Can theistic evolutionists be saved?

fishstix · Jan 27, 2004

Northern Christian said:
YECs, OECs, can theistic evolutionists be saved? I have to the conclusion that they can.

Of course they can be saved. I don't agree with them, but I don't see why they couldn't be saved. How would believing that God used evolution prevent one's salvation???

theFijian · Jan 27, 2004

Ark Guy said:
Which means Christ created all things..duh.

God the Father part of the Trinity didn't do the creating. The bible is very clear that jesus MADE ALL things.

COL 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
COL 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Now Bear, just what part of "By him all things were made" don't you understand? Does it say by God the Father..or is it talking about Jesus Christ?

Hi there Ark guy,

What would you make of Genesis 1:26? The NIV, ESV, KJV and NKJV render the verse 'Let us make man in our own image...' which seems to point towards the entire trinity being involved. Or would you say that the entire trinity was only involved in the creation of man?

thanks,

Andy

Josh1 · Jan 27, 2004

Lucaspa: 1. You have not demonstrated that a non-literal interpretation of the how of Creation is wrong.
2. Genesis cannot be a historical record because Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 plainly contradict on several key points. You can't have a contradictory history. You can, however, have a contradictory history when the objective is to tell two complementary, but different, theological points.
3. None of the gospel has its origins in Genesis. All of Genesis could drop right out of the Bible and not affect the Gospel at all. What you need to be true in the OT is the Exodus, not a literal Genesis 1-11. This is where creationism gets in real trouble: illogically tying the ultimate meaning of Jesus' life, death, and Resurrection to a testable, falsified literal reading of Genesis 1-11. It is as if creationists want Christianity to be shown to be wrong! Creationism goes out of its way here to try to make Christianity by wrong.

The Bible does not contradict itself, or in any way can you throw out parts of it to suffice your theory. I do believe that any man can be saved, (even full preterist) but that does not mean that they won't hold some heretical views. I Timothy 3:16 tells us all the Bible is inspired!!!

I tried my best not to post in this reguards (all in vain) but after seeing the remarks made against Gods Word, I could not help myself.

Marc : I actually forget I'm listening to christians when I read some of these posts.

Me too, even though the spirit of individuals is probally what you are talking about. By the way, anybody listen to the Kent Hovind/Hugh Ross debate (eheheeh,lol)? God Bless.

Josh

Bushido216 · Jan 27, 2004

Josh1, you're new here, so I'll try to break you in easy...

Yes, the Bible's message doesn't contradict itself. That's what lucaspa, myself, and other are breaking our fingers trying to convey to you. The sentences in the Bible may contradict themselves, but not the spiritual message. Of course Timothy tells us that the Bible is divinely inspired. He didn't say it was literal, just that it was inspired.

As well, Kent Hovid is a fraud. He's a great debater, yes, but ever wonder why he doesn't allow written debates? Because in a written debate he can't throw lie after lie after lie at rapidfire speeds and interrupt his opponent. Quite frankly, all of his "science" is false.

Josh1 · Jan 27, 2004

Bushido216 vbmenu_register("postmenu_1629533", true); :

Josh1, you're new here, so I'll try to break you in easy...

Yes, the Bible's message doesn't contradict itself. That's what lucaspa, myself, and other are breaking our fingers trying to convey to you. The sentences in the Bible may contradict themselves, but not the spiritual lineage. Of course Timothy tells us that the Bible is divinely inspired. He didn't say it was literal, just that it was inspired.

Well, thanks for "breaking me in", but no need I have been in here a couple of times. Genesis 1 and 2 does not contradict itself, neither does any other part. The part that i'm worried about is how you define what is literal and what is not. I don't see how you can do that. The Bible is very plain thru scriptures that God created the heavens and the earth. I don't see the reasoning for using theistic evolution. Is Christ a figment of our imagination? Is salvation a figment of our imagination? Tell me how you decipher between the two.

Bushido216: As well, Kent Hovid is a fraud. He's a great debater, yes, but ever wonder why he doesn't allow written debates? Because in a written debate he can't throw lie after lie after lie at rapidfire speeds and interrupt his opponent. Quite frankly, all of his "science" is false.

Just because Hugh Ross(theistic evolutionist) may never debate again is no reasons to take potshots at Dr. Hovind. He offers to debate anybody face to face. http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=truthradio#December
Dr.Hovind answers his critics and gives very good reasons why he don't debate email debates. Most debates are not for individuals, but are for the people listening. Besides (Dr.Hovind did not say this, but another reason) who reads pages upon pages of debates? Many people will go listen, but few would ever read one.

Josh

notto · Jan 27, 2004

Josh1 said:
Most debates are not for individuals, but are for the people listening. Besides (Dr.Hovind did not say this, but another reason) who reads pages upon pages of debates? Many people will go listen, but few would ever read one.

Josh

You have just answered your own question from another thread as to why professional scientists see little value in oral debates with "Dr's" of Christian education regarding science and instead, they do science the way it is meant to be done, by doing research, publishing their results, and submitting to peer review.

Oral debates are not about fact, but as you mention, are done to persuade the audience. Science is done by presenting facts and evidence in a non persuasive way and having results verified and double checked. This is why Hovind avoids written debates. The readers and participants could check up on him and easily point out his many failings in his knowledge and presentation of science.

Bushido216 · Jan 27, 2004

Josh1 said:
Bushido216:

Josh1, you're new here, so I'll try to break you in easy...

Yes, the Bible's message doesn't contradict itself. That's what lucaspa, myself, and other are breaking our fingers trying to convey to you. The sentences in the Bible may contradict themselves, but not the spiritual message [changed this to reflect changes in my post]. Of course Timothy tells us that the Bible is divinely inspired. He didn't say it was literal, just that it was inspired.

Well, thanks for "breaking me in", but no need I have been in here a couple of times. Genesis 1 and 2 does not contradict itself, neither does any other part. The part that i'm worried about is how you define what is literal and what is not. I don't see how you can do that. The Bible is very plain thru scriptures that God created the heavens and the earth. I don't see the reasoning for using theistic evolution. Is Christ a figment of our imagination? Is salvation a figment of our imagination? Tell me how you decipher between the two.

How do I decipher between the two? Whenever the Bible puts forth a scientific theory, I challenge that theory. In the case of a young earth with immutable creatures, that theory has been falsified. Jesus isn't a scientific theory.

You're assuming that to have faith in one literal piece requires faith in all the literal pieces. It doesn't.

Josh1 · Jan 28, 2004

Bushido216: You're assuming that to have faith in one literal piece requires faith in all the literal pieces. It doesn't.

So the Bible is not inspired? If I am reading you right, then that is the vibe I am getting. How can the Bible be inspired by God and not be right in every aspect?

My point to you notta, is that most evos are so persuaded in their own mind that they would not give a care if they were right or wrong. Our job as christians is to show the truth to the people. Christ died for them and without him they are going to hell. That is our job and it is essential to make evos look pathetic in these face to face debates. I answered the reason to why face to face in my last post.

Josh

Bushido216 · Jan 28, 2004

Josh

a.) The Bible is inspired. It's message is perfect. Not every single line. Have you noticed that, despite the various ways many groups (Lutherans, Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodox, etc.) everyone has the same basic idea of how things ought to be? The same basic idea of what each portion of the Bible means?
b.) Josh1... so it's alright to spread absolute lies about science so long as it brings people to Christ? That's such ****. Dino caters only to the Christians. He's not bringing anyone anywhere. Besides, doesn't it make Christianity look bad if we spout false science?

lucaspa · Jan 28, 2004

Josh1 said:
The Bible does not contradict itself, or in any way can you throw out parts of it to suffice your theory. I do believe that any man can be saved, (even full preterist) but that does not mean that they won't hold some heretical views. I Timothy 3:16 tells us all the Bible is inspired!!!

1. A literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 do indeed contradict. There are several contradictions between literal readings of these. It is why all Biblical scholars have agreed that they are separate creation stories.

2. No one has "thrown out" any of the Bible. It is just that we recognize that the fallible man-made literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is wrong.

3. It's not 1 Timothy 3:16, but 2 Timothy 3:16. Yes, it says the Bible is "inspired" but it does not say the Bible is infallible. Also, read the verse carefully. It says the Bible is useful for "teaching, fro reproof, for correct, and for training in righteousness." Only righteosness. It makes no claim for scientific accuracy. I'm sorry, but "inspired" does not mean "infallible".

I think the problem is that you are working with a flawed definition of "inspired."

I tried my best not to post in this reguards (all in vain) but after seeing the remarks made against Gods Word, I could not help myself.

And that is the problem: people who take their human, fallible, literal interpretation to be "God's Word". God's Word is Jesus. Not the Bible. What you are doing here comes dangerously close to worshipping the Bible as a false idol.

lucaspa · Jan 28, 2004

Josh1 said:
The part that i'm worried about is how you define what is literal and what is not. I don't see how you can do that.

Like we do for all other documents. Use the Rules of Interpretation.
http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/b11.html
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b02.html

The Bible is very plain thru scriptures that God created the heavens and the earth. I don't see the reasoning for using theistic evolution.

There are two different statements here:
1. God created the heavens and the earth. We are agreed that scriptures are very plain on this.
2. How God created the heavens and the earth. Theistic evolutionists simply believe God created by the processes discovered by science. The reasoning is that God really did create! That means that everything in the physical universe was put there by God. That makes the physical universe the second book of God. What science does, therefore, is read that book of God and figure out how God created. Genesis 1-3 tells you the who and why of creation. Science tells you the how.

Is Christ a figment of our imagination? Is salvation a figment of our imagination? Tell me how you decipher between the two.

Is Creation a figment of our imagination? You seem to think so because you ignore it. I don't see any extrabiblical evidence to contradict either Christ or salvation. Do you?

Just because Hugh Ross(theistic evolutionist) may never debate again is no reasons to take potshots at Dr. Hovind. He offers to debate anybody face to face. http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=truthradio#December

Debates are not a way to settle what is true. Debating is a sport and only decides who is the best debator. Hovind tries to win debates, not find truth.

And we weren't talking about e-mail debates, but written discussions.

I have found that I can't get on his radio program because his screeners find out I know about evolution. So my calls get stonewalled.

lucaspa · Jan 28, 2004

Josh1 said:
Just because Hugh Ross(theistic evolutionist) may never debate again is no reasons to take potshots at Dr. Hovind. He offers to debate anybody face to face.

Let's correct this. Hugh Ross is not a theistic evolutionist. He is either an Old Earth Creationist or an Intelligent Designer. Both are creationists and anti-evolution.

Where Ross differs from Hovind is on the age of the universe and on the Big Bang. But both are anti-evolution.

To call Ross a theistic evolutionist is a deliberate deception on somebody's part.

lucaspa · Jan 28, 2004

Josh1 said:
My point to you notta, is that most evos are so persuaded in their own mind that they would not give a care if they were right or wrong. Our job as christians is to show the truth to the people. Christ died for them and without him they are going to hell. That is our job and it is essential to make evos look pathetic in these face to face debates.

AH HA! Now the truth comes out. You are saying that evolutionist are atheists. You make "evos look pathetic" in order to talk to them about "Christ died for them"

No wonder you have a problem with this forum! The evolutionists aren't atheists. And so the lie at the basis of your motivation is plain for all to see.

Josh1, EVOLUTION IS NOT ATHEISM!! If you are truly trying to bring people to Christ, then you are fighting on the wrong battlefield. What you are doing instead is making the atheists' job easy for them. What you have done is taken the statements "God exists. God created" and tied them to a particular how of creation. Now you are saying that you have to prove this how of creation in order to keep people away from atheism. It won't work. All you are doing is driving people right to atheism. You can't "show the truth to the people" by committing false witness. And that is what Hovind does. People can see the truth for themselves. At least anyone who can break free from the cult grip of Hovind and actually read about the science. And since you are saying you have to accept creationism in order to accept Christ, then people are going to say "no, creationism is wrong, so I can't accept Christ"

What Hovind hasn't told you is legion. Let me just start here with two quotes from Origin of the Species. Tell me how Darwin is denying creation by God:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

Also: "To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." pg. 449.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Jan 29, 2004

Josh1 said:
Bushido216: You're assuming that to have faith in one literal piece requires faith in all the literal pieces. It doesn't.

So the Bible is not inspired? If I am reading you right, then that is the vibe I am getting. How can the Bible be inspired by God and not be right in every aspect?

"Literal", "Right" and "Inspired" are not synonyms. They mean different things. It seems to me that the sort of thinking that equates them is unsophisticated in the extreme.

My point to you notta, is that most evos are so persuaded in their own mind that they would not give a care if they were right or wrong.

Click to expand...

Wrong. Totally wrong. Just check out the poll I posted last week - which group is more likely to be unwilling to change their views regardless of the evidence?

Our job as christians is to show the truth to the people. Christ died for them and without him they are going to hell. That is our job and it is essential to make evos look pathetic in these face to face debates.

Click to expand...

That is a rather nasty vindictive attitude, isn't it? Evolution is not your enemy; it says absolutely nothing about the truth-claims of Christianity. If evolutionary scientists get negative about Christianity, a lot of it comes from the unnecessarily disparaging and negative, not to mention insulting, attitude of some sectors of the church.

You will win more converts to Christ if you accept that mainstream science is not incompatible with faith, than by trying to destroy excellent, well-attested, scientific models in ways that are convincing only to the already converted.

[/QUOTE]

Josh1 · Jan 30, 2004

lucapsa : 1. A literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 do indeed contradict. There are several contradictions between literal readings of these. It is why all Biblical scholars have agreed that they are separate creation stories.

2. No one has "thrown out" any of the Bible. It is just that we recognize that the fallible man-made literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is wrong.

3. It's not 1 Timothy 3:16, but 2 Timothy 3:16. Yes, it says the Bible is "inspired" but it does not say the Bible is infallible. Also, read the verse carefully. It says the Bible is useful for "teaching, fro reproof, for correct, and for training in righteousness." Only righteosness. It makes no claim for scientific accuracy. I'm sorry, but "inspired" does not mean "infallible".

1. No they don't contradict each other and not "all Bible scholars" have said they are separate creation accounts.

2. If it is wrong then I see no problem for throwing it out, but it is not wrong.

3. Inspired doesn't actually have to mean infallible, it who it is inspired by that makes the difference. The Bible is the inspired Word of God and it is one way that God speaks to us. If God is perfect and He inspired the Bible. Does that not mean the Bible is perfect? Men were like a pen in Gods hand. I am sorry that I gave the wrong reference, I was just trying to quickly think of the passage and must have typed it wrong or forget where it was etc....

John 1:1 is telling us that they coincide and both are perfect. What do think scriptures refer too?

Josh

Didaskomenos · Jan 30, 2004

Josh1 said:
3. Inspired doesn't actually have to mean infallible, it who it is inspired by that makes the difference. The Bible is the inspired Word of God and it is one way that God speaks to us. If God is perfect and He inspired the Bible. Does that not mean the Bible is perfect? Men were like a pen in Gods hand. I am sorry that I gave the wrong reference, I was just trying to quickly think of the passage and must have typed it wrong or forget where it was etc....

Okay, here again is the crux of the debate. Were men like pens in God's hand, or were they like musical instruments he "breathed" through to produce the Scriptures? I think the latter, and that's why there are different writing styles and viewpoints, and the imperfections and weaknesses of the various instruments show through. I think the quality of the horns increased throughout history so that we get a much clearer picture of what God wanted us to hear by the time of the NT, which is natural due to progression of revelation and the perfection of God's consummate revelation, Jesus, Instrumentum Magnum. Besides, 2 Tim 3:16 really has nothing to say about the NT, because the phrase "all scripture" can only refer to what was considered the Bible at the time, namely the OT, and possibly even the Torah simply.

John 1:1 is telling us that they coincide and both are perfect. What do think scriptures refer too?

What coincide in John 1:1? Beside the Word and God (the Father) I'm not sure what you could mean (or possible relevance).

Bushido216 · Jan 31, 2004

Josh1 said:
2. If it is wrong then I see no problem for throwing it out, but it is not wrong.

Exactly, our interpretation is wrong. Not Scripture, of course, merely how we view it.

lucaspa · Feb 1, 2004

Josh1 said:
1. No they don't contradict each other and not "all Bible scholars" have said they are separate creation accounts.

Josh, go to Barnes and Nobles or Borders nearest you. Look at all the books giving translations or commentaries on Genesis. When I did this there were 10. And all 10 said there were 2 creation stories.

2. If it is wrong then I see no problem for throwing it out, but it is not wrong.

We don't say the verses are wrong. We do say a literal interpretation is wrong.

3. Inspired doesn't actually have to mean infallible, it who it is inspired by that makes the difference. The Bible is the inspired Word of God and it is one way that God speaks to us. If God is perfect and He inspired the Bible. Does that not mean the Bible is perfect? Men were like a pen in Gods hand.

Sorry, but no one says God dictated the Bible word for word. God may be perfect, but humans aren't. God can't communicate ideas for which humans don't have the language. The Bible doesn't have a Glossary of new terms. So God can't explain evolution to people 1500 BC because they don't have the language for the terms. So God tells them the theological truths in the Bible and leaves the evidence of how He created in His Creation for us to read it when we can.

John 1:1 is telling us that they coincide and both are perfect. What do think scriptures refer too?

John 1:1 says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." There is no reference to scripture. The reference is to Jesus. This says Jesus is the Living Word. You actually thought this referred to scripture? No wonder you are having such trouble with with interpretation! You are twisting the Bible to fit your man made theory. You say evolutionists can't do this, but you don't seem to have a problem with it. Pot, meet kettle.

RhetorTheo · Feb 2, 2004

What parts of the Nicene Creed do Satanists, for example, disagree with? Can a Satanist who believes in all of the Nicene Creed be a Christian?

lucaspa · Feb 2, 2004

RoleTroll said:
What parts of the Nicene Creed do Satanists, for example, disagree with? Can a Satanist who believes in all of the Nicene Creed be a Christian?

This part:
"We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,"
Since Satanists worship Satan as a god, they don't believe in the "one God".

Notice that by placing Satan before Yahweh, they are also violating the First Commandment.

Can theistic evolutionists be saved?

Can theistic evolutionists be saved?

I'm a YEC, and yes

I'm a YEC, and no

I'm an OEC, and yes

I'm an OEC, and no

I'm neither an OEC or a YEC

Other

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Voiced Bilabial Spirant

Well-Known Member

Legend

Melkite

Legend

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency