Not absolutely true. I am anything but YEC and I believe Dr. Collins has identified the remains of Sodom. If he is correct, it was destroyed by a natural event, but would that change the point of the story?
1 Like
You are talking about that recent news item?
Dr. Collins wrote the popular book on this back in 2013. I don’t agree with everything in the recent news item (if it is the same one that was discussed recently).
Hi Adam,
It sounds like you’re passionate about seeing God’s Word upheld faithfully. That is something to be commended. I just thought I’d throw in something that the Bible says for you to consider.
¹³Do not have two differing weights in your bag — one heavy, one light. ¹⁴Do not have two differing measures in your house — one large, one small. ¹⁵You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lᴏʀᴅ your God is giving you. ¹⁶For the Lᴏʀᴅ your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly. – Deuteronomy 25:13-16.
Any creation model, any interpretation of Genesis 1-11, any challenge to the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth or evolution, must obey that Scripture. It must get its facts straight. It must have accurate and honest weights and measurements. And it must apply the same level of rigour and quality control that we see in commercial science laboratories in the way that it accounts for the evidence that we see in nature. (In other words, it must not cut corners or get sloppy.) Any form of creationism that does not meet these standards is not scientific, is not Biblical, and is not honest.
If you want some of the specifics of what this means, start here:
I can go over it in more detail after the weekend if you like. In the meantime, have a blessed Christmas and may the peace of Christ dwell in you richly as you celebrate His birth.
2 Likes
The bible does not argue, as far as I am aware, that animals have the capacity of reasoning…or a conscience! If we consider that, the bible states that the law of God (his commandments) are written on our hearts and in our minds (the new covenant).
I have to ask, do theistic evolutionists believe an animal can knowingly sin?
Are you saying that animals have a conscience and the power of reason?
I do not argue that theistic evolutionists are wrong…the bible argues that point because you are attempting to deny self evident texts in support of your theology. You do that by suddenly claiming these self evident texts are not literal and are therefore “just stories”…in some instances linking them with some kind of spiritual application to explain away the self evident text (such as the early chapters of Genesis)
What you fail to recognise is that in almost every self evident biblical theological doctrine, there are parallels between the physical and the spiritual…that is also very self evident and is also consistent with the opposing Christian view to your own. However, this does not mean the spiritual is not a reality.
I offer an example (there are many many more)…consider the captivity of the Israelites around 500 B.C:
During the captivity in Babylon, where the institution of the leadership of Israel was no longer a self governing authority and the temple services had stopped, we have the visions of Daniel 2, 7, 8 etc. These visions very specifically describe the future (the writers of Daniel consistently say that) …they all describe the timeline for the return of the Israelites out of captivity to the promised land they once inherited through the leadership of Moses. However, the prophecies in Daniel (and this is scholarly fact not my own interpretation) also have a dual meaning/link/application with the end time prophecies in the book of Revelation…which are mostly calling Christians (spiritual Israelites) out of Babylon and into the promised land (heaven).
The proof of this end times “type and antitype” dual prophecy link between visions of Daniel and Revelation is obviously the stone that is cut without hands that smashes into the feet of the statue in Daniel Chapter 2 and crushes it into dust. The stone (Jesus) then fills the whole earth. That is very clearly the second coming and the subsequent cleansing of the earth from all sin.
Additionally, we have further evidence that the links are both physical and spiritual in their application…the term spiritual Israel in the Bible is used to help Gentile Christian of the New Testament times understand they are also Gods chosen people…it is not just for the Jews…the gospel has been introduced by the apostle Paul to the Gentiles who accept Christ…the Gentile Christians have become spiritual Israel! This does not mean there is no physical application of the visions in Daniel (the spiritual is only half the story…the temptation and fall of man in Genesis was both spiritual and physical in nature . That is also a scholarly fact…not my own interpretation. We can easily can pull up multiple denominational theologies dating back centuries to support this truth.
Jesus predecessor (John the Baptist) goes so far to say, I use water, however, there is one coming after me who is greater than i who will baptise with the Holy Spirit and Fire. /the point of John the baptist statement is not that we move from a literal world into a spiritual existence…what he is in fact saying is that:
- repentance comes with baptism in water
- the desire to spread the gospel comes after we are then baptised with the holy spirit and with fire
The disciples in the upper room (as described in Acts 2) on the day of pentecost had all repented. It was then that they received the holy spirit and went out to preach the gospel…that is the point of john the baptists statement in Matthew chapter 3!
Your denominational theology about spiritual in order to support the idea that very obvious historical passages in the bible are not real is fundamentally in error (and that is not my interpretation…its the view of almost every scholar outside of your theology worldwide…even the vast majority of evolutionists themselves disagree with your theology!)
You are trying to claim that a bridge must be formed in order to allow evolutionists to come to God and be saved. The fundamental problem with that idea is that God does not compromise his law in order to accommodate sin. So how do you reconcile the idea that a theology that denies the personal creator (the God who bent down, formed Adam out of the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils) can be saved by Him?
If we consider the Pericope Adulterae, Jesus said 2 things to the women,
- i do not condemn you
- Go and sin no more
He did not simply let her off with any theology where she could continue in her life of sin. In Romans 6:23, Paul states very clearly, for the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
If death is not related to sin (as you say), then how do you reconcile that when the new heavens and the new earth are created (after fire and brimstone has rained down on this earth cleansing it of all sin), there will be no more death? Are you trying to present the theology (and i think you are) that the plan of salvation is for us to “evolve from a sinful state to a sinless state and therefore overcome death via the processes of natural selection?” I do not see any room there for God!
Revelation 21 states…
They will be His people, and God Himself will be with them as their God. 4‘ He will wipe away every tear from their eyes,’ and there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the former things have passed away.” 5And the One seated on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.”
Are you saying you do not believe Revelation is to be taken in a way that describes the end of time…the second coming of Christ, and Eternal life?
How do you explain away Revelation 21 exactly?
For example, consider the following links to Rev 21…(i could post at least a dozen more references like the ones below)
Isaiah 25:8
Matthew 24:35
Psalm 144:4
Isaiah 60:20
Isaiah 60:20
Jeremiah 31:12
Isaiah 60:20
My answer here is not a “TE” answer, but just an ordinary answer as would be given by many a believer who has read and reflected on his Bible. I think sin is a human problem. Non-human animals cannot sin. Our theology of sin does not extend to them, but only to humans (and not even all of them, if one allows for an “age of accountability” as alluded to in scripture).
I don’t intend to get into everything you raise because much of it seems quite beside the main points to me. But …
What do you know about my “denominational theology”? Do you even know what denominational tradition I’m a part of? And no - there is no such thing as a “Theistic Evolutionist” denomination. That’s just a moniker for the many thinking Christians over many denominations who have no problem understanding that God can make use of evolutionary processes if God chooses to do so.
1 Like
No, nobody is claiming that. Defining what that is neither humans’, nor spiritual beings’ actions is morally wrong is rather difficult, as you stated. Thus, death on the part of non-humans is not necessarily evil. It may be, but it would seem as if that would make eating or sacrificing animals evil.
the denomination statement you made later in the above quote, has no bearing at all on your retort “how do you know what i believe”.
It seems to me that theistic evolutionists go to great lengths to illustrate their views (which are beliefs btw) in exactly the same way other world views do.
If i was to say to you in answer to well known theological positions…“how do you know what i believe”, what credibility do i present exactly? Is that even a credible statement? I think its a circular self defeating statement in that both of us are simply throwing the claim “you are an agnostic” as our supporting evidence ignorant of the fact that the very theology we follow openly publishes its views on the internet…add to this, how many statements of faith (to liberally use the term) are made by followers on these forums that very clearly outline the finer points of said statement of faith? Are you denying these individuals make such statements?
I have quite consistently used bible texts in support of my theology…i have not in any way attempted to “explain away” sself evident theology from those texts. I have literally taken the bible at face value first and foremost in everything i have said.
I have not once said, I believe, then attempted to twist the bible into following my belief. In Genesis 1:1 it says In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.
In Exodus 20 1 "And God spake all these words, saying, 2 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
In Matthew Chapter 1 we have 1 “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.”
In Revelation 14:6 “…Fear God, and give him glory; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made the heaven and the earth and sea and fountains of waters.”
I take all of the verses seriously and literally. I do not see any reconciliation of ones theology in a manner that is entitled to salvation through the acceptance of the Gospel that does not also take them literally. Gods plan of salvation is not a fable…it has very real consequences! Man physcially sinned (by eating forbidden fruit), he was physically punished (gradual decline in statue and lifespan), the world experienced physical suffering because of mans disobedience (such as weeds and tares in gardens etc)…our messiah suffered a physical death at the hands of men in order to save men from the wages of sin (which is also death)…and yet theistic evolution still makes the claim that the wages of sin is not a literal death…its a spiritual one. The problem there is you only consider half the story…there has always been a spiritual and a literal existence…there is no claim to the contrary made by Christian theology as we are all baptised with water (repentance) AND of the Spirit (conversion)! I believe we require both as the consequences are very literal/physical (ie eternal life or eternal death…these are literally concerned with the very existence of your person…you suffer eternal death, you cease to exist. There is no coming back from that!)
This is not mormonism…we do not, through our works elevate ourselves to a higher being eventually becoming the God of our own world…there is no room in Christianity for works of this nature. The sinful form…in fact all forms other than the creator, are incapable of elevation of self to immortality. We cannot evolve into sinless beings, we cannot evolve into eternal life! That is not the Christian model we follow…it is not biblical.
So, if i were to follow your tradition…my arguments would center around procreation of humanity and of the animal kingdom…not attempting to explain away bible texts in terms of literal or spiritual. I dont think its a particularly strong argument to make, however, that is where i would start. Trying to theologically dismantle bible theology with thousands of years of history and apologetics behind it will never survive the stink test!
AFAIK, no TE would think this. Where did you get this idea?
2 Likes
I don’t think you have any idea what my particular tradition is. Which is why your statements here are so presumptuous. You haven’t even been able to accurately describe things that TEs (of any tradition) are likely to believe, much less know what sorts of things I claim from within my own particular tradition.
You’ll have to get beyond the misleading talking points fed to you from some anti-evolution website if you hope to be able to understand (much less hope to refute) what some typical believers around here think.
3 Likes
Actually one of the foundation premises i use when discussing your theology comes from your own website…
Statement of faith number 3…
3. We believe that all people have sinned against God and are in need of salvation.
There is an error in this doctrine because, contrary to bible teaching, you claim that death did not come into this world because of sin. That is completely at odds with the entire bible story.
I build on that by then saying, because you deny death is a direct consequence of sin, you have no option but to deny the need for salvation.
You cannot lay claim to the theology that we are only trying to obtain redemption from a separation from God…WHY? If we are already going to die as a result of natural selection, then those who are not fit enough to continue on have no right to redemption…they are substandard and below the pass mark…they fail…permanently. Only those who can evolve into a higher being have any chance at eternal life through the process of natural selection.
Your entire theology is fundamentally circular…you are ignoring the very logic that you are using in an attempt to make science the pre eminant source that correctly explains our existence.
Let me break it down more simply…
.
I say
- In the Beginning God
- created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them
- He “formed man” out of the dust of the ground
- He bent down, touching his most precious creation, and physically places his mouth on the nose of this most precious creation and breathed the breath of lie into his nostrils
you say
- in the beginning God
- created the heavens and the earth and the science of evolution and natural selection (then he stood back and folded his arms very pleased with himself saying “it is good”
- Now the creation itself…without any further input from God, used natural selection - death to coming to anything that did not achieve the pass mark and only those things that passed and were able to survive the odds, to evolve into animals and finally, a man. However, strangely enough…the originally creation seems to be degenerating the environment at present, so rapidly it is doubtful that man and many of the plants and creates that also evolved with him, will survive another 100 years!
my questions to you…
where is step 4 in your story and would you not agree that step 4 is vitally important…probably the most important fundamental in the entire creation story? (if step 4 is not vital, for what reason did God create?)
If you were writing a novel to sell to the world (and we could for a moment ignore the God vs No God issue), which one is going to sell more copies and why…my version or yours?
What i have is a deeply personal creator who is so keenly interested in me that he comes down close to his creation…close enough to breath into my nostrils, close enough to whisper in my ear, close enough to “place me in the cleft of a rock as he passes by so that i do not die from looking at the glory shining from his face” close enough to live among us, close enough to jump in front and take a bullet for me…that is my creator story. The reason why my novel will always outsell yours is pretty obvious now i think…yours has no passion…there is almost nothing personal about where your story starts. So here is what you then do…
you quickly realise that your story is “void and without and form”,
you grab the rest of the passion out of my story and mould it into your own.
Your own story now has a new problem…people start to complain it is inconsistent with its own beginnings…the philosphical statements found within your story conflict (the reason they conflict is because the fundamentals of a world view always start with a founding principle and then build upon it. Unfortunately, your founding principle is not in agreement with the entire plan of salvation of the bible simply because it denies the very reason for the predicament in which humanity finds itself…“the wages of sin (disobedience) is death”. You dont need a new saviour, what you need is a different beginning (there is your salvation).
sorry to be so robust…however, this is obviously a very rmatter of fact discussion…i accept its not easy to compare very different world views without very specifically pointing out the issues. I really feel for theistic evolution as it gets hammered from both sides (creationists and secularists).
In offering a humble explanation, the reason i visit these forums is self serving…yes of course that is partly true. However, it is not actually because i wish to convert people to another theology. I accept that I (as an Adventist) cannot see past my own nose when it comes to unique doctrines of my own denomination…so i accept that as a given amongst others here. However, I am a former teacher (long time ago), I like to immerse myself in the world of others to try to understand them better. This helps me understand myself better. I cannot better understand my reality if i dont challenge your arguments and you mine…that is the purpose of my being here.
offtopic now, I wish to defuse the frustration in this conversation a little…I am convinced there will be agnostics in heaven. I believe that God is going to absolutely roar with laughter at the look of shock on the faces of those people when they find themselves standing before him saved. His answer to their unspoken question will be:
Matthew 25: 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or athirst, and gave thee drink? 38 And when saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 And when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me.
We are not saved by our works…of course not. We are saved by listening to that still small voice inside us…the Holy Spirit (the new convenant is that God writes his laws on our hearts and in our minds) and Jesus said Love your neighbour and do good to those who persecute you.
Well this shows quite clearly you do not understand evolution. Which is no surprise. I have yet to see a YEC describe evolution correctly. Hint, it isn’t what is described on the YEC/SDA websites you appear to frequent.
But you appear to be saying the agnostics ARE saved by the works they do.
2 Likes
not exactly…we are not saved by our works…i clearly said that, however, we are judged by the fruits of our Christianity. That is what i mean by the use of the phrase “listening to the still small voice” ie the Holy Spirit.
Remember i stated that in the new covenant, He (God) writes His laws on our hearts and in our minds…this is the work of the Holy Spirit…it is not an evolutionary process!
Lets throw this open in one massive entry…sorry but its a biggy of a post…however, you guys can go to town defending your theology against some of the most significant issues against it. Some of the principles below i have already alluded to (although i did not know of this source at the time…my comments were simply based on what i have read on this forum and in its statement of faith however its rather ironic that i have discovered without external research exactly the same problems outlined by the author who wrote what follows here). I am not a smart person…i have only a moderate level of education and mostly rely on partial snipperts of memory verses and illustrations from reading childhood books many years ago and hours of study the Bible itself (not christian writings) during COVID pandemic over the last two years. I am not a saint…far from it, im a lousy christian who has almost no chance at salvation. My relationship with God is so poor Ted Bundy will get to heaven before i do…in any case, if these simple things listed below have been experienced by myself in my conversations with TE’s, then clearly they are very obvious problems…
Here goes:
Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods.
In the theistic evolutionary view, God is added:
Theistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God.
In this system God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things, whose Word has to be taken seriously by all men, but He is integrated into the evolutionary philosophy. This leads to 10 dangers for Christians.1
Danger no. 1: Misrepresentation of the Nature of God
The Bible reveals God to us as our Father in Heaven, who is absolutely perfect (Matthew 5:48), holy (Isaiah 6:3), and omnipotent (Jeremiah 32:17). The Apostle John tells us that ‘God is love’, ‘light’, and ‘life’ (1 John 4:16; 1:5; 1:1-2). When this God creates something, His work is described as ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31) and ‘perfect’ (Deuteronomy 32:4).
Theistic evolution gives a false representation of the nature of God because death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as principles of creation. (Progressive creationism, likewise, allows for millions of years of death and horror before sin.)
Danger no. 2: God becomes a God of the Gaps
The Bible states that God is the Prime Cause of all things. ‘But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things . . . and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him’ (1 Corinthians 8:6).
However, in theistic evolution the only workspace allotted to God is that part of nature which evolution cannot ‘explain’ with the means presently at its disposal. In this way He is reduced to being a ‘god of the gaps’ for those phenomena about which there are doubts. This leads to the view that ‘God is therefore not absolute, but He Himself has evolved—He is evolution’.2
Danger no. 3: Denial of Central Biblical Teachings
The entire Bible bears witness that we are dealing with a source of truth authored by God (2 Timothy 3:16), with the Old Testament as the indispensable ‘ramp’ leading to the New Testament, like an access road leads to a motor freeway (John 5:39). The biblical creation account should not be regarded as a myth, a parable, or an allegory, but as a historical report, because:
- Biological, astronomical and anthropological facts are given in didactic [teaching] form.
- In the Ten Commandments God bases the six working days and one day of rest on the same time-span as that described in the creation account (Exodus 20:8-11).
- In the New Testament Jesus referred to facts of the creation (e.g. Matthew 19:4-5).
- Nowhere in the Bible are there any indications that the creation account should be understood in any other way than as a factual report.
The doctrine of theistic evolution undermines this basic way of reading the Bible, as vouched for by Jesus, the prophets and the Apostles. Events reported in the Bible are reduced to mythical imagery, and an understanding of the message of the Bible as being true in word and meaning is lost.
Danger no. 4: Loss of the Way for Finding God
The Bible describes man as being completely ensnared by sin after Adam’s fall (Romans 7:18-19). Only those persons who realize that they are sinful and lost will seek the Saviour who ‘came to save that which was lost’ (Luke 19:10).
However, evolution knows no sin in the biblical sense of missing one’s purpose (in relation to God). Sin is made meaningless, and that is exactly the opposite of what the Holy Spirit does—He declares sin to be sinful. If sin is seen as a harmless evolutionary factor, then one has lost the key for finding God, which is not resolved by adding ‘God’ to the evolutionary scenario.
Danger no. 5: The Doctrine of God’s Incarnation is Undermined
The incarnation of God through His Son Jesus Christ is one of the basic teachings of the Bible. The Bible states that ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us’ (John 1:14), ‘Christ Jesus … was made in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:5-7).3
Danger no. 6: The Biblical Basis of Jesus’ Work of Redemption Is Mythologized
The Bible teaches that the first man’s fall into sin was a real event and that this was the direct cause of sin in the world. ‘Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned’ (Romans 5:12).
Theistic evolution does not acknowledge Adam as the first man, nor that he was created directly from ‘the dust of the ground’ by God (Genesis 2:7). Most theistic evolutionists regard the creation account as being merely a mythical tale, albeit with some spiritual significance. However, the sinner Adam and the Saviour Jesus are linked together in the Bible—Romans 5:16-18. Thus any theological view which mythologizes Adam undermines the biblical basis of Jesus’ work of redemption.
Danger no. 7: Loss of Biblical Chronology
The Bible provides us with a time-scale for history and this underlies a proper understanding of the Bible. This time-scale includes:
- The time-scale cannot be extended indefinitely into the past, nor into the future. There is a well-defined beginning in Genesis 1:1, as well as a moment when physical time will end (Matthew 24:14).
- The total duration of creation was six days (Exodus 20:11).
- The age of the universe may be estimated in terms of the genealogies recorded in the Bible (but note that it cannot be calculated exactly). It is of the order of several thousand years, not billions.
- Galatians 4:4 points out the most outstanding event in the world’s history: ‘But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son.’ This happened nearly 2,000 years ago.
- The return of Christ in power and glory is the greatest expected future event.
Supporters of theistic evolution (and progressive creation) disregard the biblically given measures of time in favour of evolutionist time-scales involving billions of years both past and future (for which there are no convincing physical grounds). This can lead to two errors:
- Not all statements of the Bible are to be taken seriously .
- Vigilance concerning the second coming of Jesus may be lost.
Danger no. 8: Loss of Creation Concepts
Certain essential creation concepts are taught in the Bible. These include:
- God created matter without using any available material.
- God created the earth first, and on the fourth day He added the moon, the solar system, our local galaxy, and all other star systems. This sequence conflicts with all ideas of ‘cosmic evolution’, such as the ‘big bang’ cosmology.
Theistic evolution ignores all such biblical creation principles and replaces them with evolutionary notions, thereby contradicting and opposing God’s omnipotent acts of creation.
Danger no. 9: Misrepresentation of Reality
The Bible carries the seal of truth, and all its pronouncements are authoritative—whether they deal with questions of faith and salvation, daily living, or matters of scientific importance.
Evolutionists brush all this aside, e.g. Richard Dawkins says, ‘Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myth, and the Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants’.4
If evolution is false, then numerous sciences have embraced false testimony. Whenever these sciences conform to evolutionary views, they misrepresent reality. How much more then a theology which departs from what the Bible says and embraces evolution!
Danger no. 10: Missing the Purpose
In no other historical book do we find so many and such valuable statements of purpose for man, as in the Bible. For example:
- Man is God’s purpose in creation (Genesis 1:27-28).
- Man is the purpose of God’s plan of redemption (Isaiah 53:5).
- Man is the purpose of the mission of God’s Son (1 John 4:9).
- We are the purpose of God’s inheritance (Titus 3:7).
- Heaven is our destination (1 Peter 1:4).
However, the very thought of purposefulness is anathema to evolutionists. ‘Evolutionary adaptations never follow a purposeful program, they thus cannot be regarded as teleonomical.’5 Thus a belief system such as theistic evolution that marries purposefulness with non-purposefulness is a contradiction in terms.
Conclusion
The doctrines of creation and evolution are so strongly divergent that reconciliation is totally impossible. Theistic evolutionists attempt to integrate the two doctrines, however such syncretism reduces the message of the Bible to insignificance. The conclusion is inevitable: There is no support for theistic evolution in the Bible.
What Does Theistic Evolution Involve?
The following evolutionary assumptions are generally applicable to theistic evolution:
- The basic principle, evolution, is taken for granted.
- It is believed that evolution is a universal principle.
- As far as scientific laws are concerned, there is no difference between the origin of the earth and all life and their subsequent development (the principle of uniformity).
- Evolution relies on processes that allow increases in organization from the simple to the complex, from non-life to life, and from lower to higher forms of life.
- The driving forces of evolution are mutation, selection, isolation, and mixing. Chance and necessity, long time epochs, ecological changes, and death are additional indispensable factors.
- The time line is so prolonged that anyone can have as much time as he/she likes for the process of evolution.
- The present is the key to the past.
- There was a smooth transition from non-life to life.
- Evolution will persist into the distant future.
In addition to these evolutionary assumptions, three additional beliefs apply to theistic evolution:
- God used evolution as a means of creating.
- The Bible contains no usable or relevant ideas which can be applied in present-day origins science.
- Evolutionistic pronouncements have priority over biblical statements. The Bible must be reinterpreted when and wherever it contradicts the present evolutionary worldview.
- This section is adapted from Werner Gitt’s, Did God Use Evolution? , pp. 13-16, 24.
Actually, evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population.
First of all, Adam - Merry Christmas! And blessings on you and yours.
Second of all, THANK YOU - for much of the last half of a post a couple of posts up there. When you wrote …
That is good to hear. I’m starting to gather that you are a person who “thinks outloud” (I do too) and this explains much of the way you write. I should have recognized that sooner. Perhaps hanging out here is exactly where you need to be. Maybe. I won’t presume on your behalf.
And you shared a bit about your own personal tradition. In return, I’ll at least tell you mine - I am an Anabaptist (Mennonite), which is a tradition with a history of being suspicious of codified creed. Some might even call us “acreedal”, though I would say that we still end up with truckloads of “defacto creeds” (and so our critics would tell us, you might as well have written all that down!). But I’m not going to get into that - this isn’t about me or my own tradition, but more about TEs and what you think of Biologos. And so it is good to see you appealing to Biologos’ own statements about themselves.
Earlier in the same post you have this reaction to one of Biologos’ stated beliefs:
And yet here we are, Adam! Living and breathing proof that you aren’t understanding us. Because I need salvation. And I also accept that sin leads to death. So your statement above is simply false. It fails to match any reality. I don’t accept that physical death is the only kind of death there is. The gospels and epistles speak of life and death of a sort that is not limited to what we mean by physical death. And I think even those penning the creation passages of the Old Testament are also speaking of spiritual forms of these things (that include, but are not limited to physical manifestations of it).
In your “four steps” where you differentiate between what you say and what you say that I say, you badly caricature the beliefs of Christians here. I recommend that instead of trying to learn what thinking Christians here believe by listening to their opponents, you should instead listen to the proponents themselves as they describe their own beliefs. That’s a good general principle for all of us as we try to learn more about “the other”.
You think that I (or TEs generally) have omitted your point #4:
But I do not neglect or think it unimportant at all! In fact, I think it so serious that I take it quite a bit farther than you do! I don’t limit this act of creation just to Adam; but I follow the psalmist in thinking that we are all created by God and we are all given the breath of life just as Adam was. In fact if we are different than Adam, then that inserts a serious disconnect in the whole narrative. We are all “of Adam”. Your narrative, on the other hand, distances God from all of what you should also be considering to also just as fully be God’s creation in every bit the way Adam was. It is your narrative (I would suggest), that would deny God’s involvement in creation since, after all, Somebody with literal hands and nostrils didn’t come down and give me mouth-to-mouth “resuscitation” as you apparently seem to think must have happened in order for God to be meaningfully involved. In order for me to accept your version of this, I would be forced to throw out not just what created reality shows us, but what scriptures teach as well!
Now - I’ll admit that I probably did the same presumptuous thing to you there that I’ve been accusing you of doing to others. I put words into your mouth that you may well refuse to own. And that’s fine. In the same spirit as your unfolding dialogue, I’m also thinking aloud here too, and suggesting to you where it looks (to me) like your thought process must ‘inevitably lead’. Feel free to show me if or why it doesn’t go there.
And despite my differences with you, I’ll repeat my opening lines - I wish you and yours warmth and health this joyous season.
And I really enjoyed your acknowledgment that we don’t have it “all nailed down” what God thinks about everything, much less “who all is in heaven”. The Spirit blows where it will, we are told, and none of us is in a position to know all about the paths those winds will choose to follow, much less presuming to be any governor of those winds.
-Merv
2 Likes
God used nuclear fusion to provide the light of the sun that He created. Why is this different?
The Bible contains no usable ideas that can be applied to weather forecasting. Do you reject the weather forecast?
The Bible must be reinterpreted whenever it contradicts what is revealed in God’s creation. Do you still accept the earth is a flat surface supported by pillars with Hell underground and circled by the Sun? Don’t think so.
1 Like
I think you should answer questions asked of you after all your accusations. What is your objection to answering questions?
Hi Merv,
I actually spent an hour writing a huge response to your post, however, in researching my response I got off on a tangent that fascinates me and strangely enough is so relevant to my point I had to go down this pathway instead…
On 3 May 2018, Steven Novella analysed the modern belief in a flat Earth, and concluded that, despite what most people think about the subject, the believers are being sincere in their belief that the Earth is flat, and are not “just saying that to wind us up”. He stated that:
In the end that is the core malfunction of the flat-earthers, and the modern populist rejection of expertise in general. It is a horrifically simplistic view of the world that ignores (partly out of ignorance, and partly out of motivated reasoning) to [ sic ] real complexities of our civilisation. It is ultimately lazy, childish, and self-indulgent, resulting in a profound level of ignorance drowning in motivated reasoning. Modern flat Earth beliefs - Wikipedia
Here is the thing, unlike flat earthers, I do not deny or ignore the obvious realities i find in the world all around.
Having said that, I do not accept that science can explain those realities in a philosophical way better than the source of my belief does…the Bible. Let me just explain that:
- I believe the Bible is the ultimate source of all authority when it comes to answering most fundamental questions about my existence.
- All interpretations of my existence that do not come from the Bible must remain FULLY consistent with self-evident Bible themes and statements and the historical record it presents to us.
- Where external study is inconsistent with self evident Bible themes and statements, my interpretation of the external material is wrong…not my reading of the self-evident and fundamental parts of the bible text.
An example of a fundamental self-evident bible text is the creation story in Genesis. Anyone with any English writing expertise will clearly demand this account is literal in the way its written…if we take out the opposing world views part of the debate…it is impossible to read it any other way. It is also repeatedly referenced throughout the rest of the Bible in terms that subsequent writers clearly believed it was a literal event in history.
I think that TE’s should study the Is Genesis History channel on youtube and see if its possible to reconcile your theology from the academic studies of researchers on that channel.
I am not seeing the link between your above comments and the literal creation story? Do you have a link here?
Do you honestly believe that where the bible contradicts science the bible is wrong…we are talking about self evident texts here…not interpretations (your claim Genesis ch 1-3 are interpretations is not a solid argument upon which to take such a position. there are bucket loads of other passages in the bible that maintain the narrative of Genesis chapters 1-3 … the 4th commandment in Exodus 20 being just one of said examples…are you now going to deny exodus 20 is literal as well? How far do you take this?
I would argue that is not possible to support the view about a non literal creation even from a literary perspective…any lowly languages teacher will tear that argument to pieces…let alone well-versed scholars.
I think you should re read my posts…i have used numerous bible passages, logical consistency and references to TE statements of faith in explaining all of my points here. Which of any of that which has been refuted using bible texts needs further answering? My assumption is that any person would read those posts, and then go searching to see if they do in fact present a theology that is consistent with Bible themes, statements and self evident truths (which they absolutely do). What i think you are interested in reading are “nonbiblical” answers to unbliblical faith statements. I am the wrong person to offer that…I am a Creationist Historicist Seventh Day Sabbath believing Christian. How do you visualise a person such as myself dropping the bible as my primary source of authority to answer what i consider secular scientific claims against bible truths?
I will again post my view of God and Creation and you will notice that the conclusion that is my world view logically builds upon each premise (as it should). Each of the points below can be tested/verified in the same way a mouse trap works.
-God is eternally past and future…he is all-knowing. There is no knowledge to be gained outside of God. He does not need to learn…he created all things…including science. Apparently, the studies of this science now believe that because we are learning, God must be learning. I reject that as heresy. God does not make mistakes!
-God created man in his own image. When I create, it involves a physical action…and since i am made in God’s image I see no inconsistent witness for this view in my own reality!
-Man is commanded to be obedient to God (“do not eat of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil” Gen 2:17). The law and notion of obedience were not first instituted at mt Sinai…it has always existed as shown in Genesis Chapter 2…indeed the wages of breaking that law are also outlined in the aftermath of the death of Abel…Cain crying out to God “the punishment is too great for me to bear, anyone who sees me will kill me for what I have done”
-Man sinned. He did not remain obedient and faithful to God and therefore is condemned to death and the whole earth with him begins to die as a consequence of sin. The consequences of sin are all around us…this is an observable truth. It is not a good argument to make the claim God didnt kill Adam and Eve on the spot…i have already explained this point at length (however if you require an explanation google “the meaning of Gods plan of salvation”)
-Prior to sin entering this world, there was no death. Because the wages of sin is death, our only means of redemption lay in Jesus (Almighty God) dying for our sins so that Satans charge, that we are not worthy of grace and that God has no personal interest in his creation, be proven wrong and only then can we be restored back to our former perfection in the Garden of Eden in harmony with our creator and only then will there be no more tears, no more pain, no more death Revelation 21:4).
I was responding to what you wrote. You don’t recognize your own writing? Perhaps you just copied the text but didn’t actual read it. It is your post 152 above.
The conversation must go both ways or it is just you lecturing us which won’t get you very far.
1 Like
Bill i think we should refresh our memories…I came to the conclusion that the simplest way to tackle this dilema is to post the biggest and most well known claims against theistic evolution and let your camp tackle them head on in full view of the criticism. This website is yours…you are defending your faith and I am simply presenting massive problems with your view that must have credible answers. A credible answer is one of logical consistency and it must not conflict with its own premises!
Now here’s the thing, if you are a Christian, then your first premise must be God and the infallable word of God as written. You cannot change the meaning or the context of any passage of scripture or self evident and established biblical themes to make truth claims! As far as i can see in this game of chess, because you are making the claim you are a christian you are snookered. A christian cannot make the claim that if science disagrees with christian belief, then the belief is wrong and must be modified. Almost all Christian beliefs where we differ here are not interpretations!
To remind you what the issues against your faith statement are I summarise them below…point 9 is a tough one for you to overcome…i see no possible way for you to resolve that one im afraid (you have already shot that in the foot with your last post)…but the others you should attempt to answer.
(please note…these are not my claims…the reference for them is in a previous post i made should you wish to look it up directly.)
-
Theistic evolution gives a false representation of the nature of God because death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as principles of creation. (Progressive creationism, likewise, allows for millions of years of death and horror before sin.)
-
in theistic evolution the only workspace allotted to God is that part of nature which evolution cannot ‘explain’ with the means presently at its disposal. In this way He is reduced to being a ‘god of the gaps’ for those phenomena about which there are doubts. This leads to the view that ‘God is therefore not absolute, but He Himself has evolved—He is evolution’
-
The entire Bible bears witness that we are dealing with a source of truth authored by God (2 Timothy 3:16), with the Old Testament as the indispensable ‘ramp’ leading to the New Testament. Events reported in the Bible are reduced to mythical imagery, and an understanding of the message of the Bible as being true in word and meaning is lost.
-
However, evolution knows no sin in the biblical sense of missing one’s purpose (in relation to God). Sin is made meaningless, and that is exactly the opposite of what the Holy Spirit does—He declares sin to be sinful. If sin is seen as a harmless evolutionary factor, then one has lost the key for finding God
-
The incarnation of God through His Son Jesus Christ is one of the basic teachings of the Bible. The Bible states that ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us’ (John 1:14), ‘Christ Jesus … was made in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:5-7).3 The point here is, Jesus is God, he did not evolve…he was conceived in the virgin Mary through the incarnation. Evolution cannot account for this miracle!
-
Most theistic evolutionists regard the creation account as being merely a mythical tale, albeit with some spiritual significance. However, the sinner Adam and the Saviour Jesus are linked together in the Bible—Romans 5:16-18. Thus any theological view which mythologizes Adam undermines the biblical basis of Jesus’ work of redemption.
-
Supporters of theistic evolution (and progressive creation) disregard the biblically given measures of time in favour of evolutionist time-scales involving billions of years both past and future (for which there are no convincing physical grounds). This can lead to two errors:
-
Not all statements of the Bible are to be taken seriously .
-
Vigilance concerning the second coming of Jesus may be lost.
-
Theistic evolution ignores all such biblical creation principles and replaces them with evolutionary notions, thereby contradicting and opposing God’s omnipotent acts of creation.
-
If evolution is false, then numerous sciences have embraced false testimony. Whenever these sciences conform to evolutionary views, they misrepresent reality. How much more then a theology which departs from what the Bible says and embraces evolution!
-
However, the very thought of purposefulness is anathema to evolutionists. ‘Evolutionary adaptations never follow a purposeful program, they thus cannot be regarded as teleonomical.’5 Thus a belief system such as theistic evolution that marries purposefulness with non-purposefulness is a contradiction in terms.