Do you think theistic evolution is more compatible with inclusivism or exclusivism? Do you think that more or less people would end up in heaven if God chose to created the world supernaturally like how young earth creationists think he did?
Hello, DenSol, and welcome to the forum!
Interesting question! My initial reaction is think it may lean more toward “inclusivism”; but I’m not sure that it is the evolution (in its merely scientific sense) that might cause such a lean (if indeed that ‘lean’ exists.) Maybe it’s just my theology talking there, regardless of how I see the science. I guess one could point out that evolution makes our familial relationship to the rest of the animal kingdom much more explicit, and so ought to be more ‘inclusivist’ in that way. Certainly Darwin thought of that as a feature - and in his day it would have been ‘inclusivist’ to even just get slaves and racial differences included as ‘fully human’ and not thought of as inferior (much less different) races. But those words (‘inclusivism’ and ‘exclusivism’) will be slippery fish, even just in the present time, much less as used over the last couple centuries. And beyond that, you might also want to specify: do you mean ‘evolution’ as in the merely scientific kind? or Evolutionism, which refers to a much broader materialist philosophy that goes far beyond the mere science? YECs may be blind to the distinction between those two usages, but informed and aware participants here do not share in that confusion. And as to how much difference that makes in answering your question - that remains to be seen I guess.
Hi Den.
First, given YEC is less than 100 years old (roughly 5% of the time since Christ) I don’t think it has had much time to actually impact the total number of people that have accepted Christ.
Second, I don’t think how long the earth has been here or how God created makes much of a difference in if a person believes or not.
So isnt inclusivism vs exclusivism just simply about how many paths there are to salvation? Being religious while also accepting evolution does not really go for or against either one of those. You can be someone who thinks that the only way to be saved by Jesus is to say a prayer or get baptized and still believe in evolution. You can be someone that thinks that universalism is true and still believe in evolution. You can even be someone who believes in Omnism and believe that God revealed themselves to mankind through a dozen religions and that anyone who seeks love and justice will be saved, or still be a universalist and accept evolution. You can also be those things and not accept evolution. I don’t see how there is any real intersection of how these different concepts work for or against one another.
1 Like
If I read you correctly, what you are asking is not about Evolutin at all. It is about what eliefs matter. Exclusivis is about criteria. If you do not fulfil te criteria (Beliefs?) then yu are excluded.
Why should belief in evolution exclude? because it contradicts Scripture? Most scientist here would claim that Scripture has no baring on e olution. YECs smm too believe that belieeving evolution is just the tip of a very big iceburg that diminishes or eveen removes Scripture as being true and impostant.
At the end of the day we have to ask ourselves whether what we believe matters (to God) And that opens a very big can of worms that I have already opened elsewhere.
Please define Theistic evolution…
Richard
I think the only connection between the evolution and a less exclusivist approach is an attempt at greater rationality and awareness of the realities of the world. In other words, paying attention to the evidence of the natural world kind of goes together with paying attention to the evidence of the human world – in which good and evil is equally common among all religious groups.
Looking up exclusivism versus inclusivism shows a very different connection. That sounds to me like a very Gnostic division – salvation by knowledge rather than by the grace of God. In that case, it has more to do with being true to the essential teachings of Christianity than to anything about evolution.
God is supernatural so anything he does is supernatural. So I think the proper word for what you are talking about is “magical.” God creating the world contrary to the laws of nature. It is a hard thing for me to comprehend. Do the laws of nature not exist? Did God not create them if they do? And if God created the laws of nature, then why would He break them? Frankly it sounds more like the religion of the pagans, where the world is run by a multitude of selfish deities each doing whatever they want according to their whim.
But the really big question here is why would God fill the universe with lies? Why would God fill the earth and sky with things which tell a different story about how things came to be? But if God fills the universe with lies then it suggest that God not only doesn’t want many people in heaven but prefers liars and those who refuse to see, hear, or understand much of the world around them. Frankly it sounds to me more like a devil. No thank you.
This question is a contradiction…
We know of God because His word, the Bible, tells us he exists despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary right?
Given the above, how do you accept the notion of God because its written in the bible and yet ignore Genesis chapters 1-11 and ask a question like this?
Im sorry to be so blunt but I cant help but wonder if the question really considers the above dilemma or whether it comes from listening to conjured up wives tales describing an ancient hellenistic deity instead of actually reading the historical scriptural account? (Id suggest the O.P actually read the bible account before presenting a philosophical contradiction as a question)
The Bible only makes sense because of its internal consistency. Take away that consistency, ignore the history, and all you have is an ancient hellenistic deity…a fairytale that science discedits.
One cannot read all the biblical lineages and genealogies back to Adam and Eve and claim the first 11 chapters arent real…that they were not real events but that everything after those 11 chapters was real. (Its one or the other)
Science says:
A man cannot be born in an ancient world without physical sperm impregnating an egg (Mary conceived against this scientific facf in the New Testament)
Christ cannot rise from the dead (new testament)
Christ cannot rise up i to the sky (new tetament)
A man cannot levitate into space and survive in an oxygenless vacume (new testament)
Peter called on God to strike down two people at his feet because they lied to the Holy spirit and to God (statistically unlikely that husband and wife both lie to the same man and die of heart attacks whilst standing in front of said man …Annanias and Saphira)
So is it harder to believe Genesis chapter 1 or that Peter struck down Ananias and Saphira with heart attacks by calling on God after they both lied to him?
Whats really bad about Annanias and Saphira…they were given no chance to repent after being caught out lying (but king David didnt die after lying/deceiving others about killing Uriah the Hittite)
Oh by the way…
Prior to 1834 and French scholar Charles Texier, science said the bible was wrong and that the Hittites never existed…science was wrong and the bible right as history has now proven (so theres that)
Interesting question. You would probably have to ask God for the answer to that one. Does He condition who enters heaven on His creation’s assessment of His creative methods? Or does He condition it on those who have acknowledged their need for forgiveness and inability to reach that forgiveness by their own individual efforts — and subsequently recognized the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth as the only means of forgiveness — and then asked God to forgive them for their sins on that basis alone? All else is a matter of debate with no certainty—but some interesting thoughts, for sure!
Theistic evolution proposes that you don’t have to reject consensus science in order to be a Christian. I would call that more inclusive.
“If the tenets of young earth creationism were true, basically all of the sciences of geology, cosmology, and biology would utterly collapse. It would be the same as saying 2 plus 2 is actually 5. The tragedy of young-earth creationism is that it takes a relatively recent and extreme view of Genesis, applies to it an unjustified scientific gloss, and then asks sincere and well-meaning seekers to swallow this whole, despite the massive discordance with decades of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines. Is it any wonder that many sadly turn away from faith concluding that they cannot believe in a God who asks for an abandonment of logic and reason?”–Dr. Francis Collins, “Faith and the Human Genome”
That is a false claim…the original belief was that genesis was literal…i dont know where you get the notion its a recent idea from because prior to Evolution, which came about in the mid 1800s, the reverse of your claim is historically true given that the last of the writings of the bible were clearly written 1700 years earlier.
The vast majority of bible lineage texts are found AFTER genesis chapter 11…and they trace the same lineage story as those found in the genesis texts before chapter 11 (so you havent a leg to stand on there with the claim earlier chapters are allegorical)
Lets just put the following evidence into the mix…a quick google AI request about “bible lineages” returns the following response/evidence
Genesis 4:17-22: Records the descendants of Cain, highlighting the lineage of the first humans after the flood
Genesis 5:1-32: Traces the lineage from Adam to Noah, emphasizing the longevity of the patriarchs and the eventual flood.
Genesis 10:1-32: Presents the “Table of Nations,” detailing the descendants of Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, providing a framework for understanding the origins of different peoples and languages.
Genesis 11:10-32: Follows the lineage from Shem to Abraham, establishing the foundation for the Israelite people
Genesis 25:12-28: Details the descendants of Ishmael and the lineage of the Midianites.
Genesis 36:1-43: Records the genealogy of Esau (Edom)
Genesis 46:8-27: Lists the descendants of Jacob (Israel) who came to Egypt
Exodus 6:14-27: Provides the lineage of the leaders of the Israelite tribes
Ruth 4:18-22: Traces the lineage of Boaz and Ruth back to Perez, son of Judah, highlighting the importance of lineage in ancient Israel.
Ezra 8:1-14: Lists the leaders and families who returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile.
Nehemiah 11-12: Lists the people who settled in Jerusalem after the exile.
Matthew 1:1-17:
Presents a genealogy of Jesus, tracing his lineage from Abraham to Joseph, emphasizing his royal descent through David.
Luke 3:23-38:
Provides a different genealogy of Jesus, tracing his lineage from Jesus to Adam, focusing on Mary’s ancestry.
Significance of Genealogies:
Establishing Lineage and Identity:
Genealogies served to establish the identity and lineage of individuals, families, and nations, connecting them to their ancestors and their place in history.
Highlighting God’s Promises:
The genealogies in the Bible, particularly those leading to Abraham and Jesus, demonstrate God’s faithfulness in fulfilling his promises and working through human history.
Demonstrating the Importance of Family:
The emphasis on lineage and family in the Bible highlights the importance of family relationships and the role of ancestors in shaping the future.
Tell us all that the above texts are all wrong…that noneof them are related in the family histories they define…that they are all allegorical simply portraying a moral tale that modern man should learn from. If anyone is to believe such a claim, it would need to be proven from those same writings and thats an impossible stretch given the writings are full of history… the core of the bible is tracing that very history.
It seems to me that TEism is consumed with making things up there…there is nothing extreme about the above lineages ive referenced for you.
A person has to face the reality that if we are to consider the credibility of the bible, ALLof its pages need to be consistent. A Christian is following the biblical philosophy of God…not just those bits which are convenient.
The bible talks about “convient bit picking” in Revelation 3.14-22 when God explains what he will do to those of the church of Laodocea…this passage isnt just talking about material wealth!
It is talking about scientific creationism which started with George McCready Price in the 1920’s (if memory serves) and popularized by Henry Morris in the 1960’s.
We could also reference the Bible verses that say the Earth doesn’t move, and then talk about Heliocentrism.
Scientific creationism…do you hear yourself?
That is as ridiculous as this forums claim for evolutionary creationism.
These are nothing more than attempts at distancing Christians from the same philosophical writings…and it does that by playing a game of pretend where the writings themselves are left out of the debate by TEism.
I post a large number of well referenced and consistent bible texts…the response has little or no inclusion of bible texts. That tells me the respondants theology has serious flaws
I rarely see appropriately referenced biblical support for any arguments coming from the TEist camp and that isnt suprising given the absence of biblical support.
A person cannot be Christian when the philosophical writings (ie the Bible) contradict their apparent belief. Something is plainly wrong there. I wonder how it is that naturalists sit in church and listen to biblical preaching?
For example, what goes through you mind when a minister says:
- Christ sent demons into a herd of pigs who then ran down into the sea and drowned themselves
- Christ raised a rotting corpse from the dead (lazurus)
- Christ walked on water…and so did the disciple/apostle Peter
- Christ raised Himself from the dead, walked among 500 people for 6 weeks, then levitated up into the sky, floated off into outer space (an airless vacume where no human can survive)…are you fsmiliar with a condition scuba divers experience called " the bends" (decompression sickness)? Well imagine an instantaneous version of nitrogen bubbles forming in your blood the moment you enter the vacume of space!.
Its hardly possible scientifically that Christ survived his ascension and its about time you people seriously faced that scientific reality…and this is why any attempt to argue absolute scientific support for the bible narrative is an exercise engaging in intellectual nonsense.
The essence of the biblical narrative is at odds with science and that is why we need faith.
Christ said “blessed is he who believes but has not seen” (john 20.29)
If we are to use science, we must use it to support the bible narrative written in plain language. If we dont do that, we become a laughing stock because our belief is a shambles of convulated misinformation…we dont know if we are Authur or Marther because our theology and doctrine are all over the place.
Humans have this great habit of not believing inconsistent claims…our legal fraternatiy are great at finding holes in inconsistent arguments and that is the problem here.
The internal consistency is paramount in defending the faith.
It’s no more at odds with science than it is at odds with you insisting on keeping your eyes open as you carry on with life during your day.
People (like @jammycakes ) are trying repeatedly to remind you of what scriptures teach - things about honesty and integrity. And most of the time (at least that I’ve seen), these admonitions seem to fall on deaf ears - or when you do respond to it, it is to dismiss it or somehow insist that it doesn’t apply. So … no … if you can’t accept even just simple admonitions towards being honest as part of the scriptural narrative, then that doesn’t bode well for you dealing rightly with any other scriptural narratives or issues, like all your enumerated litmus tests to try to make sure others’ understandings match your approved answers.
Why should one person’s views be considered greater than another to give them te authority to admonish?
To admonish is basically claiming superiority
That does seem to be a prevailing trait on this site
Richard
Maybe in some cases. Hypocrisy is certainly a thing - no doubt about that.
But a world with no admonishment is a world with hope, no good news, no bible, no savior, … a bleak world indeed. I’m glad I am in community with people who can and will admonish me, even if it isn’t a pleasant experience at the time. In the absence of any possibility of admonishment, I am then also in the absence of any true friends. I experience this at the personal level, and also see it at the geopolitical level.
1 Like
Those are two very different objectives. My keeping my eyes open happens in real time…im not enforcing current observations to ascertain what happened thousands of year ago. Im reasing records peovided by others who kept their eyes open and lkstened to the visions they were given by God as well as the oral history given to them by others (it seems you deny oral tradition and visions?)
You see the difference is, we have an historical book where individuals have recorded history…you were never there when that history was recorded by those individuals and yet, you align with the claim the individuals who recorded it, are telling porkies…that its not history that they recorded.
How do you accept that the following are not history. Which of them is historical and which are not exactly? (I expect you are able to answer this btw)
Genesis 4:17-22: Records the descendants of Cain, highlighting the lineage of the first humans after the flood
Genesis 5:1-32: Traces the lineage from Adam to Noah, emphasizing the longevity of the patriarchs and the eventual flood.
Genesis 10:1-32: Presents the “Table of Nations,” detailing the descendants of Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, providing a framework for understanding the origins of different peoples and languages.
Genesis 11:10-32: Follows the lineage from Shem to Abraham, establishing the foundation for the Israelite people
Genesis 25:12-28: Details the descendants of Ishmael and the lineage of the Midianites.
Genesis 36:1-43: Records the genealogy of Esau (Edom)
Genesis 46:8-27: Lists the descendants of Jacob (Israel) who came to Egypt
Exodus 6:14-27: Provides the lineage of the leaders of the Israelite tribes
Ruth 4:18-22: Traces the lineage of Boaz and Ruth back to Perez, son of Judah, highlighting the importance of lineage in ancient Israel.
Ezra 8:1-14: Lists the leaders and families who returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile.
Nehemiah 11-12: Lists the people who settled in Jerusalem after the exile.
Matthew 1:1-17:
Presents a genealogy of Jesus, tracing his lineage from Abraham to Joseph, emphasizing his royal descent through David.
Luke 3:23-38:
Provides a different genealogy of Jesus, tracing his lineage from Jesus to Adam, focusing on Mary’s ancestry.
Egyptians recorded history, which conflicts with the YEC chronology.
Ah, now theres your mistake…we dont actually know the accurate Egyptian chronology…its well known that the Egyptian chronologies have huge gap problems and that is because unlike the biblical narrative, Egyptian chronologies have to be pieced together because we dont have a consistent family tree which we can follow. Thats very different from the biblical narrative…so your supporting argument there is deeply flawed.
Also,even if the bible chronologies had gaps of decades or even the odd century or two, there is no way to reconcile that from Adam to Christ with millions of years.The flood narrative doesnt actually make any difference when it comes to chronology dilemma TEism faces…it just adds to the theological problems.
It ends up with the entire bible narrative being a fictional moral story without any notion of salvation where eternal life is restored to humanity.
That would suggest that it is wrong not to believe?
Do you think that is how God sees it?
i am not denying it is a scriptural view but , on a global rather than religious or even Christian perspective, is that how we were created?
When God put His laws in our hearts was worshipping Him one of them?
We cannot force people into faith. We cannot punish people into faith.
As I see it, God wants willing followers and not conscripts (Israel excepted)
I am afraid I do not share this view. I have only one authority in my faith, and that is God (in Heaven),
Richard
I don’t think it matters because Creation plus Fall implies human free choice (that is corrupted) and evolution implies a gradual taking on of consciousness and also free choice that is developed in a wrong manner, and both needing a Redeemer to set us right back to divine intention.
There is always the old question of divine justice in the case of those who will not be able to respond to the gospel because they are not in geographical and cultural position to receive it and how the Redemption by Jesus may still be applied to them without knowing it. I hope no-one believes that God deliberately and with foreknowledge allows the birth of person into a situation where they can never receive the gospel and then judges them for not knowing Christ. That would not be justice. If a choice cannot be known a choice cannot be made. But God will judge on what we do know and not on what we do not.
There is today another dimension of inclusion and that relates to non-human life and the prospect of non-human inclusion in eternal life with God, as we realise through evolution a greater connectedness of our global organic interconnectedness and also with all past life that surely God has also loved and part of the divine glory. That God will want all He has loved to share His eternity.