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

[renniks]

It ahs, but you are going to have to learn some science to understand this.

I know plenty of real science... you know, the kind that can actually be observed.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Could I not say that God included evolution in His plan but when the first two humans evolved he put a soul in them that was made in the image of God. I am not endorsing this idea but some scholars have proposed it.

I guess the question is ....evolved from what? From dust man was formed in God's image and He breathed His Spirit in Him as a man.

Genesis 2
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

 

[trophy33]

Christians by definition have to accept the Bible as God's word.

But it can mean different things:

Plenary verbal inspiration, Natural inspiration, Conceptual inspiration, Partial inspiration, Experiential inspiration, Limited inspiration...

 

[trophy33]

I guess the question is ....evolved from what? From dust man was formed in God's image and He breathed His Spirit in Him as a man.

Genesis 2
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

I guess the question is what does the "dust" in Genesis really mean.

When we read it as the 21st century reader, we think its the chemical compound our bodies are supposed to be made from.

When we read it as the ancient reader, we know it means mortality (because body after death turns to "dust").

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I guess the question is what does the "dust" in Genesis really mean.

When we read it as the 21st century reader, we think its the chemical compound our bodies are supposed to be made from.

When we read it as the ancient reader, we know it means mortality (because body after death turns to "dust").

Another beautiful truth in scripture. It tells us exactly what science has discovered.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The Messianic Jews say that Isaiah 53 isn't read in synogogue because it's so obviously about Jesus.
The only people who don't see it is about the crucifixion are those who don't want it to be.

Could it be about the execution of Jesus of Nazareth? Yes, it could be. The text in Is 53 fits the pattern of the Jesus execution.

Could it be about someone or something else? Yes. And that was my point. The text is specifically about a named "Jesus", or a crucifiction, or execution by the Romans. Other martyrs to the cause of Israel could have been slotted into it's text.

MUST it be about Jesus? No. It isn't specific enough to have only been a prediction about Jesus. It could have been interpreted as being about some other Jewish hero who suffered trying to liberate his people. It is either vague (and therefore poor) prophesy, or just the wish of the author that someone be willing to make the sacrifices so that their people be free again.

 

[trophy33]

Another beautiful truth in scripture. It tells us exactly what science has discovered.

Yes, metaphores can be beautiful.

 

[timothyu]

I guess the question is what does the "dust" in Genesis really mean.

Just like they assume the life breathed into it was mortal life... but is not. That was the first instance of being born again, that is born of the spirit, not just the flesh like our fellow dust derived creatures.

 

[trophy33]

Just like they assume the life breathed into it was mortal life... but is not. That was the first instance of being born again, that is born of the spirit, not just the flesh like our fellow dust derived creatures.

Its said that animals have the same breath of life as we do, in other places of the Bible. So I would not read anything too special into it.

 

[timothyu]

Its said that animals have the same breath of life as we do, in other places of the Bible. So I would not read anything too special into it.

There are two breaths of life just as there are two types of human... those of the spirit and those bogged down in defending the ways of the flesh. That is to say those of the Kingdom OR those of the world we have made in our own image.

 

[trophy33]

There are two breaths of life just as there are two types of human... those of the spirit and those bogged down in defending the ways of the flesh. That is to say those of the Kingdom OR those of the world we have made in our own image.

I do not see these ideas in the text itself...

 

[timothyu]

I do not see these ideas in the text itself...

We either read scripture through the eyes of God or more likely the eyes of man.

 

[TLK Valentine]

We either read scripture through the eyes of God or more likely the eyes of man.

And which are you -- God or man?

 

[timothyu]

And which are you -- God or man?

Nice twist, but not worthy of an answer as it does not refer to what I said. Farewell.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Nice twist, but not worthy of an answer as it does not refer to what I said. Farewell.

You want to read Scripture through God's eyes -- How do you (not being anything even remotely close to God) pull this off?

It would be similar to me reading Shakespeare to my cat.

 

[timothyu]

Remove the concept of self from the equation. For instance, Jesus came with the good news, His Gospel of the Kingdom, that God would be returning to take away governance of man from man and restore it to himself. Man turns around and makes it about self and builds a religion about what's in it for us.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Remove the concept of self from the equation. For instance, Jesus came with the good news, His Gospel of the Kingdom, that God would be returning to take away governance of man from man and restore it to himself. Man turns around and makes it about self and builds a religion about what's in it for us.

And that religion (all about self) formed an institution (all about self) which compiled and published the very Bible that we're discussing here.

So what are we left with?

 

[timothyu]

which compiled and published the very Bible that we're discussing here.

Be thankful they didn't write it

 

[Halbhh]

The literal Fall of the human proto-parents is intrinsic to Salvation.
I know of no evolutionary model that accommodates that.

This might confuse, since knowledge is not a requirement for Salvation. One doesn't need to have anything from Genesis. Not even very much of what is in the New Testament, not at first

Just like for the thief on the cross, for us all, salvation is only by faith in Christ, alone. (That faith will lead to good fruits in time if it's real though)

 

[Halbhh]

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...

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
Bible Gateway passage: Ephesians 2:8-9 - New International Version


Every answer that suggested faith depends on detailed knowledge for example, on agreeing to any doctrine....such as about what's in Genesis or intellectual understandings thereof, is ultimately beside the point.

Salvation is only ever by Grace, though faith, alone.

One needn't know even more than only that Christ came and died for us, for our salvation, and believe on Him.

That's Grace.