Can an Evolutionist be Saved?

Craigbythesea · Dec 28, 2004

If we say Paul had an incomplete or incorrect understanding, he was still teaching error.

Keith, If we apply this very same reasoning to the story of Noah's Ark, we must conclude that the author of that portion of Genesis was teaching error for the author's understanding was both incomplete and incorrect or else the story as we currently have it does not accurately portray the author's understanding. The plain and simple fact is that the ark as described in Genesis was not large enough to do the job that it is portrayed as doing. I do not believe that God makes mistakes and I do not believe that it is appropriate to use the word “error” to describe anything that God does, but that does not mean that the human beings that He chose to use to perform tasks necessarily performed those tasks in an error-free manner.

Craigbythesea · Dec 28, 2004

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.

We see the contents of the Gospels being understood by some as symbolical as early as the 3rd century, but the Church has prevailed, and indeed, it shall continue to prevail.

As for Genesis 1 – 11, we have several options:

1. We can ignore the immense difficulties that it poses to any kind of a literal interpretation and simply and ignorantly say that it is true because it is the word of God.

2. We can carefully and prayerfully study it and seek to understand it.

3. We can allow it to destroy our faith in God and the Bible.

4. We can ignore the Old Testament and cling to the New Testament.

5. We can believe that Genesis 1 -11 is based on oral traditions from a number of different oriental sources and lay it aside and not concern ourselves with it.

6. We can deal with Genesis in any number of other ways.

As for me and my house, we choose option #2.

James_Newman · Dec 28, 2004

You don't believe the Bible. Just say it, you'll feel better. Then repent of it. it is no wonder Jesus said:
Lu 18:8
I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

What about the account of the fiery serpents in the wilderness. Do you suppose this was a figment of Moses' misunderstanding of how the world really works? Doesn't he know you can't cure snake bites visually? It just won't work.

Johnv · Dec 28, 2004

Originally posted by James_Newman:
You don't believe the Bible. Just say it, you'll feel better.

That sounds incredibly amusing and hypocritical coming from someone who adheres to the false doctrine of KJVOism.

James_Newman · Dec 28, 2004

Creation account holds pretty much the same in any version, doesn't it?

Marcia · Dec 28, 2004

I choose none of Craig's options for how to see Genesis 1-11. Instead, I choose

Genesis 1-11 is a real historical narrative and it does conflict with hard scientific facts that we can objectively know now (as opposed to theories based on presumptions and assumptions).

Also, if Paul was not talking about a literal Adam and if he was writing under the inspiration of the HS, meaning that these words are what God wanted Paul to write, then God was being deceptive in making us think there was a real Adam (as He does in Genesis, along with Eve).

And what do we do with Luke's geneology of Christ in Luke 3?

37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan,

38the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

If Adam isn't real, is Seth real? Is Enosh real? Is Jared real? How about the others named starting in verse 23 and going through the last verse of 38? Amos? Nahum? Zerubbabel? Strange that God would include an unreal person along with real people.

This is just part of the problem that arises when Adam is considered a mythlike persona.

Johnv · Dec 28, 2004

Originally posted by James_Newman:
Creation account holds pretty much the same in any version, doesn't it?

THe issue is not the text of the creation account, but interpretations thereof. Regardless of peoples' views on the topic, it's inappropriate to accuse someone of not believing in the Bible because they hold a different interpretation of Genesis than you or I might hold.

Likewise, it would be equally wrong for someone to say that you don't believe in the Bible, just because you hold to a KJVO doctrine which many feel is not scripturally supported.

Craigbythesea · Dec 28, 2004

That sounds incredibly amusing and hypocritical coming from someone who adheres to the false doctrine of KJVOism.

. . . not to mention 1,000 years in hell for those Baptists who use a different translation!

Marcia · Dec 28, 2004

What about these Adams? More mythical creatures? (And Eve as well?)

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Cor 15.22

Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 1 Cor 15.45

For Adam was formed first, then Eve... 1 Tim 2.13

It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones..." Jude 14

James_Newman · Dec 28, 2004

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> That sounds incredibly amusing and hypocritical coming from someone who adheres to the false doctrine of KJVOism.

. . . not to mention 1,000 years in hell for those Baptists who use a different translation!

[/QUOTE]No Craig, its teaching works salvation that will get you in trouble at the judgment seat. The bible says that Jesus died for our sins, and whoever believes will be raised up. You say anyone who fails to live up to Gods standard will go to the lake of fire for all eternity.

Michael52 · Dec 28, 2004

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

Craig, I always figured, "The devil made me do it!" (BOLOGNA)

2. We can carefully and prayerfully study it and seek to understand it.

Yep, #2 is good, regardless of the various conclusions we each may hold.

Craigbythesea · Dec 28, 2004

Genesis 1-11 is a real historical narrative and it does conflict with hard scientific facts

OldRegular · Dec 28, 2004

Originally posted by Marcia:
I choose none of Craig's options for how to see Genesis 1-11. Instead, I choose

Genesis 1-11 is a real historical narrative and it does conflict with hard scientific facts that we can objectively know now (as opposed to theories based on presumptions and assumptions).

Also, if Paul was not talking about a literal Adam and if he was writing under the inspiration of the HS, meaning that these words are what God wanted Paul to write, then God was being deceptive in making us think there was a real Adam (as He does in Genesis, along with Eve).

And what do we do with Luke's geneology of Christ in Luke 3?
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> 37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan,

38the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

If Adam isn't real, is Seth real? Is Enosh real? Is Jared real? How about the others named starting in verse 23 and going through the last verse of 38? Amos? Nahum? Zerubbabel? Strange that God would include an unreal person along with real people.

This is just part of the problem that arises when Adam is considered a mythlike persona. [/QUOTE]Marcia

I agree.

Jesus Christ also put His stamp of approval on the first eleven chapters of Genesis when He quoted Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19:5, 6 and when he referred to Noah in Matthew 24:37-39.

How can we believe that Jesus Christ died for us yet believe He would deceive us? I can't!

Marcia · Dec 29, 2004

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Genesis 1-11 is a real historical narrative and it does conflict with hard scientific facts

[/QUOTE]Whoops! That was a typo. A "not" should inserted there so it reads that Genesis does NOT conflict with hard scientific facts.

Mike Gascoigne · Dec 30, 2004

Originally posted by Phillip:
Mike, I too am a writer and I completely understand selling books.

It's good to see that you know something. I'm just gradually finding out, and I'm beginning to wonder if promoting books on an open forum like this is a waste of time. I started off this topic on 13 December. Now it's 30 December and there are more than 230 responses already, but to my knowledge only one participant (Deacon) has actually read the book. I'm thinking of starting up a new forum where people have to read the book before they can write anything. This will encourage more readers to discuss the book because their topics will not get cluttered with responses from people who haven't read it. I don't have to start up an entirely new forum. I just have to start a new category on my Creation History discussion board:

www.annomundi.co.uk/forum.htm

Mike

Craigbythesea · Dec 30, 2004

I sincerely wish that people would not use this message board to promote themselves, for I find that to be the very antithesis of both Christian theology and Christian ethics.

Phillip · Dec 30, 2004

Craig, that may be your opinion, but I do not believe it is "unethical" as you propose. Christian writers, just like secular writers have the same problems and maybe even worse because they are accused of promoting themselves when they attempt to sell a book.

How often have you gone to a church to listen to a group sing and find them selling their tapes in the lobby? Is this wrong? Maybe, but then again, they are doing the Lord's work as a "living" and because of that, I don't think the Lord has a problem with them using Christian groups to help support their ministry.

Would you feel the same way if Mike were selling a book on evolution?

Mike Gascoigne · Dec 30, 2004

Originally posted by Phillip:
How often have you gone to a church to listen to a group sing and find them selling their tapes in the lobby? Is this wrong? Maybe, but then again, they are doing the Lord's work as a "living"...

They are doing very well if they make a living out of it. Normally they sell tapes just to recover some of the costs of getting to the venue, and if they actually make anything, it's totally disproportionate to the effort they put in.

Mike

Craigbythesea · Dec 30, 2004

Would you feel the same way if Mike were selling a book on evolution?

Not unless he wrote it, which obviously he does not have the scientific background to do.

Craigbythesea · Dec 30, 2004

They are doing very well if they make a living out of it. Normally they sell tapes just to recover some of the costs of getting to the venue, and if they actually make anything, it's totally disproportionate to the effort they put in.

When Christians are doing the will of God, God provides for them without any self-promotion on their part.

Can an Evolutionist be Saved?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

New Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

<img src=/mike.jpg>

Well-Known Member

<b>Moderator</b>

<img src=/mike.jpg>

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member