Does evolutionary creationism fit within a conservative evangelical perspective?

[Schroeder]

You know something? In the end, I couldn't care less if it does or it doesn't. Conservative evangelicalism is but a tiny insignificant part of Christianity.

this thinking is a problem in of itself. there is no angle to Christianity it is what it is despite all our input or interpretation. its a personal relationship between you and God Through Christ.

 

[rgpeach10]

maybe just maybe the theory of evolution is wrong. evolution is true and a fact things change over time. BUT the theory of it all coming from one single ancestry is not true. so maybe look into this thinking again. you should guestion what you believe anyways to test its strength. So look at it from a completely different angle.

I respect this position. People should re-examine their opinions rather frequently, from all angles. I CAN (not would) deny evolution, I'm not a biologist and pretty much take them at pretty basic level arguments. However, I see very little reason to disbelieve Old Earth. I'm pretty adept at cosmology and physics and don't really see anything young about our universe. So yah, evolution is probobly true in my mind because the earth is old, not the other way around.

 

[rgpeach10]

Have a look at the interpretation of Gen 1 in regards to temple creation, now on Adam it rewllybdepends on how you start to view how God interfered with humanity to set it up, one belief that I'm currently leaning towards God breathing out his spirit similar to what happened on pentecost, but as for original Sin, Adam is representative of humanity as a whole Paul speaks about this in Rom7. Sin apart from he Law lies dead, when the command came Sin took chance, Adam in my view is more of an Archetype of who we are and that is sinful as a whole

I see someone has been reading "The Lost World of Genesis One" good book! It added to my arsenal of Genesis knowledge, but his all encompassing argument was weak. Basically, because they saw it this way, and the way they saw it was something we don't accept today, then obviously genesis isn't meant to be seen from a modern perspective. Its an argument that has been made before, but it doesn't address biblical inerrant, because that is literally how THEY saw it. So from a literalness point of view, 7 days is still true, even if material creation happened for millions of years before the 7 days. Its basically a modern Gap Theory interpretation, or else an appeal to the Doctrine of Accommodation.

Personally I prefer inspired rather than inerrant, but I don't think that is the issue here. The problem theologically with Adam, is that when our theology was being thought out by people like Augustine, the explanations and understandings were built around their literal interpretation of Adam and Eve, and his literal understanding of what Paul said about Adam. This is where Augustine got his idea of Original Sin, a phrase that isn't actually mentioned in the bible. And of course Luther and Calvin got their ideas of Original Sin and the Fall from Augustine. What if instead of discussing the history of the fall, Paul was actually speaking allegorically, Adam was a figure of the one who was to come Rom 5:14, using the story of Adam as an allegorical illustration of Christ rather than teaching Jesus came to save us from the sin of Adam?

Alternatively you can keep the theology of the fall and go with Adam as federal head, not the first human being but the first human God made a covenant with.

Its good to recognize that Augustine created the idea of Original Sin. However, I think its a mistake to say that original sin is in fact NOT what Paul intended in his message to Rome. I think that Augustine's interpretation is very close to Paul's interpretation. I am, however, prepared to say that Paul's opinion is, in fact, just an opinion, or else an appeal to the reader's pre-existing belief in Adam and Eve. Another example of this in scripture is in Jude, where Jude, brother of Jesus, which is almost certainly not a forgery as some imply, cites stories from the book of Enoch and Assumption of Moses, which are both pseudepigraphical books (books that have been proven to be forgeries, probably from the 2nd temple period). Why does he cite stories that are obviously false? 2 options are available:

1.) The authenticity of the stories does not make any difference to the message being conveyed. The author of the book cites the stories because either he believes them, or his readers believe them and they help him make his point. Since the "spiritual truth" of the message is still valid, regardless of its historical validity, the book can be considered "inspired."

2.) We need to re-evaluate our interpretation of the letters in the NT because they are just letters. Sure they come from apostles, but some of the letters might not hold any more authenticity than a book written by CS Lewis. They do, however have the advantage of being books written by people who saw Jesus, which gives them an "inspired" feel to them because there was no middleman. We ascribe the members of the Jerusalem counsel this special privileged, when in reality only "prophesies" in the bible can be considered "God inspired". Which means most of the old testament is inerrant possibly excluding the books of history which dont have to be 100% accurate in their historical truth. On the other hand, the gospels do require historical validity because they include Jesus quotes, and any section of the letters of Paul or John or anyone really that claims to have had a vision or message to convey directly from God himself also is God inspired, while any section of those books that contains the authors opinions are only considered "spiritual truth" because they were trained by Jesus.

Both of those are only options, not my personal opinion. I personally believe that each book requires a completely different method of interpretation depending on what it is. Books of history are different than prophesy are different than letters. All books are inerrant in their spiritual truth, and I do think the books in the Bible are much more reliable than CS Lewis.

 

[Keachian]

I see someone has been reading "The Lost World of Genesis One" good book! It added to my arsenal of Genesis knowledge, but his all encompassing argument was weak. Basically, because they saw it this way, and the way they saw it was something we don't accept today, then obviously genesis isn't meant to be seen from a modern perspective. Its an argument that has been made before, but it doesn't address biblical inerrant, because that is literally how THEY saw it. So from a literalness point of view, 7 days is still true, even if material creation happened for millions of years before the 7 days. Its basically a modern Gap Theory interpretation, or else an appeal to the Doctrine of Accommodation.

Nope, I haven't even heard of that book, I have been listening to a few of NT Wright's sermons on humanity. Wright does mention Walton I shall have to add it and Thank God for Evolution to the next lot of books I get which will most likely include my textbooks for the coming semester. I'd also be wary of saying that any form of framework interpretation, whether we end up favouring temple or kingdoms and kings or both is close to Gap theory, as both of those add nothing to the text, yet most gap theorists I know claim pre-adamic age of angels and things like that which I have great annoyance at.

Edit: Also if we think of inerrancy, the idea that God created the universe as a place to dwell is something that speaks for itself as inerrant. Taking the story out of a literalist view and making it inerrant on the topics that I believe it speaks to does far more for biblical inerrancy than literalism would try to tell me.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You know something? In the end, I couldn't care less if it does or it doesn't. Conservative evangelicalism is but a tiny insignificant part of Christianity.

This.

Christianity is far bigger, far deeper and far older than modern conservative evangelicalism as its been rebranded, bought, and paid for by right-wing politicos.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[gluadys]

I've been having a considerable problem recently reconciling my belief in evolution with my strong Christian faith. I've been a theistic evolutionist for years now but for some reason this year it hit me again, that evolution makes a belief in a literal Adam and Eve VERY hard. I'm fine with Genesis 1, there is ton of skepticism around that passage over the centuries. However, Adam and Eve are important theologically it seems to me. Without original sin, how do we explain Jesus' ministry and Paul's interpretation of Adam vs Jesus?

Is there anyone here who can tell me how to cope with this? I like to believe that my calling is to evangelize to atheists and agnostics which I do with the BCM a lot at my college, but I feel like this hurts my ministry because all I can say is that I know the Bible to be literally wrong about the scientific account of creation, early history (Gen 1-11), and Adam and Eve (that doesn't help ones ministry very much).

Oh and I've studied arguments on this for years, but maybe I just haven't found any answers that were specific enough to my situation. And they all seem watered down. Not many of my friends are theistic evolutionists, and the ones that are aren't very educated on the topic. It seems like to me this requires a less stringent interpretation of the Bible, but I don't feel comfortable and wouldn't be accepted at my Baptist ministry if I said the Bible wasn't completely inerrant and infallible. Maybe a forum will help

The doctrine of original sin rests largely on Augustinian theology. And I think there is one point where he is misunderstood and another in which he is definitely wrong.

The first is that when Augustine referred to original sin, he was NOT referring to the first sin. That will probably surprise you because it is the meaning that most Protestants give it today.

In fact, Augustine was not referring to any one particular instance of sin at all, not even Adam's, but to the propensity for sin that exists in all of us. Original sin is existing in a state of sinfulness even if one has (for reasons of being to young or mentally deficient to be responsible) committed no sin of one's own. (Later Calvin would refer to this as a state of depravity or that state of existence in which we have no capacity to will the good or break free of the bondage of sin.)

If we remember that original sin is about ourselves first, and only secondarily about Adam, then perhaps the historical existence of Adam becomes less important.

And here is where we get to where Augustine made an error. Naturally Augustine wanted an explanation for our basic inborn sinful nature. And, following Paul, he connected this to Adam. But how does this nature pass from Adam to all of us? Augustine's answer is that it was inherited from our parents--going all the way back to Adam.


If Augustine is right on this point, then Adam must have been an historical individual. If sin is written in our genes, then there had to be a point of origin for original sin. And that is how original sin became linked to (and confused with) the first sin.

But Augustine need not be right on this point. In all probability, he is not right. Sin is not something we inherit like blue eyes and red hair. So even if we attribute an important role to an individual, historical Adam, we need a different way of explaining how Adam's sin (the first sin) and the original sin in us are connected.

But I agree with you. Though many theistic evolutionists do hold to belief in a historical individual Adam, I personally find that difficult to accept. What I don't agree with is the idea that rejecting the historicity of Adam means tossing out the idea of original sin. That only follows if one identifies "original sin" with "the first sin" an identification that, following Augustine is not necessary to begin with.

If we go back to the Augustinian concept that original sin describes a universal human characteristic, rather than a single event in history, then we can take Genesis 3 as a symbolic description of why we are burdened with this nature rather than as a historic explanation of how that came to be.

Then when we get to Paul and Romans, we can think of the first man or Adam as all of us together---the first humanity, sinful humanity. And Christ is the bearer of a new humanity, liberated from sin, with whom we can be united as we are currently united to the first humanity (Adam). After all, it is not as if we inherit the life in Christ; so why do we need an ancestor from whom we inherit original sin?

I don't know if you will find this helpful or not, but it works for me. We can discuss it in more detail if you like.

 

[Schroeder]

The doctrine of original sin rests largely on Augustinian theology. And I think there is one point where he is misunderstood and another in which he is definitely wrong.

The first is that when Augustine referred to original sin, he was NOT referring to the first sin. That will probably surprise you because it is the meaning that most Protestants give it today.

In fact, Augustine was not referring to any one particular instance of sin at all, not even Adam's, but to the propensity for sin that exists in all of us. Original sin is existing in a state of sinfulness even if one has (for reasons of being to young or mentally deficient to be responsible) committed no sin of one's own. (Later Calvin would refer to this as a state of depravity or that state of existence in which we have no capacity to will the good or break free of the bondage of sin.)

If we remember that original sin is about ourselves first, and only secondarily about Adam, then perhaps the historical existence of Adam becomes less important.

And here is where we get to where Augustine made an error. Naturally Augustine wanted an explanation for our basic inborn sinful nature. And, following Paul, he connected this to Adam. But how does this nature pass from Adam to all of us? Augustine's answer is that it was inherited from our parents--going all the way back to Adam.


If Augustine is right on this point, then Adam must have been an historical individual. If sin is written in our genes, then there had to be a point of origin for original sin. And that is how original sin became linked to (and confused with) the first sin.

But Augustine need not be right on this point. In all probability, he is not right. Sin is not something we inherit like blue eyes and red hair. So even if we attribute an important role to an individual, historical Adam, we need a different way of explaining how Adam's sin (the first sin) and the original sin in us are connected.

But I agree with you. Though many theistic evolutionists do hold to belief in a historical individual Adam, I personally find that difficult to accept. What I don't agree with is the idea that rejecting the historicity of Adam means tossing out the idea of original sin. That only follows if one identifies "original sin" with "the first sin" an identification that, following Augustine is not necessary to begin with.

If we go back to the Augustinian concept that original sin describes a universal human characteristic, rather than a single event in history, then we can take Genesis 3 as a symbolic description of why we are burdened with this nature rather than as a historic explanation of how that came to be.

Then when we get to Paul and Romans, we can think of the first man or Adam as all of us together---the first humanity, sinful humanity. And Christ is the bearer of a new humanity, liberated from sin, with whom we can be united as we are currently united to the first humanity (Adam). After all, it is not as if we inherit the life in Christ; so why do we need an ancestor from whom we inherit original sin?

I don't know if you will find this helpful or not, but it works for me. We can discuss it in more detail if you like.

so we can throw out rom 5:12-19 as nonsense. It speaks of the sin of ONE man an awful lot. So thinking of the first man or adam as all of us together seems completely wrong on your part.

John 1 say all things were made through him. i doubt this means the theory of evolution. Hebrews 11:3 says " by FAITH we understand that the universe was formed at Gods COMMAND, so that what is seen was NOT made out of what was visible." Not sure how you fit these into your thinking.

 

[Schroeder]

This.

Christianity is far bigger, far deeper and far older than modern conservative evangelicalism as its been rebranded, bought, and paid for by right-wing politicos.

-CryptoLutheran

i like your post at bottom (Dietrich Bonhoeffer). its true which is why conservative christianity is so much disliked. the truth of scripture hurts to much for to many people. He went against the church and payed dearly for it.

 

[Keachian]

so we can throw out rom 5:12-19 as nonsense. It speaks of the sin of ONE man an awful lot. So thinking of the first man or adam as all of us together seems completely wrong on your part.

Well no, Romans 5:12-19 does not fit an original sin idea, most people gloss over the end of v 12 "so death spread to all men because all sinned." Paul very much talks about our propensity to sin as a part of who we are as people throughout the rest of the letter, to suddenly change gears and talk about original sin seems very off, instead I believe he is continuing showing how Adam being an archetype of humanity sinned so those who are men sin, in the same way Christ being an archetype of the New man brings salvation.

John 1 say all things were made through him. i doubt this means the theory of evolution. Hebrews 11:3 says " by FAITH we understand that the universe was formed at Gods COMMAND, so that what is seen was NOT made out of what was visible." Not sure how you fit these into your thinking.

They come as is, there's really no need to jump through lots of hoops they plainly speak of God's creativity and power creating the universe from nothing

 

[gluadys]

so we can throw out rom 5:12-19 as nonsense.

Not at all. It is perfectly sensible and very profound.

See progmonk's post for a good explanation.

John 1 say all things were made through him. i doubt this means the theory of evolution.

And I believe it does. Evolution is part of the created world, and so is included in the "all things" that were made through him.

Hebrews 11:3 says " by FAITH we understand that the universe was formed at Gods COMMAND, so that what is seen was NOT made out of what was visible." Not sure how you fit these into your thinking.

Maybe you should study theistic evolution in more depth then. An excellent and comprehensive work on the subject is Evolutionary Creation by Denis Lamoureux. Look it up.

 

[1an]

One of the big problems for literalists is that they've positioned evolution as diametrically opposed to christianity. The problem arises when their children recognise the science and consequently reject their faith.

Personally, the creation story has never been a big issue for me. While I have always believed it to be an inerrant account of history... I still saw many ways to interpret it without questioning the validity of the account, so I've never bothered investing much into the issue of whether or not the earth is young or old and/or whether or not evolution had a part to play. I just figured it was better to accept the literal understanding, but allowed room for alternate explainations.

Until this week i would have argued for the "possibility" of evolution "within a species" but against the possibility of evolution from one species to another and especially not to man. I don't see room for that from a plain reading. As I said, I was never particularly invested in the issue, so I just assumed there was room for my perspective within religion and science.

Now... I've actually had a look at the science and I can see that disputing it is just silly. The science is pretty solid and I suspect we're really doing our children and the church a serious disservice by insisting they ignore it.

So... my question is:

Are there others here that were able to reconcile the science with their conservative evangelical perspective or do I need to prepare myself for a major paradigm shift that might take me away from the church I call home?

Have you seen the Bible compared with science, with each day being a geological period?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ve5_N4JCZp7G6YKQsrvdJF51nfpVTMwt4kyUETnJvfE/edit

.

 

[Schroeder]

Well no, Romans 5:12-19 does not fit an original sin idea, most people gloss over the end of v 12 "so death spread to all men because all sinned." Paul very much talks about our propensity to sin as a part of who we are as people throughout the rest of the letter, to suddenly change gears and talk about original sin seems very off, instead I believe he is continuing showing how Adam being an archetype of humanity sinned so those who are men sin, in the same way Christ being an archetype of the New man brings salvation.

NOT. IT CLEARLY says one MAN. he was not figurative, and this passage doesnt come close to suggesting this idea. The end of verse 12 says "and in this WAY death came to all men." And the rest speaks of the ONE man.

They come as is, there's really no need to jump through lots of hoops they plainly speak of God's creativity and power creating the universe from nothing

I dont jump through loops. if he says he created ALL things from what was not. he did. he didnt create one thing that create the rest of things.

 

[Schroeder]

Not at all. It is perfectly sensible and very profound.

See progmonk's post for a good explanation.

i did he didnt prove nothing just LEFT out stuff.

And I believe it does. Evolution is part of the created world, and so is included in the "all things" that were made through him.

yes evolution was part of his creation plan. but evolution ISNT the theory of evolution that your trying to say.

Maybe you should study theistic evolution in more depth then. An excellent and comprehensive work on the subject is Evolutionary Creation by Denis Lamoureux. Look it up.

not going to but thanks. my life isnt defined by such things. just interesting once in awhile to talk about it.

 

[artybloke]

not going to but thanks.

Ah yes, ignorance is such bliss, isn't it?

Fundamentalists hiding heads in sand syndrome at its most disingenuous...

 

[Keachian]

NOT. IT CLEARLY says one MAN. he was not figurative, and this passage doesnt come close to suggesting this idea. The end of verse 12 says "and in this WAY death came to all men." And the rest speaks of the ONE man.

I didn't really say anything about whether Adam is a figurative notion, more that v12 blows the idea of original sin out of the water.
Here it is in the fundy translation:
"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:"
bolded was the bit I was looking at mostly, it clearly says that because all have sinned death is for all men.

I dont jump through loops. if he says he created ALL things from what was not. he did. he didnt create one thing that create the rest of things.

Where does he say he created all things from that which was not, all things came from the earth, this is evident in Genesis 1 and 2.

 

[Schroeder]

Ah yes, ignorance is such bliss, isn't it?

Fundamentalists hiding heads in sand syndrome at its most disingenuous...

yes it is at times. other wise democrate liberals wouldnt exsist. . Not going to because i have already spent a lot of my time in the past to it. just here to annoy people like you and refresh about it. any new "proof" of it.

 

[Schroeder]

I didn't really say anything about whether Adam is a figurative notion, more that v12 blows the idea of original sin out of the water.
Here it is in the fundy translation:
"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:"
bolded was the bit I was looking at mostly, it clearly says that because all have sinned death is for all men.

ALL have sinned is the present tense of the statement. You ignore that and the first part. BY ONE MAN sin entered into the world. To enter INTO it would not be there to start with. And you can also say it as, "and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned" and read verse 18.

Where does he say he created all things from that which was not, all things came from the earth, this is evident in Genesis 1 and 2.

john 1 and hebrews 11:3

 

[Assyrian]

All have sinned is the past tense, it is the aorist.

 

[mikelanderson]

I am one who faith has managed to survive evolution. The key for me was the realization that the basis for my faith must be Jesus and that the Bible is romance rather than science.

 

[cupid dave]

Have you seen the Bible compared with science, with each day being a geological period?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ve5_N4JCZp7G6YKQsrvdJF51nfpVTMwt4kyUETnJvfE/edit

.

You mean "Geological Era."

Couple this thought to the fact that the Genesis writers chose the special word "yowm" to designate the seven "days.'
Yowm actually can mean ANY duration of time including an Age.