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

hedrick · Dec 7, 2019

JAL said:
I think you and I are spending too much time discussing Calvin's view of the waters. Regardless of Calvin's view on it, 2 Peter 3:5 is a strong indication that the world was formed from waters. In fact it's difficult to see why that verse is included in the NT if it wasn't intended as a confirmation of the Genesis hydrology.

Calvin is interesting for many reasons. But in this context he's interesting because he lived during the beginning of the series of scientific and scholarly changes that began to make it impossible to regard Scripture as completely reliable on factual items.

He responded with the idea of divine accommodation. God accommodated his revelation to the understanding of the people receiving it. This allowed Calvin, and after him many Protestants, to accept the new astronomy.

This does not require fanciful interpretations of Scripture. You can still accept that the authors had the obvious meaning. It explains why God would allow that meaning to be wrong, as judged by later knowledge.

JAL · Dec 7, 2019

BobRyan said:
Well it does not say "liquids called waters" as we both know.

It says this -

Gen:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

So clearly the waters when gathered together are what the Bible calls "seas". Not a big surprise as I am sure we would both agree

Praise God no text says "He inserted a solid wedge into the waters". You may consider that detail to be "inconvenient" at this point - but I find it refreshing all the same.

Praise God that no text says "God flooded the land in Noah's day by opening windows in the heavens (in the crystalline firmament)".

You may consider that detail to be "inconvenient" at this point - but I find it refreshing all the same.

Instead of that - the Bible actually says

Gen 7:"11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."

Gen 8: The fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were also stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained.

What causes a cloudburst - Answers
"Cloudburst" is a common term

And here is another easy text to read without getting into silicates, or crystals or bars, or boxes etc

Ezek 1
4 Then I looked, and behold, a whirlwind was coming out of the north, a great cloud with raging fire engulfing itself; and brightness was all around it and radiating out of its midst like the color of amber, out of the midst of the fire. 5 Also from within it came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance: they had the likeness of a man.

What's the difference, Bob? I've already demonstrated on this thread that you conveniently ignore arguments and presented evidence and simply keep repeating the Bob-dogma. I have had this experience with you several times over the years. On a given thread, at some point I seem to always end up deciding your posts are generally not worth responding to.

JAL · Dec 7, 2019

hedrick said:
Calvin is interesting for many reasons. But in this context he's interesting because he lived during the beginning of the series of scientific and scholarly changes that began to make it impossible to regard Scripture as completely reliable on factual items.

He responded with the idea of divine accommodation. God accommodated his revelation to the understanding of the people receiving it. This allowed Calvin, and after him many Protestants, to accept the new astronomy.

This does not require fanciful interpretations of Scripture. You can still accept that the authors had the obvious meaning. It explains why God would allow that meaning to be wrong, as judged by later knowledge.

Fine, but if you're insinuating that I've engaged in any fanciful interpretations of Scripture, I think such has yet to be demonstrated, although you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

hedrick · Dec 7, 2019

JAL said:
Fine, but if you're insinuating that I've engaged in any fanciful interpretations of Scripture, I think such has yet to be demonstrated, although you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

No. I’m referring to things like gap and day age.

Jipsah · Dec 7, 2019

BobRyan said:
How foolish someone would be to take that solution and accuse God of "being a liar"

My very question. Yet you lot persist in saying that the evidence of incredible antiquity observable in God's creation itself is unreliable. Schizophrenic much? You'd have us believe that your sect's interpretation of Genesis is authoritative, and that if we find that examination of creation itself differs from what your dogma says we must believe, then your dogma must be assumed to be true. I submit that that's 180 degrees out of phase with reality. It's on a par with the Flat Earth nonsense. If the testimony of God's creation is to be disregarded, then the days or creation may well have been six 24 hour days ago, and God simply created in such a way that it all appears to be very, very old. For my part, I have to put more store in what God actually made than in what your lot say about it based on plain vanilla eisegesis.

on that very day it would be "observed" that Adam does not "look like a 24 hour old zygote.. but instead looks like a full grown adult" in his 20's.

So you do believe that God has pulled a fast one on us and made things appear old than that really are. OK, the question then is "Why?"

Many Bible believing Christians freely admit to..
7 day creation week
world wide flood

And a flat earth, and a geocentric universe, and stars painted on a "firmament", etc.

literal incarnation of God the Son - into the man Jesus.
bodily resurrection of Christ
bodily ascension of Christ into heaven

Things about which the Bible is quite specific, and don't require a lot of massaging to make it suit your doctrinal presuppositions.

It is difficult to take your argument seriously at that point

Aw, come on, anyone who has as much faith in flying saucers as you do shouldn't go on too much about anyone else's arguments being taken seriously. <Laugh>

Jipsah · Dec 7, 2019

BobRyan said:
Moses was no darwinist.

Truth be told he probably wasn't much of a scientist, either. Probably not a philatelist, either.

So then "you" questioning God is "compelling"???

No, just questioning your doctrine. Wel, not exactly questioning your doctrine, more like rejecting it out of hand.

Is this where you convince the reader that God Himself cannot possibly know of any other source of light - other than a fusion reaction 98 million miles from Earth?

Do you know of any other source of light we use to define a "day"?

Seriously?? that's even an argument against the Word of God?

Nope, just an argument against your hand-wrought doctrine.

Jipsah · Dec 7, 2019

BobRyan said:
Gen 7:"11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."
Gen 8: The fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were also stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained.

So do you believe in literal windows in Heaven or do you reject the Gospels?

His student · Dec 10, 2019

Jamdoc said:
If something does not have a purpose, it's in vain. Us being biologically related to other animals if we were created entirely independently with no common biology between us, would give that relationship no purpose, it would be vain.

You mean like the angels are to us? They are apparently all created male and are able to mate with human females and yet are told not to. Worse than just done "in vain" - it was and is done apparently only to display their propensity to sin by not keeping their own abode.

Jamdoc said:
It isn't about what I want. It's about what can be observed. Those hominids existed. There's evidence that biologically we are not that different from them, and even culturally, were not that different from them, there's evidence that they made tools and weapons, played music, made art, and buried their dead with flowers. It isn't about impressing anyone or what anyone else thinks. It's about me being unwilling to ignore all the evidence around me and just believe what I'm told, SOME PEOPLE'S INTERPRETATION of scripture verbatim.

Actually if you believed the scriptures half as much as you believe the world's scientists you would have men created from angels rather than from apes or hominids.

Jamdoc said:
It's not about other people. It's about how the world actually works, what evidence is actually in the world. If I cared about what other people thought of me, I'd just be an atheist wouldn't I?
I believe what I believe because I have formed my own opinions taking evidence into account.

It appears to me that it is about what the world thinks of you.

We have scriptural evidence that angels and mankind are more comparable than has ever been demonstrated between apes and men. And the elements of the earth have nothing to do with it.

Yet you do not take the position that we were likely created from those highly compatible angels because the world would laugh you to scorn. So, in spite of God saying that animals can reproduce only from their kind and angels and mankind can reproduce, - you take a position that is more acceptable to the world than to what the scriptures tell us is actually possible.

You have disregarded actual biblical evidence because the world would laugh at you for believing in it and you have accepted what has never been in evidence either in the scriptures or in the experiments of the world's scientists.

I am not convinced that you are simply thinking logically and thus have come up with a scenario that science tells us is not possible between one kind and another of the world's animals.

Instead I am more and more convinced that you are simply compromising with the world in order to fit in with those you consider more intellectual than those silly fundamentalist Christians.

No need to argue any more about it. You have made your reasons for your beliefs clear, at least to me.

Fortunately your salvation doesn't depend on your not compromising in this area. But you really shouldn't kid yourself concerning why you are doing it. It certainly isn't necessary because of the fossil record.

Jamdoc · Dec 10, 2019

His student said:
You mean like the angels are to us? They are apparently all created male and are able to mate with human females and yet are told not to. Worse than just done "in vain" - it was and is done apparently only to display their propensity to sin by not keeping their own abode.

Actually if you believed the scriptures half as much as you believe the world's scientists you would have men created from angels rather than from apes or hominids.

Angels are not physical beings, they have no biology. They are spirit only purely supernatural. See animals are all natural. They are not supernatural they're just natural, just physical beings. Angels are all spiritual, they have no physical body. God, well, when he was in the flesh as Jesus Christ he had a body, but I don't know about in heaven, He certainly wouldn't be confined to one but could have one if He wants.

Man however, is both physical and spiritual. We have the same biology as animals, we have physical bodies, but we also have a spirit directly from God (two if you're born again). To me at least it violates nothing in scripture or in holiness, to see that God could have our physical bodies be natural bodies, coming from natural processes and biology, but our spirit is supernatural. That makes us special within creation that we are both natural and supernatural. When Jesus Christ came to this world, how did He do it? Did he appear out of thin air fully grown ready to perform His ministry and miracles? No. God supernaturally made Mary pregnant and he was born as a man would be, as a baby, who would grow naturally over the course of years into a man, the same way a man would be. God could have made Jesus arrive fully grown, no birth required. But He didn't, He had Jesus be born, naturally.

God created nature, maybe you shun nature but He does not.

the rest of your post is irrelevant because I already discussed my reasons for my beliefs, it has nothing to do with what other people think of me. In fact the only way I'd ever be a YEC, is because I'd feel pressure from the church to conform to their interpretation.

His student · Dec 11, 2019

Jamdoc said:
God created nature, maybe you shun nature but He does not.

Not at all.

Jamdoc said:
God could have made Jesus arrive fully grown, no birth required. But He didn't, He had Jesus be born, naturally.

Of course - just as those who came after Adam and Eve. But the scriptures tell us that Adam and Eve came into being differently.

Jamdoc said:
Angels are all spiritual, they have no physical body.

You are wrong about that according to the scriptures.

Angels can and do eat food that can also sustain men, and can also have sex (if they are of a sinning mindset).

Study Genesis 6; 1 Corinthians 15:35-57; Psalm 78:23-25; Ex, 16:35; Luke 24:39-43;

Jamdoc said:
Man however, is both physical and spiritual. We have the same biology as animals, we have physical bodies,

Yes - now we have an only physical body and after the resurrection we will have a spiritual body just as the angels and Jesus do.

Study 1 John 3:2; Phil. 3:20; 1 Cor. 15:50-54;Matt. 22:29-30; Luke 20:35-36; Genesis 18:2,7-8,16 and 19:3; and several other pertinent scripture passages concerning the bodies of angels and resurrected men including the Lord.

Jamdoc said:
... but we also have a spirit directly from God (two if you're born again).

Regenerated men do not have two spirits.

I may well have wronged you in saying that you are trying to please men in taking your stance that mankind comes from apes and "hominids".

It appears that you are simply poorly taught or unaware of what the scriptures tell us about angels and the resurrection bodies of men.

It seems that you have some studying and thinking to to do before we re engage on this subject if at all.

Having said that - I still can't figure for the life of me why you feel you must make up a theory that goes beyond what the scriptures clearly teach. :scratch:

DennisTate · Dec 11, 2019

Jamdoc said:
I can't be young earth, Genesis 1 seems like a "this is a gist of it but I'm not telling you specifics" overview of creation rather than a step by step instruction, allowing for what has been scientifically discovered about the nature of the universe and its age to hold true while still being God's very good creation. I see ongoing geological, cosmological, and biological processes that take very long times to do anything and it only makes absolute sense that those processes have been going on for a very long time, canyons are still being dug by rivers inch by inch, Niagra falls recedes its bank inch by inch over the years. There have been cataclysms such as global flood but there have also been slow processes that continue to go on every day, I have witnessed microevolution in laboratory settings. So there's only so much you can do believing in young earth creationism, and not just blind yourself to everything around you that says the universe is older than 6000 years. You either have to believe that Satan created the evidence (where in scripture has Satan ever been able to create anything?), or believe that God created things to appear older than they really are which seems like, deception. Why create things that would intentionally trick people? God doesn't lie or deceive!
So I can't be a young earth creationist, which puts me at odds with most pastors in most denominations of Christianity.
I believe in Old Earth. I still believe God created it, but I believe he did so using processes we still see at work today. I am not sure if I full blown believe in theistic macroevolution or progressive creationism (God creating things according to "kinds" in waves, which is more consistent with the fossil record, and microevolution being a tool within the genetic code that God created as a blueprint for all life). But microevolution I can't ignore at all. I can't just pretend that DNA just doesn't exist and we're all just scooped up dirt breathed upon by God. In Genesis 2 God even describes anesthesia and surgery to remove one of Adam's ribs (as a source of bone marrow and stem cells) to make Eve (Genesis 2:21-23). Which had always confused me as to why Genesis 2 didn't have God just speaking Eve into existence, but then I learned about stem cells present in bone marrow and the ribs are a flat bone which is one of your main sources of hematopoiesis, it suddenly made perfect sense, God GREW Eve from stem cells from Adam's bone marrow.
Is there any denominations that support old earth and either theistic evolution or progressive creationism?

That is an interesting question. I got some good replies over in this discussion related to Old Earth as shown to a near death experiencer.

Not sure if this will help you to find a specific denomination though?

NDE of Dr. Richard Eby verifies old earth and gap theory.

Jamdoc · Dec 11, 2019

His student said:
Not at all.

Of course - just as those who came after Adam and Eve. But the scriptures tell us that Adam and Eve came into being differently.

You are wrong about that according to the scriptures.

Angels can and do eat food that can also sustain men, and can also have sex (if they are of a sinning mindset).

Study Genesis 6; 1 Corinthians 15:35-57; Psalm 78:23-25; Ex, 16:35; Luke 24:39-43;

Yes - now we have an only physical body and after the resurrection we will have a spiritual body just as the angels and Jesus do.

Study 1 John 3:2; Phil. 3:20; 1 Cor. 15:50-54;Matt. 22:29-30; Luke 20:35-36; Genesis 18:2,7-8,16 and 19:3; and several other pertinent scripture passages concerning the bodies of angels and resurrected men including the Lord.

Regenerated men do not have two spirits.

I may well have wronged you in saying that you are trying to please men in taking your stance that mankind comes from apes and "hominids".

It appears that you are simply poorly taught or unaware of what the scriptures tell us about angels and the resurrection bodies of men.

It seems that you have some studying and thinking to to do before we re engage on this subject if at all.

Having said that - I still can't figure for the life of me why you feel you must make up a theory that goes beyond what the scriptures clearly teach.

The 2nd spirit is the Holy Spirit.

His student · Dec 11, 2019

Jamdoc said:
The 2nd spirit is the Holy Spirit.

OK - I see what you mean.

Jamdoc · Dec 11, 2019

His student said:
OK - I see what you mean.

Most of the scripture you cited has to do with resurrected glorified bodies and you're making an interpretation from Matthew 22:30 and Luke 25:36 about us being "like" or "equal" to the angels. Most interpretations just take that to mean as that we do not die and our purpose is to serve the Lord, not that our bodies will be like them with 4 faces and wings and all that.
Of course angels have been disguised in the bodies of men in several places in scripture but as far as I know their true nature is spiritual rather than physical.
Hebrews 1:14

His student · Dec 11, 2019

Jamdoc said:
Most of the scripture you cited has to do with resurrected glorified bodies and you're making an interpretation from Matthew 22:30 and Luke 25:36 about us being "like" or "equal" to the angels. Most interpretations just take that to mean as that we do not die and our purpose is to serve the Lord, not that our bodies will be like them with 4 faces and wings and all that.
Of course angels have been disguised in the bodies of men in several places in scripture but as far as I know their true nature is spiritual rather than physical.
Hebrews 1:14

I gave you scriptures that explains it for anyone who wants to pursue it to study and there are many more to go with those. I won't break them down for you nor will I be leading you through their implications.

Suffice it to say that the original man was a lot more like the angels than the apes and his mate had a lot better chance of conceiving from an angel than a monkey.

Also - you should know that not all Heavenly creatures have 4 faces and wings. Nor are those Heavenly creatures that do necessarily angels.

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

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Senior Veteran

Blood Drinker

Blood Drinker

Blood Drinker

Well-Known Member

Watching and Praying Always

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Watching and Praying Always

Well-Known Member

Watching and Praying Always

Well-Known Member

Similar threads