Evolution and total depravity.

[Hoghead1]

I don't agree that the Bible clearly speaks about Hell. Sheole, in the OT, has everyone more or less half awake, half asleep. The NT does speak of fire. But fire doing what? Being thrown into a fire can be seen as a way of cleansing and purifying.

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't agree that the Bible clearly speaks about Hell. Sheole, in the OT, has everyone more or less half awake, half asleep. The NT does speak of fire. But fire doing what? Being thrown into a fire can be seen as a way of cleansing and purifying.

 

[Papias]

Evolution doesn't produce depravity, as this is a non-material concept. The prescription, theologically, for describing total depravity would be the same regardless of the cosmological theory which serves as its backdrop.

Right. The bottom line is that total depravity is equally supported by either a creationist or theistic evolution view.

In the creationist case, one could ask how a bite of fruit could cause mankind to be corrupted, and corrupted totally.

For a TE, one could ask how an early human or humans rebelling against God could cause mankind to be corrupted, and corrupted totally.

In both cases, one must posit some kind of spiritual property that isn't mentioned in the Genesis story.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Hoghead1]

I have issues about your view of "TE." I have often been labeled that way, although I would prefer another label. Anyhow, I don't believe the Bible teaches original sin. It never claims that Adam and Eve were perfect and it never claims that we are corrupted though and through. And if we are born evil, if that is our nature, then so be it. Why tamper with nature? Let's go out and be evil, then. I don't think rebellion against God is necessarily a bad thing. We have free will and so must choose for ourselves. In such a case, we may come up with aims that weren't exactly what God intended. However, God may well come to respect these aims. Loving parents, for example, should respect the career decisions of their offsprings, though they may not be what the parent intended o hoped for. Finally, not all forms of evil are due to evil intentions from some inner, wicked nature. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Sometimes evil or suffering is simply due to bad timing.

 

[Papias]

I have issues about your view of "TE." I have often been labeled that way, although I would prefer another label.

OK, then don't consider yourself a TE.

Anyhow, I don't believe the Bible teaches original sin. It never claims that Adam and Eve were perfect and it never claims that we are corrupted though and through. ..... Finally, not all forms of evil are due to evil intentions from some inner, wicked nature. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Sometimes evil or suffering is simply due to bad timing.

OK, I'm fine with you believing (or not believing) any of that. It's off topic because the topic is asking how TE's justify original sin. Since you aren't a TE and don't believe in original sin, it seems to me that this whole thread is irrelevant to you.

HH, I often enjoy your posts. Maybe others will be interested in those points if you make a thread for them? Have a good day-

Papias

 

[Hoghead1]

You did not read carefully what I said. I said I could be labeled a TE, though I prefer another label. That does not mean I'm not into what some call TE. You asked about original sin and I responded by saying I do not hold with it. That certainly seems relevant to me. What about others into TE? From what I have seen, very few would go with original sin. One o f the major problems here is that original sin is not biblically supported and comes mostly from the teachings of St. Augustine.

 

[-57]

You did not read carefully what I said. I said I could be labeled a TE, though I prefer another label. That does not mean I'm not into what some call TE. You asked about original sin and I responded by saying I do not hold with it. That certainly seems relevant to me. What about others into TE? From what I have seen, very few would go with original sin. One o f the major problems here is that original sin is not biblically supported and comes mostly from the teachings of St. Augustine.

If it comes from St. Augustine...then I would suspect it's biblically supported.

 

[Hoghead1]

Oh, wow, -57, you most certainly do not want to make that assumption. Augustine felt that Scripture was only a half-way revelation, not enough to save you. Therefore, the church was empowered to bring in additional teachings, not found in Scripture , but necessary for you to be saved. These were matters such as using torture to force conversion, just war theory, infantile baptism, etc. Hence, it is really dangerous to assume anything he says can be readily found in Scripture. In addition, many scholars find absolutely no evidence of original sin in Scripture, to start with. I agree.

 

[theFijian]

Why would evolution be the causal agent of any Christian doctrine?

 

[-57]

Why would evolution be the causal agent of any Christian doctrine?

Because it would have given us the ability to sin.

When and how did sin enter into the human race? Prior to becoming human? After becoming human? I don't know how you're going to answer...but I know how the bible answered.

 

[theFijian]

Because it would have given us the ability to sin.

No it wouldn't. Try explaining how you think it would

 

[-57]

No it wouldn't. Try explaining how you think it would

Are you saying our brains didn't evolve the ability to think? Choose?

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't agree, Papias. For example, I could easily be labeled a TE, though I would use another term, and I do not believe original sin is a biblical concept at all or makes any real sense in the first place. Rebellion against God is not necessarily wrong. God wants his or her creatures to think for themselves and make their own decisions. Hence, God respects the decisions of his or her creatures, just as a loving parent respects the decisions of his or her offsprings. So suppose the parent wants the offspring to move in such-and-such a direction, but the offspring wants to move in a different direction. In many cases, that may be OK and the parent should respect it. For example, my sister-in-law is very bright, did terrible in school, got a college scholarship and blew it, spending most of her time socializing. She got married and is happy being a housewife. I and members of her family wish she would have gotten through college, but we respect her decision not to go that way. Same with God and creation. Again, rebellion is not necessarily bad. Also, ne needs to remember that Adam and Eve sinned upward, toward gaining more knowledge.

 

[-57]

I don't agree, Papias. For example, I could easily be labeled a TE, though I would use another term, and I do not believe original sin is a biblical concept at all or makes any real sense in the first place. Rebellion against God is not necessarily wrong. God wants his or her creatures to think for themselves and make their own decisions. Hence, God respects the decisions of his or her creatures, just as a loving parent respects the decisions of his or her offsprings. So suppose the parent wants the offspring to move in such-and-such a direction, but the offspring wants to move in a different direction. In many cases, that may be OK and the parent should respect it. For example, my sister-in-law is very bright, did terrible in school, got a college scholarship and blew it, spending most of her time socializing. She got married and is happy being a housewife. I and members of her family wish she would have gotten through college, but we respect her decision not to go that way. Same with God and creation. Again, rebellion is not necessarily bad. Also, ne needs to remember that Adam and Eve sinned upward, toward gaining more knowledge.

Problem for you.....you can't support what you wrote with ANY prosestant theology. For example where does the bible say "Rebellion against God is not necessarily wrong."

 

[theFijian]

Are you saying our brains didn't evolve the ability to think? Choose?

Animals think, are they totally depraved too?

 

[Hoghead1]

No, the problem is with you, -57. You are not up to date on your theology. A major movement in contemporary Protestant thought is process theology. Incidentally, I am a process theologian. Anyhow, process holds that not all rebellion against God is necessarily bad.
Another issue concerns Christology. You keep saying that Christ has no place in TE. Well, that is not al all true. You might try reading sometime John Cobb's "Christ in a Pluralistic Age." It is also important to bear in mind that there is more than one theory of the atonement: There is the classical theory, perfect-pattern-man theory, Platonic theory, penal-substitutionary theory. The latter is particularly popular. Christ had to go to the cross to take the punishment upon himself for our sins so that we could be forgiven. Now, I and I think most people into TE would object to that. We consider it unfair, and unjust. Largely, this theory became popular during the Middle Ages, when they used whipping boys to prevent princes from having to be punished. I take a wholly different approach. I view Christ on the Cross as a powerful conscious-rasising event to the fact that God empathically shares in all our sufferings as well as joys. Whenever an innocent man is hanged, God is there, sharing in his experience; whenever someone is pounded into the dirt, God is there, sharing in the pain.

 

[-57]

Animals think, are they totally depraved too?

I really can'y believe you actually asked that question.

Do animals have the spirit breathed into them like Adam had?
Can animals choose to disobey God?

...do you know what total depravity means?

 

[-57]

No, the problem is with you, -57. You are not up to date on your theology. A major movement in contemporary Protestant thought is process theology. Incidentally, I am a process theologian. Anyhow, process holds that not all rebellion against God is necessarily bad.
Another issue concerns Christology. You keep saying that Christ has no place in TE. Well, that is not al all true. You might try reading sometime John Cobb's "Christ in a Pluralistic Age." It is also important to bear in mind that there is more than one theory of the atonement: There is the classical theory, perfect-pattern-man theory, Platonic theory, penal-substitutionary theory. The latter is particularly popular. Christ had to go to the cross to take the punishment upon himself for our sins so that we could be forgiven. Now, I and I think most people into TE would object to that. We consider it unfair, and unjust. Largely, this theory became popular during the Middle Ages, when they used whipping boys to prevent princes from having to be punished. I take a wholly different approach. I view Christ on the Cross as a powerful conscious-rasising event to the fact that God empathically shares in all our sufferings as well as joys. Whenever an innocent man is hanged, God is there, sharing in his experience; whenever someone is pounded into the dirt, God is there, sharing in the pain.

Hoghead...you don't seem to understand....you thought mean nothing if you can't support them with biblical text.

just for the record...If you don't believe "Christ had to go to the cross to take the punishment upon himself for our sins so that we could be forgiven.".....then you're not a christian. Not saved.

 

[Hoghead1]

Well, that's maybe your opinion, -57, but truth is, many Christians would disagree and have taken another approach. As I said, the penal-substitutionary theory, which you hold with, really doesn't become popular until the Middle Ages. Even tehn, other theories of the atonement were also in use. Luther, for example, often resorted to the classical theory. So, my advice, -57, is that you do some real studying in theology before you jump the gun.

 

[Hoghead1]

Also, -57, you should read more carefully my earlier posts. I view mind and matter as one, not two separate realities. hence, all of matter has a soul or subjective side. Even atoms have tiny minds. Obviously, this includes animals. Everything in existence has some real degree of freedom and choice, however great or small it may be.