Why Christians and evolutionists can NEVER agree

[Neogaia777]

No, one can be both a Bible believing Christian and accept evolution...

I disagree, everything in the creation account does not conflict with the "theory" of evolution to me. Except maybe the idea that we are decendents of primates, I don't know if I agree with that or not?

 

[KWCrazy]

No, one can be both a Bible believing Christian and accept evolution...

How? Evolution is a theory of natural origination from a single common progenitor over millions of years. The Bible said God created the world in its mature state and populated it with plants and animals in their maturity over a six day period. Can you not see the obvious contradiction?

 

[KWCrazy]

And no, Augustine was not a young earth creationist. There was no such thing in the 5th century.

Adam was a young earth creationist. He was there.
Noah was a young earth creationist.
Jesus was a young earth creationist.
In Exodus 20:11, GOD reveals Himself to be a young earth creationist.

 

[Calminian]

To say Augustine, or any of the Christians before the modern period, were YEC, is totally anachronistic. As it is to say the Greeks were old earth believers.

Then you're simply unaware of history then, because the greeks absolutely did believe in deep time. You just didn't know about it as you listened to the wrong "experts" and believed them without checking. Augustine railed on the chronologies of the Egyptians and the Greeks, as did other early fathers. Sorry, but I'm just telling you the truth.

The important point is the principles. What are the principles that we need to know about the relation of God to the material world that we perceive? What are the principles we need to know when we consider what Scriptures and the teachings of the Church mean?

I think the principles are quite simple. The early fathers were far from perfect, but understood that God was smarter than man and that his revelations about history were much more reliable than men's theories.

You've decided to place your trust in man's ever-changing theories, and use them to help you understand the Bible. I recommend you flip that round. Look at man's theories, and then look at God's revelation, so you can correctly judge man's theories. Men always get things wrong.

I would suggest there are some clear answers there. One is that creation itself is a part of God's revelation,....

Creation is just that—God's creation. It speaks some truths from its design about the Designer, but can't tell us anything about its origins. That's why God revealed history to us, so we could understand its origin. The problem is, you want to trust what man says about its origin. That's why you're in no way similar to the early fathers.

It's funny, but in every generation, men think their scientists are superior. When the geocentrists ruled, they thought they were the creme of the crop. There is nothing new under the sun.

 

[miamited]

No, I didn't bring up Augustine, someone else did and mentioned a particular thing he said. I pointed out that his reasons for thinking such went beyond the question of evolution and spoke to fairly fundamental problems in how we understand change in the material world. There are a number of parallels between the question of change and how to understand evolution.

The ideas are what is most important, but it is useful to know they came from Augustine because if we know about his ideas, we can see how what he said fits into his other ideas about God.


I don't know that it is possible to know if anyone is really "born again" or indeed if we are ourselves. So I can't see that as a terribly useful way to judge whether we should consider someones ideas.

As far as judging people's ideas based on how they accord with Scripture, I have to ask how you know your interpretation is better than anyone elses? If you reject Augustine's interpretation, whose are you substituting? Ultimately, your own.

So really, you might as well just look at the ideas themselves.



Hmm. I would have guessed you subscribed to faith alone.

Hi MKJ,

While you are correct that some one else did mention Augustine's name, I have looked back through all of the threads and you were the only one who actually posted the words that you were using to support this 'evolution is proved by Augustine's writing about potentiality in the life and events of the earth'. For as much as I can tell we don't even know if those were the words that the person who first brought up his name were inferring to. You were the one who posted Augustine's words and then went on to say, to the effect, Augustine believed in this 'potentiality' of things and that, in some way that you have understood in your mind, supports that he must have understood that there was some kind of changes in the biological of the earth that would support evolution.

It was glaudys who first brought in Augustine here:

Indeed, a variation of that appears to have been the position of St. Augustine of Hippo. He held to an instantaneous creation in "seed" form, with the Genesis days of creation showing the fruition of that over time.

However, he didn't provide any support from Augustine's writings to bolster what he believes that Augustine believed. You are the one who brought out the quote of his work and then worked to explain how that quote inferred to you that Augustine somehow didn't seem to agree with what is now being discussed as the literal young earth 6 day creation model. Trying to show that this 'potentiality' that he speaks of should be seen as meaning that things came about over long periods of time. 'Potentiality' merely means that a seed that falls to the ground has the potential to become a plant. And that may be all that Augustine was intending when he wrote of the phenomenon. I don't find any supporting evidence that believing in all things upon the earth having some 'potential' has any bearing on long or short ages of time. That seed will become a plant in a matter of months, but guess what? The plant that it produces will be just like the one that it came from. Now, we can certainly throw man into the mix and say, "Well, if we splice this seed with some other seed or plant with some other plant we can make it to become something different". But left alone, and you can check this by walking through any forest, every acorn that falls to the ground will grow another oak tree if it came from an oak. That is what 'potential' is. It really doesn't involve time per se, but merely discusses what something can or may become.

The earth when it was formed and populated with plants and animals and man had the 'potential' to be good for all time, but, sadly man didn't allow that 'potentiality' to come about. It also had the 'potential' to be a wicked place and that seems to be what it has become, again, because of man.

And let's be clear, I don't necessarily reject what Augustine wrote, but because I can't ask him to clarify it for me, neither can I be sure that either of us can understand what he meant to teach us through what he wrote. If his thinking in writing this about 'potentiality' was just to let us understand that all things upon the earth have some form of 'potential', then I agree with him. But, if what he intended to be understood is as you say it should be understood, then no, I don't agree with him. But I can't ask him and from what I've gathered from other's posts on him, I'm not sure he didn't believe just as I believe about the creation event.

So, yes, my post was intended for you.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

The other is that even quite early in the history of the Church, we see that people were comfortable with the idea that the creation account was not to be understood in a strictly historical or scientific way. Some did see it that way, but many orthodox thinkers did not and that was an acceptable position.

Hi again MKJ,

Can we get some evidence of people in the 'church' in the first and second century believing as you say, or will we have to content ourselves with just your saying so?

You see, and I have expounded on this before, but it is worth repeating here, if we look back over all the days of man and time since the days of creation, be it 6 days or 6 billion days, every time God steps in and makes Himself known to man we go from strong true belief to apostasy. Every time!! God started with Adam and within 1400 years man had become so wicked and knew Him not that He was grieved that He had even made man. God started with Noah and by the time we get to Abram, some few hundred years later, we know that men were chasing after false gods. Even Abram's family worshipped them. Abram himself didn't know God until God stepped in and revealed Himself to Him. Abram would have gone on living his life and worshipping the gods of his family and his fathers in Ur until his death, if God hadn't interceded with him.

As we read on through to the time of the exodus from Egypt, there isn't any indication that the Hebrews living in Egypt really had any true sense of who their God is. And based on some of their responses, even after God had made Himself physically and actually known to them, they really didn't seem to have a real understanding of who their God was. Regularly through the works of the prophets we find God continually calling and begging His people to return to Him. At one point He has Isaiah write to the nation of His people these words:

Hear, O heavens! Listen, O earth!http://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-8 For the LORD has spoken:http://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-9 "I reared childrenhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-10 and brought them up, but they have rebelledhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-11 against me. The ox knowshttp://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-12 his master, the donkey his owner's manger,http://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-13 but Israel does not know,http://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-14 my people do not understand.http://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-15" Ah, sinful nation, a people loaded with guilt,http://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-16 a brood of evildoers,http://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-17 children given to corruption!http://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-18 They have forsakenhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-19 the LORD; they have spurned the Holy Onehttp://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-20 of Israel and turned their backshttp://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-21 on him.

Then Jesus comes to us and the first disciples go out spreading the gospel and the truth of God and very, very shortly we find Paul and Peter writing about those among us who are not of us. Paul writes how quickly the Galatians have turned from the truth. He writes to them claiming to be in utter amazement:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel--

Friend, within one hundred years of Jesus' death we can be assured that people of the 'church' were teaching untruths. Peter writes of those who were living in those very days distorting the Scriptures. People who were a part of them!!

So, yes, let's move out a couple hundred more years. What assurance can I have that anyone claiming to be a teacher of the truth of God, hadn't been also influenced by some of the heresies of the earlier generations? You seem to think that pure 'christianity' flourished for some time among the 'churches', and I'm one who has read the Scriptures - taken to heart Peters warning of those who would come that would teach even greater untruths - read and understood Paul's words to Timothy that a time was coming when men would not put up with sound doctrine, and the new covenant writings seem to give us a pretty clear picture that quite a lot of that had already happened by the time of the third or fourth century.

It has always been thus. God steps in and man's faith is somewhat strong and then quickly falls away. So, now here we stand some 2,000 years from the last time that God stepped into His creation to 'prove' Himself to man. A longer period of time than any before it between God so stepping in, and you think that what man believes today, when it is opposed to what Paul and Peter and the very, very first disciples, and Jesus Himself taught, is the truth! Well, that will have to be as it may for you, but I'm pretty careful what I believe about my God and it must absolutely be in complete agreement with the simple understanding of the Scriptures.

I believe that God gave unto mankind the Scriptures for the very purpose that we might know Him and He didn't play any word games because it is His hearts desire that we know Him, understand Him, believe Him and ultimately turn to Him.

But, yes, that's just me and what I believe about God and His word.

God bless you
In Christ, Ted

 

[MKJ]

Then you're simply unaware of history then, because the greeks absolutely did believe in deep time. You just didn't know about it as you listened to the wrong "experts" and believed them without checking. Augustine railed on the chronologies of the Egyptians and the Greeks, as did other early fathers. Sorry, but I'm just telling you the truth.

It doesn't seem like you actually read what I said.

But given that my background is in classical philosophy - that is the philosophy of the Greeks and Romans (and the early Christians as it happens) - I think I have a reasonable grasp of how the Greeks understood time.

I think the principles are quite simple. The early fathers were far from perfect, but understood that God was smarter than man and that his revelations about history were much more reliable than men's theories.


You've decided to place your trust in man's ever-changing theories, and use them to help you understand the Bible. I recommend you flip that round. Look at man's theories, and then look at God's revelation, so you can correctly judge man's theories. Men always get things wrong.

Men often get things wrong about what God says as well. Especially when they read Scripture without understanding how it is written.

I am not sure what you mean by "trusting in men's theories"? I think there is very good evidence to support evolutionary theory. On the other hand "creation-science" is generally very very poor. And the idea that God planted evidence for us to misunderstand is a serious theological problem.

As far as the scientific theory, it really isn't a problem if it changes. It doesn't impact my religious life or faith.

Creation is just that—God's creation. It speaks some truths from its design about the Designer, but can't tell us anything about its origins. That's why God revealed history to us, so we could understand its origin. The problem is, you want to trust what man says about its origin. That's why you're in no way similar to the early fathers.

Have you read the early Fathers much? It doesn't seem like it.

It's funny, but in every generation, men think their scientists are superior. When the geocentrists ruled, they thought they were the creme of the crop. There is nothing new under the sun.

There are people in every generation who think they are right when they are wrong. About a lot of things.

 

[SkyWriting]

It isn't a new phrase. bible - What does CS Lewis mean by True Myth? - Christianity Stack Exchange

That's off the topic.
You made up the phrase "Inspired Myth".
There is no such thing.

Translation is not the same thing as interpretation. Simply converting from one language to another does not explore the intended meaning of the author.

Yes, that's exactly what happens in the translation process.
That what the entire process is.

If you don't think that stories can be inspired, i.e. inspired myth, then what do you think Jesus' parables were?

Jesus always told the TRUTH. His parables were true stories about real people and actual events. Do you think He had such limited knowledge about life that he had to invent fictional characters and events? Well, I don't. That would be a dangereous game to claim that you are "The Truth" but created fiction to get your point across!

Using real people to teach us parables is what the Bible is. Cover to cover.

 

[Sayre]

Lol you think parables are literal? How cute

 

[KWCrazy]

Lol you think parables are literal? How cute

Can you show is in the Scriptures where Jesus admits He made them up?
He explained why He taught in parables, but He never states whether they were actual events or stories made up to illustrate His point. Being God, He had the entire ancestry of man to compile and use real stories. It doesn't really matter to me whether they were illustrations or actual happenings. What matters is that He taught the absolute accuracy of the Scriptures so that false teachers could't later come back and claim that the most important parts were allegory.

 

[Sayre]

Can you show is in the Scriptures where Jesus admits He made them up?
He explained why He taught in parables, but He never states whether they were actual events or stories made up to illustrate His point. Being God, He had the entire ancestry of man to compile and use real stories. It doesn't really matter to me whether they were illustrations or actual happenings. What matters is that He taught the absolute accuracy of the Scriptures so that false teachers could't later come back and claim that the most important parts were allegory.

Uh... thats cool and all, but... no.



Mark 4
New King James Version (NKJV)
The Parable of the Sower

4 And again He began to teach by the sea. And a great multitude was gathered to Him, so that He got into a boat and sat in it on the sea; and the whole multitude was on the land facing the sea. 2 Then He taught them many things by parables, and said to them in His teaching:

3 “Listen! Behold, a sower went out to sow. 4 And it happened, as he sowed, that some seed fell by the wayside; and the birds of the air[a] came and devoured it. 5 Some fell on stony ground, where it did not have much earth; and immediately it sprang up because it had no depth of earth. 6 But when the sun was up it was scorched, and because it had no root it withered away. 7 And some seed fell among thorns; and the thorns grew up and choked it, and it yielded no crop. 8 But other seed fell on good ground and yielded a crop that sprang up, increased and produced: some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some a hundred.”

9 And He said to them, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”

The Purpose of Parables

10 But when He was alone, those around Him with the twelve asked Him about the parable. 11 And He said to them, “To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, 12 so that

‘Seeing they may see and not perceive,
And hearing they may hear and not understand;
Lest they should turn,
And their sins be forgiven them.’”[c]
The Parable of the Sower Explained

13 And He said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables? 14 The sower sows the word. 15 And these are the ones by the wayside where the word is sown. When they hear, Satan comes immediately and takes away the word that was sown in their hearts. 16 These likewise are the ones sown on stony ground who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with gladness; 17 and they have no root in themselves, and so endure only for a time. Afterward, when tribulation or persecution arises for the word’s sake, immediately they stumble. 18 Now these are the ones sown among thorns; they are the ones who hear the word, 19 and the cares of this world, the deceitfulness of riches, and the desires for other things entering in choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful. 20 But these are the ones sown on good ground, those who hear the word, accept it, and bear fruit: some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some a hundred.”

Light Under a Basket

21 Also He said to them, “Is a lamp brought to be put under a basket or under a bed? Is it not to be set on a lampstand? 22 For there is nothing hidden which will not be revealed, nor has anything been kept secret but that it should come to light. 23 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”

24 Then He said to them, “Take heed what you hear. With the same measure you use, it will be measured to you; and to you who hear, more will be given. 25 For whoever has, to him more will be given; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.”

The Parable of the Growing Seed

26 And He said, “The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed on the ground, 27 and should sleep by night and rise by day, and the seed should sprout and grow, he himself does not know how. 28 For the earth yields crops by itself: first the blade, then the head, after that the full grain in the head. 29 But when the grain ripens, immediately he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come.”

The Parable of the Mustard Seed

30 Then He said, “To what shall we liken the kingdom of God? Or with what parable shall we picture it? 31 It is like a mustard seed which, when it is sown on the ground, is smaller than all the seeds on earth; 32 but when it is sown, it grows up and becomes greater than all herbs, and shoots out large branches, so that the birds of the air may nest under its shade.”

Jesus’ Use of Parables

33 And with many such parables He spoke the word to them as they were able to hear it. 34 But without a parable He did not speak to them. And when they were alone, He explained all things to His disciples.











Right.

Do you want me to hold your hand and walk you through it, or is there enough egg on your face already?

 

[SkyWriting]

Jesus’ Use of Parables
33 And with many such parables He spoke the word to them as they were able to hear it. 34 But without a parable He did not speak to them. And when they were alone, He explained all things to His disciples.

Jesus was not of such limited knowledge of the world that he needed to create any fiction. All His Parables were based on real world events. It would be dangerous to claim to be the Truth and make up fictional stories to make a point.....about truth. And totally unnecessary anyway.

I started to write that if Jesus were 6 years old, giving sermons, we might imagine that he invented the stories......but no. We would be even MORE likely to believe that a child was simply retelling events he had seen. Or if Jesus preached at 120, we would imagine He has seen it all and had no need to invent fictions.

There is no reason to think that parables were fiction. None at all.

 

[gluadys]

Can you show is in the Scriptures where Jesus admits He made them up?

Can you show where he claims he did not?

The people who were closest to him, who wrote the gospels, tell us that they were parables, not actual events. I think they would know.

Sure, they are life-like, drawn from the common experiences of his listeners, but there is no evidence they were about particular instances of those experiences.

 

[SkyWriting]

Can you show where he claims he did not?

The people who were closest to him, who wrote the gospels, tell us that they were parables, not actual events. I think they would know.

Sure, they are life-like, drawn from the common experiences of his listeners, but there is no evidence they were about particular instances of those experiences.

Jesus said many times that he was telling the truth and made up nothing.
A Parable is a METHOD of telling a story. Look it up. A Parable is not a Myth or a Fable.

Make them holy by your truth; teach them your word, which is truth.

For we cannot oppose the truth, but must always stand for the truth.

Even PROVERBS warns about making up any fiction:

teaching you to be honest and to speak the truth, so that you bring back truthful reports to those you serve

LORD, set up a guard for my mouth; keep watch at the door of my lips

Then keep your tongue from speaking evil and your lips from telling lies!

Lies = Fiction. Jesus told no fiction.

 

[Sayre]

Jesus said many times that he was telling the truth and made up nothing.
A Parable is a METHOD of telling a story. Look it up. A Parable is not a Myth or a Fable.

Make them holy by your truth; teach them your word, which is truth.

For we cannot oppose the truth, but must always stand for the truth.

Even PROVERBS warns about making up any fiction:

teaching you to be honest and to speak the truth, so that you bring back truthful reports to those you serve

LORD, set up a guard for my mouth; keep watch at the door of my lips

Then keep your tongue from speaking evil and your lips from telling lies!

Lies = Fiction. Jesus told no fiction.

A parable draws an analogy between a real life situation and a literary construct.

The real problem here your claim "Lies = Fiction". That is an assumption, not the conclusion of an argument.

Though it really isn't worth my bother to enter into the debate with you.

 

[gluadys]

Lies = Fiction. Jesus told no fiction.

I profoundly disagree. Fiction is not lies, and lies are not fiction. Jesus used fiction to teach truth. Report is not the only category of truth.

 

[SkyWriting]

I profoundly disagree. Fiction is not lies, and lies are not fiction. Jesus used fiction to teach truth. Report is not the only category of truth.

I've supported my non-fiction stand, you've made no attempt to support yours
other than to claim that parables are fiction, and they may be in some cases.
But if you have access to the knowledge of the world, you don't need to invent
situations just for illustration.

List of the Parables that Jesus Told

 

[mark kennedy]

I supported my non-fiction stand, you've made no attempt to support yours
other than to claim that parables are fiction, and they may be in some cases.
But if you have access to the knowledge of the world, you don't need to invent
situations just for illustration.

List of the Parables that Jesus Told

Thanks for the link. I'm not really sure what you guys are debating here but I did have a comment. I think the parables were often some kind of an example, always thought is was synonymous with parallel, but I tend to take things kind of literally.

The Prodigal Son, the Good Samaritan and some of the Wedding parables sound like anecdotes from actual, contemporary events. The way I see it, they are actual events until you have a sound reason to think otherwise.

Other parables are things like the Sower in the kingdom parables, seed falls along the wayside falling on different soils. I don't think he has an actual guy this happened to in mind, it's a common enough thing it's moot.

Parables are marked with a 'like' or 'as' usually, it's a key indicator. That's one of the ways we can be sure that the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31), isn't a parable even though it's sometimes passed off as one. Your really don't get to decide for yourself what the meaning of the text is, the Scriptures are perfectly capable of doing that for themselves.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[gluadys]

I supported my non-fiction stand, you've made no attempt to support yours
other than to claim that parables are fiction, and they may be in some cases.
But if you have access to the knowledge of the world, you don't need to invent
situations just for illustration.

You said earlier that all Jesus' parables were based on real world events. That is almost correct. They were all based on typical events in the real world lives of his listeners. Peasants sowing grain, travelers attacked by bandits, a woman losing a coin, debtors hounded by creditors, weddings and funerals---these are all common events in the life of his society. However, there is nothing to indicate that his stories were about one particular peasant, one particular bride and groom, one particular traveler or Samaritan, one particular debtor and his creditor. Nor did those who recorded these stories make any suggestion that they were about actual individual real-life persons. Instead, they called them parables, meaning they were analogies of spiritual truths taken from ordinary daily circumstances.

You have no evidence whatsoever that any of them were about particular individuals.

But the status of the parables is really a secondary issue here.

The ground of your belief lies in a deeper belief--that fiction is a lie and that lies are fiction. You equate fiction with falsehood.

That is what is so objectionable. Fiction is far from being falsehood. The best fiction is a window into realms of truth that transcend mere facticity. Shakespeare's Hamlet is more true than the actual prince of Denmark for which it was named. And it would be true even if there had never been a prince of Denmark named Hamlet. Heck, most people don't even realize there was such a prince. Who cares about an obscure prince long forgotten? The Hamlet of the play lives and lives on still and his truth is not forgotten. I don't know if there was an actual Othello, but his story is true whether or not there was.

The same is the case with Jesus' parables.

 

[miamited]

Hi guys,

I don't know what kind of logical fallacy it is called, but whether or not 4,000 years after the event that we are discussing the Son of God comes to us and speaks in parables, whether those parables are 'true' or not, has no real bearing on whether God himself spoke to us the truth regarding the creation account.

I think its called the fallacy of inference or correlation proves causation. If Jesus spoke in parables, then other parts outside of Jesus' words must also be parables. So, why anyone thinks to believe that because Jesus may or may not have spoken in parables would have any bearing on the event at hand seems illogical to me. It certainly may be true, but it cannot be used to 'prove' that it is true.

Personally, as regards this issue of whether the parables that Jesus spoke give any clue to the veracity of the creation account, I find it quite telling that God makes it clear to us in that Jesus spake in parables. He didn't just let these words of His Son go without challenge, but makes it quite clear that in this instance of His Son's visitation to us, that His Son spoke to us in parables. Yet, there is no such enlightenment given to us regarding the creation account.

God bless you all,
In Christ, Ted