Is Theistic Evolution Heresy?

[Martyrs44]

There is no evidence that it has been written by mose nor be intended to be historic fact.

Jesus said it was written by Moses and no one among Jews or Christians in ancient times believed otherwise.

Example (one among many references): "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.Luke 24:44.

 

[Martyrs44]

Theistic Evolution is not a monolithic viewpoint, however, I have not met any who deny any of the essential creeds of the Christian faith. You may not agree with it. It may not be correct. That means it is not your belief; that does not mean it is heresy.

Knowing when Adam and Eve sinned is hardly a critical doctrine. If I was to make a case for TE, I would put it at around 60,000 years ago. There is a great deal of evidence of an explosion of enlightenment in ideas, tools, and other implements from the prior generation. However, others may make there case at a different point. Remember, YEC's opinion differ on the age of Earth, as well.

Oh, yes but it is. It is unbelief that teaches that God did not, after all, do exactly what He told us plainly in His word...not just in Genesis but in the very ten commandments:

"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Exodus 20:11

The six day working week and literal Sabbath observance was based upon the literal six day creation with God resting on the seventh. It was NOT a six thousand day work week, nor a six million day work week.

The doctrine of original sin is not a critical doctrine? Are you kidding me? The entire human race inherited the sin of Adam and Eve and the world is in the ruin of wickedness because of it and you say it's not 'critical'? What translation have you been reading from, dear friend, the RVB (Reversed Vision Bible)?

So do you believe Adam had an ape for a father?

Lastly, either your 60,000 yr figure is wrong or else Moses and the chroniclers were wrong in their chronology of the human race and therefore the Holy Spirit Himself is in error.

..........I choose the Holy Spirit and the writers of scripture. They did NOT waste their time and ink when they wrote those ages and time frames. God gave us those chronologies so we would have a good idea as to the age of the earth we live on.

 

[jlmagee]

Oh, yes but it is. It is unbelief that teaches that God did not, after all, do exactly what He told us plainly in His word...not just in Genesis but in the very ten commandments:

God Created. Yes, That is correct.

"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Exodus 20:11

A TE might suggest that this is a nice devotional framework that God used to demonstrate His authority and superiority over all the pagan deities they have and would encounter. After all, the children of Israel did not have multiple copies.

The six day working week and literal Sabbath observance was based upon the literal six day creation with God resting on the seventh. It was NOT a six thousand day work week, nor a six million day work week.

God knows what He did and what He is doing.

The doctrine of original sin is not a critical doctrine? Are you kidding me? The entire human race inherited the sin of Adam and Eve and the world is in the ruin of wickedness because of it and you say it's not 'critical'? What translation have you been reading from, dear friend, the RVB (Reversed Vision Bible)?[/QUOTE]

I never said that the fall of man was not critical. I stated that the timing is not critical. Even YEC's differ on 6,000 years? 15,000? Was the fall on day 1? 2-3 years later? 100 years? The bolded is of questionable intent. Throwing "dear friend" does not lessen it. Perhaps I have misunderstood the connotation. It is easy to do in a thread. I probably read the same translation(s) as you.

So do you believe Adam had an ape for a father?

I do not believe Homo sapiens is in that genus on the taxonomy classification.

Lastly, either your 60,000 yr figure is wrong or else Moses and the chroniclers were wrong in their chronology of the human race and therefore the Holy Spirit Himself is in error.

There is a great deal in the anthropological and paleontological record that suggest a date around that time. Even conservative scholars have questions and thoughts about the chronology. It does not mean there is an error just possible lack of understanding.

..........I choose the Holy Spirit and the writers of scripture. They did NOT waste their time and ink when they wrote those ages and time frames. God gave us those chronologies so we would have a good idea as to the age of the earth we live on.

Nothing in the inerrant word of God is a "waste of time". I will follow the Holy Spirit as well.

The discussion is about heresy. This is a term that is thrown around far too easily. I did it myself in my younger days until I studied the ecumenical councils. I believe I have addressed your questions. Could you demonstrate how any doctrine in the Nicene Creed is denied by TE's? There are many prominent doctrines within the Christian community with which I may disagree. I do not call them heresy.

(I believe in verbal plenary inspiration of scriptures in their original autographs. I realize, however, that this is in the statement of faith of many denominational bodies, including mine, but not in the creeds.)

 

[super animator]

Jesus said it was written by Moses and no one among Jews or Christians in ancient times believed otherwise.

Example (one among many references): "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.Luke 24:44.

No where did he said that Moses wrote Genesis. He's talking about the law of Moses, not that Moses wrote the laws or that wrote any of the books. Did you read between the lines?

 

[Martyrs44]

No where did he said that Moses wrote Genesis. He's talking about the law of Moses, not that Moses wrote the laws or that wrote any of the books. Did you read between the lines?

You aren't telling the truth. EVERY single passage in which Moses was mentioned by Jesus Christ assigns him as the author.

I already quoted Him on the matter but you just dissed it. He also said, "they have Moses and the prophets let them hear them...." Luke 16:29. So are you then going to be consistent and tell us that the prophets didn't write what Jesus likewise told us that they wrote? Jesus also said, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

You are as much as calling the Lord Jesus Christ a liar. He gave NO other name as the writer of Genesis or the rest of the Pentateuch.

But since you disagree...then give the name/names of the one/ones who wrote Genesis and document it.

 

[mark kennedy]

Theistic evolution does not go without biblical merit. Young Earth creationists will try to make it seem that way, but it is simply their interpretation they collide it with, not Scripture itself.

The fact is that Genesis was neither meant to be taken literally or symbolically. It is meant to be ambiguous, conveying the message that God created the Heavens and the Earth.

By taking Genesis literally, however, you run into contradictions. In the same way YEC's may say that TE's contradict Genesis, TE's can say that God created light before the stars, which is contradictory when taking it literally. Take it a different way, and you see the Big Bang. <speaking of which, a Catholic theologian actually came up with the idea of the Big Bang. It was originally not a secular position, which is a bit ironic>
So, there are two sides of the coin here. YEC's have gotten so comfortable with denying theistic evolution that they do not see the pitfalls in their own theology.

The fact is the Genesis is an historical narrative, there is no indication anywhere in the book that it's meant to be taken figuratively. Adam, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are described in the same matter of fact terms and can only be understood as literal people.

 

[super animator]

You aren't telling the truth. EVERY single passage in which Moses was mentioned by Jesus Christ assigns him as the author.

I already quoted Him on the matter but you just dissed it. He also said, "they have Moses and the prophets let them hear them...." Luke 16:29. So are you then going to be consistent and tell us that the prophets didn't write what Jesus likewise told us that they wrote? Jesus also said, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

You are as much as calling the Lord Jesus Christ a liar. He gave NO other name as the writer of Genesis or the rest of the Pentateuch.

But since you disagree...then give the name/names of the one/ones who wrote Genesis and document it.

There is no reason for being arrogant. Jesus did not imply that Moses wrote genesis, that was YOUR implication not his.
Then again calling me a liar when I just simply disagree YOUR notation/interpretation Jesus implied that Moses wrote book of genesis is akin to a little kid who complains that the world doesn't always agree with him.
Accusing me of calling Jesus a liar is a blatantly false accusation.
Keep this false accusation up, and I will file a compliant to the mods and lets see if they will straighten you up.

 

[Assyrian]

The fact is the Genesis is an historical narrative, there is no indication anywhere in the book that it's meant to be taken figuratively. Adam, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are described in the same matter of fact terms and can only be understood as literal people.

You are assuming Genesis is a single book, but Genesis itself shows us it is composed of different texts and books, 'the book of the generations of Adam'. Genesis certainly contains narratives, not all narratives in the bible are historical narratives. The story of the talking trees in Judges is a narrative. Are there no indications that part of Genesis are figurative, or have you dismissed the indications that were pointed out to you because you think it must be literal? You are also assuming that if you cannot see any indications a text is figurative it must be taken literally. Jesus often told parables without giving any indication the stories weren't literal.

 

[Martyrs44]

God Created. Yes, That is correct.

Well, at least you believe that much. Why would you believe the Lord about the fact that He is the Creator but not what He says about His six-day creation?

A TE might suggest that this is a nice devotional framework that God used to demonstrate His authority and superiority over all the pagan deities they have and would encounter. After all, the children of Israel did not have multiple copies.

And the TE would be in error. 'A nice devotional framework'? Nope. It was the ten commandments of God for His people. His Law. Your reply on this is a shocking statement to any clear minded believer who knows better.

God knows what He did and what He is doing.

But the TE's don't know what they are doing. They have caved in to a teaching that is not found in scripture. Why would God give us the clear-cut account of His creation in six days, confirm it in the ten commandments, and verify it's historical reality in the many dozen passages which speak of Adam, Eve, the fall, the flood, etc. only to have all of that uprooted and changed by Charles Darwin in 1859? Are you trying to suggest that the entire Christian world DID NOT know of the truth about creation until after 1859? That is ridiculous.

You quoted me, "The doctrine of original sin is not a critical doctrine? Are you kidding me? The entire human race inherited the sin of Adam and Eve and the world is in the ruin of wickedness because of it and you say it's not 'critical'? What translation have you been reading from, dear friend, the RVB (Reversed Vision Bible)?"

Then you said: "I never said that the fall of man was not critical. I stated that the timing is not critical. Even YEC's differ on 6,000 years? 15,000? Was the fall on day 1? 2-3 years later? 100 years?

None of that shallow argumentation will help you escape the fact that when the chronologies (i.e. Genesis 5,10, I Chronicles, etc.) are considered and the ages are calculated together one cannot derive much more than a 6,000 yr age for the earth. THAT is bottom line and not what skeptical scientists with their nebulous dating methods tell us.

Secondly, you did not give a date nor time frame as to when the fall of man actually occured. Why? But if the scriptural time frame is wrong then when did man fall in sin and how long has death existed in our world? Did death come through Adam's sin as Romans 5:12 tells us or did it precede Adam by millions of years?

The bolded is of questionable intent. Throwing "dear friend" does not lessen it. Perhaps I have misunderstood the connotation. It is easy to do in a thread. I probably read the same translation(s) as you.

Nonetheless, you are in error in this matter because the scriptures are not obscure nor ambiguous about our origins. There is no teaching of theistic evolution in God's Word...not even a hint. There is not even a suggestion of anyone who lived in Bible times that believed such a thing. So you are without excuse.

I do not believe Homo sapiens is in that genus on the taxonomy classification.

Nor will you find a common ancestor that breached the gap between a 46 chromosome organism as connected to a 48 chromosome organism. If you disagree then you are invited to try and find such a creature.

Not only so but no scientist on earth can genetically cross humans with any kind of ape of any classification. So not only is the picture I posted above quite impossible (and funny!) but there is no variation of such a result possible. Again, if you disagree then forward the genetic evidence that it is possible.

There is a great deal in the anthropological and paleontological record that suggest a date around that time. Even conservative scholars have questions and thoughts about the chronology. It does not mean there is an error just possible lack of understanding.

So you believe the anthropologists and paleontologists over God's Word. What should have the highest priority in your mind takes a back seat to neo-Darwinian scholarship. I get you. But then tell us...why did God even bother giving us the ages of the antediluvians and the patriarchs and in fact the whole tribe of Israel...to begin with?

Nothing in the inerrant word of God is a "waste of time". I will follow the Holy Spirit as well.

Yes, but you aren't. Not on this issue. You haven't produced a single passage of scripture supporting your theistic evolution position...nor can you.

The discussion is about heresy. This is a term that is thrown around far too easily. I did it myself in my younger days until I studied the ecumenical councils. I believe I have addressed your questions. Could you demonstrate how any doctrine in the Nicene Creed is denied by TE's? There are many prominent doctrines within the Christian community with which I may disagree. I do not call them heresy.

What makes you think I am interested in the Nicene Creed? It is scripture to which you are at variance.

(I believe in verbal plenary inspiration of scriptures in their original autographs. I realize, however, that this is in the statement of faith of many denominational bodies, including mine, but not in the creeds.)

Good for you. So who persuaded you to not believe what God has plainly told us about the six day creation and substitute the truth for a non-scientific theory.

I am an ex-theistic evolutionist. I taught science for 26 yrs. I was persuaded by both scripture and the available scientific facts that evolution is a false theory.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

The fact is the Genesis is an historical narrative, there is no indication anywhere in the book that it's meant to be taken figuratively. Adam, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are described in the same matter of fact terms and can only be understood as literal people.

There's no indication it's supposed to be literal. That is a bald assertion by you and wherever you heard it from. Just because one gets in education doesn't mean they get to magically change the contexts of ancient writings. One can bet that whatever source you got that claim was from a staunch creationist.

The Church simply told everyone to not take it literal during the time Darwin made evolutionary discoveries, and that was it. No incident, no loss of Christendom. Nothing. There's little point in laboring under a delusion.
And it was fine. And then a century later, YEC's start popping up in the Protestant realm, doing what they do best and being overly fanatical.

They probably took at as literal because they had no idea of anything else. These people thought the Earth was flat for crying out loud. Unless you posit that, then why even use them as a reference?

 

[Martyrs44]

There is no reason for being arrogant. Jesus did not imply that Moses wrote genesis, that was YOUR implication not his.

Don't call me 'arrogant' when in fact I was only being truthful. But apparently you don't like being told the truth on this matter.

Then again calling me a liar

I said, "You aren't telling the truth". I won't back down on that because every single time Jesus mentioned the pentateuch in any passage where Moses is mentioned He regarded MOSES as the author/writer.

Example; Matthew 19:7 "He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so."

Mark 10:
"3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?

4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

Whenever Jesus spoke of "Moses and the prophets" He was talking about everything from Genesis to Deuteronomy...and the prophets included all of the prophetic and historical books from Joshua to Malachi. This has been well known throughout the history of Christianity.

It was Moses who wrote the first five books of the Bible and no one else. There were no dissenting voices on this matter among the 1st century Christians but if you can find one then name him, please.

when I just simply disagree YOUR notation/interpretation Jesus implied that Moses wrote book of genesis is akin to a little kid who complains that the world doesn't always agree with him.

No, it is not my 'interpretation' but God's Word that you differ with.

Accusing me of calling Jesus a liar is a blatantly false accusation.

Jesus quoted Moses...and named him several times. However, if you can give me the name/names of the 'true' author of the first five books of the Bible then I will apologize. If you can't do that then I stand on what I said.

Give the name/names, please.

Keep this false accusation up, and I will file a compliant to the mods and lets see if they will straighten you up.

Be my guest. Unless you can come up with the requested name/names and document it then you are the one who owes an apology.

 

[Martyrs44]

There's no indication it's supposed to be literal.

That is a terrible, terrible error.

But I'll let Mark Kennedy converse with you on this issue.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

It was Moses who wrote the first five books of the Bible and no one else. There were no dissenting voices on this matter among the 1st century Christians but if you can find one then name him, please.

That's only true traditionally speaking. The fact is that it was probably written by a successor, being that it isn't written in the 1st person.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

That is a terrible, terrible error.

But I'll let Mark Kennedy converse with you on this issue.

Well that's your opinion. You have no actual substantiation of the contrary, though I'm sure you are quite adept in at least making it appear as if you do.
That is what YECism is all about, after all. It's not as if over the past three decades YEC's have gotten anywhere. Has it not occurred to you that YECism has never gotten away with one single thing they have posited? Go look at the AiG site, and see the list of things that have been debunked. It's practically everything, and the list just grows.YECism is simply wrong and the only reason it exists today is because of denial.

 

[Martyrs44]

Well that's your opinion. You have no actual substantiation of the contrary, though I'm sure you are quite adept in at least making it appear as if you do.
That is what YECism is all about, after all. It's not as if over the past three decades YEC's have gotten anywhere. Has it not occurred to you that YECism has never gotten away with one single thing they have posited? Go look at the AiG site, and see the list of things that have been debunked. It's practically everything, and the list just grows.YECism is simply wrong and the only reason it exists today is because of denial.

The substantiation is God's Word. Perhaps you have heard of it; you know, the book that nowhere even hints about such a thing as theistic evolution.

You are really on a different page than faithful Christians who have believed in the six-day creation for 18 centuries (& also those of us since then) during which time no one had ever heard of Darwin or evolution.

Were you living before Darwin(1859) you would almost certainly be a six-day creationist like I am for there is no other teaching in the Bible.

But I get you; in your mind scripture will always take a back seat to neo-Darwinism.

 

[Martyrs44]

That's only true traditionally speaking. The fact is that it was probably written by a successor, being that it isn't written in the 1st person.

Name him/them.

 

[super animator]

Don't call me 'arrogant' when in fact I was only being truthful. But apparently you don't like being told the truth on this matter.

Oh please, your are acting arrogant as clear as day. Having a differing view/interpretation does not make me a lair. This isn't the case on biblical truth; this is a case of ones differing interpretation.

I said, "You aren't telling the truth". I won't back down on that because every single time Jesus mentioned the pentateuch in any passage where Moses is mentioned He regarded MOSES as the author/writer.
Example; Matthew 19:7 "He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so."

He was talking about command of Moses and describes how isn't always like that. Not that Moses wrote genesis, I don't see how you got that.

Mark 10:
"3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?

4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

Again he never says anything about Moses wrote genesis, just talking about command of moses and how it isn't always like that.

Whenever Jesus spoke of "Moses and the prophets" He was talking about everything from Genesis to Deuteronomy...and the prophets included all of the prophetic and historical books from Joshua to Malachi.

No that's your assertion.

This has been well known throughout the history of Christianity.

and it well known that they think that earth is still and the sun revolves around it.

It was Moses who wrote the first five books of the Bible and no one else. There were no dissenting voices on this matter among the 1st century Christians but if you can find one then name him, please.

Appeal to tradition much?

No, it is not my 'interpretation' but God's Word that you differ with.

Your in a state of denial if you think your not interpreting it.

Jesus quoted Moses...and named him several times. However, if you can give me the name/names of the 'true' author of the first five books of the Bible then I will apologize. If you can't do that then I stand on what I said.
Give the name/names, please.

Be my guest. Unless you can come up with the requested name/names and document it then you are the one who owes an apology.

The burden of proof rest on you. Not the one who is being skeptical.

 

[super animator]

Name him/them.

He doesn't need to know his name to know that.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Name him/them.

Nowhere in the books do they declare they were written by Moses. They are not written in the 1st person either.

Basically, saying Moses wrote the Pentateuch is like saying Jesus wrote the New Testament.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

The substantiation is God's Word. Perhaps you have heard of it; you know, the book that nowhere even hints about such a thing as theistic evolution.

You are really on a different page than faithful Christians who have believed in the six-day creation for 18 centuries (& also those of us since then) during which time no one had ever heard of Darwin or evolution.

Were you living before Darwin(1859) you would almost certainly be a six-day creationist like I am for there is no other teaching in the Bible.

But I get you; in your mind scripture will always take a back seat to neo-Darwinism.

Something does not have to be literal to be accurate, and so it is fallacious to say that Genesis has to be literal to be accurate.

That is the fatal flaw of the entire Young Earth argument. Half the Bible practically flaunts it's poetic justice, beauty, metaphors, and parables. Literalism is a fabrication, not a guideline.