can believers accept evolution?

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

So you agree with me that nowhere in the Bible does it state that one has to be in 100% agreement with the Bible to be a Christian? Because that is the only source for what it means to be and not be a Christian.

No, you don't have to be in 100% agreement with the Bible to be a religionist.  There is a difference between a religionist who assents to selective parts of the Bible and a Christian who believes God and has put his entire faith in the integrity and authority of God's word. 

 

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2Ti 3:16-17

 

That is nonnegotiable.   All Scripture, even Genesis 1 is inspired by God.  You don't get the option to be in disagreement with any part of it.  All of it is for doctrine and insruction and that includes Genesis 1.   The Bible is the source document for the Christian faith and none of it is expendable and all of it is authoritative and the fact that you can live in rebellion and disregard certain parts, casts a dark shadow over your profession of faith.

 

All else is the musings of man. My faith is not an intellectual exercise, so I can tell you from first-hand experience that accepting evolution has not gotten in the way of my relationship with God.

 

Probably because you don't have one.   You might have religion, but there is nothing in what you have said that reflects a living dynamic faith or relationship with God.  When someone who claims to be a Christian can embrace a theory that atheists like Richard Dawkins espouses as the number one enabler for atheism and which makes for a more fulfilled atheist, there is a problem.   

 

Evolution is a modern form of idolatry and has no place in the life of a genuine follower of Christ.

 

 

Let's grant that you are correct about this. The only true and serious way to look at all of this is the way that you claim, that is, to take the Genesis creation account as a historical, factual, sort of account of creation.

 

Still, what do you do with this original verse?

 

rom 10:9-11 if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”

 

There seems to be several steps between what Paul is talking about here, and deciding that the Genesis creation account can *only* be taken seriously if you take it as a historical, factual account of events. If you are right, then when do you expect that someone who fulfills the requirements of the above verse comes to see that? Immediately? Within 2 months? Within 2 years? Varies? What I am trying to draw from you is what you think is a *necessary condition* of salvation, vs what will result from that in the process of sanctification.

 

The big problem is that you are under the misguided notion that as long as you believe in Jesus' death and resurrection, that nothing else you believe matters.   But the Bible doesn't work that way.

 

The Bible is a progressive unfolding or revelation one layer builds on the previous layers.  Not only that but all of the doctrines of the Bible are interlocking.  You can't select out one part to disbelieve without doing damage to other parts.  Everything in the Bible is connected because the truths of the New Testament are rooted in the truth already revealed in the OT.  The Bible is one unified book.  The resurrection of Jesus is the vindication of all of the truth of Scripture including the truth of the Genesis creation account.   Because Jesus came to deliver us from the curse of sin, that necessitates a literal reading of Genesis and the events that occurred in the Garden, because the Bible links redemption to the sin of Adam.  Adam's sin is literal history according to the NT.  So your approach means that you have deny the truth of the NT in order to maintain a position that allows for sin while disregarding the Bible's authority in that matter.  

 

Simply assenting to a particular verse or verses, in this case Rom. 10:9-10,  is not the whole of what it means to become a Christian.  Anyone can agree with any part of the Bible. That doesn't make them a believer.  Being a believer is predicated on have a real encounter with Jesus, not simply assenting to propositional claims made by the Bible just to cover yourself.

 

Besides, if you can't trust Genesis 1 to b factual and correct, on what basis do you trust Rom 10:9-10?

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

So you agree with me that nowhere in the Bible does it state that one has to be in 100% agreement with the Bible to be a Christian? Because that is the only source for what it means to be and not be a Christian.

No, you don't have to be in 100% agreement with the Bible to be a religionist.  There is a difference between a religionist who assents to selective parts of the Bible and a Christian who believes God and has put his entire faith in the integrity and authority of God's word. 

 

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2Ti 3:16-17

 

That is nonnegotiable.   All Scripture, even Genesis 1 is inspired by God.  You don't get the option to be in disagreement with any part of it.  All of it is for doctrine and insruction and that includes Genesis 1.   The Bible is the source document for the Christian faith and none of it is expendable and all of it is authoritative and the fact that you can live in rebellion and disregard certain parts, casts a dark shadow over your profession of faith.

 

All else is the musings of man. My faith is not an intellectual exercise, so I can tell you from first-hand experience that accepting evolution has not gotten in the way of my relationship with God.

 

Probably because you don't have one.   You might have religion, but there is nothing in what you have said that reflects a living dynamic faith or relationship with God.  When someone who claims to be a Christian can embrace a theory that atheists like Richard Dawkins espouses as the number one enabler for atheism and which makes for a more fulfilled atheist, there is a problem.   

 

Evolution is a modern form of idolatry and has no place in the life of a genuine follower of Christ.

 

 

Let's grant that you are correct about this. The only true and serious way to look at all of this is the way that you claim, that is, to take the Genesis creation account as a historical, factual, sort of account of creation.

 

Still, what do you do with this original verse?

 

rom 10:9-11 if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”

 

There seems to be several steps between what Paul is talking about here, and deciding that the Genesis creation account can *only* be taken seriously if you take it as a historical, factual account of events. If you are right, then when do you expect that someone who fulfills the requirements of the above verse comes to see that? Immediately? Within 2 months? Within 2 years? Varies? What I am trying to draw from you is what you think is a *necessary condition* of salvation, vs what will result from that in the process of sanctification.

 

The big problem is that you are under the misguided notion that as long as you believe in Jesus' death and resurrection, that nothing else you believe matters.   But the Bible doesn't work that way.

 

The Bible is a progressive unfolding or revelation one layer builds on the previous layers.  Not only that but all of the doctrines of the Bible are interlocking.  You can't select out one part to disbelieve without doing damage to other parts.  Everything in the Bible is connected because the truths of the New Testament are rooted in the truth already revealed in the OT.  The Bible is one unified book.  The resurrection of Jesus is the vindication of all of the truth of Scripture including the truth of the Genesis creation account.   Because Jesus came to deliver us from the curse of sin, that necessitates a literal reading of Genesis and the events that occurred in the Garden, because the Bible links redemption to the sin of Adam.  Adam's sin is literal history according to the NT.  So your approach means that you have deny the truth of the NT in order to maintain a position that allows for sin while disregarding the Bible's authority in that matter.  

 

Simply assenting to a particular verse or verses, in this case Rom. 10:9-10,  is not the whole of what it means to become a Christian.  Anyone can agree with any part of the Bible. That doesn't make them a believer.  Being a believer is predicated on have a real encounter with Jesus, not simply assenting to propositional claims made by the Bible just to cover yourself.

 

Besides, if you can't trust Genesis 1 to b factual and correct, on what basis do you trust Rom 10:9-10?

 

 

I have had a real encounter with Jesus, so I am not just talking about intellectual assent to Rom 10:9-10. I'm also familiar with the power of the Spirit to convict and guide, which is why I asked what I did. But, that verse does seem to lay out the necessary condition for salvation, a belief that arises re the saving encounter with God. I take Genesis 1 seriously and authoritatively, so the problem which seems so glaring to you simply does not seem like a problem at all to me. I have explained in several places how I think humanity is fallen and in need of a savior.

 

So I have to re-ask my question. Do you really think that acceptance of Genesis 1 as a factual, historical account of creation is a *necessary condition* of salvation? Or, do you think that it is something that a real believer will come to believe by virtue of interaction with God, guidance by the Spirit, conviction and so forth... and if it is the latter, do you have set expectations on when you'd need to see that change before counting that as a serious point against the possibility of somewhat being truly saved?

[HumbleThinker]

 

So you agree with me that nowhere in the Bible does it state that one has to be in 100% agreement with the Bible to be a Christian? Because that is the only source for what it means to be and not be a Christian.

No, you don't have to be in 100% agreement with the Bible to be a religionist.  There is a difference between a religionist who assents to selective parts of the Bible and a Christian who believes God and has put his entire faith in the integrity and authority of God's word. 

 

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2Ti 3:16-17

 

That is nonnegotiable.   All Scripture, even Genesis 1 is inspired by God.  You don't get the option to be in disagreement with any part of it.  All of it is for doctrine and insruction and that includes Genesis 1.   The Bible is the source document for the Christian faith and none of it is expendable and all of it is authoritative and the fact that you can live in rebellion and disregard certain parts, casts a dark shadow over your profession of faith.

 

All else is the musings of man. My faith is not an intellectual exercise, so I can tell you from first-hand experience that accepting evolution has not gotten in the way of my relationship with God.

 

Probably because you don't have one.   You might have religion, but there is nothing in what you have said that reflects a living dynamic faith or relationship with God.  When someone who claims to be a Christian can embrace a theory that atheists like Richard Dawkins espouses as the number one enabler for atheism and which makes for a more fulfilled atheist, there is a problem.   

 

Evolution is a modern form of idolatry and has no place in the life of a genuine follower of Christ.

 

The problem is that this is a No True Scotsman fallacy whereby despite all other indications that X falls into the category Y, you cannot bring yourself to accept that it does because of a personal measure that has no bearing outside of your mind or anyone else's mind that happens to think the same way as you. This is partially what I alluded to in my first post on this thread when I spoke of what tends to happen with this question. The Bible does not allow for your measure of what makes one a Christian. That it requires such musings on your part is a demonstration that none who bases their Christian faith on the Bible and a personal relationship with God should come to this conclusion. If you want to talk about plain reading, then your measure defies the plain reading of Scripture that defines the requirements for being a Christian. All else is meaningless dogma.

 

Misrepresenting evolution as idolatry, particularly when you have yet to engage in actual discussion of the evidence for it despite being given multiple openings and when you have already stated many misunderstandings of evolution, does not reflect Christian behavior. A Christian need not distort reality to support a position he feels is righteous. God's Creation is what it is. If you cannot reconcile it with the Bible, that is your problem, not God's,not the Bible's, not Creation's, and certainly not any other believer's.

 

Now if you would like to discuss the evidence for evolution, I am again offering to discuss it as I wish to hear your views on various natural phenomenon that you hopefully do not simply shoehorn into your preconceived conclusions. No matter what you think about the correctness or falseness of evolution, misrepresenting it or presenting anything but scientific arguments against it is not only not helping, but hurting your position. As many Christians since at least St. Augustine have observed: “If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? 

[gray wolf]

Bravo! The gospel was to be preached to the all the nations.  If you consider the body of scientists to be a nation, they too need the gospel.  But one thing that is totally alien and offensive to these people is the proposal that the earth is only around 6000 years old.  Reaching them first for Christ is the way to do it.  The rest of the Bible comes after as God deals with the individual.

Edited December 6, 2013 by gray wolf

[Guest shiloh357]

The problem is that this is a No True Scotsman fallacy whereby despite all other indications that X falls into the category Y, you cannot bring yourself to accept that it does because of a personal measure that has no bearing outside of your mind or anyone else's mind that happens to think the same way as you

 

Wrong. It is not a fallacy, as the Bible defines a true Christian and there is no case in Scripture where a true follower of Jesus challenges the authority of God's word.  All of it is inspired by God and thus all of it bears His authority and since God cannot lie or make errors, there is no reason to disbelieve Genesis 1.

 

This is partially what I alluded to in my first post on this thread when I spoke of what tends to happen with this question. The Bible does not allow for your measure of what makes one a Christian.

 

Yes it does.   The Chrsitian faith is rooted in the integrity of the Word of God.  If we can't  trust one part of it, all of it is suspect and you don't want what you are putting your ultimate faith in, to be wrong.  

 

 

That it requires such musings on your part is a demonstration that none who bases their Christian faith on the Bible and a personal relationship with God should come to this conclusion. If you want to talk about plain reading, then your measure defies the plain reading of Scripture that defines the requirements for being a Christian. All else is meaningless dogma.

 

Nope, one of the fruits of a true and genuine faith is a 100% faith in the integrity and accuracy of the inspired Word of God.  The Bible is our source for everything we know about God and that includes Genesis 1.  Being a Christian predicates believing what the Bible says about salvation, but that means that you have to be able to trust what the Bible says. 

 

The problem is that you have a definition of what a Christian is that allows you to reject God's word while salving your conscience as regards your unbelief.  You may be a religionist but you have no part in Christ.

 

Misrepresenting evolution as idolatry, particularly when you have yet to engage in actual discussion of the evidence for it despite being given multiple openings and when you have already stated many misunderstandings of evolution, does not reflect Christian behavior.

 

Nope not misrepresenting anythng at all.  Evolution is modern idolatry as it usurps God's authority as our Sovereign Creator, Righteous Redeemer and Eternal Judge.   You can have Evolution or you can have Jesus, but you can't have both.  Jesus is not going to share room with idols.

[alphaparticle]

 

Nope not misrepresenting anythng at all.  Evolution is modern idolatry as it usurps God's authority as our Sovereign Creator, Righteous Redeemer and Eternal Judge.   You can have Evolution or you can have Jesus, but you can't have both.  Jesus is not going to share room with idols.

 

 

No, it does not, not anymore than than any other theory. Evolution is a theory about what happens in nature when allowed to run it's course, just as General Relativity is, or Quantum Mechanics or any other physical theory. Evolution is not anymore inherently 'godless' than any other scientific theory.

 

Besides which, I'm still waiting to hear, in light of Romans 10, what you think are the *necessary conditions* for salvation.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

Nope not misrepresenting anythng at all.  Evolution is modern idolatry as it usurps God's authority as our Sovereign Creator, Righteous Redeemer and Eternal Judge.   You can have Evolution or you can have Jesus, but you can't have both.  Jesus is not going to share room with idols.

 

 

No, it does not, not anymore than than any other theory. Evolution is a theory about what happens in nature when allowed to run it's course, just as General Relativity is, or Quantum Mechanics or any other physical theory. Evolution is not anymore inherently 'godless' than any other scientific theory.

 

Besides which, I'm still waiting to hear, in light of Romans 10, what you think are the *necessary conditions* for salvation.

 

Evolution is set against Genesis 1 as an alternative to the biblical account to deny that is simply dishonest.   I find it odd that atheists are more honest than those who allege to be Christians when it comes to this issue.  At least atheists are able to muster up the integrity to tell the truth about what theory of evolution is and how it is generally viewed in the scientific community.

 

It is custom designed to be godless.  It is the one theory about which its adherents generaly maintain has no inelligent cauality, and stands as the ONE theory that refutes the Genesis account of creation.  No other theory is purported to be a refutation of any part of the Bible.   For this reason Evolution is in a unique class all by itself.  It is meant to counter God as the source of life and of the universe as a whole.

 

I have already addressed the issues of Rom 10: 9-10  I already explained the nature of Scripture makes it impossible to simply consider one's mental assent of Rom. 10:9-10 as sufficient for claiming one is a Christian.  I said that it was based on a genuine encounter with Jesus.  It is not based on simply assenting to propositional claims.  I know lots of people who agree that Jesus rose from the dead but they love their sin more.   Simply "believing" isn't enough unless it causes a change in your heart.  If you claim faith in Jesus but still hold on to a godless theory that even atheists can embrace, you have a poor notion of what it means to be a follower of Christ.

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

Nope not misrepresenting anythng at all.  Evolution is modern idolatry as it usurps God's authority as our Sovereign Creator, Righteous Redeemer and Eternal Judge.   You can have Evolution or you can have Jesus, but you can't have both.  Jesus is not going to share room with idols.

 

 

No, it does not, not anymore than than any other theory. Evolution is a theory about what happens in nature when allowed to run it's course, just as General Relativity is, or Quantum Mechanics or any other physical theory. Evolution is not anymore inherently 'godless' than any other scientific theory.

 

Besides which, I'm still waiting to hear, in light of Romans 10, what you think are the *necessary conditions* for salvation.

 

Evolution is set against Genesis 1 as an alternative to the biblical account to deny that is simply dishonest.   I find it odd that atheists are more honest than those who allege to be Christians when it comes to this issue.  At least atheists are able to muster up the integrity to tell the truth about what theory of evolution is and how it is generally viewed in the scientific community.

 

It is custom designed to be godless.  It is the one theory about which its adherents generaly maintain has no inelligent cauality, and stands as the ONE theory that refutes the Genesis account of creation.  No other theory is purported to be a refutation of any part of the Bible.   For this reason Evolution is in a unique class all by itself.  It is meant to counter God as the source of life and of the universe as a whole.

 

I have already addressed the issues of Rom 10: 9-10  I already explained the nature of Scripture makes it impossible to simply consider one's mental assent of Rom. 10:9-10 as sufficient for claiming one is a Christian.  I said that it was based on a genuine encounter with Jesus.  It is not based on simply assenting to propositional claims.  I know lots of people who agree that Jesus rose from the dead but they love their sin more.   Simply "believing" isn't enough unless it causes a change in your heart.  If you claim faith in Jesus but still hold on to a godless theory that even atheists can embrace, you have a poor notion of what it means to be a follower of Christ.

 

You failed to address my previous post to you about this, and I wish you would.

 

"

I have had a real encounter with Jesus, so I am not just talking about intellectual assent to Rom 10:9-10. I'm also familiar with the power of the Spirit to convict and guide, which is why I asked what I did. But, that verse does seem to lay out the necessary condition for salvation, a belief that arises re the saving encounter with God. I take Genesis 1 seriously and authoritatively, so the problem which seems so glaring to you simply does not seem like a problem at all to me. I have explained in several places how I think humanity is fallen and in need of a savior.

 

So I have to re-ask my question. Do you really think that acceptance of Genesis 1 as a factual, historical account of creation is a *necessary condition* of salvation? Or, do you think that it is something that a real believer will come to believe by virtue of interaction with God, guidance by the Spirit, conviction and so forth... and if it is the latter, do you have set expectations on when you'd need to see that change before counting that as a serious point against the possibility of somewhat being truly saved?"

 

Now are you really saying that you think that denying evolution/accepting creationism, specifically, is a necessary condition to salvation? This is something I've been trying to ask you repeatedly, and it's a yes or no type question.

 

Besides which, I do not care if certain evolutionists want to use evolution to promote atheism. What's that got to do with whether or not it has merit as a *scientific* theory?

[HumbleThinker]

 

The problem is that this is a No True Scotsman fallacy whereby despite all other indications that X falls into the category Y, you cannot bring yourself to accept that it does because of a personal measure that has no bearing outside of your mind or anyone else's mind that happens to think the same way as you

 

Wrong. It is not a fallacy, as the Bible defines a true Christian and there is no case in Scripture where a true follower of Jesus challenges the authority of God's word.  All of it is inspired by God and thus all of it bears His authority and since God cannot lie or make errors, there is no reason to disbelieve Genesis 1.

 

This is partially what I alluded to in my first post on this thread when I spoke of what tends to happen with this question. The Bible does not allow for your measure of what makes one a Christian.

 

Yes it does.   The Chrsitian faith is rooted in the integrity of the Word of God.  If we can't  trust one part of it, all of it is suspect and you don't want what you are putting your ultimate faith in, to be wrong.  

 

 

That it requires such musings on your part is a demonstration that none who bases their Christian faith on the Bible and a personal relationship with God should come to this conclusion. If you want to talk about plain reading, then your measure defies the plain reading of Scripture that defines the requirements for being a Christian. All else is meaningless dogma.

 

Nope, one of the fruits of a true and genuine faith is a 100% faith in the integrity and accuracy of the inspired Word of God.  The Bible is our source for everything we know about God and that includes Genesis 1.  Being a Christian predicates believing what the Bible says about salvation, but that means that you have to be able to trust what the Bible says. 

 

The problem is that you have a definition of what a Christian is that allows you to reject God's word while salving your conscience as regards your unbelief.  You may be a religionist but you have no part in Christ.

 

Misrepresenting evolution as idolatry, particularly when you have yet to engage in actual discussion of the evidence for it despite being given multiple openings and when you have already stated many misunderstandings of evolution, does not reflect Christian behavior.

 

Nope not misrepresenting anythng at all.  Evolution is modern idolatry as it usurps God's authority as our Sovereign Creator, Righteous Redeemer and Eternal Judge.   You can have Evolution or you can have Jesus, but you can't have both.  Jesus is not going to share room with idols.

 

Nowhere in the plain reading of the Bible does it equate "challenging the authority of God's word" as a disqualification of being a Christian. This is based on your own musings, and only tangentially based on Scripture. You may say that I am a bad Christian, but you cannot say that I am not a Christian. In all the issues Paul addresses in various churches through his letters, not once does he claim that they are not Christians because of these issues. He goes so far as to even call them stupid or saying they should be given over to Satan to save their soul, but he does not call these people not Christians.

 

Your measure is not found in Scripture. It is based on your own rationalization for what you need/want Scripture to say. If you cannot point me to where in Scripture your measure is, then I will continue to rightly declare that your measure is a product of your mind and not the Bible.

 

Nowhere does the Bible declare that spiritual fruit "is a 100% faith in the integrity and accuracy of the inspired Word of God," nor does it say that it is "our source for everything we know about God." To the latter, the Bible explicitly and implicitly says otherwise: that we can learn about God and His actions from His Creation. His Creation is another revelation. Just one such explicit example of this can be found in Job 12: “But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you; or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish in the sea inform you. Which of all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this? In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind. Does not the ear test words as the tongue tastes food? Is not wisdom found among the aged? Does not long life bring understanding?” An implicit example can be found in Luke 12: "Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. 7 Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows." And again in Matthew 5: "He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

 

My definition of what a Christian is comes explicitly from the Bible, while yours requires musings of your own mind on what you think Scripture should be saying or must be saying. If you hold the plain reading in such high regard, you should apply it here.

 

And if you cannot discuss evolution or represent it properly, then you have no basis to call it idolatry. It is no more idolatry than understanding how lightening works and thus putting lightening rods on the steeple of your church to control it to prevent it from striking your building. It is no more idolatry than understanding that gravity in terms other than God's hand pulling all things towards the earth. It is not more idolatry than understanding weather in terms of meteorological processes than God physically breathing frost or making it rain. It is no more idolatry than recognizing that the Earth is round instead of flat, mobile instead of immobile, and that the Sun is immobile instead of mobile, and that there isn't a physical firmament around the Earth that the heavenly bodies move within and that has windows to let in precipitation.

 

Why I keep bringing up actually discussing the evidence is that, whether you like it or not, if the theory of evolution is correct, then it cannot possibly be idolatry, for the truth can never be idolatry. Thus, evolution being idolatrous depends entirely upon whether it is an accurate representation of God's Creation. And analysis of God's Creation shows that it is. Thus evolution cannot possibly be idolatrous. All knowledge comes from God and all truth comes from God, thus all knowledge about God's Creation comes from God. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Light. Thus the only way you can demonstrate that it is idolatrous, instead of simply asserting that it is so since it meets no actual definition of idolatry found in the Bible, is to demonstrate that it is not correct.

 

Also, how do you easily segment quotes on this forum? I can mess with the source code, but I figure there is probably an easier manner.

Edited December 6, 2013 by HumbleThinker

[gray wolf]

The gospel was to be preached to the all the nations.  If you consider the body of scientists to be a nation, they too need the gospel.  But one thing that is totally alien and offensive to these people is the proposal that the earth is only around 6000 years old.  Reaching them first for Christ is the way to do it.  The rest of the Bible comes after as God deals with the individual.