Do You Accept Evolution?

[The Inquisitor]

Jesus came speaking in metaphors, just as God spoke in metaphors all throughout the old testament. As God said, "I have used similitudes (metaphors)".

What is the metaphor of God creating a man and a woman, and their children committing incest to create more offspring?

 

[Jpark]

God's existence, as well as His sustaining role, are clearly evident in nature. The Spirit of God is the Author of wisdom. (Job 32:8; Ephesians 1:17) The Spirit of God is the Source of life. (Job 33:4; John 20:22) Because the Spirit gives life and wisdom to man, He is also essential to the very continuation of the human race. If God should turn His attention elsewhere, if He should withdraw His life-giving Spirit from this world, then human history would come to an end. (Job 34:14-15) The Holy Spirit is the Creator and Sustainer of life.

 

[Christian Sojourner]

What is the metaphor of God creating a man and a woman, and their children committing incest to create more offspring?

That wouldn't be a metaphor. But eating from a literal tree and a literal talking serpent would be. All throughout scripture God mixed literal with metaphorical.

"I have used similitudes." Hosea 12:10. The great allegory "The Pilgrim's Progress" opens with that verse.

 

[The Inquisitor]

That wouldn't be a metaphor. But eating from a literal tree and a literal talking serpent would be. All throughout scripture God mixed literal with metaphorical.

"I have used similitudes." Hosea 12:10. The great allegory "The Pilgrim's Progress" opens with that verse.

I think it's all literal though. How are we supposed to discern what's allegory and what's not? A god wouldn't want to be vague about such important things as life and how we are supposed to live it. It's the athiest's agenda to turn the Bible into an allegory and we can't let that happen.

 

[Epiphoskei]

While historically Christianity has allowed for some degree of allegory in this passage (indeed some older theologians argued that it had to be allegorical, because it wouldn't take God six whole days to create the world), there are limits to how far you can take allegory. In Christianity, death is an Adamic, Hamartiological condition. To deny this is to veer dangerously into Pelagianism.

You say you're a Calvinist Christian, but I'm not sure how you can square the Evolutionary theory of biogenesis with your Calvinism. It's my reason for rejecting it. Our understanding of the Atonement rests on the notion that death is the result of sin in such a way that if Christ died for your sins you cannot die in the second death, since your sins have been paid for. Death and sin are indivorcible, so you cannot have billions of years of death anticedent to Adam's sin.

 

[Zoness]

Sure I accept evolution, I don't take Genesis 1-3 literally so in my worldview there is no biblical contradiction in sight. We all use judgment to determine what passages of the bible are literal and which are figurative, it is variations on those views on what causes doctrinal issues. The good Lord did give us minds and the ability to reason, after all.

 

[Christian Sojourner]

While historically Christianity has allowed for some degree of allegory in this passage (indeed some older theologians argued that it had to be allegorical, because it wouldn't take God six whole days to create the world), there are limits to how far you can take allegory. In Christianity, death is an Adamic, Hamartiological condition. To deny this is to veer dangerously into Pelagianism.

You say you're a Calvinist Christian, but I'm not sure how you can square the Evolutionary theory of biogenesis with your Calvinism. It's my reason for rejecting it. Our understanding of the Atonement rests on the notion that death is the result of sin in such a way that if Christ died for your sins you cannot die in the second death, since your sins have been paid for. Death and sin are indivorcible, so you cannot have billions of years of death anticedent to Adam's sin.

First, why would God threaten Adam and Eve with death if they had no idea what death was? I believe they saw it in the Animal kindgom, so they had an idea of what death was, but they were not under death at the time.

And Paul said, "Death came through one man." But it doesn't say, "The death of animals came through one man." Paul was speaking about humans. And remember in Romans 8, it says that *God* subjected creation to futility.

If you look at evolution, you find some species dying out and others evolving into something more. And in sovereign election, you find some given that spiritually which causes them to evolve into sons of God, while others perish and are no more, just as we see in the evolution of animals. As I said natural selection has many parallels with spiritual selection. I explained in the "Calvinist Vs. Arminian" thread today how God can do such things and be found faultless by law. God's genius is amazing.

 

[Christian Sojourner]

Sure I accept evolution, I don't take Genesis 1-3 literally so in my worldview there is no biblical contradiction in sight. We all use judgment to determine what passages of the bible are literal and which are figurative, it is variations on those views on what causes doctrinal issues. The good Lord did give us minds and the ability to reason, after all.

Agreed, and it's pretty simple to see what is literal and what is figurative (metaphorical).

 

[UnderHisWings1979]

That was just an introduction of myself, as I am new to this part of the forum. So I stated I'm a calvinistic christian who accepts evolution.

And calvinism, in regards to Soveriegn Election has amazing parallels with Natural Selection. It seems one is the natural method and the other spiritual, and God is without fault in both.

Hmmm... I have some pretty serious problems with comparing salvation to natural selection, because it implies that the process of election is 'weeding out' the sinners, when in fact we are all sinners and there is nothing which makes any of us better than others. Natural selection requires there to be something which makes the one being selected for better than the one being selected against.

 

[UnderHisWings1979]

Jesus came speaking in metaphors, just as God spoke in metaphors all throughout the old testament. As God said, "I have used similitudes (metaphors)".

Yes, but there is a big difference between the parables of Christ (which he stated to be parables) and calling an historical account a parable. Just as there is a big difference between metaphors in a book of prophecy or poetry, which implicitly use metaphor, and a book of history. The two simply are not the same.

 

[Christian Sojourner]

Hmmm... I have some pretty serious problems with comparing salvation to natural selection, because it implies that the process of election is 'weeding out' the sinners, when in fact we are all sinners and there is nothing which makes any of us better than others. Natural selection requires there to be something which makes the one being selected for better than the one being selected against.

It is in a sense weeding out.

Jesus told the parable of the wheat and tares growing together, and then the angels weeding out the tares and casting them into the fire.

Who were the wheat? The ones God had mercy on, and the tares were those left to perish, as God is by no law obligated to save those justly under condemnation because of their own doings. As I said before, no judge is obligated to free a criminal who is justly under the punishment of his crime, but he can have mercy on whom he wills. So it is with God.

And you're right, no one is better than anyone else, that's why it's *grace*. We were/are all rightly under condemnation and God is not obligated by any law to save those justly under the penalty of their own sin, but He can have unmerited mercy on those He wills, to the glory of His mercy.

 

[UnderHisWings1979]

While historically Christianity has allowed for some degree of allegory in this passage (indeed some older theologians argued that it had to be allegorical, because it wouldn't take God six whole days to create the world), there are limits to how far you can take allegory. In Christianity, death is an Adamic, Hamartiological condition. To deny this is to veer dangerously into Pelagianism.

You say you're a Calvinist Christian, but I'm not sure how you can square the Evolutionary theory of biogenesis with your Calvinism. It's my reason for rejecting it. Our understanding of the Atonement rests on the notion that death is the result of sin in such a way that if Christ died for your sins you cannot die in the second death, since your sins have been paid for. Death and sin are indivorcible, so you cannot have billions of years of death anticedent to Adam's sin.

Very well put

 

[Zoness]

Hmmm... I have some pretty serious problems with comparing salvation to natural selection, because it implies that the process of election is 'weeding out' the sinners, when in fact we are all sinners and there is nothing which makes any of us better than others. Natural selection requires there to be something which makes the one being selected for better than the one being selected against.

Natural selection sounds more Calvinist if anything Think about it, weeding out the damned from the elect....works brilliantly. It's not a thought school I dare subscribe to but it is an interesting way to take things....although probably a little incoherent.

 

[Epiphoskei]

The language of the subjection in Romans 8 doesn't militate for this subjection being part of the created order. I don't find it reasonable to say something is both in "bondage of corruption" like Romans 8 calls the current order, and "very good," as Genesis calls the created order.

Moreover, Adam's sin caused death to enter "the world," according to Romans 5, not merely humanity. You can argue that "the world" only means humans, but that's a reading you simply wouldn't get unless you were trying to square the Bible with evolution. And that's the heart of the issue. Before evolutionary theory I would never have even concieved of these interpretations. That's not ok if origins are a topic on which God desires us to have a doctrine, if they are a matter of "faith and practice." And in a faith with a redemptive history, they are.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Natural selection sounds more Calvinist if anything Think about it, weeding out the damned from the elect....works brilliantly. It's not a thought school I dare subscribe to but it is an interesting way to take things....although probably a little incoherent.

Uh, Calvinistic Election is unconditional. Natural selection is due to superiority in the surviving species. That's a total opposite there.

 

[UnderHisWings1979]

It is in a sense weeding out.

Jesus told the parable of the wheat and tares growing together, and then the angels weeding out the tares and casting them into the fire.

Who were the wheat? The ones God had mercy on, and the tares were those left to perish, as God is by no law obligated to save those justly under condemnation because of their own doings. As I said before, no judge is obligated to free a criminal who is justly under the punishment of his crime, but he can have mercy on whom he wills. So it is with God.

And you're right, no one is better than anyone else, that's why it's *grace*. We were/are all rightly under condemnation and God is not obligated by any law to save those justly under the penalty of their own sin, but He can have unmerited mercy on those He wills, to the glory of His mercy.

Yes, but while the Calvinist view of election requires no special quality upon which God based His election, natural selection does require some special quality. That is where the analogy falls apart. And if you believe that God based election on some sort of special quality, then you are not Calvinist.

 

[Christian Sojourner]

Natural selection sounds more Calvinist if anything Think about it, weeding out the damned from the elect....works brilliantly. It's not a thought school I dare subscribe to but it is an interesting way to take things....although probably a little incoherent.

I find calvinism FAR more logical and reasonable than any other Christian school of thought and have never seen it lose in a debate. Although, hyper-calvinism is crazy...

 

[ArcticFox]

It is my belief that Macro Evolution as it is taught and understood is inconsistent and cannot be reconciled with any proper or semi-proper reading of Genesis 1-3.

 

[Christian Sojourner]

Yes, but while the Calvinist view of election requires no special quality upon which God based His election, natural selection does require some special quality. That is where the analogy falls apart. And if you believe that God based election on some sort of special quality, then you are not Calvinist.

I said it has *some* amazing parallels. I never said it's exact. lol... But in both cases we find God allowing some to perish and others to go on to become something greater than before.

 

[Christian Sojourner]

It is my belief that Macro Evolution as it is taught and understood is inconsistent and cannot be reconciled with any proper or semi-proper reading of Genesis 1-3.

Howso? I see no absolute contradiction.