community of faith, but they have not had a dynamic, transforming, regenerating experience with Christ.

Shiloh, 'by their fruit they will be known', correct? Why is it that I can see genuine fruit in the lives of some who are TE'ers? They still appear to have a dynamic, transforming, regenerating experience with Christ. I don't see that you can assume anything about their salvation based only on a narrow view at their beliefs. To claim that none of them have a genuine experience with God is to be totally ignorant of the many TE'ers out there who are seen by their fruit to be following Him in obedience and love.

TE'ers do not reject Christ as creator. They believe He created through TE. There is a huge difference. One is disbelief, the other is misinterpretation. TE'ers trust the Word of God but incorrectly attribute allegorical meaning to something that is physical literal. It is my strong belief that the understanding TE'ers gather from their allegorical reading, still asserts Christ as creator, law giver and redeemer. Thus, their erroneous belief does not knock over the house of cards in terms of doctrine, as it would if they flat out did not believe in Christ as creator, law giver and redeemer.

Again, there is way more to it than that. As I stated earlier there is an entire package of really bad theology that strikes at the heart of the Christian faith. There is just too much of the Bible they have to adjust and discard to make their profession of faith appear as anything but a case of self-delusion.

Keep in mind. I am not saying they are motivated by a sinister plan to lead others astray. 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.

I agree that there is a package of theology that comes with TE, but not that it strikes at the heart of the Christian faith. Please define what you believe the central issues to Christian faith are.

I do agree with the last phrase (emphasis mine). Their view is dangerous and the hermeneutics that get them there is dangerous too. They are blind to the dangers of what they are doing. But unsaved? Not necessarily.

I still firmly believe you are overstating the impact of this erroneous belief. Yes, it does change the nature of God, and on occasion the integrity of the Scriptures in the sense that it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
It is still my contention that it is possible to have authentic faith (aka be saved) and believe in the logically and biblically inconsistent theory of TE.

I have already made room for them as well, albeit in a state of ignorance that will be remedied by washing of the water of the Word.

But whhen one claims to be a beleiver but then reject what the Bible says, it is harder to make a case that they are a genuine believer. I think that is where the disconnect is. I am not saying that salvation is based on having correct theology. I am saying that when one perfers a worldy theory that contradicts the clear testimony of Scripture, their claim to be a genuine believer is far weaker. Their rejection of Scripture is not based on an objective examination of the text, but because they have chosen to reject any part of Scripture that gets in the way of what they are prepared to accept as truth.

I believe that your stated position undermines what the bible itself says about salvation.

This has always been my central concern, not the defense of TE, but the defense of the pure gospel message.

I have not set any conditions for salvation at all. I have repeatedly stated that one does not have to be a creationist to get saved. What I am saying is that when one rejects the testimony of creation in Genesis 1, and adopts Evolution as the correct understanding of origins, that is not the mark of a true believer AND that view is accompanied by an entire body of theological beleifs that undercut the integrity of Scripture. Even they understand that the Bible builds on its self and so in order to have any simblance of consistency, they have to reject other parts of the text of Scripture. If you believe that the creation account is a mythor or allegory, then by logical extenstion, Adam Eve were not real people and the fall of man is not a part of human history either, which leaves us to explain the sin of Cain and the sin that enveloped the whole world by the time we get to Noah in Genesis 6 and of course that means the ark story is fabled exaggeration that is only marginally true. The problem is that Evolution undercuts the Bible
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...