Can theistic evolutionists be saved?

[moeowo]

Dr Ross is NOT a theistic evolutionist. He doesn't believe in evolution but he does believe that the universe and earth is old. And no you don't have to believe in evolution to believe in an old earth and universe. I'm a OEC and DO NOT believe in evolution and have read many of Hugh's work. Please keep your facts straight.

Bushido216 vbmenu_register("postmenu_1629533", true); :


Just because Hugh Ross(theistic evolutionist) ...

Josh

 

[MagusAlbertus]

All who come to the Lord with a humble heart can be saved.

 

[lucaspa]

Dr Ross is NOT a theistic evolutionist. He doesn't believe in evolution but he does believe that the universe and earth is old. And no you don't have to believe in evolution to believe in an old earth and universe. I'm a OEC and DO NOT believe in evolution and have read many of Hugh's work. Please keep your facts straight.

Thank you. I said the same thing up about a page. Josh must have believed me because we haven't heard from him in a while.

Ross is also classed as an Intelligent Designer. Probably because he doesn't make any scriptural arguments for looking at the "days" as "ages" or suggest a gap anywhere in Genesis 1. He simply discards a literal reading of Genesis 1 but argues that you can tell that the universe, and organisms, are at least partly manufactured artifacts.

 

[Hook]

I don't know what to believe about a literal vs allegorical account of Genesis. In the grand scheme of things, I don't believe this has any bearing on my salvation.

 

[lucaspa]

I don't know what to believe about a literal vs allegorical account of Genesis. In the grand scheme of things, I don't believe this has any bearing on my salvation.

It doesn't really matter to salvation how God created, just that He did create.

However, if you cling to a literal Genesis 1-11 in the face of evidence -- both textual and extrabiblical -- from God that such an interpretation is wrong, then that clinging could affect your salvation. By clinging to a literal interpretation, you are making that literal interpretation more important than God. And that affects salvation.

 

[FEZZILLA]

I no longer dogmatically hold an age for the earth. It could be young, or it could be old. when astronomers date the stars older than the universe itself i begin to wonder if we understand anything at all about the astronomy of the Bible.
REALITY CHECK: The Bible does not confirm any date in which the universe was made. It does tell us that man is not near as old as evolutionist say they are. Yet, there is evidence thats supports both young and old earth views on the universe. So, i just sift through the evidence and decide what i believe or not believe and go on living. Those that believe that those who disagree with each other on the old/young debate should be ashamed of themselves. I've learned the reality that we no next to none about the universe we live in, so every body should stop pretending they know it all about God's creation and sit back and really think hard before dogmatizing philosophy.

 

[Bushido216]

You do realize that if everyone just said "who cares" and stopped thinking about these sort of things, we'd still be throwing rocks at each other, right?

 

[lucaspa]

I no longer dogmatically hold an age for the earth. It could be young, or it could be old. when astronomers date the stars older than the universe itself i begin to wonder if we understand anything at all about the astronomy of the Bible.

That dilemma has been resolved for over 10 years now.
1. The universe was older than we calculated then: 13.7 billion as opposed to 10 billion then.
2. The stars are younger. 12 billion then and only 10 billion now.

Remember, new data drives out old arguments and you have to check to see if new data has invalidated old arguments.

REALITY CHECK: The Bible does not confirm any date in which the universe was made. It does tell us that man is not near as old as evolutionist say they are.

It's true that Genesis 1-3 doesn't give us an age of the universe. However, the 6,000 year old universe was calculated based on the geneologies in Matthew and Luke, combined with the ages of the people given in Genesis 5-12. So, are the geneologies accurate or not? Are they part of the Bible or not?

Yet, there is evidence thats supports both young and old earth views on the universe. So, i just sift through the evidence and decide what i believe or not believe and go on living.

And this is the problem. Popper noted that there is evidence for any theory, if that is what you are looking for. Therefore the method of stacking up two piles of "evidence for" and seeing which stack is higher is not a valid way to evaluate theories. What you have to look for is data that shows a theory to be wrong, or falsifies it. There is data -- tons of it -- that simply can't be there if the earth and universe is young. Therefore young earth is wrong/falsified.

I've learned the reality that we no next to none about the universe we live in,

Really? We know quite a bit. Not everything by any means, but just as we know the earth is not flat, we also know the earth is not young.

so every body should stop pretending they know it all about God's creation and sit back and really think hard before dogmatizing philosophy.

The problem is that what we know about God's creation shows some of your ideas about God's creation to be wrong. Sorry about that, but that is the way it is.