She embraced the E Word as she contemplated the F Word....!

[juvenissun]

It is this working separation of science and faith that allows a person to be both an evangelical Christian and an theistic evolutionist.

Science and faith can NOT be separated. One who does this is cheating himself.

Nothing in our life can be separated from Christian faith.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It really is. Some Christians adopt the "scientific fact" of evolution into their theology. That is an interpretation (serious interference) of faith. They do not know how to reject the theory and yield to compromised. This could have some serious effect to the correctness of their faith if they care to explore the consequence.

And what serious effects transpire within their hermeneutical method and thereby affect the correctness of their Christian faith? What effects to you have in mind?

 

[AV1611VET]

And what serious effects transpire within their hermeneutical method and thereby affect the correctness of their Christian faith?

How do theistic evolutionists explain our sin nature?

1. By saying it doesn't exist?
2. By saying it's just a product of our denomination or church?
3. By saying it comes later: after we are born?

True or false: We are not sinners because we sin; we sin because we're sinners?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How do theistic evolutionists explain our sin nature?

1. By saying it doesn't exist?
2. By saying it's just a product of our denomination or church?
3. By saying it comes later: after we are born?

True or false: We are not sinners because we sin; we sin because we're sinners?

That's an extremely important question, really, AV! Thanks for asking.

The way in which any one theistic evolutionist explains sin will, more than likely, depend upon the specific theistic evolutionist you talk to. But for me, I explain it like this:

The story of the Fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is a form of revelation and theology, but it is not de facto history. The story is representational in nature, poetic even, and serves as a metaphor for deeper truths about how each human being lives before the face of our Creator and within the culture(s) of our world.

The implication of the theological metaphor of the Fall is that, despite our ability to create and perpetuate life, love, and goodness in small ways that imitate the ways of our Creator (i.e. by way of the imago Dei), we all also sin by falling into deception and self-willfulness in defying the Will of our Lord. Everyone sins; and we can't seem to create a utopia that actually "undoes" the human sins of the past or of the present, although we continually, through millennia and through empires, like to dream that we could do this all on our own.

Hence, we human beings are, in a metaphorical sense, attempting to get back into the Garden so we can access the Tree of Life. And without God's permission, what are the odds of that actually happening, AV?

The snag we run into in all of our utopia chasing is that we fail to realize that God, in His own wisdom, has only provided for the possibility of a real Utopia to come through the person of His Son, Jesus the Messiah.

So, there you have the initial outlay. Sin exists for everyone, even if I don't think it's "original." It doesn't have to be thought of as something we're all born with, but nevertheless, it is something we all "do" and when we do, we break our lives and our fellowship with God and with each other. Jesus came to offer a remedy to all of this for those of us who are willing to take Him at His Word.

Additionally, if we think we're going to assert a state of "original sin," then we best do so by grappling with what Paul says, not with what St. Augustine says (despite the fact that some of the things that St. Augustine said are somewhat useful).

 

[AV1611VET]

*

Well, I asked, didn't I?

 

[juvenissun]

And what serious effects transpire within their hermeneutical method and thereby affect the correctness of their Christian faith? What effects to you have in mind?

It depends on how much would one compromise the creation with evolution. There are various degree of net effect. At one end, one could totally separate these two. At the other end, the faith to creation could be totally destroyed.

The degree of faith to creation would then have a string of effects to other recognitions in Christian life.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It depends on how much would one compromise the creation with evolution. There are various degree of net effect. At one end, one could totally separate these two. At the other end, the faith to creation could be totally destroyed.

The degree of faith to creation would then have a string of effects to other recognitions in Christian life.

I'm sorry, but I'm not clear as to what you mean by "the degree of faith to creation..." What do you mean by this, epistemologically speaking?

 

[juvenissun]

I'm sorry, but I'm not clear as to what you mean by "the degree of faith to creation..." What do you mean by this, epistemologically speaking?

TE is the best example. They think that only creation is not enough to explain everything about this world. In terms of science, the meaning is clear. They cannot do biological science without evolution.

A related faith: How about the Heaven? Where will we go after this life? The renewed earth? the Garden? or the Heaven? With the idea of evolution, they are simply lost on this question.

Another related faith: How about abortion? What are we killing in doing that? They are lost on this one too.

Evolution shakes the very foundation of Christian faith. With a faith to evolution, everything about Christianity is changed.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

TE is the best example. They think that only creation is not enough to explain everything about this world. In terms of science, the meaning is clear. They cannot do biological science without evolution.

A related faith: How about the Heaven? Where will we go after this life? The renewed earth? the Garden? or the Heaven? With the idea of evolution, they are simply lost on this question.

You're placing all Theistic Evolutionists into the same categorical box? I think that how they each individually conceptualize the Christian doctrines of the Bible will partially depend on which Christian denomination they adhere to, if they so adhere to one single tradition. So, simply having science as course of study in addition to a course of study on our Christian faith isn't going to severely change much, if anything of central import, in our overall Christian faith and doctrine. Why? Because not only are these fields of study mostly separate, but also the application of biblical hermeneutics helps to define ultimate boundaries for our doctrine that we can't really transgress. For instance, the Theory of Evolution can't really impinge upon the doctrine of the divine nature of Jesus Christ because this is revelation that has come through separate epistemic roads than has our scientific understanding of the evolutionary processes that have been working in our world.

Another related faith: How about abortion? What are we killing in doing that? They are lost on this one too.

.....I'm not lost about it, and I'm a Theistic Evolutionist and a Christian. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the Bible doesn't support the indiscriminate abortion of fetuses. But, I don't really want to get into that discussion here in this thread. No, I let's stay focused on the things that April Cordero says in the OP video.

Evolution shakes the very foundation of Christian faith. With a faith to evolution, everything about Christianity is changed.

No, it really doesn't, and it doesn't have to. But, since you thin it does, would you care to be super-specific about what doctrines you think are central to our faith that TE changes?

 

[juvenissun]

would you care to be super-specific about what doctrines you think are central to our faith that TE changes?

Evolution of life is statistics based. Statistics is NOT a factor in everything God does. We pray when we do thing which is not certain. Faith to evolution does not need prayer in doing anything.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Evolution of life is statistics based. Statistics is NOT a factor in everything God does. We pray when we do thing which is not certain. Faith to evolution does not need prayer in doing anything.

I'm sorry to have to say this, Brother Juvenissun....but none of what you've just said makes sense to me.

 

[46AND2]

I'm sorry to have to say this, Brother Juvenissun....but none of what you've just said makes sense to me.

He's basically saying that if you accept evolution, you are accepting a philosophy of relying on blind luck/random chance, rather than trusting god to answer your prayers.

/translation

 

[2PhiloVoid]

He's basically saying that if you accept evolution, you are accepting blind luck, random chance, rather than trusting god to answer your prayers.

/translation

Ok. I can understand the concern, but that's not actually true. It's not for me. Evolution doesn't automatically imply any kind of metaphysical paradigm either for or against the Christian faith.

 

[juvenissun]

He's basically saying that if you accept evolution, you are accepting a philosophy of relying on blind luck/random chance, rather than trusting god to answer your prayers.

/translation

Pretty good. Thanks

 

[46AND2]

Pretty good. Thanks

No problem. I've seen you make a similar statement before.

So then, does this mean that you don't think there are any random events in the world, Juve? For example, if someone wins the lottery, it isn't luck, but god answering the prayer of that one or two people?

 

[juvenissun]

No problem. I've seen you make a similar statement before.

So then, does this mean that you don't think there are any random events in the world, Juve? For example, if someone wins the lottery, it isn't luck, but god answering the prayer of that one or two people?

It is off the topic. Of course there are many seemingly random events. But they are only apparently random (effectively random). We do not know if they are really random. The lottery draw may be random, but the one who wins the lottery may not be a random choice.

 

[46AND2]

It is off the topic. Of course there are many seemingly random events. But they are only apparently random (effectively random). We do not know if they are really random. The lottery draw may be random, but the one who wins the lottery may not be a random choice.

I assure you it is on topic, I was just getting a bit of background.

So, in that case, if it is possible that things are not really random, do you mean that it may actually be god choosing the random lottery winner, the random atom decay, the random mutation?

 

[juvenissun]

I assure you it is on topic, I was just getting a bit of background.

So, in that case, if it is possible that things are not really random, do you mean that it may actually be god choosing the random lottery winner, the random atom decay, the random mutation?

Your question is compounded. To scientist, one has no better way but to use the concept of randomness to model a system. But God is above scientist, God does not like random. He is the one to determine everything. To unbeliever, or to evolutionist, random status is good enough, but not to God. Our presence is not a product of randomness (evolution)

 

[46AND2]

Your question is compounded. To scientist, one has no better way but to use the concept of randomness to model a system. But God is above scientist, God does not like random. He is the one to determine everything. To unbeliever, or to evolutionist, random status is good enough, but not to God. Our presence is not a product of randomness (evolution)

So god does not like radioactive decay?

 

[juvenissun]

So god does not like radioactive decay?

I don't think we know the exact reason of radioactive decay. Statistics is only a way of description by human.