Is theistic evolution just a step to disbelief?

[pastorkevin73]

There is gradual progression among the Christian community, from a literal interpretation of the Genesis story leading to six day creation, to a quasi-literal approach that sees the days as representative of millions of years, to intelligent design, and now to Theistic Evolution.

I'm astonished that some months ago I would visit the origins forum, and see (ID) adherents, YEC, and the quasi-YECs, as the majority, but today and recently it seems that TE is gaining ground.

Soon, it seems that (TE) will be the accepted take on creation by believers

I believe in Theistic Evolution, but I find that many believers find this take on origin, to be somewhat-blasphemous or at least puzzling, and I think I understand why. For, me personally believing in (TE) created a radically different take on the bible--I don't understand how someone who accepts (TE) can maintain the traditional take on Christianity and the Bible.

For me stories such, as Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve, are all allegory, and I'm starting to lean in assuming that Moses departing the red sea is perhaps allegory as well.

I tend to deconstruct the bible, differentiate between various interpretations, historical understandings, and historical events at the time of writing, to determine what the writers of the books of the bible meant, and what was guiding them to write.

There are certain things that I don't believe in today, that has long been taught to me in childhood, such as hell, pre-rapture tribulation, and the devil.

Well, let me rephrase: I do believe in hell, and the devil, just not the way its depicted in the Christian tradition. I see no reason for Christianity to have an entirely different take on hell, and the devil, that what was understood by the Jewish Tradition.

It would seem to the untrained eye, that I am following a path leading to disbelief, but for me it's a path to greater sense of belief, where meaning becomes more important than what is real, but I can see how perhaps others engaging in the same post-modernist take on the Bible, might be venturing into disbelief.

That's my assumption, but I'm wondering if it's true?

For the (TE) crowd, do you believe that taking a (TE) position is a settlement with a faith that has been waning, or is it a position that has led you to a new found affirmation of your beliefs?

Is (TE) a path to disbelief, or is it a path to a great understanding of belief?

What process do you go through to interprete the Bible? Please give step by step.

 

[Parmenio]

Edited down for civility =D

 

[pastorkevin73]

Post Deleted.

 

[Macrina]

But if Biblical literalism and YEC had been required, I would never have become a believer. Toss those two onto the scales, and for me they'd have tilted the other way.

That's interesting that you say that. As I read this thread, with the posts addressing "de-conversion," I was wondering if perhaps it plays a larger role going the other way, how you describe.

I'm reminded of someone I knew with whom I shared the Gospel. Raised nominally Christian, and now a scientist, he came to me after thinking about what I had said and asked me if he would have to disbelieve evolution in order to become a Christian. He explained that in his work, he saw many things that raised questions about how the biblical account should be read, and that he wasn't able to believe in YEC-type stuff (he didn't call it YEC, but that's what he was talking about). I told him no, that Christians of good faith can differ on the issue, and that I knew a number of other scientists who were both Christian and accepted evolutionary theory. He seemed very relieved, like he had been trying to figure out if he could compartmentalize his scientific brain from the faith of his heart, and had realized it was impossible -- and was very thankful that his convictions on evolution would not prevent him from coming to Christ. Soon after that, he experienced rebirth. I don't know what would have happened if I had told him that yes, you have to drop evolution in order to be a Christian, but I do know that was the only concern that he raised about conversion through all our conversations.

Now, I think most YECs would agree that one can be TE and still Christian. They might say that TEs are gravely mistaken, but would stop short of questioning salvation (I hope!). But when I think back to that one person, I wonder about how it all comes across to non-believers: Do they get the idea that they cannot be Christians unless they have the right theology of origins? I think maybe they do. The idea that's been addressed in this thread -- equating acceptance of evolutionary theory with disbelief -- is seen by the world and it comes across as though anti-evolution is some sort of criterion for belief, and item on a list where if they're not all checked off, one cannot be saved. Now I know that is not what the vast majority of Christians (YEC or otherwise) actually believe, but I think about how it comes across. When we talk about this issue, it's worth thinking about what we are implying to the world.