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

[TLK Valentine]

Be thankful they didn't write it

Are you sure about that?

And even if they didn't; they chose what to put in, and what to leave out...

 

[Gottservant]

Are ready to speak up for Jesus, when Jesus asks you to?

... then you're saved.

Are you ready to define Evolution in a way that agrees with Jesus?

... then you're saved.

 

[Halbhh]

Do you mean?:
"Are you ready to define Evolution [in a way that agrees with Gottservant?]

... then you're saved."

I paraphrase what I think you seem to mean here. And that's a problem if it's what you really meant.

Because salvation does not depend on knowledge or doctrines.

Salvation Christ said is by faith --

John 6:29 Jesus replied, "The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent."

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

 

[Gottservant]

Do you mean?:
"Are you ready to define Evolution [in a way that agrees with Gottservant?]

... then you're saved."

Honestly I did not think of naming Evolution after me, at all.

[...]
Because salvation does not depend on knowledge or doctrines.

Knowledge and doctrines are auxiliary to the faith, they are not necessary (but they may help).

Salvation Christ said is by faith --

John 6:29 Jesus replied, "The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent."
[...]

Again, I think you are using the right verse, but for some reason you think it rebuffs me. Jesus paid for the set of sins able to be perpetrated by man, some of those sins are simply rewording what has been said to mean something sinful. Evolution has been in this category, not entirely but it has - that's why I say you can be saved: not because everything Evolution has said is right, but because sometimes men do change what they say, without sinning (it is the emphasis on saying what is right, that I mean when I say you can believe in Evolution and still be saved).

Thanks for the challenge, I needed to work this out for myself.

 

[timothyu]

Just like for the thief on the cross

The thief merely put someone else's interests ahead of his own. (the other thief did not)

 

[Halbhh]

I think you are using the right verse, but for some reason you think it rebuffs me.

I'm delighted it does not!

It's often about clarity in communication, I've learned by trial and error so many times, in trying to write short posts on these often deep topics.

 

[Sabertooth]

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)

They need to recognize that they are a sinner in some capacity.
The thief on the cross had that much.

 

[Neogaia777]

With more maturity comes more responsibility...

But hopefully, they will come hand in hand, etc...

So that it is not a burden, etc...

God Bless!

 

[disciple Clint]

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.

Yes that is what is written but is that intended to be taken as literal or as allegory. It is accepted by many scholars that much or perhaps even all most all of the O.T. is to be considered allegory.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes that is what is written but is that intended to be taken as literal or as allegory. It is accepted by many scholars that much or perhaps even all most all of the O.T. is to be considered allegory.

Yes, but too many Christians see that as a slippery slope. If the OT is allegorical, then how much of the NT is as well? They won't accept that.

And then there's the "Jesus believed it," trope to deal with...

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Yes that is what is written but is that intended to be taken as literal or as allegory. It is accepted by many scholars that much or perhaps even all most all of the O.T. is to be considered allegory.

Correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't science confirmed we come from star dust?

 

[Astrid]

Yes, but too many Christians see that as a slippery slope. If the OT is allegorical, then how much of the NT is as well? They won't accept that.

And then there's the "Jesus believed it," trope to deal with...

It is a slippery slope

 

[Astrid]

Correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't science confirmed we come from star dust?

And so....?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

And so....?

Maybe read the entire conversation?

 

[AV1611VET]

Correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't science confirmed we come from star dust?

On paper, yes.

But science has the wrong dust.

Genesis 2:7a And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,

 

[AV1611VET]

And so....?

And so science is wrong.

 

[Astrid]

Maybe read the entire conversation?

No rule says you gotta ( have a ) answer

 

[TLK Valentine]

It is a slippery slope

And yet Christians have told me that Christianity is not a "religion," per se, but a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

If that relationship goes no further than "what's in the book," that doesn't seem very personal to me.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

On paper, yes.

But science has the wrong dust.

Genesis 2:7a And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,

I guess I take all dust star dust.

 

[AV1611VET]

And yet Christians have told me that Christianity is not a "religion," per se, but a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Like the one you had?

If that relationship goes no further than "what's in the book," that doesn't seem very personal to me.

You should know, shouldn't you?