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

[juvenissun]

Actually, there are "mainstream" varieties, and there are "non-conservative" varieties. So, let's keep in mind that the evangelical position is now a landscape of horizons rather than simply a singular, conservative vision. So, some of us more progressive type evangelicals can very much appreciate the Theory of Evolution and affirm the Bible as God's Word at the same time.

OK, even scientific fact has exceptions.
Then, that is the mainstream. That is good enough.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

OK, even scientific fact has exceptions.
Then, that is the mainstream. That is good enough.

I don't quite understand what you mean by "good enough."

April (the speaker in the OP video) is in mainstream science and in evangelicalism. And in our recognition of this, let's not confuse evangelicalism with fundamentalism here.

 

[AV1611VET]

... let's not confuse evangelicalism with fundamentalism here.

True dat.

If I remember my theology correctly, fundamentalism recognizes six fundamentals of the faith,* in which, if any one of the six aren't true, then salvation cannot occur.

Fundamentalism recognizes all six.

Evangelicalism excludes verbal plenary inspiration and only recognizes five of the six.

Modernism excludes two or more of the six.

* The six are:

1. virgin birth
2. deity of Christ
3. vicarious sacrifice
4. burial and resurrection
5. verbal plenary inspiration
6. second coming

 

[Moral Orel]

Lol! To know the answer and the meaning, you would have had to have grown up in the 1980's and watched children's Saturday morning cartoons ... Don't worry, he's not real, and he's not a leader of a cult. Pretty harmless, really.

I wasn't allowed to watch that cartoon as a kid because "dragons = the Devil", apparently.

 

[tas8831]

As Christians we are given a world designed by God and also given the desire to understand that world.

Fallacy of begging the question.

Waiting for the next round of plagiarism to pop up, masquerading as an argument.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I wasn't allowed to watch that cartoon as a kid because "dragons = the Devil", apparently.

Lol! I'm sorry to hear that. My parents had no such reservations about most cartoons, although, they were kind of hesitant to put all of those Advanced Dungeons & Dragons books I asked for at Christmas under the Christmas tree. But, they did it anyway! And I must admit that the cover of the old Dungeon Master's Guide from the 80's was a bit ornery in appearance for those who didn't know the "context" of it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

True dat.

If I remember my theology correctly, fundamentalism recognizes six fundamentals of the faith,* in which, if any one of the six aren't true, then salvation cannot occur.

Fundamentalism recognizes all six.

Evangelicalism excludes verbal plenary inspiration and only recognizes five of the six.

Modernism excludes two or more of the six.

* The six are:

1. virgin birth
2. deity of Christ
3. vicarious sacrifice
4. burial and resurrection
5. verbal plenary inspiration
6. second coming

Yes, for neo-evangelicals, or more progressive evangelicals, the list probably does look more like this:

* The six are:

1. virgin birth
2. deity of Christ
3. vicarious sacrifice
4. burial and resurrection
5. ....."Uh, Yeah! The book--It's inspired! Not quite sure about what it is, but yeah! That!"
   
6. second coming

 

[juvenissun]

I don't quite understand what you mean by "good enough."

April (the speaker in the OP video) is in mainstream science and in evangelicalism. And in our recognition of this, let's not confuse evangelicalism with fundamentalism here.

The mainstream evangelism IS the fundamentalism.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The mainstream evangelism IS the fundamentalism.

...and your source for this comment .....is from where?

 

[juvenissun]

...and your source for this comment .....is from where?

Nowhere. It is my recognition, until I find it is wrong. Why am I not correct?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Nowhere. It is my recognition, until I find it is wrong. Why am I not correct?

And how might you recognize whether or not your wrong about it?

 

[juvenissun]

And how might you recognize whether or not your wrong about it?

When somebody tells me that I am wrong with a reason, I will re-examine it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

When somebody tells me that I am wrong with a reason, I will re-examine it.

Well, the point in this thread is that April is an Evangelical proponent of the Theory of Evolution. Of course, she's not the only one holding this position.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, the point in this thread is that April is an Evangelical proponent of the Theory of Evolution. Of course, she's not the only one holding this position.

Ya. I think Nadab and Abihu held it too.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ya. I think Nadab and Abihu held it too.

I think this comment of yours is uncharitable to April, and to those like myself. You don't see me conking you over the head with implied condemnation(s) for maintaining your Fundamentalist view and your interpretive alliances with your chosen exegetical assumptions, now do you? Yeah, I'm fairly confident that the Theory of Evolution does not constitute "strange fire" being yielded before the Lord in sacrifice.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, the point in this thread is that April is an Evangelical proponent of the Theory of Evolution. Of course, she's not the only one holding this position.

According to your view on the spectrum of Evangelism, she must not be one in the mainstream. I do not recognize her as an Evangelist.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

According to your view on the spectrum of Evangelism, she must not be one in the mainstream. I do not recognize her as an Evangelist.

You don't have to recognize her as "an evangelist." To be evangelical is not thereby to be identified specifically as one who is an Evangelist, at least not in the most poignant sense of the term. I'm in no way equating April with Billy Graham. On the other hand, she does have her own lower level interest for ministry to help those who are wanting to be Christian but who feel that, like it did for herself a few decades ago, the Theory of Evolution posed a wall of separation between having faith and hot having faith. Who knows how many she may help bring to Jesus?

But who are we to judge her is she believes that the Theory of Evolution is scientifically correct, but at the same time she believes that Jesus is Lord and Savior, the Son of God, that He was born of a virgin, died and rose again, and will return, and that the Bible is the Word of God?

 

[juvenissun]

But who are we to judge her is she believes that the Theory of Evolution is scientifically correct, but at the same time she believes that Jesus is Lord and Savior, the Son of God, that He was born of a virgin, died and rose again, and will return, and that the Bible is the Word of God?

She is a Christian, and is certainly much better than an atheistic evolutionist. I oppose her position just as I oppose all other theistic evolutionists. I just won't call her an evangelist.

Christians may have all kinds of different interpretation on details of Christianity. But evolution is a false science, not an interpretation of faith. It is incompatible with creation, which is an essential faith of evangelism.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

She is a Christian, and is certainly much better than an atheistic evolutionist. I oppose her position just as I oppose all other theistic evolutionists. I just won't call her an evangelist.

Sure. I don't call April an evangelist either. She is an evangelical Christian, however.

Christians may have all kinds of different interpretation on details of Christianity. But evolution is a false science, not an interpretation of faith. It is incompatible with creation, which is an essential faith of evangelism.

No one is saying that evolution is an interpretation of faith. Where are you picking the idea up from that someone such as me is running the Bible through the theory of evolution? That is a different form of theology, called Process Theology, and it is not one that is held, as far as I know, by April. No, more often than not, theistic evolutionists such as myself hold that science is a separate sphere of knowledge that only insignificantly rubs up against the sphere of biblical religion and/or Christian faith.

Here's an additional but short message from April:

It is this working separation of science and faith that allows a person to be both an evangelical Christian and an theistic evolutionist. So, we're advocates of Evangelical Christian faith, not advocates of Process Theology.

 

[juvenissun]

No one is saying that evolution is an interpretation of faith. Where are you picking the idea up from that someone such as me is running the Bible through the theory of evolution?

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.