Is there a denomination that accepts theistic evolution/old earth?

[public hermit]

I simply believe the clear teaching of the scriptures.

What does that even mean, "I simply believe the clear teaching of the scriptures"?

What seems clear to you may not be so clear to others. I'll give you an example. Gregory of Nyssa held that there were no literal trees in the garden. In fact, for him, all the trees in the garden were identical and, in particular the Tree of Life, were none other than the Lord. How did he come to that conclusion? Nyssen claimed he was being instructed by David and Solomon. David taught that "Delight thou in the Lord" (Ps. 37.4). And, Solomon taught that Wisdom (which is none other than the Lord) is the Tree of Life (Prov. 3.18).

Now, to you and I that may seem a wild interpretation, but for Nyssen that was the literal reading. He didn't draw the dichotomy between the natural and the supernatural that modern readers do. For him, the scriptures were 'sacramental' in that Christ was revealed in them. To him, his reading was the literal, face value, reading. And, let's remember, we're not talking about some heretic but none other than one of Cappadocians who helped hammer out our current Trinitarian and Christological understanding. If you're curious, read Nyssen's On the Making of Man 19.4-19.5.

What may seem clear to you may not be what others clearly see. And, what they see may be a step or two further than what you or I see.

CHURCH FATHERS: On the Making of Man (St. Gregory of Nyssa)

 

[His student]

................What may seem clear to you may not be what others clearly see. And, what they see may be a step or two further than what you or I see.

I agree.

Many others (liberals who feel for some reason that they must accommodate evolution) no longer see the plain teaching of the scriptures as Genesis presents the creation of this present earth and what brought death to this earth.

It is also a step or two further in the direction of compromise with the world than I have gone or am willing to consider going.

How you compromise and are conformed to the thinking of this world is between you and God.

 

[His student]

Scripture is missing details. Science fills in those details, is how I see it.

I have no problem with that.

Look - I'm very impressed with your obvious education and intellect concerning evolution as displayed in the first post particularly.

But we are not here talking about the reason for the development of blue eyed Scandinavians or the development of the eye lid structure of oriental people. We are not talking about breeding thoroughbred horses or raising racing pigeons.

We are talking particularly about the creation of a perfect man from the dust of the earth (without a mate) and the fall of that man with a corresponding introduction of death and decay into this world through that fall.

Accommodating the theory of evolution in the book of Genesis' account of these things leads in the long run to nothing but a compromise in our trust in the other scriptures.

There's a reason why liberal denominations fail to understand and preach the evangelical gospel in a corresponding ratio to their compromise with the world in other areas.

If you have not compromised concerning the need for a personal reception of Jesus Christ as the only means of salvation I am very glad for you.

I hope to see you on the other side of this life.

But there is no doubt that you and others here have indeed compromised the plain teaching of the scriptures as found in the book of Genesis.

I call it theological liberalism and I consider that a charitable label.

 

[GodLovesCats]

He doesn't always do everything that He can do, and only He knows the reason why He chooses to do something a particular way and not another way. He could have created a perfect world with no sin, and prevented sin from ever happening, but He didn't, He promises a perfect world without sin, but we have a sinful fallen world on the way there.

God DID create a world with no sin. Adam and Eve introduced sin into it.

The rest of your post is correct.

 

[Jamdoc]

I have no problem with that.

Look - I'm very impressed with your obvious education and intellect concerning evolution as displayed in the first post particularly.

But we are not here talking about the reason for the development of blue eyed Scandinavians or the development of the eye lid structure of oriental people. We are not talking about breeding thoroughbred horses or raising racing pigeons.

We are talking particularly about the creation of a perfect man from the dust of the earth (without a mate) and the fall of that man with a corresponding introduction of death and decay into this world through that fall.

Accommodating the theory of evolution in the book of Genesis' account of these things leads in the long run to nothing but a compromise in our trust in the other scriptures.

There's a reason why liberal denominations fail to understand and preach the evangelical gospel in a corresponding ratio to their compromise with the world in other areas.

If you have not compromised concerning the need for a personal reception of Jesus Christ as the only means of salvation I am very glad for you.

I hope to see you on the other side of this life.

But there is no doubt that you and others here have indeed compromised the plain teaching of the scriptures as found in the book of Genesis.

I call it theological liberalism and I consider that a charitable label.

We're here talking about the fact that God did not give us step by step instructions into how He created things, speaking things into existence is not consistent within Genesis 1 which implies that this isn't a step by step, there's more to it than speaking.
If you want to believe scooping up dirt, molding it like clay and then breathing on it, then you're going to have to reconcile that with the fact that within human beings almost all of our DNA is shared with other life on this earth, for what purpose? This is not theory, it's not pseudoscience, it's fact that we can observe. Look, as mentioned previously the creation of Eve makes more sense when you apply genetics, when you apply biology to it. There's no need for God to use anesthesia on Adam, cut him open, remove a rib, and then sew him back up to make Eve from a rib from a being who can just speak things into existence. But if God used DNA rather than magic to create life, then there's a rationale for doing this, ribs have bone marrow and stem cells, stem cells that can be used to grow another life form. It fits scripture and what we can observe scientifically at the same time. The only "compromise" is realizing that our interpretation of scripture literally with no omitted details as a play by play was flawed, and frankly, is arrogant to believe that God would tell us 100% word for word detail on how He created us, arrogant to believe that we could understand it all if He did, lacking the technology to even see at that level of intricacy back then. Moses didn't demand God teach him years and years worth of cellular and molecular biology to understand exactly how we were made. So God told him the most important and most relevant information, that He created us, that He created one man, then one woman, and they sinned, and separated themselves from God. Explaining our exact biology wasn't relevant for Moses' purpose. Moses' purpose was to teach that we were created by God, that we sin against God, that there is punishment and death from sin, and that He established a covenant with the seed of Noah, he established a covenant with Moses and his people, that they are GOD's people, and He would be their God and they would obey His commandments to keep up their end of the covenant. The rest is all filler.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Well, everybody on all sides in this dispute does, Oscarr!

Great. We have a common platform for our discussions.

 

[Daniel9v9]

I think the key words you need to think about in your own statement is "there is no mention"
The bible is not meant to be a play by play of every action that took place since the world's beginning.
Otherwise, where did Cain's wife come from? Because Genesis only mentions Cain and Able, followed by Seth, but suddenly, in exile, Cain has a wife and founds his own nation.
If you want to take that literal of an approach, then Cain's wife came from nowhere, she was not begat by Eve or anyone else, and God didn't individually create her anywhere in the story. She's just there. ALL interpretations of the bible require you to read between the lines because so much of it is condensed.

That’s no good way of doing Biblical exegesis.
What I’m getting at is not rigorous and stiff literalism, but I’m saying that reason does not stand above Scriptures, but rather, Scriptures must interpret themselves. That is, we understand the unclear passages in light of the clearer passages, and everything must be understood on its own terms and not by our own experiences; and every passage must be understood first in its immediate context, then in its broader context.

Genesis 1 plainly says: “everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so”. This, and especially in light of (1) death entering through sin and (2) there is no death nor decay in the new creation which is a restoration of the original creation, there is simply no possibility for carnivores before the fall.

As for Cain’s wife - Adam and Eve had several children that formed clans. Scriptures are clear on that God did not create a separate people that did not come through Adam, for all came through Adam.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I think the key words you need to think about in your own statement is "there is no mention"
The bible is not meant to be a play by play of every action that took place since the world's beginning.
Otherwise, where did Cain's wife come from? Because Genesis only mentions Cain and Able, followed by Seth, but suddenly, in exile, Cain has a wife and founds his own nation.
If you want to take that literal of an approach, then Cain's wife came from nowhere, she was not begat by Eve or anyone else, and God didn't individually create her anywhere in the story. She's just there. ALL interpretations of the bible require you to read between the lines because so much of it is condensed.

The Bible concentrates on the one generational line that leads to Christ, both through Mary and Joseph. We need to view the Bible in this light - that everything written is leading to one point - the coming of the Messiah, His death and resurrection. Then the New Testament is looking back to the death and resurrection of Christ being the foundation of faith and Christian practice.

 

[Jamdoc]

That’s no good way of doing Biblical exegesis.
What I’m getting at is not rigorous and stiff literalism, but I’m saying that reason does not stand above Scriptures, but rather, Scriptures must interpret themselves. That is, we understand the unclear passages in light of the clearer passages, and everything must be understood on its own terms and not by our own experiences; and every passage must be understood first in its immediate context, then in its broader context.

Genesis 1 plainly says: “everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so”. This, and especially in light of (1) death entering through sin and (2) there is no death nor decay in the new creation which is a restoration of the original creation, there is simply no possibility for carnivores before the fall.

As for Cain’s wife - Adam and Eve had several children that formed clans. Scriptures are clear on that God did not create a separate people that did not come through Adam, for all came through Adam.

But scripture is not clear that Cain's wife was Eve's daughter, or perhaps granddaughter. That's left unclear. We have to imply and fill in the blanks of what is omitted ourselves. You do this for Cain's wife, yet aren't willing to do this for the pause between speaking and result of speaking. Speaking and creation are in different clauses in several places in Genesis 1. That's missing detail, your mind doesn't see a gap between those two acts, I do. That's differences in interpretation while both still reading and believing the same scripture.
You are also putting in your own words into scripture when you say "restoration of the original creation" That's not Revelation. Revelation 21 says NEW. Not restored old. NEW. The old passes away. There may be some things that are familiar to us, but a lot of it will be brand new. Marriage was created by God in the old "very good" but not perfect creation, and you know what? Marriage between man and woman will not exist in the new creation. It's a thing of this old world.
as I keep pointing out, death entering the world from sin was specific to Adam and his seed, Humans. It's never specified that Lions and Cheetahs just didn't need to hunt and kill gazelles before Adam sinned.
We are both making leaps of logic to account for the things ommitted. We're human, we want to fill in the gaps in our knowledge. We have different interpretations of that.

 

[BobRyan]

But scripture is not clear that Cain's wife was Eve's daughter, or perhaps granddaughter. That's left unclear.

daughter vs grand daughter well yes that part is not clarified. But the Bible does say Adam and Eve had children.

If you want to imagine that aliens from outer space landed and offered daughters to Cain .. well ok .. but that is 'inserting'

 

[BobRyan]

I think the key words you need to think about in your own statement is "there is no mention"
The bible is not meant to be a play by play of every action that took place since the world's beginning.
Otherwise, where did Cain's wife come from? Because Genesis only mentions Cain and Able, followed by Seth, but suddenly, in exile, Cain has a wife and founds his own nation.
If you want to take that literal of an approach, then Cain's wife came from nowhere, she was not begat by Eve or anyone else, and God didn't individually create her anywhere in the story. She's just there. ALL interpretations of the bible require you to read between the lines because so much of it is condensed.

We don't find a claim in the Bible that every word spoken for the first 1600 years of human history is recorded in Genesis. That is "a given".

There is no record in the Bible that Cain or Able ever ate anything or that they wore clothes or that they slept at night or that they drank water... but those who accept the Bible as literally true don't bend it to the point of claim Able never ate. And for most of the 'begats' of Genesis - there is no record that the person begotten "had a language" or spoke a single word.

 

[BobRyan]

Humans didn't die before sin, that part is NOT omitted from Genesis. But animal death is not clearly stated one way or the other, so animals dying and feeding on each other can still be a part of the plan, and is absolutely necessary for population control in a balanced ecosystem. .

All animals were vegetarians in
Genesis 1 "30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”

Rom 8
9 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.

Rom 5
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

 

[BobRyan]

Because 'six days' is not necessarily at absolute statement meaning 144 hour period as we understand time. No one here has convinced me logically of an absolutist young Earth theory, not even remotely.

Until you read Ex 20:8-11 where we find that the day is the same at Sinai for the 7 day week as for Genesis 2:1-3 ... seven days.

 

[Daniel9v9]

But scripture is not clear that Cain's wife was Eve's daughter, or perhaps granddaughter. That's left unclear. We have to imply and fill in the blanks of what is omitted ourselves. You do this for Cain's wife, yet aren't willing to do this for the pause between speaking and result of speaking. Speaking and creation are in different clauses in several places in Genesis 1. That's missing detail, your mind doesn't see a gap between those two acts, I do. That's differences in interpretation while both still reading and believing the same scripture.
You are also putting in your own words into scripture when you say "restoration of the original creation" That's not Revelation. Revelation 21 says NEW. Not restored old. NEW. The old passes away. There may be some things that are familiar to us, but a lot of it will be brand new. Marriage was created by God in the old "very good" but not perfect creation, and you know what? Marriage between man and woman will not exist in the new creation. It's a thing of this old world.
as I keep pointing out, death entering the world from sin was specific to Adam and his seed, Humans. It's never specified that Lions and Cheetahs just didn't need to hunt and kill gazelles before Adam sinned.
We are both making leaps of logic to account for the things ommitted. We're human, we want to fill in the gaps in our knowledge. We have different interpretations of that.

No, the difference is that Scriptures do say that Adam and Eve were the first and only parents and that they had many sons and daughters that formed clans. There is no need to read between the lines here.

Again, in Genesis 1 God plainly says: "Behold, I have given you (mankind) every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." Carnivorous and death do not fit into this equation.

When I use the language of restoration, what is meant is the cosmos restored to its proper design where there is no sin, death or evil. Just as there was no sin, death and evil before the fall, neither will there be sin, death or evil in the new creation.

 

[dqhall]

Paul did NO SUCH THING.

Paul refused the attempts of some Jews to circumcise the Gentiles. If you convert to Judaism, you must be circumcised. The Jews try to gain favor by proclaiming the Torah is perfect. Paul rejected circumcision for Gentiles as he did not believe in salvation by the law, but by faith (Acts 15).

Paul also defied Jewish laws of what is unclean by eating with Gentiles. The Jews did not eat certain types of meat and had Talmudic ordinances warning the not to come into contact with unclean people.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Scripture is not a science textbook, it gives a brief and necessary account of our origins. All that God has recorded, which is literal, has spiritual lessons too.

Theistic evolution is heretical, regardless of the view of the churches of Christ under heaven. It is inconsistent with the gospel. Don't believe everything the world tells you, use your discernment with Scripture to determine what is true. If it doesn't line up with Scripture, it is false and should be rejected as pseudo-science.

A certain amount of evolution in mankind's background is simply undeniable.

I don't understand why that is controversial in some segments of the Christian religion.

 

[charsan]

The Eastern Orthodox Communion

You might want to go in the sub forum here for them because they do not accept Old Earth Theistic Evolution at all they very much accept creation.

 

[BobRyan]

A certain amount of evolution in mankind's background is simply undeniable.

I don't understand why that is controversial in some segments of the Christian religion.

Starts with reading the Bible to get the doctrine on origins instead of reading Darwin to get that doctrine

 

[dqhall]

Keep in mind that we cannot say that and still say that we believe the Bible to be divinely inspired (which is virtually the #1 tenet of all Protestant churches).

While I think parts of the Bible are inspired, I do not believe the Bible is 100% correct. By one definition any Christian not under authority of the Vatican is “Protestant.” Not all Protestants believe it is proper to sacrifice animals for propitiation of sin, even though the Bible’s tells them to sacrifice animals, thus they may say the Bible is divinely inspired, but they do not follow certain Biblical regulations.

 

[BobRyan]

Regarding Eastern Orthodox

You might want to go in the sub forum here for them because they do not accept Old Earth Theistic Evolution at all they very much accept creation.

I for one am glad to hear that.