So... what if everyone that believes in Theistic Evolution, etc... is deceived... about their salvation? What if they aren't truly saved, not because they don't believe the beginning account, but because God never saved them to begin with... so they come up with these false theories because the Spirit isn't inside of them? I would think that the Lord would keep His people on track generally...
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So... what if everyone that believes in Theistic Evolution, etc... is deceived...
- Thread starter Bob Jones Student
- Start date
laconicstudent
Well-Known Member
- Sep 25, 2009
- 11,671
- 720
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
What if all those people who don't believe in the Buddha are deceived about their fate after death, and because of their disbelief end up reincarnating as a squirrel?
Oh. Predestination.
In that case, there is nothing to be done, and we should just give up, I guess.
Does this speculation serve any purpose?
Consider it has the backing of enormous amounts of empirical research, I'm sure this was a typo and you really meant to say "accurate". Or maybe you would like to share with us the research supporting your claim?
You do realize that your statement is self-condemnatory, as Theistic Evolution is the majority view in Christendom?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
laconicstudent
Well-Known Member
- Sep 25, 2009
- 11,671
- 720
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
Are you saying that we are saved on the basis of our belief in a literal Genesis as opposed to our belief in Christ, BJS? That seems to be what you're implying...
Upvote
0
shernren
you are not reading this.
- Feb 17, 2005
- 8,463
- 515
- 38
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols. Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit. - 1 Corinthians 12:2-3
Paul didn't make creationism a salvation issue. And neither should you.
Upvote
0
Voice in the Desert
Newbie
Actually that's not quite true.
Read Acts 17. As Paul was staying in Athens, one of the most pagan and idolatrous cities in the Greek world he was compelled to preach the gospel to the pagans there. People who had no Jewish background or understanding of the prophets. So Paul didn't start there as he did with Jewish audiences or those acquainted with the prophets. In fact note carefully what Paul used as the foundation of his argument he preached to win over a city of pagans, including stoic philosophers strongly trained in Greek philosophy and argument.
I bolded the relevant parts. In fact I think all Christians interested in Evangelism in our increasingly post-Christian modern society, or in any country without a Christian background should study Paul's methodology in Acts 17.
22Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you. 24"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'
29"Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stonean image made by man's design and skill. 30In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."
Upvote
0
Cabal
Well-Known Member
- Jul 22, 2007
- 11,592
- 476
- 39
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Engaged
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
My No True Scotsman sense is tingling.
Hey, I can do broadbrushing presumptuous remarks too!
"Or maybe creationists come up with laughably erroneous explanations because the Spirit isn't inside of them?"
Trust me, I think this every time I see a bunch of Christians gay-bashing or just generally acting out of total ignorance and refusing to think.
But that doesn't mean I have any right or reason to query their salvation.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I wonder if BJS thinks non-Baptist Christians can be saved. After all, "I would think that the Lord would keep His people on track generally..."
Upvote
0
I think he is trying to imply that what we believe about certain parts of the Bible can be used as markers of our salvation, not necessarily salvation itself.
So while belief in a literal Genesis does not save us, it can be used as a marker for those who are "in Christ". If you don't believe in it, obviously you don't have that personal relationship with Christ, cause he would have told you.
Upvote
0
crawfish
Veteran
- Feb 21, 2007
- 1,731
- 125
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
What if satan is deceiving the masses by pointing them away from the reality of God's creation, actually using God's word to try and get people to deny reality only to have to face how wrong they were later? Can you imagine the destruction of faith that would occur afterward?
On the other hand, If God has predestined me to post heretical drivel, then you can blame Him for my actions and not me. Who am I to question the intent of the Almighty?
Upvote
0
philadiddle
Drumming circles around you
If God never saved "them" to begin with it would be related to their acceptance of Jesus gift of salvation. Since the Lord keeps His people on track as you say, then God revealing evolution to us through the evidence is affirmation that it is true.
Upvote
0
shernren
you are not reading this.
- Feb 17, 2005
- 8,463
- 515
- 38
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
I think it's even more interesting to notice what's missing from the parts you bolded:
24"The God who made the world and everything in it
(in seven days? four thousand years ago? from nothing?)
is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26From one man
(named Adam? from the dust of the earth? who was created perfect? who had a woman named Eve pulled from his side? who was tempted by a serpent into eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?)
he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.
In fact, what you've got here is a pared-down version of a creation philosophy that has absolutely no details about what happened. In particular, notice that he makes zero mention of sin in regards to creation. But hey, I thought you couldn't believe in sin unless you believed in a literal fall!
Since you're such a fan of Paul's evangelistic methods, you should know that Athens wasn't the end of Paul speaking to unwashed heathen. Indeed, the very next place he went to was Corinth. And how did he preach there? Did he start from Adam again, the way he did in Athens? What does Paul himself say?
And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. 1 Cor 2:1-5 (ESV)
Note that at least a significant portion of Paul's audience were Gentiles. (See 1 Cor. 12:2; Paul may have had his gripes with the Jews, but he would never have described them as "idolaters".) So Acts 17 is not the final word on preaching to an unchurched generation, and we should not take it to be so.
Upvote
0
A
AnswersInHovind
Guest
the one man is an obvious reference to Adam. Just because it doesn't say it outright doesn't mean its not assumed in the text.
Also, evolution has things evolve in community, so it wouldn't be from one man that God made everyone, but from a group of people that came from a monkey ancestor tribe.
Also, evolution has things evolve in community, so it wouldn't be from one man that God made everyone, but from a group of people that came from a monkey ancestor tribe.
Upvote
0
T
The Lady Kate
Guest
Not really, no.
Would it be legitimate of any of us to say that your opinion means nothing insofar as our relationships with Christ go?
Upvote
0
laconicstudent
Well-Known Member
- Sep 25, 2009
- 11,671
- 720
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
No, it would be a flaming violation.
As for the canonical veracity of such a label, I would have to ask you to show where, in the canons of the Church, Theistic Evolution is condemned as heretical, as was done with Monophysitism, Arianism and Iconoclasm.
Are you seriously a student at an undergraduate university? Is this seriously how you argue at BJU?
I'm so glad I go to a school where we are taught (even in our Theology classes, that are part of common curriculum!) to use our brains.
Upvote
0
AIH wrote:
It would help to be aware of what those in the discussion are actually saying. One common TE position (and the one I hold, along with literally millions of others, including whole churches) is that there WAS a literal, first person, Adam. He was a member of a community, and was the first person in the ape to human gradual change. After all, there had to be a first, if there weren't humans 5 million years ago, and there are humans today. Myself and others have posted this so many times that it is tiring to have to post it again.
Remember that there is variation, and that mutations are in individuals before they spread to the rest of the tribe. So as the whole community gradually evolves from ape to human, whatever arbitrary characteristic is used to define "being human", one individual will be the first to cross that line. Of course, all humans will be descended from him, just as they are all descended from others as well. Think of that mayflower club, which only allows members who are descended from the few people who came over from Europe on the mayflower. That club today has thousands of members, and in a few thousand years or so, literally everyone on earth will be descended from those on the mayflower. The same holds true for an individual, so long as they have a few kids. Thus, if you have a few kids, it is very likely that in a few thousand years, literally everyone on earth will be descended from you as well. It's all a mix. So, coupling that with the thing above about the literal Adam, it all works well.
Papias
It would help to be aware of what those in the discussion are actually saying. One common TE position (and the one I hold, along with literally millions of others, including whole churches) is that there WAS a literal, first person, Adam. He was a member of a community, and was the first person in the ape to human gradual change. After all, there had to be a first, if there weren't humans 5 million years ago, and there are humans today. Myself and others have posted this so many times that it is tiring to have to post it again.
Remember that there is variation, and that mutations are in individuals before they spread to the rest of the tribe. So as the whole community gradually evolves from ape to human, whatever arbitrary characteristic is used to define "being human", one individual will be the first to cross that line. Of course, all humans will be descended from him, just as they are all descended from others as well. Think of that mayflower club, which only allows members who are descended from the few people who came over from Europe on the mayflower. That club today has thousands of members, and in a few thousand years or so, literally everyone on earth will be descended from those on the mayflower. The same holds true for an individual, so long as they have a few kids. Thus, if you have a few kids, it is very likely that in a few thousand years, literally everyone on earth will be descended from you as well. It's all a mix. So, coupling that with the thing above about the literal Adam, it all works well.
Papias
Upvote
0
Similar threads
