Can an Evolutionist be Saved?

If your book was anything more than delusional nonsense you wouldn’t have to use the Baptist Board to sell a copy of it. Creationists are not buying it, either literally or figuratively, because it is nothing but junk and an embarrassment to the Christian community.

 

Let me be clear before I post, when I use the word "liberal" I am not discussing politics. I am using the word "liberal" as in being liberal with the Bible or doctrine. The term "Conservative", in my definition would be sticking to the literalness of the Bible and also using it as the final authority. Also, not tolerating views that are not doctrinally sound within our churches. That said, my answer:

Mike, Me thinks that Craig are a liberal Baptist. In fact, this is the reason we Southern Baptists voted for conservative control of the convention to get rid of such liberalness in the universities we supported.

We had many professors that were teaching that the Bible was not literal and also many that were denying the diety of Jesus. It was little wonder that liberal pastors were coming out of the seminaries.

It was time for major changes in the association and although it is not perfect, getting rid of this liberal element in our colleges was a positive step in the right direction.

No we do not believe in Evolution.

I do not believe it, but it is my opinion that a person can be ignorant of the Bible and be an Old-Earth believer (gap or whatever), but this would have to occur before the animal life on Earth.

Evolution makes no sense and I believed in it for many years. It requires more true faith than the fact that God could create a complete working universe in six days using supernatural powers. What is so difficult about this, if we truly believe in God?

Many New Testament verses indicate that the very smart, and people with wisdom will be fooled by their human wisdom. This is the reason we MUST accept God's Word.

After all, if Genesis is an allegory, we might as well assume that the four gospels are an allegory also. It doesn't work this way.

Jesus was very clear when he told parables, and the prophets were very clear when they used symbolism.

Mike, I too am a writer and I completely understand selling books. It is not cut and dried as people like Craig think. I would like to see him write a book and try to make a living off of it.

Personally, I think his remark about your book was a personal attack and I do not approve of it, but I am not an administrator or moderator, but I did want my opinion on record.

Hang in there Mike, I'm for you! Evolutionismi against that of every Baptist belief and if Craig thinks that creation is embarassing then maybe he should get into some belief that is not embarassing. This is NOT like the old Capernaum days.

I will admit that much creationism is bad science, but so is much of the evolution theory. God is powerful enough to make a universe look old. How do we know how much of a radioactive compound he placed in an originally created rock or substance.

How do we even have proof that oil and coal comes from dinos, mammoths or forests that died and got trapped in the ground. We do not see this happening today...especially not at the level of producing large amounts of underground fuel. I think God gave us the fuel we need and it was created when the Earth was created as a fully functioning planet, in a fully functioning universe.

[ December 27, 2004, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

Phillip,

I believe that we need to make a distinction between conservative, evangelical theology and fundamentalism. I am a conservative evangelical, but I am not a fundamentalist. Indeed, I firmly believe that fundamentalists are a very different pea in a very different pod, and I believe that their views are unbiblical and harmful to biblical, evangelical Christianity.

The Bible does not portray God as a deceiver or a trickster, as fundamentalists make Him out to be, but the one and only infinite, sovereign, omniscient and omnipotent God. I enjoy going up into the mountains on a cool, crisp night when the atmosphere is clear and looking at the stars and galaxies that God created eons ago. I enjoy picking up a piece of rock and pondering the creatures that God created in times past and that became fossilized in the rock millions of years ago. I enjoy being in a large zoo and spending the day watching the behavior of a family of bears or a family of gorillas and looking into their eyes like windows into their minds. I enjoy sharing Christ with strangers and watching the Holy Spirit minister through the words that He gives me to speak. I enjoy watching the building of churches all the way up from the initial concept in the heart of one man to a congregation of many where each member knows his or her place and ministers to the other members of that body according to the gifts and callings that they have received. I enjoy seeing God heal broken bodies and twisted minds. I enjoy reading the Bible and learning about God. I enjoy teaching the truths of the Bible to others and watching God bless their lives as these truths become a vital part of their life.

But I do not enjoy reading 101 explanations of how the story of Noah’s Ark could possibly be an animal for animal historical account when each of these 101 explanations refutes, mocks, minimizes, distorts, confuses, and spins the other 100 explanations. I do not enjoy reading or listening to the babbling of fools who have but very little knowledge and insight but who believe that they have it figured out. I do not like enjoy reading or listening to interpretations of the Bible that make God out to be nothing but a 6,000 year old rag doll so small that he can be slipped into a match box and carried about in one’s pocket.

I believe in the blood atonement of Jesus and that His atonement was sufficiently efficacious to cause our past sins to be forgiven and to allow us through faith in Him to live lives well pleasing to God. I do not believe that God cares whether or not we believe in evolution, but I do believe that God cares about why we believe as we do and what we do with those beliefs, including our attitude toward those who believe differently than we do.

 

Why should you believe in Jesus being God on Earth if you do not believe the rest of what God tells us?

I do NOT say that God misrepresents anything. Just because a scientist thinks it is old based on their own humanistic experiments then God is not trying to be a trickster.

We do not yet know enough about science for you to stand out in your yard. In fact, most of the stars that you can see with your unaided eye are 130 light-years or less in distance. If we are going to get our science correct.

How many fossils do you see forming today. Does not a world wide flood provide an excellent reason for instant sediment coverage to form fossils? Otherwise, why do we have so many fossils lying everywhere.

You look into a gorillas eyes and see into their mind. All the while thinking they are your great-great-grandpa? Talk about an insult to the omnipresence and omnipotence of God.

You are having to explain everything away without God's intervention in anything. This is the problem with the evolution theory. This is the reason that it MUST be millions of years old, because it won't work otherwise (if it were to work anyway).

Explain to me how a simple eye-ball formed with a lens that inverts the picture and focuses from a very close distance to a far distance with more dynamic range than any television camera ever made? How did this come about from individual steps?

If you don't think God could place every animal in an ark and keep them safe then God must not have much power. I would be afraid to rely on a God without the power to do this.

First, use common sense. Not every single breed was on the ark. For example, there was probably a single set of the dog/wolf/coyote family. Have you ever thought that God might have placed babies on the Ark?

How do you describe the expeditions in the 1800's when the glacier was partially melted and a full sized boat was found way above sea level in the mountians of Ararat? Do you think the non-christians on that journey were lying about what they found? Did they not bring back a piece of gopher wood? How did this boat get up that high, did someone drag it up the mountain, when it is difficult enough to climb yourself?

Why am I bothering to discuss this with you since you don't believe it anyway. Why don't we just throw away Genesis? What does it tell us that we should care about?

Personally, when I was so heavily involved in science and particularly physics and biology, I believed in evolution. It took more faith to believe that things got "better" with time. I watched highways that were abandoned and within two years they had weeds growing through the concrete. This is not living, but a few molecules of organic compound are NOT going to get better and better and form DNA, the complex code of life. THERE is your designer.

Why does God even NEED to use evolution?

You can call it fundamentalism or whatever you want to. How many new life-forms have you watched come out of the sea that you live by, lately?

Sorry, but my omnipotent God is easier to have faith in than a Cessna 152 turning into a Boeing 757 while sitting in an airplane junkyard.

Let's just see how many people are behind you in your belief, before you go bouncing off saying you are irritated by Christians saying that we were created and didn't evolve. I'll start a poll.

 

Mike, you are absolutely right. I have absolutely no problems with you selling your book. You do not pester anybody about it and if I don't want to read your post, that is my choice.

I may be wrong, but it is possible that Craig is also a political (in the American sense of the word) liberal. A true liberal in America believes in a welfare state, where the money is spread among everybody no matter who works the hardest. In order for all of this welfare to work, the taxes must be increased.

Although conservatives seem to favor big business, the idea is if they do they will support companies that will "hire" people, putting them to work rather than on welfare.

The interesting part is that I believe there should be some moderation on either side. Some welfare is needed for those who cannot work, are disabled, or just cannot find a job. But, it ought to be screened very closely.

Another point is that the liberal will be pro-abortion, will usually try to push God away from any state or government sanctioned event. They will be pro-gay and no prayer in schools.

While on the other hand, a conservative will be anti-abortion (usually -- there have been exceptions), anti-gay marriage and have no problem if a judge sees fit to have the ten commandments on the wall in his court-room. Also, they have no problem with prayer in schools.

Does this help you clarify it? The socialist in America would be an extreme liberal. Well, it is 4:36 AM and I'm addicted to this board so I had better get some sleep before I have to work. I work as a private investigator so I can use my own hours and will no doubt sleep until about 10 AM Central Time. I would imagine you are six hours ahead of us. When I went to Israel about 20 years ago it was an 8 hour difference.

Isn't it fascinating that you are there and we can talk and be friends where as we would never have met about ten years ago?

I would LOVE to visit your country. I hear it is really beautiful. I have a friend who just went last year and he loved it. I think most of my relatives are from the UK. I'll see you tomorrow my time to continue this discussion. Have a good evening.

 

Isn't it just amazing that we can communicate like this, across the world, whether by satellite 22,000 miles in space or cable running under the ocean and we were monkeys just a few thousand (million) years back swinging from trees!

I guess Craig feels a little nostalgic when he goes to the zoo and looks into his grand-uncle's eyes.

 

In keeping with the title of the thread: Even more amazing is the fact that God can save both those that see Him creating from long ages past and those that see Him creating recently---we both are sinners in need of our Savior.

Rob

 

This post well illustrates the destructive nature and consequences of creationism.

 

"Christians" who blame Adam for their own personal sins are only deceiving themselves. The rest of us know better.

 

Craig - I'm just curious and perhaps I misunderstand your post. Does this mean that in your view a person does or does not have a sin nature? If so, from where did it originate. If not, could a person live a sinless life and acheive heaven outside of Christ's work on the corss.

 

The difficulty with these forum discussions is that we paint with such a broad brush.

SOME Theistic evolutionist may believe as you describe, others may separate the man Adam from a pre-human form. Still others would suggest the man Adam was a special creation.

Mike, one of my problems with your book was that you accept death before sin, limiting it to non-nephesh life. Your problem then is no longer with the punishment aspect of death but with a type of death you can accept.
Many OEC's believe the same way, only they set the limiting point at mankind.

Rob

 

Hi Keith!

Let’s look at Rom. 5:12-21:

Rom. 5:12. Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--
13. for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
15. But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.
16. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.
17. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
18. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
19. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
20. The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,
21. so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

This is the primary passage in the Bible from which many Christians teach the doctrine of original sin in one form or another. Taken completely out of context it would seem to clearly teach that doctrine, but when viewed in the context of the epistle as a whole, and especially the first eight chapters of that epistle, we see that Paul is arguing that the Law is not sufficient to justify the Jewish people in the sight of God, for everyone, Jew and Gentile alike, has sinned. And in these eight chapters Paul uses many figures of speech and literary devices to make that point.

And of course Paul makes a second point, most clearly stated in Rom. 8:3,

8:3. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

In 58 A.D. the Jewish people understood the story of Adam in Genesis to be an historical narrative and Paul uses this understanding of the Jewish people to support his claim that the Jewish people had all sinned, whether in a personal manner, or in Adam. And to strengthen his claim, Paul reminds the Jews that people died before the Law was given and that their death was not, therefore, the consequence of their personal sin, but the sin that they committed when Adam sinned. The entire point of this was to prove to the Jews that they were stained with sin and in need of redemption, and that that redemption could be realized in their life only through a personal faith in Jesus.

Whether or not Adam was an historical figure is not the subject of Romans 5, and it is inconsequential to the central points of the chapter. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and, therefore, we are all in need of the redemption that can be found exclusively through faith in Christ.

Assuming for just a moment that Adam was a historical figure and that the sin of Adam was imputed to us, where in this do we find a sin nature? The obvious answer is that we don’t. The doctrine that man inherited a sin nature is what theologians call a “doctrine from speculation” based upon observation and philosophy. That is a very different kind of doctrine from what theologians call a “doctrine from exegesis.” A much newer doctrine from speculation is the doctrine that Christians have two natures, i.e., the nature that they inherited from Adam, and the nature that they received upon being “born again.” This latter doctrine is in direct conflict with the historical doctrine from exegesis that teaches that a “Christian” who has two natures is committing adultery with Christ. The primary biblical text for this doctrine is Rom 6:1 – 7:4, especially 7:1-4,

7:1. Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives?
2. For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.
3. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.
4. Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.

(All scriptures NASB, 1995)

 

Craig,

An interesting read. I don't really agree with your premise on these passages - and I still think they raise other issues such as the believer attaining sinless perfection; an unbeliever potentially never sinning and therefore not in need of redemption; etc.

This paragraph was particularly interesting:

In 58 A.D. the Jewish people understood the story of Adam in Genesis to be an historical narrative and Paul uses this understanding of the Jewish people to support his claim that the Jewish people had all sinned, whether in a personal manner, or in Adam. And to strengthen his claim, Paul reminds the Jews that people died before the Law was given and that their death was not, therefore, the consequence of their personal sin, but the sin that they committed when Adam sinned. The entire point of this was to prove to the Jews that they were stained with sin and in need of redemption, and that that redemption could be realized in their life only through a personal faith in Jesus.

I wonder how this can presumably be Paul's understanding of Adam and sin, his original audience's understanding of Adam and sin, but not our understanding of Adam and sin??? If we say that Paul had a "correct" understanding but did not teach it to his audience since that was not his primary point - he was still teaching error. If we say Paul had an incomplete or incorrect understanding, he was still teaching error. How can we come along 20 centuries later and propose to "correct" this teaching and subsequent understanding by his audience without appearing to participate in eisegesis rather than exegesis?

Nevertheless - we agree on the need for redemption in Jesus. Thanks.

 

Thank goodness that God obviously did NOT put a requirement of Creation beliefs as a prerequisite for accepting Jesus Christ.

However, I still would like to comment that, IMHO, when people start allegorizing portions of the Bible, eventually the gospels will be subject to the same interpretation. THIS is where the danger lies.