can A baptist Believe In Theistic Evolution?

[Gabriel Elijah]

The point of the matter is that the God of the Bible DID tell us how He created the universe:

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

God spoke the universe into existence. God did not use evolution to create the universe.

Mrs Fred—yes my friend quantum is correct—I am very much not a theistic evolutionist! However I also understand the complexities of the debate & know that the issue itself does not determine ones genuine salvation. Heb 11:3 is a good verse to bring to the debate to support the worlds creation by God’s fiat. But being someone who has personally engaged in debate against theistic evolutionists in the past—I know that Heb 11:3 is not a thorn in their flesh—b/c they will simply say-- He did create the original species with His word, which then evolved. Now to repeat I don’t support this premises—but just so you’ll know theistic evolutionists are very aware of verses like you just quoted & have answers to them.—This is why I say—the main issue is that the God of the Bible created the universe—not how He created it. While I personally support creation by God’s fiat—I don’t mind agreeing to disagree on issues such as this—b/c they don’t determine someone’s eternal salvation—which can only come about by saving faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[historyb]

As long as we're offering up definitions we should differentiate between 'evolution' (changes in the inheritable traits of an organism) and 'abiogenesis' (the origin of life.) I think all, or I would hope all of us agree that God is responsible for the origin of all life. However, Christians tend to label evolution as the origin of life, which is inaccurate.

Further, within evolution there is natural selection and genetic changes. Both of these phenomenon are observable. The arguments will come when the magnitude and timing of these phenomenon are discussed.

Anyway, to answer the question, yes, I believe Baptists can believe in theistic evolution.

If I heard it put that way I would not have a problem with evolution. Maybe my own bias came into play because every time I hear about evolution my mind goes to origin

 

[mandym]

As long as we're offering up definitions we should differentiate between 'evolution' (changes in the inheritable traits of an organism) and 'abiogenesis' (the origin of life.) I think all, or I would hope all of us agree that God is responsible for the origin of all life. However, Christians tend to label evolution as the origin of life, which is inaccurate.

Further, within evolution there is natural selection and genetic changes. Both of these phenomenon are observable. The arguments will come when the magnitude and timing of these phenomenon are discussed.

Anyway, to answer the question, yes, I believe Baptists can believe in theistic evolution.

I believe "magnitude" is the wrong word. The debate begins over the value of the genetic change. For instance is it observable that more information has been added to the genetic code that improves creation.

 

[menageriekeeper]

I am not a theistic evolutionist but,

I think what is left out of these conversations many times is the fact that 'survival of the fittest" didn't become an observable fact until after the fall. It's the idea of "survival of the fittest" that leads to the idea of evolution. You can't have the second without the first.

Men always forget that before the fall there was NO NEED FOR animals to survive because they didn't eat each other! Plant life was also different in that time and since there were no weeds there was also no need for plants to be the "fittest".

After the Fall of man, the world changed entirely.

So, while evolution cannot explain creation (which it attempts too) it can help explain the biology and geology of the earth since the fall. (and help predict what might happen if one species were removed from the food chain of another, or what the Ebola virus might mutate into next)

 

[InTheLight]

I am not a theistic evolutionist but,

I think what is left out of these conversations many times is the fact that 'survival of the fittest" didn't become an observable fact until after the fall. It's the idea of "survival of the fittest" that leads to the idea of evolution. You can't have the second without the first.

Men always forget that before the fall there was NO NEED FOR animals to survive because they didn't eat each other!

So what did the shark eat before the Fall? Why do lions have fangs and claws? Why to raptors have sharp beaks and claws? To eat plants?

After the Fall of man, the world changed entirely.

Yeah, I guess animals developed carnivore eating habits and suddenly found their teeth and claws useful. You might even say they 'evolved'.

 

[menageriekeeper]

So what did the shark eat before the Fall? Why do lions have fangs and claws? Why to raptors have sharp beaks and claws? To eat plants?

I'm guessing you'll have to argue that with God, He said it, I'm only repeating Him.


Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.


IF you want my opinion:

Sharks and other carnivirous fish ate algae and seaweed

Lions and Raptors had claws cause God knew what was coming and in His providence provided plantlife that suited them and went extinct when no longer needed.

 

[InTheLight]

Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

The verse does not say that only plants were given as food.

IF you want my opinion:

Sharks and other carnivirous fish ate algae and seaweed

I don't see any mention of sea creatures in the verse above. Does that mean that sea creatures didn't eat plants? Interesting that sea creatures were created on Day 5, ground animals and man on Day 6.

 

[Fred's Wife]

Fredswife, I know that GE does not hold to theistic evolution, I think he was simply attempting to be in sensitive difference to those that I do lean toward ID through the use of theistic evolution, however, I won't be labor the issue because it is very much like the C vs. A debate, everyone (most) here already know they are correct on the issue. (Note: I dont exclude myself)

Mrs Fred—yes my friend quantum is correct—I am very much not a theistic evolutionist! However I also understand the complexities of the debate & know that the issue itself does not determine ones genuine salvation. Heb 11:3 is a good verse to bring to the debate to support the worlds creation by God’s fiat. But being someone who has personally engaged in debate against theistic evolutionists in the past—I know that Heb 11:3 is not a thorn in their flesh—b/c they will simply say-- He did create the original species with His word, which then evolved. Now to repeat I don’t support this premises—but just so you’ll know theistic evolutionists are very aware of verses like you just quoted & have answers to them.—This is why I say—the main issue is that the God of the Bible created the universe—not how He created it. While I personally support creation by God’s fiat—I don’t mind agreeing to disagree on issues such as this—b/c they don’t determine someone’s eternal salvation—which can only come about by saving faith in Jesus Christ.

I am sorry, but I think you both misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that Gabriel Elijah believed in Theistic Evolution. What I was trying to say, and maybe I did it all wrong, was that God did tell us HOW He created the universe in the book of Hebrews. I did not realize that theistic evolutionists used Hebrews 11:3 as a proof text. Sorry about the misunderstanding. I apologize.

However, what I cannot understand why someone, who professes Christ their Lord and Savior would even believe in such a teaching as "Theistic Evolution". Evolution is totally the antithesis of the Gospel...therefore, why would one who believes the Gospel believe God used evolution to create the universe?

 

[Deacon]

...I cannot understand why someone, who professes Christ their Lord and Savior would even believe in such a teaching as "Theistic Evolution". Evolution is totally the antithesis of the Gospel...therefore, why would one who believes the Gospel believe God used evolution to create the universe?

The opening post asked, Can A Baptist Believe In Theistic Evolution?

The simple answer has already been given, YES!

Too many are content to limit themselves to only what they believe about creation and don’t attempt to try and understand other alternatives.
To truly understand what you believe you should try and understand what others believe and why they believe as they do.

Regarding the opening chapters of Genesis, D.A. Carson writes in his recent book entitled “The God Who Is There” [Baker 2010], “There is more ambiguity in the interpretation of these chapters than some Christians recognize.”

He borrows an idea of Francis Schaffer by narrowing the focus of the creation narratives into these basic principles:
1. God simply is.
2. God made everything that is non-God.
3. There is only one of him.
4. God is a talking God.
5. Everything God makes is good – very good.
6. God comes to an end of his creative work, and he rests.
7. The creation proclaims his greatness and glory.

These simple principles are acceptable to both Theistic Evolutionist and Baptists.

Now IMO the real question should be, Is it necessary for a Baptist to interpret the Bible literally? because it is this point that separates a theistic evolutionist from many other forms of creationism.

Rob

 

[Baptist4life]

You either believe the Word of God, or you don't. There's no middle ground.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Baptist4life]

The verse does not say that only plants were given as food.

:tonofbricks: Are you serious?:tonofbricks:



Sounds like...................... "yea, hath God said?"

 

[Alcott]

You either believe the Word of God, or you don't. There's no middle ground.

Then what is your explanation for why a female horse can give birth to a mule, instead of exclusively another horse, despite the Word saying animals reproduce "after their own kind?"

 

[Amy.G]

Then what is your explanation for why a female horse can give birth to a mule, instead of exclusively another horse, despite the Word saying animals reproduce "after their own kind?"

Allan gave a very good explanation of that several posts ago.

 

[matt wade]

Then what is your explanation for why a female horse can give birth to a mule, instead of exclusively another horse, despite the Word saying animals reproduce "after their own kind?"

You fail. Re-read thread.

 

[Alcott]

Yes or No: Is a horse a donkey?
Yes or No: Is a horse a mule?
Yes or No: Can a horse produce something not its own kind?
Yes or No: Can the mule produced reproduce after its own kind?

 

[Fred's Wife]

The opening post asked, Can A Baptist Believe In Theistic Evolution?

The simple answer has already been given, YES!

Then the next question would be, do all Baptists believe the Bible? The Bible does not teach evolution...it teaches that God created the heaven and the earth.

Too many are content to limit themselves to only what they believe about creation and don’t attempt to try and understand other alternatives.
To truly understand what you believe you should try and understand what others believe and why they believe as they do.

The Bible is sufficient for me.

Regarding the opening chapters of Genesis, D.A. Carson writes in his recent book entitled “The God Who Is There” [Baker 2010], “There is more ambiguity in the interpretation of these chapters than some Christians recognize.”

He borrows an idea of Francis Schaffer by narrowing the focus of the creation narratives into these basic principles:
1. God simply is.
2. God made everything that is non-God.
3. There is only one of him.
4. God is a talking God.
5. Everything God makes is good – very good.
6. God comes to an end of his creative work, and he rests.
7. The creation proclaims his greatness and glory.

These simple principles are acceptable to both Theistic Evolutionist and Baptists.

Now IMO the real question should be, Is it necessary for a Baptist to interpret the Bible literally? because it is this point that separates a theistic evolutionist from many other forms of creationism.

IOW, what you are saying is that the Bible isn't sufficient and therefore isn't our final and sole authority. Would that be correct?

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

I am sorry, but I think you both misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that Gabriel Elijah believed in Theistic Evolution. What I was trying to say, and maybe I did it all wrong, was that God did tell us HOW He created the universe in the book of Hebrews. I did not realize that theistic evolutionists used Hebrews 11:3 as a proof text. Sorry about the misunderstanding. I apologize.

However, what I cannot understand why someone, who professes Christ their Lord and Savior would even believe in such a teaching as "Theistic Evolution". Evolution is totally the antithesis of the Gospel...therefore, why would one who believes the Gospel believe God used evolution to create the universe?

Considering how the secular world has attempted to use the theory of evolution as a major proof point for counteracting the truth of Christianity—I can understand your concerns. But as deacon nicely summarized in his post-- the ambiguity concerning details in the creation account of Genesis does allow theistic evolution to be a possibility. While I myself admit that this is a hard pill to swallow—the last theistic evolutionist I encountered was a bit liberal-- but was a firm believer in Jesus Christ. The reason he supported TE was b/c he felt that there was to much scientific evidence for the existence of evolution to deny its reality. But he also admitted that he was an evolutionist before he was a Christian, and in fact it was all of the so-called “evidence” for evolution that caused him to originally shun the Bible. But one day in his research-- he came across an article that showed how the creation account in the Bible & the theory of evolution could be compatible. This realization floored him & he recognized that all of his scientific research did not counteract the Bible, but actually gave credibility to the book he once thought was nothing more than a detailed fairy tail. Shortly after this he began attending church & accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord & Savior—but he never lost his interest in science & even to this day writes articles trying to convince the scientific world of the truth found in Scripture. I say all this b/c I personally believe preconceived notions can greatly impact how we view the creation account. Since my background is in conservative theology & history-- I naturally lean toward the young earth 6 day creation, solely by God’s direct word. He, on the other hand, having a background in science leans towards an old earth theistic evolution view. While I’m sure not everyone will agree with my analogy of preconceived notions impacting one’s view of the creation account—I hope this can at least demonstrate how someone can profess Christ as their Savior & still endorse TE. God Bless!

 

[Fred's Wife]

You either believe the Word of God, or you don't. There's no middle ground.

Amen! :thumbs:

 

[InTheLight]

:tonofbricks: Are you serious?:tonofbricks:



Sounds like...................... "yea, hath God said?"

Okay, what does the Bible say that sea creatures were given to eat?

 

[Jim1999]

A theistic evolutionist does not deny that God created the world and all that is in it. He does not deny Genesis anymore than the many, many fundamentalists that embraced the gap theory for many years.

There are other things in the world to be accounted for, which are not even mentioned in the Bible. For example, the existence and habitation of North America, which is clearly not in scripture.

Theistic evolution has never deracted from my fundamental belief in the veracity of scripture as the very word of God. Just as many stories in scripture are somewhat incomplete, including the genealogies, so are some aspects of existence.

Cheers,

Jim