Is there a denomination that accepts theistic evolution/old earth?

[hedrick]

Stories can be useful for spiritual teaching without being historical.

"Historical" view as such was quite unknown in the age of mythology and gods. Ancient people were more interested in meaning than in facts.

Right. It’s possible that Jesus cited the OT that way. But I find it hard to avoid the impression that he understood it as history.

 

[Rick Otto]

Nothing directly. But there are a few places where he refers to OT figures and events that seem not to have happened. This another issue that’s not being dealt with. Are we OK with Jesus making factual errors?

This is a bit new & interesting to me, that Jesus made said references.
I'll just paste your allegation into a search engine to see what I can find on my own, but if you could name one for me that'd be mighty kind of you.

Looks like it ain't going to be real easy to find...

 

[hedrick]

This is a bit new & interesting to me, that Jesus made said references.
I'll just paste your allegation into a search engine to see what I can find on my own, but if you could name one for me that'd be mighty kind of you.

Jesus Believed Every Event of the Old Testament

He might have quoted these without meaning that they were historical. I quote events in well-known novels all the time. But I think it's likely that he accepted the OT as historical. Not all Christologies consider Jesus as omniscient. There was recently a discussion here of the implications of Jesus saying he didn't know when the second coming is. But I think if you really accept modern science and archaeology, you end up with significant differences from traditional Christianity.

 

[solid_core]

Right. It’s possible that Jesus cited the OT that way. But I find it hard to avoid the impression that he understood it as history.

Maybe. But He frequently seems to reference what is written instead of history. I personally have an impression that He says something like "you were given a book so follow it" instead of "because this historically happened, therefore you must live in this or that way".

 

[Rick Otto]

Jesus Believed Every Event of the Old Testament

He might have quoted these without meaning that they were historical. I quote events in well-known novels all the time. But I think it's likely that he accepted the OT as historical. Not all Christologies consider Jesus as omniscient. There was recently a discussion here of the implications of Jesus saying he didn't know when the second coming is. But I think if you really accept modern science and archaeology, you end up with significant differences from traditional Christianity.

Thanks, bro. I will check that out. And thanks for sharing all this peripheral information. It really broadens our understanding.

Wow! I didn't realize there was such an impressive list. I ended up scrolling down to the last one to check it out.
The allegation is that Daniel didn't mention the abomination of desolation as Jesus says he did in Matt 24:15.
Fair enough, but it didn't take long to find this well written & plausible rebuttal (if you will):
Abomination Of Desolation Spoken Of By Daniel The Prophet

Basically:
"~... Further study of Daniel’s prologue reveals the abomination of desolation was existent in his time and led to Jerusalem’s captivity. The Chronicler reveals the reason the Jewish kings fell to Babylon. “Jehoiakim was twenty and five years old when he began to reign... and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord his God.” It was because of Jehoiakim’s iniquitous life that God allowed him to be taken captive.

The significant feature of this is that Jehoiakim’s evil deeds are described this way: “Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and his abominations which he did, and that which was found in him, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah: and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead.” 2 Chronicles 36:5-8. It was specifically the abominations of Jehoiakim that led him and his city to forfeit God’s protection and thus fall to Nebuchadnezzar.

Unfortunately Jehoiachin, his son, did not do much better. Scripture tells us he also did “that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.” Consequently he too was taken captive to Babylon, and “Zedekiah his brother” was placed as king over Judah and Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 36:9-11).

The Bible goes on to record that not only did Zedekiah turn out to be just as evil as his two predecessors, but “moreover all the chief of the priests, and the people, transgressed very much after all the abominations of the heathen.” 2 Chronicles 36:12-14. God’s political and religious leaders, as well as the people, adopted heathen ways as their own. They did this at the expense of God’s revealed truth. Notice where these abominations were committed: the people “transgressed very much after all the abominations of the heathen; and polluted the house of the Lord which he had hallowed in Jerusalem.” 2 Chronicles 36:14. These abominations were standing in God’s consecrated holy place, the “house of the Lord.” The religious leaders of the day had purposefully led the people to adopt heathen worship practices and incorporated them into their worship of God. In substituting for God’s Commandments the vain notions of men, the leaders of God’s heritage provoked his wrath. The people rejected God’s calls to repentance and reformation and were left to reap the consequences. “Therefore, he brought upon them the king of the Chaldees, who slew their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary.” 2 Chronicles 36:17.

This judgment was felt not only in the spilling of the blood, but in the complete destruction of the city and sanctuary (2 Chronicles 36:19). This all was done “To fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath to fulfill threescore and ten years.” 2 Chronicles 36:21. The result of God’s people practicing the religious abominations of the heathen was the desolation of their land, city and sanctuary.

 

[His student]

and also plenty of conservative ones that accept theistic evolution.....

I don't believe that's true.

... ("Is there any denominations that support old earth and either theistic evolution or progressive creationism?").

Yes there are many denominations that support old earth and even progressive creationism (even conservative ones).

There are several interpretations that can allow for that. The gap theory before the reforming of earth and long day ages can both allow for that.

But the OP specifically included theistic evolution and therein lies the difference between conservative views on these things and liberal views.

Evil entered God's good creation through the sin of the one man Adam. It will be eradicated through the obedience of the one man Jesus Christ.

No first Adam = no second Adam. No fall of man = no redemption of man.

Death, pain and suffering entered the world through sin. Death, pain and suffering are the basic building blocks of evolution.

Simply adding the word "theistic" to the theory of evolution does not change that fact. In fact it makes God the author of death, pain and suffering - i.e. sin and evil.

There is a world of difference between a Christian accommodating what the scientists tell us about age in nature and accommodating evil death, pain and suffering in the method of creating man in His own image.

A Christian may well call himself conservative on paper. But when it comes to so called "theistic" evolution the truth comes out IMO.

That person is a liberal in his theology - and that's putting it charitably.

 

[bekkilyn]

I don't need to believe in a six-day creation to know that God is at work in our lives...for example, the miracle in this thread that I actually agree with Albion on something.

But more seriously, being that Wesleyan theology considers tradition, reason, and experience to be authoritative with scripture being the primary authority, it strengthens my faith to experience God at work in the natural world around us. As Christians, we are transformed as the Holy Spirit works within us, and likewise, all of creation is transformed in various ways. It is consistent to how God works vs. completely ignoring how God created the natural world to work to pretend that all of the very visible inconsistencies of a six day creation and then having to concoct all sorts of imaginative stories to explain the existence of fossils and aging, among other things. (It reminds me of someone telling a lie and then having to imagine up all sorts of other lies to support the first one in order to not get called out on the first one.)

The things is...if we put the *person* of Christ (or the *persons* of the Trinity) as the center of our worship and the foundation of our faith vs. a written book that we pretend to be inerrant by ignoring all of the inconsistencies throughout, it makes no difference how much human time (because God's time is not our time...God is not bound by time) God used to create everything because the whole point of that story of beginnings in Genesis is that GOD is the creator, and because God is creator, it makes him worthy of our worship.

When we get bogged down in silly arguments over how many days God used to create something, it takes the focus off of God, because we've made the HOW greater than the WHO.

 

[solid_core]

Evil entered God's good creation through the sin of the one man Adam. It will be eradicated through the obedience of the one man Jesus Christ.

No, evil was present before Adam's sin. In Bible, its represented by the serpent.

Death, pain and suffering are the basic building blocks of evolution.

No, passing advantageous genetic mutations to offspring is the basic building block of evolution. You do not have to feel pain or suffer in the process. In theory, you do not even need to die for it to happen.

Simply adding the word "theistic" to the theory of evolution does not change that fact. In fact it makes God the author of death, pain and suffering - i.e. sin and evil.

Death, pain and suffering do not equal to sin and evil. Sin and evil belong to the area of the spiritual world while death, pain and suffering belong to the area of the physical world.

 

[PaulCyp1]

I don't know about denominations, which are manmade churches that have defected from the original and true Christian Church, however that original and true Church (which includes well over half of all Christians alive today) has no problem with any natural truth revealed by science. Its founder, Jesus Christ, promised its leadership "The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth", and "Whatsoever you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven", and "He who hears you hears Me". As a result of that divine guarantee of truth in its teaching, that teaching never conflicts with natural truths revealed by science. Truth cannot conflict with truth.

 

[BobRyan]

I can't be young earth, Genesis 1 seems like a "this is a gist of it but I'm not telling you specifics" overview of creation rather than a step by step instruction, allowing for what has been scientifically discovered about the nature of the universe and its age to hold true while still being God's very good creation.

Denominations accepting the doctrine on origins that you find in Darwinian evolutionism

The RCC,
The Orthodox church
The Presbyterian and Lutheran churches.
The Methodist Church

As far as I know all of their universities teach that evolution is fact. .Mankind evolved from bacteria and Earth is billions of years old. The Bible is mere myth when it describes origins. I believe that is their teaching

 

[bekkilyn]

Per the Social Principles of the United Methodist Church (emphasis mine):

We recognize science as a legitimate interpretation of God’s natural world. We affirm the validity of the claims of science in describing the natural world and in determining what is scientific. We preclude science from making authoritative claims about theological issues and theology from making authoritative claims about scientific issues. We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology. We recognize medical, technical, and scientific technologies as legitimate uses of God’s natural world when such use enhances human life and enables all of God’s children to develop their God-given creative potential without violating our ethical convictions about the relationship of humanity to the natural world. We reexamine our ethical convictions as our understanding of the natural world increases. We find that as science expands human understanding of the natural world, our understanding of the mysteries of God’s creation and word are enhanced.

In acknowledging the important roles of science and technology, however, we also believe that theological understandings of human experience are crucial to a full understanding of the place of humanity in the universe. Science and theology are complementary rather than mutually incompatible. We therefore encourage dialogue between the scientific and theological communities and seek the kind of participation that will enable humanity to sustain life on earth and, by God’s grace, increase the quality of our common lives together.

Social Principles: The Natural World – The United Methodist Church

One of the big reasons I chose to switch to being a United Methodist some years ago is because we are not required to leave our brains outside the "door" of the church on becoming Christian.

 

[His student]

No, evil was present before Adam's sin. In Bible, its represented by the serpent.

Of course it existed. The scriptures are clear about that. But I specifically said that it entered God's "good creation" through the transgression of the first Adam.

No, passing advantageous genetic mutations to offspring is the basic building block of evolution. You do not have to feel pain or suffer in the process. In theory, you do not even need to die for it to happen.

I'm sure you know that most if not all genetic mutations are disadvantageous. Particularly when those mutations are passed on from a perfect man created in God's image to his offspring.

Death, pain and suffering does not equal sin and evil. Sin and evil belong to the area of the spiritual world while death, pain and suffering belong to the area of the physical world.

My point exactly.

They entered the physical world from the spiritual world through the sin of that first man.

 

[BobRyan]

The bible says

Gen 2
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

Ex 20:11
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

These are statements on origins that do not fit blind faith evolutionism.

But someone will say "I don't need to believe the Bible statement on origins to be a member in good standing of my denomination" . And one can easily see how that could be the case.

 

[solid_core]

Of course it existed. The scriptures are clear about that. But I specifically said that it entered God's "good creation" through the transgression of the first Adam.

Not sure what you mean by "entering the good creation". Entering from where, from some "evil creation"? There is only one creation, God's creation.

I'm sure you know that most if not all genetic mutations are disadvantageous. Particularly when those mutations are passed on from a perfect man created in God's image to his offspring.

The point is that evolution/mutations do not require suffering, death and pain. Actually, the point of evolution is the opposite one - to survive, to be healthy and to have healthy offspring and to not experience pain.

They entered the physical world from the spiritual world through the sin of that first man.

Yes, moral evil - sin and spiritual death - entered humanity when the humanity got God's law and disobeyed it. Its not related to physical evolution or physical death before sin in any theologically important way.

 

[BobRyan]

The point is that evolution/mutations do not require suffering, death and pain. Its not evil.

The reason for the mechanism "survival of the fittest" is to imagine ways to get life to climb up the ladder of taxonomy - always striving to out-compete to seek and prefer and promote adaptations/mutations that enable one trait to overtake the inferior one because the new one better adapted to survive. Imagine the bacteria wanting a human brain and the ability to explore off-world. Sure it would be a long evolutionary struggle trying to reach the top - but just think of how rewarding it would be.

 

[BobRyan]

blind faith evolutionism supposedly happens in a place that can't be observed. But what if we drag one example into the daylight where it can be seen. Lets take for example 50,000 generations of bacterial evolutionism. Lets watch them over a period of decades until we have observed 50,000 generations.

Imagine how rewarding that would be for the true believer in evolutionism. Well the good news is - that there was just such an experiment in the lab. Finally - real observations "in nature".

 

[Albion]

Edited. See post #20.

 

[AlexDTX]

This is just factually untrue. MOST denominations are fine with theistic evolution--Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, etc. It is a minority consisting mainly of the Evangelical and/or Pentecostal churches and pastors who insist upon the literal 6 day creation and even fewer insist upon it being 6000 years since Creation.

Agreed. It is with those congregations that have a personal relationship with God through the new birth, and especially the baptism of the Holy Spirit that know the miraculous power of God that believe what the Bible says about a young Earth.

 

[BobRyan]

It must be that you think anyone who doesn't believe in a six-day Creation that took place only 6000 years ago IS, by definition "conservative."

???

 

[Albion]

???

You're right. I messed that up.

What was said by another member was that anybody who doesn't believe in the super-literal interpretation of the Biblical account of Creation is, ipso facto, a liberal. That's ridiculous. But I assume that he must also imagine that anyone who does is the epitome of a conservative. That's equally silly.

The bottom line to this is that most Christian churches do not interpret that part of Scripture as he does, and many of them are, by any serious standard, conservative churches.

However also, I didn't mean to quibble over statistics or count noses; it's just wrong to think that everyone on Side A of this issue is defined by this one issue as liberal, making everybody who disagrees necessarily be a conservative.