Is denying evolution part of Christian theology?

[graceskr]

Certainly not. Consider Billy Graham's view:

"I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ... whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God."

Source Book: Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man, 1997. p. 72-74

 

[Jazer]

So I'd like to ask everyone what they think about the relationship between evolution and Christianity. Is part of Christian theology the denial of evolution? Is such denial an essential part of Christian theology?

There is NO conflict between Science and Christianity. They need each other like we need our left and right hand. Science helps us to understand our Bible and our Bible helps us to understand Science. Science helps us to verify if our interpretation of the Bible is accurate or not. The Bible helps us to establish if our Scientific theorys are true or not.

 

[New_Found_Faith]

So I'd like to ask everyone what they think about the relationship between evolution and Christianity. Is part of Christian theology the denial of evolution? Is such denial an essential part of Christian theology?

Of course not. The bible is not a biology textbook, nor was it intended to be.

 

[Jazer]

It is impossible to believe in a "loving" God if God deliberately and directly subjects some individuals to horrific birth defects.

We can not blame God for the mess that man and the devil made out of Creation. But God is good and His goodness will overcome all "evil". So even though a birth defect is not God plan and purpose, He allows it to happen because He is able to cause good to come out of it. Only what God is a part of is worth saving. If God is not a part of it, then it will be destoryed. So we decide if we want to dedicate ourselves to God, His plan and His purpose. Knowing that God is good, and His plan is good.

 

[hedrick]

Genesis 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

"He who believes in the advancement of man from some low organised form, will naturally ask how does this bear on the belief in the immortality of the soul. ... Few persons feel any anxiety from the impossibility of determining at what precise period in the development of the individual, from the first trace of a minute germinal vesicle, man becomes an immortal being; and there is no greater cause for anxiety because the period cannot possibly be determined in the gradually ascending organic scale." Literature.org - The Online Literature Library The Descent of Man

So when, during embryonic development, did God breathe "the breath of life" into you and you became a "living soul"?

I don't understand what is going on here. This is talking about creation of the soul for any individual. I don't see that it involves evolution. As I'm sure you know, there are three major theories:

* the soul is created by God for each individual, at a time chosen by him
* the soul somehow comes from the parents
* the soul isn't a separate thing; it's an emergent function of the whole person

Any of these options would work fine with evolution or creationism. The only issue would be the second option, which I suspect is the least popular. In that case, if you assume that animals don't have souls, God would have picked a point when development was ready and created a soul for the first pair of humans. Sort of like he picked a point when things were ready for Jesus to be born. (The comparison is relevant because Paul calls Jesus the second Adam.)

 

[Siyha]

Evolution does not contradict any core elements of the gospel or essential Christian doctrines, but it does contradict some of the secondary systems of theology people have to make sense of the gospel to themselves.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

Evolution does not contradict any core elements of the gospel or essential Christian doctrines, but it does contradict some of the secondary systems of theology people have to make sense of the gospel to themselves.

Truth is not relative or subjective. The fact is that the Bible teaches evolution did not happen. To affirm evolution is to denounce the authority of scripture. And the authority of scripture is an essential Christian doctrine.

There are many deceptions in the world from our adversary, and resisting them is a sign of the Holy Spirit guarding our hearts and minds. Succumbing to them is a sign of our own sinful desires to justify ourselves to the secular world.

 

[laconicstudent]

Evolution does not contradict any core elements of the gospel or essential Christian doctrines, but it does contradict some of the secondary systems of theology people have to make sense of the gospel to themselves.

QFT.

 

[New_Found_Faith]

The fact is that the Bible teaches evolution did not happen.

False.

To affirm evolution is to denounce the authority of scripture.

Also false.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

False.



Also false.

I'll admit that there are aspects to the creation account one can reasonably interpret at symbolic if they so chose (I don't, but its justifiable). But the figure of Adam as the first man, created in a single act from the ground, is intended to be historical in the Bible. This is affirmed everywhere Adam is mentioned in the scriptures, including Romans 5 where the identity of Christ hinges on Adam being historical.

If man was made in an single act from the dust, evolution could not have happened, and therefore to affirm evolution is to deny the Biblical records.

 

[mark kennedy]

"He who believes in the advancement of man from some low organised form, will naturally ask how does this bear on the belief in the immortality of the soul. ... Few persons feel any anxiety from the impossibility of determining at what precise period in the development of the individual, from the first trace of a minute germinal vesicle, man becomes an immortal being; and there is no greater cause for anxiety because the period cannot possibly be determined in the gradually ascending organic scale." Literature.org - The Online Literature Library The Descent of Man​

First of all man did not descend from some 'low unorganized form', God created man in his image, Adam being the 'first man' according to the Apostle Paul. Perhaps denying evolution is not part of Christian theology but denying the clear testimony of Scripture is a part of Theistic Evolution:

So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. (I Cor 15:45)​

Who are you going to believe, Moses, Paul, Luke and Jesus or Darwin?

This is exactly where Adam became a living soul:

"And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Genesis 2:7)​

Christians have always taught this, they did at least, until the advent of Darwinism.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[laconicstudent]

"He who believes in the advancement of man from some low organised form, will naturally ask how does this bear on the belief in the immortality of the soul. ... Few persons feel any anxiety from the impossibility of determining at what precise period in the development of the individual, from the first trace of a minute germinal vesicle, man becomes an immortal being; and there is no greater cause for anxiety because the period cannot possibly be determined in the gradually ascending organic scale." Literature.org - The Online Literature Library The Descent of Man​

First of all man did not descend from some 'low unorganized form', God created man in his image, Adam being the 'first man' according to the Apostle Paul. Perhaps denying evolution is not part of Christian theology but denying the clear testimony of Scripture is a part of Theistic Evolution:

So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. (I Cor 15:45)​

Who are you going to believe, Moses, Paul, Luke and Jesus or Darwin?

This is exactly where Adam became a living soul:

"And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Genesis 2:7)​

Christians have always taught this, they did at least, until the advent of Darwinism.

Have a nice day
Mark

Thank you for posting your personal interpretation of the Genesis account. Many Christians disagree. It is nice to know that we can all coexist on this issue.

 

[mark kennedy]

Truth is not relative or subjective. The fact is that the Bible teaches evolution did not happen. To affirm evolution is to denounce the authority of scripture. And the authority of scripture is an essential Christian doctrine.

There are many deceptions in the world from our adversary, and resisting them is a sign of the Holy Spirit guarding our hearts and minds. Succumbing to them is a sign of our own sinful desires to justify ourselves to the secular world.

You can be indwelled by the Holy Spirit and still be worldly in your thinking, which is what I think is going on here:

Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. (Romans 12:2)

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened....Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. Romans 1:21, 28​

Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said:

"Who is this that darkens my counsel
with words without knowledge?

Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.

"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?
Tell me, if you understand. (Job 38:1-4)​

Thank you for posting your personal interpretation of the Genesis account. Many Christians disagree. It is nice to know that we can all coexist on this issue.

You are very welcome, I appreciate your kind words of encouragement. However, it's not my personal interpretation, it's the clear testimony of the Scriptures.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[New_Found_Faith]

If man was made in an single act from the dust, evolution could not have happened, and therefore to affirm evolution is to deny the Biblical records.

These biblical "records" are not records at all but rather allegorical creation myths. One can be a Christian and recongize mythology for what it is, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.

And only an extremely narrow interpretation of Romans 5 could possibly lead one to the conclusion that Adam must be a historical figure for Christ's identity to be legitimate.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

These biblical "records" are not records at all but rather allegorical creation myths. One can be a Christian and recongize mythology for what it is, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.

And only an extremely narrow interpretation of Romans 5 could possibly lead one to the conclusion that Adam must be a historical figure for Christ's identity to be legitimate.

So are the geneologies also allegory? The Genesis one you may argue is a literary device to move the story from the primeval naratives to the intended historical account of Abram, but what about the Chronicler's geneology record of Adam forward?

Timothy used a literal interpretation of creation to illustrate a point about women.

Hosea says like Adam they have broken the covenant.

Corinthians: For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
It was the historical fall that brought death to mankind.

Jude refers to Enoch as one 7 generations from Adam.

 

[Siyha]

These biblical "records" are not records at all but rather allegorical creation myths. One can be a Christian and recongize mythology for what it is, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.

And only an extremely narrow interpretation of Romans 5 could possibly lead one to the conclusion that Adam must be a historical figure for Christ's identity to be legitimate.

The term allegory does not do justice to the text, nor does the common understanding of the word "myth." Genesis 1 is neither literal nor allegorical. Seeking one or the other has no place in this passage and does not constitute a proper understanding of ancient writing.

See this post I made in another thread for more information on this.

 

[philadiddle]

Jude refers to Enoch as one 7 generations from Adam.

Did the number 7 mean anything other than its mathematical properties to the people at that time? Is the exegetical usage of the word Adam in that verse plural or singular?

 

[AnswersInHovind]

Did the number 7 mean anything other than its mathematical properties to the people at that time? Is the exegetical usage of the word Adam in that verse plural or singular?

In this particular instance, no, the number 7 did not have symbolic meaning as it does elsewhere in the scripture. The geneology recorded in Genesis 5 has Enoch 7 generations from Adam.

The usage of the word Adam in that verse is a proper name. While in Hebrew the word may also be used for mankind or humanity, in Greek it is not, especially when singular and accompanied by a definite article.

 

[philadiddle]

The usage of the word Adam in that verse is a proper name. While in Hebrew the word may also be used for mankind or humanity, in Greek it is not, especially when singular and accompanied by a definite article.

So in the Hebrew in Genesis it's used for mankind?

 

[AnswersInHovind]

So in the Hebrew in Genesis it's used for mankind?

In some cases, such as Genesis 1. However there are instances in Genesis 2 where it is grammatically a proper noun. This is shown by the absence of an article (unlike greek where an article may mean a proper name), as well as verb forms surrounding it. Where it refers to mankind, the verbs are plural, but in these anarthrous places, the verbs are singular, so it is one person named Adam.

Have anything to contribute to the discussion or just gonna ask more questions?