Biological Mongenesis and theological constraints of various streams of Christianity

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@Al-Khalil

Is that how you interpret your response: “Yes, I would imagine so”?

I don’t have to interpret my response. I said it, I know exactly what it means. Filling in all the ellipsed information for you:

“Don’t you have other theological constraints than Roman Catholics?”

Yes, I imagine I do have other theological constraints than Roman Catholics.

Are we clear now?

@Al-Khalil

which “theological constraints” (as BioLogos moderator & linguist/anthropologist Christy words it) or lack thereof do evangelical Christians have on the topic of human origins?

What? And make a generalization and presume to speak for all Evangelicals? Surely you’d be all over my case for that. As I said before, different Evangelicals (and Catholics for that matter) have different theological constraints. Are you asking me about my personal beliefs?

@Al-Khalil

You make it sound like monogenesis is not an evangelical teaching,

It’s not a core teaching, though it is a belief many if not most Evangelical’s hold. The core Evangelical commitments are belief in the inspiration of the Bible as God’s Word written, belief that every true Christian has had a conversion experience, belief in sharing the good news of Jesus Christ with the whole world through missions and evangelism, and belief in Jesus’s atoning death on the cross is the only means of salvation.

@Al-Khalil

You suggested Kemp is compelled to believe in monogenesis strictly because he is a Catholic Christian.

Yes, because there is a papal encyclical that sets it out as Catholic belief. Evangelicals, as you may have noticed, have no pope, sometimes barely recognize the historic creeds, and have hugely variant beliefs. Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, baby.

@Al-Khalil

You write: “Not all Christians care about monogenesis, biological or spiritual. It is of particular concern to Catholics.” This is a misunderstanding. Spiritual monogenesis is a core teaching of ALL Abrahamic religions. If you are going to deny that with a kind of Jack Kerouac “not all Christians care” attitude, Christy, then respectfully, I’d like to ask you please not to comment on any more of my comments on this topic.

You have said your piece and that is “not everybody cares.” And for people who don’t care, they don’t have to post. For those who do care, let us reason together and sharpen each other this way. I do care about human origins and processes of change, along with almost every Christian, Muslim & Jew that I’ve met to one degree or another, so please don’t throw your shade on our common care about human origins with some kind of boredom patrol.

Again, please don’t attribute motivations or attitudes to me. That is a violation of our gracious dialogue guidelines.

@Al-Khalil

Fine, you don’t care about monogenesis, Christy. It’s your (& BioLogos’) hinting that polygenesis would/could/might/maybe/should be considered an orthodox Christian view that I care about. It is a BIG problem that I think you don’t see. But you have said you don’t care about that and I can respect that you’ve said it and leave it at that.

Biological monogenesis is not essential to my theology. That is what I meant by “I don’t care about it.” That does not mean I don’t care about the topic in general or think no one should discuss it.

@Al-Khalil

Ken Kemp’s paper is clearer and more detailed to me about human origins and the possibility of accepting evolutionary biology and both spiritual and biological monogenesis within an orthodox or Orthodox, catholic or Catholic, evangelical or Evangelical worldview than anything I’ve read that come out of BioLogos.

Ha! I referred people to it, specifically because I thought it would be helpful and instructive. So, the way I see it, you did pretty much see it here. You’re welcome. There was nothing backhanded at all about my linking it. It’s clearly a helpful paper for a lot of people. It has been discussed here often, feel free to do a search.