Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No.Let's not beat around the bush here. Is evolution a salvation issue?
Yes.Is it possible to accept Genesis as allegorical and still be saved by the Grace of Christ?
Well if you're going to make fun of the Bible.. it's hard to take your thread seriously.Did they literally fall out of the tree? How high up was that fruit? You'd think the serpent would at least be polite enough to climb up and knock one down for Eve...
Traditionally, maybe. But its already some time since Christian theologians realized that the fall of Adam is repeated in every one of us, therefore it can be understood to be metaphorically about humanity and every individual.Even if you take the fall as a metaphor for something other than actual fruit it's still a required reality for biblical theology.
Sure, but only if it pertains to time frames however, if it spills into "kinds", then there is a division that can not be reconciled. Those made "God's image " have a specific role to play in creation. The Father's greatest desire to have a spiritual union with mankind, if one is willing to choose Him.I think you are into two question here. It is possible to consider Genesis allegory and still believe that humans are made in the image of God.
Sure it does, if there is no distction in " kinds". Evolution, Darwinism, claims humans evolved through the lineage of apes. This is does not harmonize with God's creation of man in His image.Nor does evolution preclude it.
I do not understand your point, probably.If you believe in traditional Christianity it has to be a historical event.
If you just want to play fast and loose with the Bible you can make it say about anything.
The focus of both camps is theology or, at least, cosmology.
Well if you're going to make fun of the Bible.. it's hard to take your thread seriously.
Even if you take the fall as a metaphor for something other than actual fruit it's still a required reality for biblical theology.
Depends on how much cog dis a person can handle.Scientific theories of contemporary, repeatable phenomena are entirely separable from theories of evolution.
One can embrace the former independently of the latter.
Sure it does, if there is no distction in " kinds". Evolution, Darwinism, claims humans evolved through the lineage of apes. This is does not harmonize with God's creation of man in His image.
I think this slippery road is what they are mainly afraid of... that you will finish with "do we even need literal Jesus"?Ah, but without a literal fruit, we don't need a literal tree, or a literal garden, or a literal naked couple taking bad advice from a literal talking reptile.
And once we're at that point, do we need a literal Genesis?
Let's not beat around the bush here. Is evolution a salvation issue?
Is it possible to accept Genesis as allegorical and still be saved by the Grace of Christ?
Because it seems to me that if the answer is yes, debating it is pointless for creationists, and if the answer is no, debating it is pointless with creationists.
I'm just curious regarding what people really think coming into these discussions...
Is it possible to accept Genesis as allegorical and still be saved by the Grace of Christ?
If I have to explain my position, I subscribe to the pre-Adamic creation theory. It's also known as gap theory, I term I dislike. It's more hinted at in the Bible than stated outright. The first clue is that the word "was" could just as readily be translated "became", so it could be said that the earth became formless and empty. This would explain the geological record. If you're interested in this subject, I suggest "The Mystery of Creation" by Watchman Nee.Eh, I prefer "Conductor". The same (or similar) questions of moral responsibility remain for Creationism, I would imagine. I'm actually a 6-day Relativistic Creationist - 6-days from God's point of view outside an expanding creation. Time scales influenced and changing due speed and gravity, which relativity does. To me, Genesis isn't allegory so much as it is synopsis. Otherwise the first chapter of the bible would have taken a few 100 pages and a lecture from a PhD and nobody would have gotten to the second one until it made sense.
Gerald Schroeder - Wikipedia
Which is why you have to accept the whole Bible as truth, or you just sound silly picking what parts you want to keep.Ah, but without a literal fruit, we don't need a literal tree, or a literal garden, or a literal naked couple taking bad advice from a literal talking reptile.
And once we're at that point, do we need a literal Genesis?
And He never said it would resemble this one. Man is so intent on staring in a mirror he finds it hard to grasp the Kingdom.He said who ever believes in Him will have ever lasting life. That should answer that.
Sorry, but if one does that then one in effect refutes the entire Bible. If you say "It is all true or none of it is true" then finding one event that did not happen as told in the Bible and the whole thing falls apart. And there are quite a few events that did not happen as told in the Bible.Which is why you have to accept the whole Bible as truth, or you just sound silly picking what parts you want to keep.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?