AFAIK, no TE would think this. Where did you get this idea?
2 Likes
I donāt think you have any idea what my particular tradition is. Which is why your statements here are so presumptuous. You havenāt 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.
Youāll 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 websiteā¦
Statement of faith number 3ā¦
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 Godā¦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 redemptionā¦they are substandard and below the pass markā¦they failā¦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 circularā¦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 simplyā¦
.
I say
- In the Beginning God
- created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them
- He āformed manā 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 āit is goodā
- Now the creation itselfā¦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 enoughā¦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 youā¦
where is step 4 in your story and would you not agree that step 4 is vitally importantā¦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 whyā¦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 creationā¦close enough to breath into my nostrils, close enough to whisper in my ear, close enough to āplace 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 faceā close enough to live among us, close enough to jump in front and take a bullet for meā¦that is my creator story. The reason why my novel will always outsell yours is pretty obvious now i thinkā¦yours has no passionā¦there is almost nothing personal about where your story starts. So here is what you then doā¦
you quickly realise that your story is āvoid and without and formā,
you grab the rest of the passion out of my story and mould it into your own.
Your own story now has a new problemā¦people start to complain it is inconsistent with its own beginningsā¦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 itselfā¦āthe wages of sin (disobedience) is deathā. You dont need a new saviour, what you need is a different beginning (there is your salvation).
sorry to be so robustā¦however, this is obviously a very rmatter of fact discussionā¦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 servingā¦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 denominationā¦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 mineā¦that is the purpose of my being here.
offtopic now, I wish to defuse the frustration in this conversation a littleā¦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 worksā¦of course not. We are saved by listening to that still small voice inside usā¦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 isnāt 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 exactlyā¦we are not saved by our worksā¦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 ālistening to the still small voiceā ie the Holy Spirit.
Remember i stated that in the new covenant, He (God) writes His laws on our hearts and in our mindsā¦this is the work of the Holy Spiritā¦it is not an evolutionary process!
Lets throw this open in one massive entryā¦sorry but its a biggy of a postā¦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 timeā¦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 personā¦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 saintā¦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 doā¦in any case, if these simple things listed below have been experienced by myself in my conversations with TEās, then clearly they are very obvious problemsā¦
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 āGod is loveā, ālightā, and ālifeā (1 John 4:16; 1:5; 1:1-2). When this God creates something, His work is described as āvery goodā (Genesis 1:31) and āperfectā (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. āBut 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 Himā (1 Corinthians 8:6).
However, in theistic evolution the only workspace allotted to God is that part of nature which evolution cannot āexplainā with the means presently at its disposal. In this way He is reduced to being a āgod of the gapsā for those phenomena about which there are doubts. This leads to the view that āGod is therefore not absolute, but He Himself has evolvedāHe is evolutionā.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 ārampā 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 Adamās fall (Romans 7:18-19). Only those persons who realize that they are sinful and lost will seek the Saviour who ācame to save that which was lostā (Luke 19:10).
However, evolution knows no sin in the biblical sense of missing oneās purpose (in relation to God). Sin is made meaningless, and that is exactly the opposite of what the Holy Spirit doesāHe 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 āGodā to the evolutionary scenario.
Danger no. 5: The Doctrine of Godās 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 āThe Word was made flesh and dwelt among usā (John 1:14), āChrist Jesus ā¦ was made in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:5-7).3
Danger no. 6: The Biblical Basis of Jesusā Work of Redemption Is Mythologized
The Bible teaches that the first manās fall into sin was a real event and that this was the direct cause of sin in the world. āWherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinnedā (Romans 5:12).
Theistic evolution does not acknowledge Adam as the first man, nor that he was created directly from āthe dust of the groundā 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 BibleāRomans 5:16-18. Thus any theological view which mythologizes Adam undermines the biblical basis of Jesusā 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 worldās history: āBut when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son.ā 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 ācosmic evolutionā, such as the ābig bangā cosmology.
Theistic evolution ignores all such biblical creation principles and replaces them with evolutionary notions, thereby contradicting and opposing Godās omnipotent acts of creation.
Danger no. 9: Misrepresentation of Reality
The Bible carries the seal of truth, and all its pronouncements are authoritativeāwhether 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, āNearly 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 antsā.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 Godās purpose in creation (Genesis 1:27-28).
- Man is the purpose of Godās plan of redemption (Isaiah 53:5).
- Man is the purpose of the mission of Godās Son (1 John 4:9).
- We are the purpose of Godās inheritance (Titus 3:7).
- Heaven is our destination (1 Peter 1:4).
However, the very thought of purposefulness is anathema to evolutionists. āEvolutionary adaptations never follow a purposeful program, they thus cannot be regarded as teleonomical.ā5 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 Gittās, 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 ā¦
That is good to hear. Iām starting to gather that you are a person who āthinks outloudā (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 wonāt presume on your behalf.
And you shared a bit about your own personal tradition. In return, Iāll 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 āacreedalā, though I would say that we still end up with truckloads of ādefacto creedsā (and so our critics would tell us, you might as well have written all that down!). But Iām not going to get into that - this isnāt 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 Biologosā own statements about themselves.
Earlier in the same post you have this reaction to one of Biologosā stated beliefs:
And yet here we are, Adam! Living and breathing proof that you arenāt 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 donāt 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 āfour stepsā 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. Thatās a good general principle for all of us as we try to learn more about āthe otherā.
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 donāt 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 āof Adamā. Your narrative, on the other hand, distances God from all of what you should also be considering to also just as fully be Godās creation in every bit the way Adam was. It is your narrative (I would suggest), that would deny Godās involvement in creation since, after all, Somebody with literal hands and nostrils didnāt come down and give me mouth-to-mouth āresuscitationā 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 - Iāll admit that I probably did the same presumptuous thing to you there that Iāve been accusing you of doing to others. I put words into your mouth that you may well refuse to own. And thatās fine. In the same spirit as your unfolding dialogue, Iām also thinking aloud here too, and suggesting to you where it looks (to me) like your thought process must āinevitably leadā. Feel free to show me if or why it doesnāt go there.
And despite my differences with you, Iāll repeat my opening lines - I wish you and yours warmth and health this joyous season.
And I really enjoyed your acknowledgment that we donāt have it āall nailed downā what God thinks about everything, much less āwho all is in heavenā. 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 Godās creation. Do you still accept the earth is a flat surface supported by pillars with Hell underground and circled by the Sun? Donāt 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 insteadā¦
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 ājust saying that to wind us upā. 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 doesā¦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 wrongā¦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 writtenā¦if we take out the opposing world views part of the debateā¦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 TEās 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 wrongā¦we are talking about self evident texts hereā¦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 ā¦ the 4th commandment in Exodus 20 being just one of said examplesā¦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 perspectiveā¦any lowly languages teacher will tear that argument to piecesā¦let alone well-versed scholars.
I think you should re read my postsā¦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 ānonbiblicalā answers to unbliblical faith statements. I am the wrong person to offer thatā¦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 futureā¦he is all-knowing. There is no knowledge to be gained outside of God. He does not need to learnā¦he created all thingsā¦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 actionā¦and since i am made in Godās image I see no inconsistent witness for this view in my own reality!
-Man is commanded to be obedient to God (ādo not eat of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evilā Gen 2:17). The law and notion of obedience were not first instituted at mt Sinaiā¦it has always existed as shown in Genesis Chapter 2ā¦indeed the wages of breaking that law are also outlined in the aftermath of the death of Abelā¦Cain crying out to God āthe punishment is too great for me to bear, anyone who sees me will kill me for what I have doneā
-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 usā¦this is an observable truth. It is not a good argument to make the claim God didnt kill Adam and Eve on the spotā¦i have already explained this point at length (however if you require an explanation google āthe meaning of Gods plan of salvationā)
-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 donāt recognize your own writing? Perhaps you just copied the text but didnāt actual read it. It is your post 152 above.
The conversation must go both ways or it is just you lecturing us which wonāt get you very far.
1 Like
Bill i think we should refresh our memoriesā¦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 yoursā¦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 hereās 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 belowā¦point 9 is a tough one for you to overcomeā¦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)ā¦but the others you should attempt to answer.
(please noteā¦these are not my claimsā¦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 āexplainā with the means presently at its disposal. In this way He is reduced to being a āgod of the gapsā for those phenomena about which there are doubts. This leads to the view that āGod is therefore not absolute, but He Himself has evolvedāHe is evolutionā
-
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 ārampā 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 oneās purpose (in relation to God). Sin is made meaningless, and that is exactly the opposite of what the Holy Spirit doesāHe 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 āThe Word was made flesh and dwelt among usā (John 1:14), āChrist Jesus ā¦ was made in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:5-7).3 The point here is, Jesus is God, he did not evolveā¦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 BibleāRomans 5:16-18. Thus any theological view which mythologizes Adam undermines the biblical basis of Jesusā 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 Godās 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. āEvolutionary adaptations never follow a purposeful program, they thus cannot be regarded as teleonomical.ā5 Thus a belief system such as theistic evolution that marries purposefulness with non-purposefulness is a contradiction in terms.
does anyone here know what the evening and morning means? It seems to indicate a 24 hour day, but maybe there is another interpretation.
My memory says you never answer any questions that are put to you while you keep posting longer and longer posts that are TLDNR.
You canāt even get what evolution is correctly. So why should we accept any of your āmassive problemsā? While we keep presenting massive problems with your view that you simply ignore.
Really? Sorry but your beliefs are just your interpretations. Interpretations that arenāt even that old.
2 Likes
But I want to know if you believe that the earth is fixed and doesnāt move. I donāt need any song and dance. Or projectile Scriptures that donāt answer my questions.
3 Likes
of course I dont believe the earth is fixed and doesnāt moveā¦I am not a denier of images of a round earth or of the science. However, let me ask you this:
Can you show me from the bible where flat earthers cannot be saved? (because i can absolutely show you, and have already done on these forums, from the bible that an individual cannot be saved whilst believing in evolution because all Darwinian evolution followers deny a physical 6 day creation, the Seventh-Day Sabbath, the fall, that death did not exist prior to the fall of man, that man was created moral etc etc!)ā¦Evolution denies purposeful guidanceā¦its all unguided random natural selection. How do you reconcile that your own founder is opposed to the fundamental statement of the science he apparently bases his theology upon? He claims that whilst it apparently looks unguided, it is in fact guided by Godā¦just not obviously!
I also do not think it is logically consistent for a faith statement to make the claim that the all encompassing darwinian theory that includes the origin of our morality is false! How can you accept the first half of his theory and reject the second? And even worse, in order to obtain the morality that you claim is false in the darwinian model, you cut it out of the opposing Christian model and stitch the to together such that you now find neither side agree with you at the most critically fundamental level! I believe this to be an impossible dilemma to reconcile as neither theories published writings agrees with you! Some might argue, and I am obviously one, that what you have left is hugely problematic?
Look here is a simple solutionā¦go to the following youtube videoā¦either watch the entire thing or if you wish to look specifically at just claims against this faith group fast forward to the16 minute mark
youtube videoā¦God and Evolution: The Problem with Theistic Evolution - YouTube
Adam, itās telling that youāve submitted your complete list of objections to TE - a very honest thing to do. So all your cards are on the table. Very good.
The problem with impeccable logic (if indeed you have it) is that it is all for naught when the premises you feed into it are false.
Your #1 (title notwithstanding) is a partial truth at least. It is true that TEs do see physical death as woven into the very fabric of creation. Though even here you sneak in the unsupported premise that no created order that includes any form of death could be described as good. But even though youāre stumbling here already, letās just set this aside for a moment for the next one.
#2 (God of the gaps) is just false - and would not apply to nearly any believers around here. How can you expect that your logic would make any headway against something that you consistently fail to even understand at all? Which makes your point #3 suspect too ā¦ Iām getting the feeling you know less about scriptures than a lot of us do who actually read them ā¦ all of them, and not just a few favorite ones that are specially fed to you by those who are more about anti-evolutionism than they apparently are about the scriptures they pretend to wrap themselves in.
You continue to insist that youāve got the only correct understanding of scriptures that you think of as just āplain readingsā - which ends up meaning - āIt means what I say it means.ā That pretty much collapses any confidence that you really know what you are talking about with any of the rest of scripture that you bring up. You have yet to show much sign of actually listening to, much less understanding others who donāt think as you do.
3 Likes
No, at least many TE/EC people would assert that God guides all natural processes.
Yes, but there are plenty of places where it is obvious that there is significant symbolism, and to tell that we need some knowledge of science.
Again, not something most TEs and ECs believe.
A myth in the sense of an account designed to give many theological points, not to give historical details.
We can get into all sorts of arguments over that, check a few of the older threads like Debunking Evolution Taught in Public Schools video series for students or Resources to further investigate the claims made in this article?
More non-issues, as they are rejected by TEs and ECs That last one is conflating evolution as a scientific position (what TE/EC people agree with). With atheistic evolutionism, which they very much do not agree with.
2 Likes
Do you believe salvation depends on belief of those particular interpretations? If you do, you are in danger of denying Jesus in favor of following rules as I see it. Paul wrote in Romans 10:9 if you declare with your mouth, āJesus is Lord,ā and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
And that ignores the fact that you are misrepresenting the beliefs of EC to the extent that it is textbook straw man.
3 Likes
This is just another ID video from the Discovery Institute and the folks around here are very familiar with their arguments.
Here is one problem for their argument. The Bible tells us that God is in control of all natural processes. That is a given. The fact that we canāt detect Godās control is not a problem. The ID folks argue that you can for evolution while ignoring all the other fields like meterology.
5 Likes