How would a TE look forward?

[gluadys]

One purpose of this thread is to REMIND you that TE and theology can not be separated.

Why? Because you say so? I don't feel any need to construct a special theology because of evolution.

Evolution (fact or not) does NOT match the theology of salvation.

Maybe because it has no relevance to salvation one way or the other. Does atomic theory match the theology of salvation? Does it need to? Why do you set criteria for evolution that would not even occur to you in any other scientific matter?

People in TE should face this inconsistence (or, incompatibility) more seriously. (this response applies to Fijian too)

The inconsistency that exists only in your imagination and ignorance of evolution?

So, you TE people would accept that the second coming of the Lord could be 10 million years from now according to the world time (Crawfish suggested that too). We understand that the evolution process is evaluated according to the world time. So, we could continue to evolve into other species and still waiting for the salvation.

Speaking of ignorance of evolution, no, we would not evolve into other species. Under suitable circumstances, the human population could be divided into several separate species but all of them would still be human species.

And I don't know about you, but I am not waiting for salvation. I don't need to wait for what I already have.

 

[USincognito]

I did not say it "can't" end abruptly. I say IF it does, it would be very odd.

Why? There have been 5 major extinction events as well as one of megafauna during the Pleistocene. Species that had existed for 10s to 100s of millions of years were wiped out in a geological blink of an eye.

Why would, depending on your eschatology, say, a 7 year End-Times after 100,000 years of human existance, be something unusual or odd?

 

[Assyrian]

This is an acceptable argument. But it has big problem.

So, you TE people would accept that the second coming of the Lord could be 10 million years from now according to the world time (Crawfish suggested that too). We understand that the evolution process is evaluated according to the world time. So, we could continue to evolve into other species and still waiting for the salvation.

That is really weird. I don't think any Christian would like this particular idea of Christianity.

Ummm Juve, what part of no one knows the day or the hour do you not understand?

You have built up a false dichotomy here. You think 10 million years is impossible because we would have evolved into a different species, but you miss the point that it is God who decides when the time is right, when the fullness of time has come. If 10 million is too long because of evolution, (though wouldn't our descendants still be human the way we are still mammals?) but if it was too long, don't you think God would have called time before it got too late? If your concern about 10 million years is actually correct, why would God wait that long?

Incidentally if you had suggested to a first century believer that we would still be waiting after two thousand years, he would have looked at you as if you had two heads.

But nothing in TE, or 2Pet 3, says that the timescale of Christ's return has to equate to the timescale of creation. 2Pet 3:8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day, warns us against setting calendars and being disappointed when they don't work out. It does not give us a new calendar to calculate Christ's return based on a scientific analysis of how the world was created.

------

By the way, Assyrian, remember our discussion on the radiometric dating and time? What you said here is really one of the important reason that I do not accept the radiometric dates as true ages. It is only an apparent age to us and is not adequate to be an evidence of an old earth. (this is an off topic comment, please do not make strong argument on this).

You are the only one who thinks evolution sets any sort of date for Christ's return. If that is one of your main reasons for rejecting radiometric dating then you need to look at the evidence again.

What you are dealing with here is a question of mindset. At present you have a YEC mindset, and when you look at Evolution and eschatology you approach both of them from the same mindset. Let me illustrate:

YEC mindset:
We understand God's timetable, we can work out when the earth was created and we can work out when Christ will return to within about a year/10 years/a generation (varies with denomination and current geopolitical situation)
YEC considers Evolution:
OK so the world is billions of years old and hominids have been on a few earth million years. Now we understand God's timetable and the timescale he uses. Christ will not be back for millions of years.

TE simply says God has not told us when Christ is coming back.

 

[juvenissun]

Why? There have been 5 major extinction events as well as one of megafauna during the Pleistocene. Species that had existed for 10s to 100s of millions of years were wiped out in a geological blink of an eye.

Why would, depending on your eschatology, say, a 7 year End-Times after 100,000 years of human existance, be something unusual or odd?

One theme in my argument, use your example, is that mass extinction is NOT GOOD and is disastrous. An abrupt end of a process which requires a long time to proceed is NOT good.

 

[juvenissun]

And I don't know about you, but I am not waiting for salvation. I don't need to wait for what I already have.

OK, that was my mistake (I knew it when I wrote it).

But just follow on your argument: If I say: "In the process of hundreds of million years long evolution, Neanderthals missed the time of salvation just by a fraction of a second (in proportion)". Do you think this statement is correct?

This is an example which shows that one should consider theology when believes in evolution.

 

[Melethiel]

OK, that was my mistake (I knew it when I wrote it).

But just follow on your argument: If I say: "In the process of hundreds of million years long evolution, Neanderthals missed the time of salvation just by a fraction of a second (in proportion)". Do you think this statement is correct?

This is an example which shows that one should consider theology when believes in evolution.

This post clearly shows that you do not understand TE, or even basic Christian theology for that matter.

 

[gluadys]

OK, that was my mistake (I knew it when I wrote it).

But just follow on your argument: If I say: "In the process of hundreds of million years long evolution, Neanderthals missed the time of salvation just by a fraction of a second (in proportion)". Do you think this statement is correct?

This is an example which shows that one should consider theology when believes in evolution.

No human being can miss the time of salvation.

The question is whether Neanderthals are human beings in need of salvation, not whether they would miss the time of salvation.

I honestly don't know if, in God's eyes, Neanderthals are considered humans capable of sin or human-like apes innocent of sin.

But if God sees them as humans, then Jesus died for their salvation just as much as for that of any other human being. Timing is irrelevant here. It is God's purpose that prevails. All whom God chooses to save will be saved.

 

[juvenissun]

This post clearly shows that you do not understand TE, or even basic Christian theology for that matter.

Teach me, then.
You don't need to write an essay. I think I can understand even you just use a few simply sentences (abst of abst).

 

[Melethiel]

Teach me, then.
You don't need to write an essay. I think I can understand even you just use a few simply sentences (abst of abst).

Well, gluadys already covered most of it. But, in regard to your particular post:

1) No matter how much you try to tell us otherwise, evolution simply doesn't play much of a role in theology, no more than gravity or molecular orbital theory does. It's just another scientific theory, amid a plethora of scientific theories.
2) What in the WORLD do you mean by "Neanderthals missed the time of salvation"? I have a difficult time even understanding what you mean by that. Assuming that Neanderthals were true humans gifted with the image of God and needed salvation (something which is by no means certain), they no more "missed the time of salvation" than people who lived before Christ did.

Basic Christian theology states that salvation is through Christ, no matter when one lives.

 

[theFijian]

Now you are uttering nonsense (why do you want to spoil a nice atmosphere of discussion in this thread so far? You can leave this type of comment to the C&E forum.). I know the nature of evolution as well as any scientist in this world. That is why I can make sensible comment on this thread.

The one who utters falsehood is responsible for spoiling the atmosphere I'm afraid. By your own admission you know nothing about non-dispensational eschatology yet that doesn't stop you passing comment on it.

 

[juvenissun]

No human being can miss the time of salvation.

The question is whether Neanderthals are human beings in need of salvation, not whether they would miss the time of salvation.

I honestly don't know if, in God's eyes, Neanderthals are considered humans capable of sin or human-like apes innocent of sin.

But if God sees them as humans, then Jesus died for their salvation just as much as for that of any other human being. Timing is irrelevant here. It is God's purpose that prevails. All whom God chooses to save will be saved.

Neanderthal is the only name I can spell. There are a slew of names for species between ape and human. How about just push one notch backward from Neanderthal? I guess you could not be sure on their salvation either. Where is then the line backward where the salvation should stop apply?

With this consideration, we can also ask, how much time forward from now would the salvation STILL be available? I really don't think many TEs have the idea that the Second Coming would be millions of years later. All TE arguments are focused on the validity of evolution, which is almost always focused on things happened back in time. And TIME is really a crucial factor in evolution process. Hence I asked the question by the title of this thread.

The end-times is a critical theology in Christianity. In particular, our Lord says there are "signs" for the time. It would not be right if the sign appeared millions of years later. Most Christian would agree that some signs are discernible right now.

If so, think about this: The Salvation comes AFTER millions of years of evolution process. And in a fraction of a second after the salvation is given, the evolution process will also end forever. How awkward.

In comparison, would you think Creation is a much simpler, reasonable and elegant process? In creationism, time is really not a factor and not a concern. The current situation could continue tens of millions of years and we do not have to worry that we would evolve into something else. The salvation will ALWAYS apply no matter how far does the time go backwards or forwards.

 

[juvenissun]

The one who utters falsehood is responsible for spoiling the atmosphere I'm afraid. By your own admission you know nothing about non-dispensational eschatology yet that doesn't stop you passing comment on it.

You may think the immature thought was comment OR was invitation for comment. I have to say something wrong first, so you could have chance to say something right.

 

[Melethiel]

Where is then the line backward where the salvation should stop apply?

When it's no longer necessary (ie, the Fall, whenever that was). I'd say that Adam and Eve were "modern humans", so the pre-human species would not need salvation, no more than a dog or cat.

With this consideration, we can also ask, how much time forward from now would the salvation STILL be available?

Until the Eschaton.

I really don't think many TEs have the idea that the Second Coming would be millions of years later.

It'll happen when God is ready for it to happen. Could be tomorrow, or in millions of years.

All TE arguments are focused on the validity of evolution, which is almost always focused on things happened back in time. And TIME is really a crucial factor in evolution process. Hence I asked the question by the title of this thread.

The end-times is a critical theology in Christianity. In particular, our Lord says there are "signs" for the time. It would not be right if the sign appeared millions of years later. Most Christian would agree that some signs are discernible right now.

Sounds like you're some form of dispensationalist. Do you know anything about amillenialism (the historic position of much of Christianity?)

If so, think about this: The Salvation comes AFTER millions of years of evolution process. And in a fraction of a second after the salvation is given, the evolution process will also end forever. How awkward.

I don't find it awkward at all. You're projecting your opinions unto us.

In comparison, would you think Creation is a much simpler, reasonable and elegant process? In creationism, time is really not a factor and not a concern. The current situation could continue tens of millions of years and we do not have to worry that we would evolve into something else. The salvation will ALWAYS apply no matter how far does the time go backwards or forwards.

Time's not a concern? Tell that to all the people who insist it must be 6000 years, or 7 24-hour days, or what have you...seems Creationists are much more concerned with time.

 

[theFijian]

You may think the immature thought was comment OR was invitation for comment. I have to say something wrong first, so you could have chance to say something right.

frankly I haven't got the time to decipher your gobbledegook, i'm bowing out of this for now as I other things more pressing on my time and efforts.

 

[Joykins]

Neanderthal is the only name I can spell. There are a slew of names for species between ape and human. How about just push one notch backward from Neanderthal? I guess you could not be sure on their salvation either. Where is then the line backward where the salvation should stop apply?

With this consideration, we can also ask, how much time forward from now would the salvation STILL be available? I really don't think many TEs have the idea that the Second Coming would be millions of years later. All TE arguments are focused on the validity of evolution, which is almost always focused on things happened back in time. And TIME is really a crucial factor in evolution process. Hence I asked the question by the title of this thread.

The end-times is a critical theology in Christianity. In particular, our Lord says there are "signs" for the time. It would not be right if the sign appeared millions of years later. Most Christian would agree that some signs are discernible right now.

The signs are discernable in many places and times. Surely the Christians of 70 AD thought they were living in the end times; and perhaps in many ways they were.

If so, think about this: The Salvation comes AFTER millions of years of evolution process. And in a fraction of a second after the salvation is given, the evolution process will also end forever. How awkward.

In the scale of evolution, we've only been around to need our particular plan of salvation for a minute or two.

The answer is very simple: either God is the Lord of time or he is not. I think he is capable of working it out. He's got the little bitty baby and the Neanderthal and the Homo Erectus and the birds and the lilies of the field and potential post-humans and you and me brother in his hands as the song goes. Our particular worry about salvation in the here and now ends when we die and we find out what happens next.

In comparison, would you think Creation is a much simpler, reasonable and elegant process? In creationism, time is really not a factor and not a concern. The current situation could continue tens of millions of years and we do not have to worry that we would evolve into something else. The salvation will ALWAYS apply no matter how far does the time go backwards or forwards.

You make it sound like God can only grant salvation if humans were constant throughout time without evolution and I think that assumption is deeply flawed.

 

[gluadys]

Neanderthal is the only name I can spell. There are a slew of names for species between ape and human.

No, there are no species between ape and human, because humans are apes.

How about just push one notch backward from Neanderthal?

Wait a minute. Are you thinking that Neanderthals are our ancestors? That they changed into the sort of human that we are? Nope. We share a common ancestor with them, but their relationship to us is more that of an older sibling, not an ancestor. So what "one notch backward" are you thinking of?

The whole idea of "one notch backward" shows that after all this time you have not yet absorbed the basic fact that evolution is not linear.

I guess you could not be sure on their salvation either. Where is then the line backward where the salvation should stop apply?

Where it is no longer needed. As Melethiel said. Where is that? I have no idea.

With this consideration, we can also ask, how much time forward from now would the salvation STILL be available?

Again, as Melethiel said. Until the eschaton, whenever that may be.

I really don't think many TEs have the idea that the Second Coming would be millions of years later.

Why not? It is just as likely a possibility as that the Second Coming will be tomorrow.

The end-times is a critical theology in Christianity.

Most certainly, but as the Fijian says, you should look at some of the many varieties of eschatology Christians have embraced. Like Melethiel and the Fijian, I am partial to amillennial eschatology as taught by Augustine, Luther and Calvin.

It would not be right if the sign appeared millions of years later.

If that is when the Parousia will be, why not?

If so, think about this: The Salvation comes AFTER millions of years of evolution process. And in a fraction of a second after the salvation is given, the evolution process will also end forever. How awkward.

Salvation is available at all the times it is needed. What's awkward about that? And what does it have to do with evolution?

In comparison, would you think Creation is a much simpler, reasonable and elegant process?

No.

In creationism, time is really not a factor and not a concern. The current situation could continue tens of millions of years and we do not have to worry that we would evolve into something else.

Don't have to worry about that in evolution either. All descendants of humans are humans, even if they are a separate species from other humans. It's no more worrisome than the current fact that some of us are European and some South Asian and some African whereas our ancestors were all African.

The salvation will ALWAYS apply no matter how far does the time go backwards or forwards.

And that is exactly what we have been saying is the case in a TE perspective. Salvation will always apply to all humans no matter how far back or forward in time we go.

 

[USincognito]

One theme in my argument, use your example, is that mass extinction is NOT GOOD and is disastrous. An abrupt end of a process which requires a long time to proceed is NOT good.

It's good for those that survive it... be it Noah and his family during the Flood, the Jewish firstborn sons during Passover, mammals during the K-T extinction event or Christians during the End Times.

 

[juvenissun]

No, there are no species between ape and human, because humans are apes.



Wait a minute. Are you thinking that Neanderthals are our ancestors? That they changed into the sort of human that we are? Nope. We share a common ancestor with them, but their relationship to us is more that of an older sibling, not an ancestor. So what "one notch backward" are you thinking of?

The whole idea of "one notch backward" shows that after all this time you have not yet absorbed the basic fact that evolution is not linear.

I know what I am saying. I just could not say it right, or in a precise way. Don't pick me on this. You know it is not the point.

 

[juvenissun]

You make it sound like God can only grant salvation if humans were constant throughout time without evolution and I think that assumption is deeply flawed.

This is exactly a good way to understand the question in the OP. I don't think this "assumption" is flawed. I think it is very challenging to the concept of TE.

 

[gluadys]

I know what I am saying. I just could not say it right, or in a precise way. Don't pick me on this. You know it is not the point.

Sorry, juvie, but it IS the point. You ask ridiculous questions about evolution because you refuse to learn and understand the basics of evolution.

It is not as if this has not been presented to you before. You just let it run off you like water off a duck and go back to your original misconceptions.