Would you allow evolutionists to teach Sunday School?

Anyone who believes such a thing is either grossly ignorant of macroevolutionary theory or the Book of Genesis, and probably both.

I completed only two semesters of college physics and since then I have only casually studied physics. Therefore, if I were to post messages about physics on a physics message board it would be rather obvious to those who have studied physics that I am very ignorant of physics and they would probably find my posts to be very much on the ridiculous side. And for them to say so would be entirely justified. And it is very clear to me that I have studied physics a whole lot more than you have studied either evolution or the book of Genesis.

 

Just what kind of sculpture do you think would be confused with natural activity? Working the material leaves marks that would be unlike what would happen naturally.

It is not just that the universe "looks" old, it IS old. Just the fact that light takes billions of years to travel across the cosmos and reveals a detailed history of each object as it gets here is enough to revel an old universe. Rocks do not just date as old, they are sorted according to the ratios of their radioactive isotopes. Fossils are sorted temporally in a manner consistent with their evolution. Parts of various landmasses can be shown to have once been part of multiple previous supercontinents. Ice layers near the poles reveal many years of annual layers.

 

Wow, that's interesting...you've studied the Book of Genesis more than me? Then why didn't you attempt to answer any of the three problems with macroevolution and their relationship to Genesis that I presented you with earlier? Could it be that you have no answer and that you don't know anything about sound exegesis and hermeneutics? Rather than attempting some lame duck answer, could it possibly be that it is just easier for you to come in here and post that you know more about Genesis than I do?

Either answer the questions I presented you with earlier and demonstrate that you are a superior exegete and expositor, or admit that you can't reconcile macroevolution with God's Word, but please don't just come in here and post that you have superior knowledge of God's Word if you aren't even going to join the discussion. That's arrogance at its best (and it seems that you have no lack of pride, that's for sure). Just remember that "pride goes before destruction" (Prov. 16:18).

In case you missed the three problems I mentioned earlier, I'll give them to you again so that you can answer each of them in a way that will prove your superior knowledge of the Book of Genesis:

1. You can't interpret the days of the creation account in Gen. 1-2 as aeons - they must be viewed as 7 24-hour days. The reason is because everywhere else in the OT that the word translated day (yom) appears with a numerical qualifier as it does throughout the creation account, all honest Bible scholars will tell you that it is ALWAYS a reference to a literal 24 hour day. You can't make an exception for the creation account just because you don't like what it says.

2. If you accept macroevolution, you have a situation in which death entered the world before the Fall of man. You may have no problem with that, but the Apostle Paul would take strong exception with such a position. If you don't think so, read Rom. 8:20-22 - death to all creation clearly entered the world only after the Fall of man (cf. Rom. 6:23). To argue otherwise is to say that God created Adam and Eve and then placed them in an imperfect world that was already full of death, disease, and utter chaos. Faithful exegesis and exposition won't allow such a heretical position.

3. The Bible plainly states that Adam and Eve were created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26). If Adam and Eve were nothing more than the products of macroevolutionary survival of the fittest, at what point did this creation in God's image take place? The image of God demands that men were not the products of some macroevolutionary scheme as you say they are.

Craig, please show us your superior knowledge of God's Word and show us how macroevolutionary theories of creation can possibly be consistent with the Bible is spite of these glaring hermeneutical difficulties. I can't wait to see you answers.

 

Anyone who thinks that a book on California Real Estate Law has to perfectly “gel” with a book about Navajo basket weaving not only has some very loose screws, but he has lost very many of them!

Perhaps you would find that you are more talented at basket weaving.

The Bible makes it expressly obvious that the seven days in Genesis were not literal days unless one acknowledges that the creation stories in Genesis describe a recreation of the inhabited earth.

14. Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;
15. and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.
16. God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.
17. God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
18. and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
19. There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. (Gen. 1:14-19, NASB, 1995)

Twenty-four hour days did not exist until the fourth day unless we have here a description of the recreation of the inhabited earth where on the fourth day (a 24 hour day according to your particular understanding) the light from the sun and the moon began to shine through the debris in the atmosphere.

 

What pathetic nonsense! According this reasoning not one single dinosaur died until after Adam ate the forbidden fruit! Where in the Bible do you find Jesus being chased around by a Tyrannosaurus Rex? How can anyone dare to make such a mockery of the Bible?

Genesis speaks of man exclusively as a completed creation; that is, as a homo sapiens. Whether God created him over a period a three billion years or in a nanosecond makes no difference at all to the account in Genesis. It is my personal opinion that Adam was created instantaneously as Adam, but that is just a personal conviction and I certainly would not try to prove it from Scripture.

Some people think they do, some people think they don’t, some people think it doesn’t matter. I know that the gospel that Jesus preached is true, not because some Baptist pastor says so, but because I have seen the reality of the gospel in my own life and in the life of many others. Jesus came to preach the gospel; he did not come here to condemn the theory of evolution. Preaching the gospel produces eternal life; preaching against evolution makes a monkey out of the preacher and makes the Bible appear to be a sequel to Aesop’s Fables.

You have made some good and valid points here. And of course I am one of those conservative defenders on the written word and the importance of studying it in the original languages with an in depth understanding of the cultures involved. The first eleven chapters of Genesis present to the scholar many problems that are unique to that portion of Scripture and we need to be exceedingly careful that we do not allow misunderstandings about these eleven chapters to derail us from the New Testament message and the correct interpretation and application of it.

This is nothing but meaningless mumbo-jumbo. What truly matters is that we understand that all men are born into this world with a human weakness that makes them so very vulnerable to temptation that each and every man sins and falls short of the glory of God, separating him from God and His blessings. The one and only means of atonement for those sins is the shed blood of Jesus upon the cross, and this atonement becomes effectual for each man only upon that man’s personal confession to God that he has sinned and his desire to be saved from those sins and their consequences, and that mans personal faith in Christ. That man’s beliefs about evolution are 100% irrelevant.

Personally, I believe that Romans 5:5:12-21 teaches that we all sinned in Adam and that death passed upon all men as the direct consequence of that sin, but that interpretation is not central to the gospel message. Indeed, it is not necessary to know anything at all about Adam in order to be saved. The purpose of Romans chapter 5 is to show us that we need to be saved and that salvation comes exclusively through the obedience of Christ on the cross.

 

What kind of nonsense is this? In what way has ANY evolutionary theory limited God?

Hyper-fundamentalism, on the other hand, puts God into handcuffs and chains and calls Him a liar.

 

First of all, I believe that it is a sin against God to post fictitious anti-evolution propaganda on a message board, and Christians should not have to waste their valuable time refuting fictitious anti-evolution propaganda. And lest anyone dare to argue that they were not aware that this is fictitious anti-evolution propaganda, this fictitious anti-evolution propaganda has been refuted in thousands of places and there is no excuse for being ignorant of that fact. Furthermore, I believe that it is impossible to honor God by posting fictitious anti-evolution propaganda.

However, for the benefit of innocent bystanders reading these posts that may not have yet studied this subject, I will explain why this propaganda is fictitious.

Romans 5:12-21 speaks exclusively about the present inhabited world, and says absolutely nothing about the previously created earth. However, we know for a fact that prior to the creation described in Genesis that the there were many thousands of kinds of plants and animals that both died and became extinct. The most notable of the animals were the dinosaurs which we all know became extinct long before Adam was created.

 

If a professing Christian is an adamant evolutionist, they are either Biblically illiterate or deny the authority, infallibility, and inspiration of Scripture!

My answer therefore would be an emphatic NO!!

 

If anyone is an adamant denier of evolution then they are either illiterate of the evidence or they choose to deny the evidence for reasons other than those which are logical and factual.

There is no physical evidence for a young earth.

 

That this statement is absolutely false has been proven in this thread.

There is absolutely no scriptural or ethical reason for excluding even an adamant evolutionist from teaching Sunday school. There are today thousands of them doing so and no one has posted any data to show that any harm has resulted from this. False and malicious allegations have no place in the Christian community, and those who make them should not be allowed on the premises of any church without constant supervision. Most certainly these evildoers should not be allowed to teach Sunday school.

The theories of evolution do not contradict the Bible; they merely contradict the uninformed opinions of poorly educated individuals regarding the Bible. Arguing that evolutionists should not be allowed to teach Sunday school makes no more sense than arguing that individuals who drive white cars should not be allowed to teach Sunday school. One has nothing to do with the other. Do you deny teaching positions to those who teach that the earth is spherical rather than flat?

 

I have often found that folks who are loosing in debate begin to relegate themselves to sarcasm and deviation from the issues. You are doing both.

Could the three days prior to this period not also have been 24 hour days? Did God really need the sun, moon, and stars to illuminate the Earth? Was not His glory sufficient to provide whatever light may have been necessary? His glory will be sufficient to provide all the light necessary in glory won't it (cf. Rev. 21:23)? Besides, you still have not provided me with one other example in the OT where the word yom appears with a numerical qualifier and is translated as something other than a literal 24-hour day. Until you can, the burden of proof rests on you.

Ah, more sarcasm and disrespect - it's always interesting to see how moderates react when they are loosing in debate because they will not abide by sound exegesis and hermeneutics.

This is the point I'm making: You can't just label as "nonsense" different portions of God's Word just because you don't like what they say. Paul plainly taught from Rom. 5-8 that death, disease, and disorder only entered the world and affected all of creation after the Fall of Man. To say otherwise is to say that enormous calamity and destruction would have reigned supreme throughout the lives of Adam and Eve, even if they had never sinned! Is that what you are trying to affirm? I'll choose to stick with God's Word. And by the way, how do you know that it was completely impossible for men to have lived with the dinosaurs? Were you there with Adam, Eve, and their descendents, or could it be that you are placing more trust in carbon dating and other flawed scientific methods than you are the Word of God? That seems to be your greatest problem. Will you at least admit that someone can't affirm the words of Paul in Rom. 5-8 in regard to the effects of man's Fall upon creation, and still affirm macroevolution at the same time? According to sound exegesis, you have to choose one or the other (or just choose to remain in the land of logical contradiction).

You mean, you wouldn't try to prove your convictions from the Scripture because they can't be proven by the Scriptures? I'm sorry, but you would've made a pretty lousy Reformer - how can we say "Sola Scriptura" if we are not going to be bound by what it says? To say that the image of God "makes no difference at all to the account in Genesis" proves that you have never tried to do an serious study in Theology. The imago dei is absolutely critical to one's understanding of humanity. The reason we preach and teach that all human life has dignity and is worthy of respect is because the Bible plainly says that man was "created" (not evolved into) God's image. If the homo sapien is nothing more than a product of survival of the fittest, then you can't possibly argue man's dignity based on the image of God. Further, the word translated "create" in Gen. 1:26-27 is bara and it must be translated "to create, shape, form, fashion, etc." In the Piel form, it actually carries the idea of "to cut." Tell me then, how do you come up with man evolving into the image of God from the word bara ? Provide me with one example in the Hebrew OT where the words carries the idea of "evolve" and I will be happy to concede the point.

Wow, so now I'm a monkey just because I believe the Word of God. Please pass the bananas then. I'd rather be one of God's monkeys than one of Darwin's faithful followers.

Again, you assert that the whole of evolution doesn't matter. I'm thankful that our Anabaptist forefathers didn't have the same attitude when it came to believer's baptism. I'm sure there were many in their day who said that one's mode of baptism didn't matter, but they chose to remain faithful to God's Word. Consequently, Baptists are now the only major Christian denomination that consistently and faithfully practices believer's baptism in obedience to the command of our Lord. By the way, many of them were killed because they would not denounce one's need for believer's baptism. So then, do I think that this whole discussion has any merit - you better believe I do. I think it's important for my kids to know that God is not to be placed as some bookend upon a theory that was forged in the fires of post-Renaissance atheism. Further, what we believe about creation drives our theology. If man was not created in the exact way that the Bible says that He was, then how can we possibly be sure that man actually fell into sin (as the first eleven chapters of Genesis say that he did)? If the creation account of Gen. 1-2 is nothing more than night-time child's play, then who's to say that Gen. 3 is not the same? Again, the burden of proof rests of you and your flawed worldview.

What you call "misunderstandings about these eleven chapters," Bible-believing Christians call exegetical, hermeneutical, and logical consequences. You don't like those consequences, and so you have chosen to believe that the first eleven chapters of Genese are allegorical. That's your perogative, but don't try to come in here and say that macroevolution jives with Scripture - clearly it doesn't.

Does anyone notice a trend of sarcasm, deviation from issues, and disrespect developing here. Like I said, these are usually tactics employed by the loser in a debate. Ah, but I digress.

But how can we know this is we believe that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are allegorical? How can we know this if we will not believe what Paul has said about the effects of the Fall upon all of creation as seen in Rom. 5-8. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Either we can believe these passages to be teaching literal truth, or we can't - which is it going to be? YOU CAN'T JUST PICK AND CHOOSE. Clearly, your foot is caught in an exegetical and logical trap here. But of course, that's what happens when you try to make macroevolution "wash" with the Word of God.

In other words, what we really need to do is make Christ our Savior but not our Lord? We need to welcome His grace with open arms, but then turn our backs to the clear precepts of His Word? Don't forget this: You can't say that you are a child of God unless you are willing to accept the plain teaching of the Word of God (that is of course unless you believe in the "fire insurance" salvation that so many of the fine folks in our pews are now banking their eternities on).

Wow, I've never seen such double talk! The fact that man has fallen into sin and can't save Himself is not "central to the Gospel message?" My goodness, if men don't know that they are lost, why in the world would they want to be saved? Saved from what? If they are not sinners, why the need for salvation? Further, if one need not know anything about Adam and his helpless race, then why did the Apostle Paul spend so much time developing the argument from Rom. 5-8?

Craig, this is very disheartening. Can you see what you have allowed your vehement affirmation of macroevolution to do to your theology? Because you don't want to be bound by what Gen. 1-3 and Rom. 5-8 says about man's creation and his subsequent Fall, you are now willing to discard some of the most foundational parts of the Gospel. Please consider what you are saying here...I mean that only in the most sincere of ways.

Once again, if the Fall is not "central to the Gospel message," then what does man need to be saved from? You've got some explaining to do.

 

Posts like the one immediately above by Todd very well illustrate why I don't teach a Junior's Department Sunday school class!

 

Craig, your final attempt at diversion simply proves that you have no real answers, and so implicitely you are conceding defeat in this debate (as well you should).

I want to reiterate, what has been so sad for me to witness in this debate is how you have had to completely change your position on what you believe the "central elements" of the Gospel to be. This quote was definitely the ringer:

Is there anyone on the Baptist Board who would like to defend this comment by Craig? Is there even one poster who would dare to join Craig in saying that the effects of Adam's fall in the Garden are "not central to the gospel message?"

I've said it once, and I'll say it again. You have allowed your rigid affirmation of macroevolution to allow you to throw into question what the essentials of the Gospel message really are. That a Christian would even consider saying that an understanding of man's Fall and inherently sinful nature are not "central to the gospel message" is mind-boggling, and it indicates a gross misunderstanding of what the Gospel essentials really are. If a man can't possibly know for certain that he is lost (as that doubt would certainly be possible in a person who interprets Gen. 1-11 and Rom. 5-8 as you do), then why would they feel any obligation to be saved?

Craig, I challenge you to give some account of yourself on this issue. Don't just come back on here and post some "look how dumb some people are" remark as you have been doing. DEAL WITH THE ISSUES AND EXPLAIN HOW YOU CAN SOMEHOW BELIEVE THAT A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE FALL AND ITS EFFECTS ON ALL MANKIND ARE NOT "CENTRAL TO THE GOSPEL MESSAGE."

 

OK.

I believe that what he said, and based on other posts, is that he personally believes that Adam was a literal person and that through his sin the consequences were passed to us all. But he also asserts that this particular interpreation is not central. In a completely non-literal reading of the creation account, God is telling us that man has a sinful nature and that we all are in need of His gracious forgiveness. The need to acknowledge our sins and repent of them and to turn our lives over to Him and to accept the price that Christ paid for our sins is the central message. Not whether Adam and his sin are literal or not.

Each of our views of the creation account are our interpretations of what is given. But no matter how hard you want to believe that the literal interpretation is correct, if the world really is old and if life really is all related through common descent, then the literal interpretation is impossible. And, right now, all the evidence points to an old earth and to common descent. There is no case to be made for a young earth. None! Therefore an attempt to assert a young earth is based solely on your own assertions and interpretations and is without evidentary support. An old earth interpretation has a nearly endless supply of supporting data from God's own creation. He is not the author of confusion nor a deceiver nor a trickster and so there is no reason to doubt the revelation given by God in His own creation!

 

This is confusing to say that least. You begin your post by defending Craig's contention that Adam was a literal person who did literally fall into sin, then you end your post by saying that such a belief is not a part of the "central message" of the Gospel. Come on guys, which is it going to be?

The double talk that is now happening is the very reason that I originally posted on this thread. The original question was, "Would you allow evolutionists to teach SS?" My answer was an emphatic NO, and I offered this reason in an earlier post within this thread:

Have we not witnessed Craig and now UT progress down this slippery theological slope as the discussion has pressed on? We simply started by discussing the problems with attempting to make macroevolution "jive" with the Scriptures, now we've got two folks telling us that an understanding of Man's Fall and subsequent sin problem (and the affects of man's sin upon the whole of creation) are not part of the "central message of the Gospel."

The two of you have successful proven why macroevolutionary teachers shouldn't be allowed to teach a Bible-based SS class. Where will your theological compromises come to an end? If you would simply accept what the Word of God has to say about creation and the affects of man's Fall upon creation, then you wouldn't have to worry about defending macroevolution and you wouldn't be backed into the exegetical and theological corner that you are now trapped in.

 

It remains perfectly feasible to interpret Paul's words about death coming into the world from the sin of Adam as referring not to the death of dinosaurs but to the death of men.

No animal can live without taking advantage of the death of some kind of life. When Adam ate fruit from the trees, living cells within the fruit died to keep Adam alive. When Adam harvested mushrooms for nursihment, living cells within the mushrooms died to sustain him. When Adam milked a goat and made cheese, living bacteria died when he ate the cheese.

We often use the language of "all the world" to mean "men", not plants and animals. For example, scripture says that Caesar decreed all the world should be taxed. The meaning is perfectly clear - the known world, not really all the world, the world of men, not really the fish in the sea or the wild elephants over in Africa. It is the same with Paul's declaration that death came with the first Adam and life with the second Adam. Death for MANKIND, life for MANKIND.

Now it is true we're debating here and some will disgree with me on this death thing. The one point I want to make is - nobody can PROVE from scripture that I have interpreted it wrongly.

 

UT, it appears as though you have no problem pitting general revelation against special revelation (God's Word). At least you have implicitely admitted that macroevolution can't be grounded in God's Word. Realizing that, as you say, you have chosen to form your convictions based on the natural order rather than the Word of God. Obviously, I have a big problem with that, but I have much more of a problem with someone trusting in the finding of the natural world and then attempting to force those findings upon the Word of God.

This is really my whole point when I have this discussion with macroevolutionists. Believe in macroevolution if you want, but don't try to make it work with the honest exegesis and exposition of God's Word. Neither of you have been able to provide one shred of biblical exegesis that can refute my claims. If you still choose to affirm macroevolution, that is fine. Just admit that when it comes to creation and the Fall of man, your allegiance is to science much more than it is the Word of God. That's all I'm asking for - honesty.

 

Paul, the problem you have is that you would have to admit that Adam and Eve would've lived in a world full of death, disease, and destruction even if they had never sinned! Sorry, but a world filled with death, disease, and destruction doesn't sound like the Garden of Eden that I've always read about.

Just read the creation account: The Bible speaks of no death, disease, or disorder existing within God's created order until you come to Gen. 3:17-18. It was only AFTER the Fall of Adam and Eve that we find creation suffering catastrophic consequences. Paul affirmed this when he wrote "the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now" (Rom. 8:21-22). Paul plainly says that death, disease, and disorder to creation were all products of man's Fall within the Garden of Eden. How can you possibly read it otherwise, unless of course you're trying to affirm macroevolution?

Further, isn't salvation essentially a reversal of the effects of the Fall? Adam and Eve started out in a perfect world with perfect fellowship with God, yet sin caused man and the creation to lose the perfect status that it once enjoyed. By placing our faith in the finished work of Christ, we have the promise of being "restorted to Eden" (a new heaven and a new earth) when we leave this life. For heaven is said to be a place of "no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying...no more pain" (Rev. 21:4). Here's the question: If God would've somehow allowed death, disease, and disorder to reign supreme in the first Eden even prior to the sin of Adam and Eve, who's to say that He wouldn't allow the same scenerio in the "new Eden" (our Heavenly home)?

I'm not trying to make any bad assumptions, but I can't help but think that you guys would agree with me on this were it not for your complete acceptance of macroevolutionary theories of creation. Am I wrong?

 

My own allegiance is first of all to truth and God, not science, not church, not anything else. Taking the path of truth wherever it may lead one finds that the evidence is there for macroevolution and, on a personal level, for God as revealed in the Bible. It is not true that evolution is against the Bible, it is true that evolution is perhaps against Todd's particular version of how to interpret the Bible.

 

Anybody who knows anything about gardens knows that a garden is in a certain place, and that it is well known to the creator of the garden where the garden starts and where the garden ends. It is perfectly feasible to view the garden of Eden as being a special created place that was different from the rest of the world, and sustained differently by spiritual means, not natural means; when Adam sinned and was condemned to have to live with thorns and disease the scripture does not say these things were created newly but rather it states Adam was merely cast out of the garden, which I interpret to mean he got back into the real world where these things had been all along, though held at bay from entering Eden.

And I can't help but think you would agree with us were it not for your complete rejection of the macroevoluionary history of all life on earth.

Pssst . . . got evidence?