Bottom line: Can a Christian believe in evolution and still be saved?

[trophy33]

Let's not beat around the bush here. Is evolution a salvation issue?

No.

Is it possible to accept Genesis as allegorical and still be saved by the Grace of Christ?

Yes.

 

[renniks]

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...

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.

 

[trophy33]

Even if you take the fall as a metaphor for something other than actual fruit it's still a required reality for biblical theology.

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.

Also, some theologians see that the story of Adam, Eve and nakedness very strongly resembles the transformation from childhood to adulthood.

So, the point of the story is needed for our theology, yes. But its not needed to be a literal historical event. The salvation etc still works, even if you are the first Eve, because you fall in your own life and therefore you need your personal redemption.

 

[renniks]

But its not needed to be a literal historical event.

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.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

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, 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.
Blessings

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Nor does evolution preclude it.

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.

 

[trophy33]

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.

I do not understand your point, probably.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The focus of both camps is theology or, at least, cosmology.

Cosmology and theology are two very different things.

 

[TLK Valentine]

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.

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?

 

[Astrid]

Scientific theories of contemporary, repeatable phenomena are entirely separable from theories of evolution.
One can embrace the former independently of the latter.

Depends on how much cog dis a person can handle.

 

[TLK Valentine]

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.

How so? There are lots of kids of apes. Man being one of them doesn't make than any less God's creation...

Gorillas? Not made in God's image.
Orangutans? Nope, not in God's image.
Humans? Bingo! You got it!
Chimpanzees? No, no... You had it a minute ago; go back...

 

[trophy33]

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?

I think this slippery road is what they are mainly afraid of... that you will finish with "do we even need literal Jesus"?

It needs some balance and limits, all extremes are bad.

 

[grasping the after wind]

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...

IMO you put your poll question poorly. It seems to me that your following OP is asking a different question than the headline of your poll would suggest to me. I suggest the wording " believe in" is problematic. I would prefer that it be worded " Can a Christian hold that the evolutionary process is real and be saved?" The term "Believe in" has both a religious connotation and a suggestion that one can implicitly trust that the agency one believes in to be invested in one's well being. Also there is often a connotation that belief in is taking something on some sort of faith and not on first hand garnered evidence or experience. Saying one believes in something means more than saying one believes something to be the case. So one may well believe that evolution is a real process that occurs in nature without putting one's trust in evolution to deliver some semblance of meaning to one's life or to answer one's questions about why one is here. As Christian , I think it is best to only believe in God and those that have shown they will put their own interests aside for the sake of others. However that does not preclude me from believing that evolution, among the many other things I find to be reality based, is a real thing. I prefer to reserve the term "believe in" for those Iconsider to be not only sentient beings but truly benevolent ones. .

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is it possible to accept Genesis as allegorical and still be saved by the Grace of Christ?

Yes.

 

[Aussie Pete]

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

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.

 

[Blade]

For me no offense but seems a silly question. Well Christ that died for the worlds sin because no other loved man and took his place. He said who ever believes in Him will have ever lasting life. That should answer that.

Praise GOD your here to always here loved you are

 

[renniks]

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?

Which is why you have to accept the whole Bible as truth, or you just sound silly picking what parts you want to keep.

 

[timothyu]

Herbivore kitty cats and whales aside, everything is food for something else. It is the cycle of life and nothing could exist without this sharing of existence, from man to the smallest viruses. Our world is like a perpetual motion gadget where we creatures all perpetually run on each other.

 

[timothyu]

He said who ever believes in Him will have ever lasting life. That should answer that.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which is why you have to accept the whole Bible as truth, or you just sound silly picking what parts you want to keep.

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.