Evolution and Its Implications for a Christian worldview

[~candice~]

Hi George,

Once again I cannot speak for all TE'ers, I am not even one myself. But I do have personal interactions with TE'ers who will emphatically claim to believe the whole Word. They simply believe the true message of Genesis is found in an allegorical framework of interpretation.

If we were speaking of flat out disbelief of the Word, I don't think there would be anything to debate - that really is synonymous with 'inauthentic Christian faith'.

God bless

[Guest shiloh357]

Once again I cannot speak for all TE'ers, I am not even one myself. But I do have personal interactions with TE'ers who will emphatically claim to believe the whole Word. They simply believe the true message of Genesis is found in an allegorical framework of interpretation.

Tell me this, Candice: If a reporter for the New York Times writes an article about a government enaging in ethnic cleansing in a country in Africa, does he expect his story to be taken literally, or does he expect the reader to assume that this story is really just an allegory that is symbolic of the human condition?

Every author expects to be taken literally. In any other context, we default to a literal understanding of the author. We read a newspaper a news periodical, a biography etc. literally. It is only when we get to the Bible that we suddenly find this right to begin picking out the parts that we don't want and discarding them as allegory or myths or exaggerated, embellished accounts.

Believing the Bible on your terms is not belief. It is precisely because they do not believe the Scriptures as written that they try to make the Creation story into allegory of something else, so they don't have to deal with the facts the author has presented.

Allegories are not containers of truth. Allegories are meant to teach a spiritual lesson. Allegories are subjective literary devices. Truth is objective and is not allegorical. So one cannot claim that the "true message of Genesis" can be found in a subjective device like allegory. Truth is objective and concrete. Allegories exist at the whim of the reader. In Scripture, the truth is apparent to the reader. Which is why some people want to shield their minds and hearts from the literal truth that is being communicated in the text.

Edited May 24, 2011 by shiloh357

[~candice~]

I haven't refuted your most recent posts yet, just wanted to add some general thoughts, and come back with a more thorough refutation when time permits.

Shiloh, I fear you have fallen out of touch with the genuine tussle some people have in reconciling science and Genesis. You have great skill in hermeneutics and debating and that gives you an advantage, because you have confidence that your interpretation matches the intent of the author. Not everyone is so placed.

One of the things I find helpful as a lecturer is to cast my mind back to the time when I first learned of the concept that I am trying to teach, back when I did not have a mental mind-map of how all the concepts related to one another, how the terminology was foreign, and the thought of approaching such a bowl of spaghetti was so overwhelming. All the concepts I teach are related to one another and build upon one another just like in theology.

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.

Not everyone is strong enough in science and hermeneutics to emphatically state that science is wrong and their interpretation is right. Some consider it to be arrogant. In fact they would point to the latter chapters of Job and suggest that if you cannot answer the questions God peppered Job with, you have no basis for speaking about His creative mode, other than the obvious assertion of God as Creator of and therefore Lord of all the heavens and earth. So for many people who refuse to be academically dishonest about the large body of modern scientific claims, that rules out option 1.

As the bedrock of the faith, Christians should not and will not search for an option that declares His Word false. That rules out option 2. Emphatically. NO. It is NEVER an option.

So they are left with option 3. Not an option of disbelief in Him or His Word, but a position that states, "Hey, I don't have all the answers and I'm not going to be so arrogant as to assume that I do".

This is NOT disbelief. This is a comfortability with the fact that they see in part and are at present unable to serve both literal interpretation and science justly and honestly by equating them.

In your analogy about the news reporter, reporting on ethnic cleansing, I would agree that the plain understanding would be literal. But in that analogy, there is no (seemingly) apparent contradictions between science and his story. There is no history of creation accounts being used to convey messages about god(s). The analogy simply does not measure up to the complexity of the issue we are discussing.

I hinted at this earlier (actually, I think it might have been on a thread in the open section of the boards, one of the threads which inspired this debate) that a great deal of Christians are happy with unanswered questions. I am. I happily conclude that I do not know how the sun stood still without causing massive tidal waves on earth, that Jonah survived for three days in an oxygen deficient environment and yet somehow functioned normally thereafter, and that Jesus physically walked on water. I've got NO IDEA how these things happened scientifically and I cannot point to a scientific finding that supports my interpretation. But I believe it and when I get to heaven I look forward to understanding how He did this.

But faith is not in having all our questions answered (is this ever possible?) rather it is about putting strong trust in Jesus, in who He is and what He did on the cross, and knowing that the unanswered questions are merely a side issue to relationship with Him. Something we can work at, study, pray over, mull over, debate about..

You have constantly brought up the issue of internal invalidity (self contradicting) nature of TE. Well, you are right that it is self contradicting, but this in itself does not require a Christian to throw out an interpretation. Look at issues at the moment that are periphery to salvation. The rapture serves this purpose well.

It would take but a moment's googling to find a list of questions that pre-tribbers would have trouble answering. Their position is not straightforward to assert, and there are certain elements they have to just accept to concede do not have clear answers. Same goes with post-tribbers, I could just as easily find a list of quandaries that post-tribbers could not answer with sufficient confidence. This doesn't mean that no one can hold a pre trib or post trib position because those positions are difficult to completely support. How boring would the boards be if this were so!

The good ole Calvin v's Arminius debate also serves to illustrate my point.

If the notion of having rejecting and interpretation with less than perfect validity were consistently applied, we could emphatically state very little. The truth is that we all see in part and acknowledge that our understanding will remain partial until the end.

Hence, the fact that TE is internally invalid, doesn't necessarily equate with TE holders being inauthentic. I would argue the opposite, that people who are willing to get dirty and honestly try and seek out what His Word says and how it reconciles with what they see in this world, ARE being authentic. Claiming that there is no contradiction between modern scientific findings and a literal creation account IS inauthentic.

I still contend you have missed both the intent and the outcome of the allegorical reading of Genesis. It is not, as you claim, reading with an intent that they know the true meaning (literal) is correct and they are choosing to substitute something more convenient, and it is not disbelief. It is misunderstanding. You may know of some who genuinely disbelieve the bible and have substituted another understanding, but those I know have not substituted but rather interpreted differently.

Here is the issue I believe you have failed to adequately address: that the concepts of sin, it's origin, it's impact temporally and physically and spiritually, the need for redemption, salvation by faith alone in Christ alone is ALL found in the NT, and it is ALL supported by an allegorical reading. Your dogmatic assertion that allegory removes this foundation and hence removes the understanding required for salvation is unfounded.

The allegorical position thus understands that mankind has sinned, fallen out of relationship with God, and is unable to be reconciled to Him by their own actions. One of the ways you refuted me was by pointing to the fact that Paul's discussion in sin involves a literal Adam bringing sin into the world. The allegorical understanding is NOT that sin did not enter the world, but that sin entered all of mankind. Replace 'Adam' with 'representative of mankind' and you will see how they understand both Gen 1-3 and Romans 5.

This destroys the notion of a literal Adam, and as such I don't think TE'ers are going to have as rich an understanding of original sin and it's consequences. But there is still the belief in sin, it's impact seperating us from God, and resulting in death "the wages of sin are death".

I note the scripture that George quoted, and I believe it myself. We must believe what He says in Genesis, as it really is the bedrock of understanding. But temper that with the understanding that one must not have perfect theology to be saved. It's a quandary for sure, but one [presuming you are standing by your earlier statement that one doesn't need perfect theology to be saved] you yourself have grappled with an come to an understanding of.

One final point. I've spent considerable time trying to reword this so it doesn't seem so personally attacking but I've failed miserably. I love you as a brother in Christ and I hope you see the intent behind my words and not a barb. I'm really soft in real life.

You earlier complained that you wished I didn't make out as if you knew all TE'ers, and yet in later posts you are comfortable claiming that all TE'ers exhibit attributes of disbelief, of challenge to His integrity and to His authority. I find you are being dishonest. What makes you think that my interaction with TE'ers is any less valid than yours? Or that you are better able to discern their heart and their beliefs than I am? Or that the profession of TE'ers I know: that they are sinners in need of redemption through Christ alone, is invalid? What puts you in a position to state you know them (them, being the TE'ers I know) better than I do?

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

All I should need to do in order to refute your generalisations is present one case of a TE'er who does not believe the way you claim. I have done that, infact I have spoken of many TE'ers who are completely different from the generalisation of disbelief and challenge to integrity and authority that you paint.

I don't know a way forward from here, if you feel the ability to make such blanket statements, you are in effect calling my experience and judgement of the TE'ers I know to be a lie, or calling my ability to understand their doctrine to be flawed.

Yesterday I set out to find the testimony of TE'ers that I could share with you, especially to quote their beliefs about the bible. I found many. I will pepper you with them in another post, but suffice for the moment to say that I could be here all day quoting TE'ers who BELIEVE in His Word, believe that Jesus is the ONLY way of salvation, that they are sinners, that the bible is wholly inspired, inerrant and infalliable, that they love the Lord.

Shiloh I really have to wonder how you feel you would minister to someone who approaches you with struggles reconciling the two (modern science and physical literal interpretation of the Creation accounts), and unable to sweep the issue under the carpet. How are you going to comfort them and assume them that the promise of the gospel remains true regardless of their ability to reconcile faith and science? That even if they get this wrong, that does not invalidate His Word when He promises salvation to them?

Please see my heart in this, I am an evangelist, and feel called to those who either do not have faith, or who struggle along in spiritual infancy, failing to move forward. I'm also lead to those who, like myself, have at some stage let the academic issues cloud their relationship with God. I want to reach out to them and shake them and say "WAKE UP". You CAN move forward in faith, and these issues need not be a noose around your neck.

Part of my reaction to your position is that I feel it places a burden on people that God does not intend for them to carry. As an evangelist / minister to the weak, this makes it even harder to encourage people that they can have any assurance of salvation in the Lord when they hold such understandings. It rubs me the wrong way and the more I read of it the more I want to kick against it (the idea, not you!).

I saw you have responded in my thread about Bonhoeffer. Let me share a quote of his with you:

"I have come to the conclusion that I made a mistake in coming to America. I must live through this difficult period in our national history with the people of Germany. I will have no right to participate in the reconstruction of Christian life in Germany after the war if I do not share the trials of this time with my people... Christians in Germany will have to face the terrible alternative of either willing the defeat of their nation in order that Christian civilization may survive or willing the victory of their nation and thereby destroying civilization. I know which of these alternatives I must choose but I cannot make that choice from security."

He's talking about returning to Germany and remaining in opposition to the German Christians despite knowing the likely consequences. I see this Evolution issue as a war, I really do. And it is a war that is tearing away at some of our weaker brothers and sisters, and preventing some from coming to Him. I do not want to hide away in security from this war, I want to get my hands dirty reaching out to these people and navigating the journey alongside them.

Well, just sharing what's on my heart. I do owe you a thorough refutation and will get to it as soon as time permits.

God bless,

Candice

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh, I fear you have fallen out of touch with the genuine tussle some people have in reconciling science and Genesis. You have great skill in hermeneutics and debating and that gives you an advantage, because you have confidence that your interpretation matches the intent of the author. Not everyone is so placed.

The problem with your above statemnet is that it is not "my" interpretation. There is only ONE interpreation of any given text and it is the literal one. It does not matter what kind of literature you are referring to. Even figurative devices have a literal intent by the author. To read the Bbible literally means to read it as literature and to take your cues from the author through the various literary devices he uses in order to communicate exactly what he wants to say and exactly how he wants to be understood.

This is not about reconciling science and the Bible. This is about reconciling the theory of Evolution with the Bible. Evolutiion is not the whole of science and to see no reconcilation between the theory of Evolution and the Bible is not to say that science and the Bible are at odds. Generally they are not. Many of the world's greatests scientists were strong Christians who saw science as a means understanding the scope of God's creation.

[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.

Not everyone is strong enough in science and hermeneutics to emphatically state that science is wrong and their interpretation is right. Some consider it to be arrogant. In fact they would point to the latter chapters of Job and suggest that if you cannot answer the questions God peppered Job with, you have no basis for speaking about His creative mode, other than the obvious assertion of God as Creator of and therefore Lord of all the heavens and earth. So for many people who refuse to be academically dishonest about the large body of modern scientific claims, that rules out option 1.

Except that we are not dealing with any issue that claims that science is wrong and we are right. Rather, we are holding the claims of evolution up to the light of Scripture and examing how those claims stand up to the light of God's word.

As the bedrock of the faith, Christians should not and will not search for an option that declares His Word false. That rules out option 2. Emphatically. NO. It is NEVER an option.

So they are left with option 3. Not an option of disbelief in Him or His Word, but a position that states, "Hey, I don't have all the answers and I'm not going to be so arrogant as to assume that I do".

Who is claiming to have all the answers. The simple fact is that the claims of the theory of evolution and the Bible are irreconcilable and cannot come to agreement.

This is NOT disbelief. This is a comfortability with the fact that they see in part and are at present unable to serve both literal interpretation and science justly and honestly by equating them.

Most people have no idea what a "literal" interpreation is. Secondly, they keep misunderstanding rejection of Evolutoin to be a wholesale rejection of science which is also not true. There is a lot more to science than evolution. In fact, most of science outsside the life sciences really has nothing to with it. I do not need evolution to be a good physicist, chemist, astronomer, engineer, etc.

In your analogy about the news reporter, reporting on ethnic cleansing, I would agree that the plain understanding would be literal. But in that analogy, there is no (seemingly) apparent contradictions between science and his story. There is no history of creation accounts being used to convey messages about god(s). The analogy simply does not measure up to the complexity of the issue we are discussing.

The analgoy was not meant to be an exact pont for point comparson with the issue we are debating. The only point being made is that everyone who writes something wants to be taken literally. To purposefully make the story allegorical is disrespectful to the author.

As touching our issue, many have created allegories from the text to make a didactic point and to communicate a spiritual truth. That is one thing. It is quite another to say that an historical narrative is an allegory and has no basis in historical fact.

I hinted at this earlier (actually, I think it might have been on a thread in the open section of the boards, one of the threads which inspired this debate) that a great deal of Christians are happy with unanswered questions. I am. I happily conclude that I do not know how the sun stood still without causing massive tidal waves on earth, that Jonah survived for three days in an oxygen deficient environment and yet somehow functioned normally thereafter, and that Jesus physically walked on water. I've got NO IDEA how these things happened scientifically and I cannot point to a scientific finding that supports my interpretation. But I believe it and when I get to heaven I look forward to understanding how He did this.

But faith is not in having all our questions answered (is this ever possible?) rather it is about putting strong trust in Jesus, in who He is and what He did on the cross, and knowing that the unanswered questions are merely a side issue to relationship with Him. Something we can work at, study, pray over, mull over, debate about..

There are gaps in our konwledge of lots of things, particuarly the nuts and bolts of how God did some of the amazing things He does. Not sure how that is related to this issue, though.

[Guest shiloh357]

You have constantly brought up the issue of internal invalidity (self contradicting) nature of TE. Well, you are right that it is self contradicting, but this in itself does not require a Christian to throw out an interpretation. Look at issues at the moment that are periphery to salvation. The rapture serves this purpose well.

It would take but a moment's googling to find a list of questions that pre-tribbers would have trouble answering. Their position is not straightforward to assert, and there are certain elements they have to just accept to concede do not have clear answers. Same goes with post-tribbers, I could just as easily find a list of quandaries that post-tribbers could not answer with sufficient confidence. This doesn't mean that no one can hold a pre trib or post trib position because those positions are difficult to completely support. How boring would the boards be if this were so!

The good ole Calvin v's Arminius debate also serves to illustrate my point.

If the notion of having rejecting and interpretation with less than perfect validity were consistently applied, we could emphatically state very little. The truth is that we all see in part and acknowledge that our understanding will remain partial until the end.

With all due respect, you are still not getting what I am saying. The issue between evolution and the Bible is entirely dissimilar to the Calvin/Arminius debates and the rapture/tribulation questions. Those are issues that can be debated because they are internal debates over issues which frankly none of us have enough light on and often must hold in tension. The Evolution/Bible debate is entirely different. We are talking about a scientific theory predicated on the nonexistence of God and whether or not a Christian can or would subscribe to any of the basic claims of evolution, all of which are built on a platform of a naturalistic worldview that precludes God entirely.

Hence, the fact that TE is internally invalid, doesn't necessarily equate with TE holders being inauthentic. I would argue the opposite, that people who are willing to get dirty and honestly try and seek out what His Word says and how it reconciles with what they see in this world, ARE being authentic. Claiming that there is no contradiction between modern scientific findings and a literal creation account IS inauthentic.

Rejecting entirel portions of Scripture as metaphorical, allegorical, mythical or whatever hardly counts as "honestly seeking out what His word says." They are not trying reconcile science with the Bible. They are cropping both the claims of Evolution and the Bible in order to create a hybrid they can live with. That is not reconcilation by any stretch of the imagination.

I still contend you have missed both the intent and the outcome of the allegorical reading of Genesis. It is not, as you claim, reading with an intent that they know the true meaning (literal) is correct and they are choosing to substitute something more convenient, and it is not disbelief. It is misunderstanding. You may know of some who genuinely disbelieve the bible and have substituted another understanding, but those I know have not substituted but rather interpreted differently.

Here is the issue I believe you have failed to adequately address: that the concepts of sin, it's origin, it's impact temporally and physically and spiritually, the need for redemption, salvation by faith alone in Christ alone is ALL found in the NT, and it is ALL supported by an allegorical reading. Your dogmatic assertion that allegory removes this foundation and hence removes the understanding required for salvation is unfounded.

I have not made any of those claims. There is a difference between an allegorical reading of Genesis and simply stating that the entire story is allegorical. I can create an alleorical reading of Genesis. It is another thing altogether for me to say that Genesis is not the physical history that the author intends for it to be.

Allegory is not a problem until it is used without textual justification to shield one's mind and heart from the intentional, literal message of the author. Besides, those who claim it is allegory have the responsbility to PROVE that the text demands an allegorical understanding of the text. If it cannot be shown through internal textual indicators to be allegorical, the default understanding must be literal. Usually when I bring this up to TE'ers, they either want to change the subject or suddenly have important appointment to attend to. Not ONE TE'er can show from the text that it intends to be an allegory. They are just hoping we will let that claim slide by without a challenge.

The allegorical position thus understands that mankind has sinned, fallen out of relationship with God, and is unable to be reconciled to Him by their own actions. One of the ways you refuted me was by pointing to the fact that Paul's discussion in sin involves a literal Adam bringing sin into the world. The allegorical understanding is NOT that sin did not enter the world, but that sin entered all of mankind. Replace 'Adam' with 'representative of mankind' and you will see how they understand both Gen 1-3 and Romans 5.

Yeah, that is not allegory.

This destroys the notion of a literal Adam, and as such I don't think TE'ers are going to have as rich an understanding of original sin and it's consequences. But there is still the belief in sin, it's impact seperating us from God, and resulting in death "the wages of sin are death".

Like I said earlier, belief of scripture on your terms is not belief. Yes, it destorys the literal Adam, it also destroys the need for redemption and it flies in the fact of the NT which treats the fall of Adam as a literal event and Adam as a literal person. The plan of redemption is not something you can accept in part. You really do not understand the serious problems that exist in what you are saying and the implications they have for a person's theology. Everything in the Bible doctrinally is connected and you simply cannot sever part of it and claim that what is left will get you by. It just doesn't work that way.

I note the scripture that George quoted, and I believe it myself. We must believe what He says in Genesis, as it really is the bedrock of understanding. But temper that with the understanding that one must not have perfect theology to be saved. It's a quandary for sure, but one [presuming you are standing by your earlier statement that one doesn't need perfect theology to be saved] you yourself have grappled with an come to an understanding of.

No one said you have to have perfect theology to be saved. I have made that point several times and am tiring of you assigning that value to me. I am saying that when a person challenges the doctrinal integrity of Scripture when they reject large portions of historical narratives as being historical narratives, those are not the marks of a true beleiver. It is one thing to be immature and incomplete and thus holding to incorrect views as result. It is quite another to purposely view Scripture as expendable whenever its teachings become inconvenient.

One final point. I've spent considerable time trying to reword this so it doesn't seem so personally attacking but I've failed miserably. I love you as a brother in Christ and I hope you see the intent behind my words and not a barb. I'm really soft in real life.

You earlier complained that you wished I didn't make out as if you knew all TE'ers, and yet in later posts you are comfortable claiming that all TE'ers exhibit attributes of disbelief, of challenge to His integrity and to His authority. I find you are being dishonest. What makes you think that my interaction with TE'ers is any less valid than yours? Or that you are better able to discern their heart and their beliefs than I am? Or that the profession of TE'ers I know: that they are sinners in need of redemption through Christ alone, is invalid? What puts you in a position to state you know them (them, being the TE'ers I know) better than I do?

I think that you allow your emotions to blind you to some really bad things that come with TE. I think if you did more serious probing and interrogation, you would find as I have that while TE'ers put on a good Christian front, they have some very dangerous poisonous views underneat the surface. They are not naive. They know that some of their views are controversial.

I have never made a claim about "all TE'ers. I have said that I have yet to meet a TE'er that did not believe exactly what I have represented. We have had many TE'ers on this board long before you came here and they made the same arguments. Not all TE'ers appear the same because not all of them want to debate or argue.

Edited May 25, 2011 by shiloh357

[Guest shiloh357]

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

I don't acknowledge it because I have never seen it.

All I should need to do in order to refute your generalisations is present one case of a TE'er who does not believe the way you claim. I have done that, infact I have spoken of many TE'ers who are completely different from the generalisation of disbelief and challenge to integrity and authority that you paint.

I don't know a way forward from here, if you feel the ability to make such blanket statements, you are in effect calling my experience and judgement of the TE'ers I know to be a lie, or calling my ability to understand their doctrine to be flawed.

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.

Yesterday I set out to find the testimony of TE'ers that I could share with you, especially to quote their beliefs about the bible. I found many. I will pepper you with them in another post, but suffice for the moment to say that I could be here all day quoting TE'ers who BELIEVE in His Word, believe that Jesus is the ONLY way of salvation, that they are sinners, that the bible is wholly inspired, inerrant and infalliable, that they love the Lord.

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.

Shiloh I really have to wonder how you feel you would minister to someone who approaches you with struggles reconciling the two (modern science and physical literal interpretation of the Creation accounts), and unable to sweep the issue under the carpet. How are you going to comfort them and assume them that the promise of the gospel remains true regardless of their ability to reconcile faith and science? That even if they get this wrong, that does not invalidate His Word when He promises salvation to them?

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.

Please see my heart in this, I am an evangelist, and feel called to those who either do not have faith, or who struggle along in spiritual infancy, failing to move forward. I'm also lead to those who, like myself, have at some stage let the academic issues cloud their relationship with God. I want to reach out to them and shake them and say "WAKE UP". You CAN move forward in faith, and these issues need not be a noose around your neck.

Part of my reaction to your position is that I feel it places a burden on people that God does not intend for them to carry. As an evangelist / minister to the weak, this makes it even harder to encourage people that they can have any assurance of salvation in the Lord when they hold such understandings. It rubs me the wrong way and the more I read of it the more I want to kick against it (the idea, not you!).

That stems in part because you keep approaching my statements from the standpoint of having incorrectly framing this debate over and over. You keep making this about science vs. Christianity or Creationism. The truth is that it ultimately is about Evolutoin vs. the integrity of Scripture.

I saw you have responded in my thread about Bonhoeffer. Let me share a quote of his with you:

"I have come to the conclusion that I made a mistake in coming to America. I must live through this difficult period in our national history with the people of Germany. I will have no right to participate in the reconstruction of Christian life in Germany after the war if I do not share the trials of this time with my people... Christians in Germany will have to face the terrible alternative of either willing the defeat of their nation in order that Christian civilization may survive or willing the victory of their nation and thereby destroying civilization. I know which of these alternatives I must choose but I cannot make that choice from security."

He's talking about returning to Germany and remaining in opposition to the German Christians despite knowing the likely consequences. I see this Evolution issue as a war, I really do. And it is a war that is tearing away at some of our weaker brothers and sisters, and preventing some from coming to Him. I do not want to hide away in security from this war, I want to get my hands dirty reaching out to these people and navigating the journey alongside them.

Well, just sharing what's on my heart. I do owe you a thorough refutation and will get to it as soon as time permits.

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

[~candice~]

Shiloh, about this:

No one said you have to have perfect theology to be saved. I have made that point several times and am tiring of you assigning that value to me. I am saying that when a person challenges the doctrinal integrity of Scripture when they reject large portions of historical narratives as being historical narratives, those are not the marks of a true beleiver. It is one thing to be immature and incomplete and thus holding to incorrect views as result. It is quite another to purposely view Scripture as expendable whenever its teachings become inconvenient.

I am not assigning value to you, I am quoting you.

See here:

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.

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.

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh, about this:

No one said you have to have perfect theology to be saved. I have made that point several times and am tiring of you assigning that value to me. I am saying that when a person challenges the doctrinal integrity of Scripture when they reject large portions of historical narratives as being historical narratives, those are not the marks of a true beleiver. It is one thing to be immature and incomplete and thus holding to incorrect views as result. It is quite another to purposely view Scripture as expendable whenever its teachings become inconvenient.

I am not assigning value to you, I am quoting you.

See here:

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.

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.

Nowhere in that quote did I say anything about a person having to have perfect theology to be saved. I have made the point more than once, that I make room for imperfect theology, especially because none of us have perfect theology.

This is not a debate about not having perfect theolgy at all. This just minimizes the real issue which is about how far one can go in a worldview that is diameterically opposed to Scripture and in fact stands as a challenge to some very basic, concrete essential claims of Scripture, and by extension as a challenge to God's authorty.

[~candice~]

Shiloh, about this:

No one said you have to have perfect theology to be saved. I have made that point several times and am tiring of you assigning that value to me. I am saying that when a person challenges the doctrinal integrity of Scripture when they reject large portions of historical narratives as being historical narratives, those are not the marks of a true beleiver. It is one thing to be immature and incomplete and thus holding to incorrect views as result. It is quite another to purposely view Scripture as expendable whenever its teachings become inconvenient.

I am not assigning value to you, I am quoting you.

See here:

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.

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.

Nowhere in that quote did I say anything about a person having to have perfect theology to be saved. I have made the point more than once, that I make room for imperfect theology, especially because none of us have perfect theology.

This is not a debate about not having perfect theolgy at all. This just minimizes the real issue which is about how far one can go in a worldview that is diameterically opposed to Scripture and in fact stands as a challenge to some very basic, concrete essential claims of Scripture, and by extension as a challenge to God's authorty.

I understand you are not suggesting we need perfect theology. What I don't understand is your opinion of "how far one can go in a worldview that is diameterically opposed to Scripture" before salvation is questioned. It seems not very far at all.

[Guest shiloh357]

I understand you are not suggesting we need perfect theology. What I don't understand is your opinion of "how far one can go in a worldview that is diameterically opposed to Scripture" before salvation is questioned. It seems not very far at all.

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

In the first three centuries of the Church, Christians in the Roman empire were expected to pay homage to Caesar. They did not have to adopt the Roman religion per se. They simply had to go to a prescribed area and take a pinch of incense and throw it on the fire. Nothing big. It was an ackowledgement of Caesar as Lord. It was not a big thing. Lots of Chrisians did it just to avoid the hassle and get on with their lives. They were free to live as Christians and to do whatever they wished just so long as they put a pinch of incense on the altar. More often than not, many Christians compromised.

The Christians who compromised and affirmed Caesar as their Lord publically showed who and what they really were. They could claim to still believe the Gospel and be just as sincere as anyone else, but their actions disproved that claim. Despite their alleged commitment to Christ, they were rejected by the faithful Chrisitan community particularly by those who had not compromised and suffered physical persecution for it. Those who did not pay respect to the imperial cult were called "The Confessors" because they stayed true to their confession of faith even in the face of intense persecutoin.

Evolution at its core is a modern form of idolatory. Most evolutionists have no problem with Christianity outside the issue of Genesis 1. As far as they are concerned, you can believe what ever you want about God in relation to anything else. "Go to church," they say. "pray, read your bible, take communion, live out your Christian faith to its fullest. As long as you keep God out of science and let evolution and modern science speak to the issues of where life came from and how it developed, then we can all get along."

It is the same basic message as they got in Rome. You can live out your Christian life any way you want, just pay your respects where they are due and we will get along just fine. Rome was very tolerant of different religions so long as they knew the place and remained subordinate to Caesar and His authority. It is the same kind of challenge to God's authority that the theory of evolution makes and unfortunately many Christians are all to willing to compromise in order to find a way to get along with evolution.