Can an Evolutionist be Saved?

Thanks, Bill.

Oh, you're right, Johnv, I'm sorry. Please explain how God created everything through evolution. Please show us how Darwin and God are on the same team. Then I'll take back calling Darwin a pipsqueak.

My question still stands to any evolutionist who wants to take a stab at it: How did Jesus evolve?

If the creation account in Genesis is a myth, if the Great Flood is a myth, then the Bible is not true. If the Bible is not true, then Salvation is a myth. That's what is at the crux of the whole discussion and the OP, the way I read it. But maybe I need new bifocals.

 

Scripture expressly forbids us from questioning a person's salvation.

From every post I've read, everyone here seems to agree that death is the result of sin.

 

Scripture expressly forbids us from questioning a person's salvation.
</font>[/QUOTE]I missed that commandment.

 

The C/E debate notwithstanding, God is creator. He is free to create as he wishes. If he did it in 6 days, each day being 24 hours long, 6000 years ago, he is still creator. If he did it in 6 periods, each period being longer than 24 hours, more than 6000 years ago, he is still creator. If he did it over millions of years, he is still creator.

The reason I typically steer clear of the C/E topic is because most of the posts debate how we believe this-and-that happenned, and as a result, we take our eyes off our creator.

Quite honestly, how I got here is inconsequential. No matter how I slice it, the price of my sin is death, and only my Creator come to earth can pay that price in full. My creator gave me that gift freely. When we argue over the receipt in the box, we belittle the giver.

 

You completely miss the point. It is MY sin that reslts in MY death. Christ alone pays the price for MY death. Whether one is YEC or non-YEC, one can (and often does) completely miss that point in the process.

 

Yes and no John. You and I were born in sin. Our death was certain the day we were conceived. That death is a result of original sin not just our personal sin. If death is the result of sin, physical and spiritual, then no death could have occurred before man sin. That being the case no one could have lived or died in any "pre-human" form before Adam.

Bro Tony

 

That is correct, but what you just described is not the theory of evolution. You just described the young earth/old earth debate with God as the creator.

The theory of evolution denies Intelligent Design by a Creator. The theory of evolution theorizes that certain gases came together with the right amount of heat and light and one day a simple cell was formed by chance which later turned into an amoeba which later evolved and adapted to survive (by natural selection) and eventually developed into a low life form which then eventually (through billions of years, yet) turned into a higher life form that flopped out on dry land one day which then grew legs and a bigger brain which then turned into a mammal one day which then turned into an ape which then turned into a primitive man which then turned into a homo sapiens - all by chance, the right elements, the right timing, by natural selection and survival of the fittest.

The whole theory is about as ridiculous as the ninkompoop pipsqueak who dreamed it up by "demonic design." Funny thing though, humans don't get more and more perfect with time. Our teeth decay, our joints get arthritis, we go blind, our organs give out, our bodies droop and sag and by the time we are old and infirm, we are stooped over like Neanderthal man. Ha!

 

The opening post started out as a promotion for the book, “Impossible Theology”. I read the book, "Impossible Theology". It's not surprising to me that it has not received an outpouring of acceptance even in the YEC community.

The book spends over sixty pages explaining the "Real Gospel" which the author describes as a dispensational, pretrib, pre-mil. belief system (wow, a particular set of beliefs that I share). I do fear though that once the author converts those that don’t accept a young earth, he will start aggressively disenfranchising those that believe in other twisted pseudo-theology systems.

The author accepts death before sin, but explain that it only occurs within a limited subset of life. The set that doesn't die is the nephesh. In a long study on the word nephesh, he explains that the word nephesh can mean: breath or soul...fish...blood...pleasure, pain… various emotions …sometimes it even means a dead body. He writes,

So is death “good” now? The arguments that have been promoted for years in the YEC community that any form of death is evil are being changed. It’s not death that’s bad it’s “pain”, it’s the “years”, it’s those evilutionists!

One insightful description of the difference between true YEC belief and the pseudo gospel was that the author says that YEC's believe: "Everything will return to its former state of perfection, as it was in the Garden of Eden before the Fall." He offers the conjecture that Adam's "resurrection body" was capable of changing from one form to another, disappearing and re-appearing somewhere else, just as Christ’s resurrection body.

Then the author describes the belief of the pseudo-gospel:

In this, you have found a true point of difference! I believe that I will be in a better, more excellent state following Christ’s death and resurrection work that if it never happened.

It's not hard to know who the book was written for. An OEC would laugh at the mischaracterizations pointed at them. I’m not trying to be harsh or rude but I would not recommend it.
Rob

 

So Mike you don't think that Christ's blood alone is powerful enough to save someone?

Not unless a person believes this or that doctrine TOO?

And a man who believes he is a sinner and asks Christ for forgiveness is not saved until he renounces his belief in evolution?

So much for sola fide...

Dominus fobiscu my son.

So I guess that you have no quarrel with the papist who asserts that you must also take the sacraments to be saved huh?

 

For the sake of clarity here, can someone please define what they mean by 'evolutionist' in the context of a Christian holding to this position? Many posters here seem to equate that stance with an atheistic, 'God exclusionary' , 'it all happened by chance' stance. I don't think anyone here is adopting that position; rather, there are some of us who are asserting 'theistic evolution'/ OECism. There's a world of difference between the two...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Can you cite a source on this? </font>[/QUOTE]I'm still waiting.

 

Dear Brett,
Please type "institute for Cration Research" in your search window and go take a look.You will find many Bio-scientist and physical scientists there old as well as new.You will also find many interesting articles from the creation science point of view.

You want to know the truth, you can't handle the truth. (that's my best jack Nickolson impression hope you liked it).Anyhow it will give you a hint about some of the things creationist read and who we are.

 

Sorry Brett I forgot the "E" in creation.

 

Christians should be very wary of this sight, and especially of the older material.

The philosophy of this organization from the beginning is that the end justifies the means, and that any amount of distortion of the facts in order to prove their personal and extra-biblical conviction of a recently created earth is justified. I know this to be the case because, as a biologist, I have read much of their literature over a period of about 30 years and have continued to be appalled by their blatant lack of academic and Christian ethics in presenting and discussing scientific data. And of course they have come under severe fire from both Scientists and mainstream educated Christians for their junk science and willful distortion of the facts. Therefore, in more recent years their science has improved and they have become more careful in presenting their data, but they still have a long way to go to be considered scientifically credible or ethically acceptable.

For those who are not trained scientists and who desire to know for themselves whether or not competent scientists believe in a young earth, type into your computer search engine the names of the “scientists” who believe in the a young earth. If you will do this, you will find for yourself that NONE of them are employed ANY university that is noted for academic excellence in the sciences. Check out their degrees and where they got them and what their degrees are in and compare this information with what they are claiming to have knowledge of. Don’t take my word for any of this. Check out the facts for yourself!

 

Uh, 'scuse me, but I think the Bible makes YEC very clear. Only those who do not wish to take Genesis as literal have to throw it out.

If we take Genesis as allegory, why don't we take Mathew, Mark, Luke and John as allegory? Who is in charge of what is "real and what is smoke and mirrors?"

 

We understood the mistake It's just that most people leave out some other letters when talking about those who participate in the discussions on origin issues... "Cretins" not crations.

Rob