Francis Collins - is he a Christian?

[Emil Rez52]

Do you think he is saved or no?

For those that don't know, he is a scientist who headed up the Human Genome Project and has written books on evolution and believes it actually happened.

So, is he a true Christian and going to heaven or a wolf in sheep's clothing?

Article: Francis Collins - No Friend of Bible Believers | SharperIron

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you think he is saved or no?

For those that don't know, he is a scientist who headed up the Human Genome Project and has written books on evolution and believes it actually happened.

So, is he a true Christian and going to heaven or a wolf in sheep's clothing?

Article: Francis Collins - No Friend of Bible Believers | SharperIron

Yes -I've read his book, The Language of God, and I think its safe to say that he is a Christian.

 

[Emil Rez52]

Yes -I've read his book, The Language of God, and I think its safe to say that he is a Christian.

But isn't he teaching "dangerous heresy" and "leading people away from God/the bible?"

 

[ChristianT]

But isn't he teaching "dangerous heresy" and "leading people away from God/the bible?"

Not all Christians believe evolution is the enemy. If anything, it's like the whole "Galileo is obviously wrong/a heretic" thing. It will become silly in a couple hundred years.

 

[Emil Rez52]

Not all Christians believe evolution is the enemy. If anything, it's like the whole "Galileo is obviously wrong/a heretic" thing. It will become silly in a couple hundred years.

"But Albert Mohler clearly lays it out: evolution means no Adam and Eve. No Adam, and no original sin. No original sin, no need for the ministry and work of Jesus Christ for original sin on the cross, or for Jesus Christ to have been deity to perform this work, or to resurrect from the dead. Therefore, Christianity becomes semi-Pelagianism (like Dreher’s Catholicism) at best, a philosophical/ethical/political system around a failed revolutionary and reformer who left rambling, incomprehensible and incomplete teachings behind at worst, but generally for most people a works-based “earn your salvation” religion like Judaism, Mormonism, Hinduism and Islam. It is revealing that Karl Giberson, the “moderate Baptist” to whom Mohler responded, stated that evolution requires a Christian to formulate “new and better way to understand the origins of sin.” Of course, that requires a “new and better” religion than actual Christianity, and that is the whole point of evolution: rejection of Bible-based Christianity. As Rod Dreher belongs to a Catholicism that rejected legitimate Christianity over 1000 years ago, it is no coincidence at all that he supports others who also desire to turn others away from a Bible-based faith, the faith once delivered to the saints, and that he and others like him preach “tolerance”, “diversity”, “ecumenism”, “big-tent”, and denounce Biblical separation in favor of allowing people who reject the Bible to remain at our seminaries and Bible colleges and in our pulpits and congregations.

By the way, this is no “slippery slope” type of argument. Rejecting Biblical creation, trying to allegorize or symbolize Adam and Eve event, is no less than a rejection of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Doing so pulls the very foundation away from the rest of the Bible, and as a result leaves no reason for the events of salvation history to have taken place to begin with. So yes, it is absolutely mandatory to have the position that one cannot believe in evolution and be a Christian, just as one cannot deny the deity of Jesus Christ or salvation by faith and do the same."

Francis Collins « Jesus Christ Is Lord

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But isn't he teaching "dangerous heresy" and "leading people away from God/the bible?"

No. Not that I can see. Should I be concerned? :o

 

[Tzaousios]

Do you think he is saved or no?

For those that don't know, he is a scientist who headed up the Human Genome Project and has written books on evolution and believes it actually happened.

So, is he a true Christian and going to heaven or a wolf in sheep's clothing?

Article: Francis Collins - No Friend of Bible Believers | SharperIron

The way you have asked your questions, along with subsequent reformulations, indicates a poisoning of the well. Also, why are you asking Christians to speculate on someone's salvation?

 

[Emil Rez52]

No. Not that I can see. Should I be concerned? :o

If he is damning people to eternal torture, yes.

 

[Emil Rez52]

The way you have asked your questions, along with subsequent reformulations, indicates a poisoning of the well. Also, why are you asking Christians to speculate on someone's salvation?

I want to know their thoughts.

As far as I know, he is not a true Christian.

 

[Tzaousios]

If he is damning people to eternal torture, yes.

Add a red herring to the poisoning of the well. That might constitute animal abuse.

 

[Tzaousios]

I want to know their thoughts.

As far as I know, he is not a true Christian.

This is a setup for a No True Scotsman.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If he is damning people to eternal torture, yes.

But, he isn't damning people to eternal torture.

We don't have to assume that St. Augustine's formulation of sin is correct.

We don't have to assume that Adam and Eve were literal people - we can see them as theological/philosophical archetypes of mankind - representations of spiritual truth. Josephus did....

 

[Emil Rez52]

Add a red herring to the poisoning of the well. That might constitute animal abuse.

So, is he a Christian in your view or no?

 

[Emil Rez52]

But, he isn't damning people to eternal torture.

We don't have to assume that St. Augustine's formulation of sin is correct.

We don't have to assume that Adam and Eve were literal people - we can see them as theological/philosophical archetypes of mankind - representations of spiritual truth. Josephus did....

Wouldn't that be calling Paul a liar though, since Augustine just borrowed from Paul in Romans? Jesus is the second Adam, isn't he?

 

[Tzaousios]

Wouldn't that be calling Paul a liar though, since Augustine just borrowed from Paul in Romans? Jesus is the second Adam, isn't he?

Tell us what you think about Augustine's views, please.

 

[Tzaousios]

So, is he a Christian in your view or no?

The litany of logical fallacies in which you have framed your question should lead one to reject the premise of it. I am taking it that you have recognized the logical fallacies you have committed since you have failed to address them.

 

[Emil Rez52]

Tell us what you think about Augustine's views, please.

What, about Original Sin?

I'm not sure there is such a thing. It's immoral to punish humans for the mistakes of their forefathers. I don't believe God is immoral, so I think Original Sin is a highly unlikely thing.

 

[Emil Rez52]

The litany of logical fallacies in which you have framed your question should lead one to reject the premise of it. I am taking it that you have recognized the logical fallacies you have committed since you have failed to address them.

So no then?

 

[ChristianT]

The point of Christ's Incarnation and life was to unite humanity to God. Thus even more deeply than was ever possible before. Also in the eastern Christian faith, the understanding of "Original sin" is unique. It is merely a pure human nature at birth which is exposed to sin and eventually becomes sinful and a marred image of God. Either way, a literal or figurative Adam is up to interpretation. Christians over the centuries have had a myriad of opinions concerning that and, either way is allowable so long as it allows the incarnation to occur. And scientific evolution (to be contrasted with the strawman-ist evolution that occurs overnite and drastically within individuals) allows for the Incarnation because humans are still humans whether via evolution or via direct divine intervention.

"Together with the belief in the Holy Trinity, the doctrine of the Incarnation occupies a central position in the teaching of the Orthodox Church. According to Orthodox Faith, Jesus is much more than a pious man or a profound teacher of morality. He is the "Son of God who became the Son of Man." The doctrine of the Incarnation is an expression of the Church's experience of Christ. In Him, divinity is united with humanity without the destruction of either reality. Jesus Christ is truly God who shares in the same reality as the Father and the Spirit. Moreover, He is truly man who shares with us all that is human. The Church believes that, as the unique God-man, Jesus Christ has restored humanity to fellowship with God.

By manifesting the Holy Trinity, by teaching the meaning of authentic human life, and by conquering the powers of sin and death through His Resurrection, Christ is the supreme expression of the love of God the Father, for His people, made present in every age and in every place by the Holy Spirit through the life of the Church. The great Fathers of the Church summarized the ministry of Christ in the bold affirmation, "God became what we are so that we may become what He is."

"
http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7062

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Wouldn't that be calling Paul a liar though, since Augustine just borrowed from Paul in Romans? Jesus is the second Adam, isn't he?

I'm sure that from Paul's point of view, Adam may have been a real person. Like any of the other Apostles, including Peter, Paul wasn't fully informed on EVERYTHING.

We have the representational story of beginnings that God wanted us to have; one that could still be useful to 21st century Americans, and definitely accessible to ancient Jews and Holy Gentiles.

The imputation of sin through Adam is that all of mankind lost access to the tree of life in the Garden of Eden; not that each person is born with a reprobate nature--we still have the image of God, but we are all in mortal straits (I'm alluding to Romans 5:14).

(Goodnight--I'll check tomorrow)