the soteriological hazards of theistic evolution

[packsaddle]

from direct biblical revelation, christians can confidently deduce two things:

the scriptures are final authority

"Every word of God is flawless...Do not add to his words... - Proverbs 30:5-6

"To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn. - Isaiah 8:20

etc.

the scriptures are the source of truth

"All your words are true.." - Psalm 119:160

"Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth." - John 17:17

etc.

therefore, if God does indeed exist, and the scriptures indeed are both accurate and true, then christians can confidently conclude that the biblical revelation of the creation account (i.e. "For Adam was formed first, then Eve." - 1 Timothy 2:13) is ALSO both accurate and true.

the divine revelation of special creation, while disclosed to us throughout the entire bible, is highlighted of course in the book of genesis, which is commonly accepted to have been written by moses.

so, what does the bible say about the credibility of Moses?

well, we know through david, that "He (God) made known his ways to Moses..." - Psalm 103:7.

we also know that Jesus himself agreed with moses i.e. "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?". - John 5:46-47

in other words, moses wrote about the pre-incarnate Jesus (aka God), and the things that moses wrote about (including the creation account) appear to have a great significance, according to Jesus.

from this, I assert that theistic evolutionists do not worship the biblical God, the Creator of man and woman, but instead worship a false god, a god that did NOT create man and woman, special and distinct from other creatures.

in soteriological terms, this would be sufficient enough to forfeit one's salvation.

 

[MoonlessNight]

"Every word of God is flawless...Do not add to his words... - Proverbs 30:5-6

Many books were added to the Bible after Proverbs. Do you reject them?

 

[JGMEERT]

from this, I assert that theistic evolutionists do not worship the biblical God, the Creator of man and woman, but instead worship a false god, a god that did NOT create man and woman, special and distinct from other creatures.

in soteriological terms, this would be sufficient enough to forfeit one's salvation.

JM: Then you go against even what most creation organizations like AIG teach. Evolution is not a salvational issue and, more bluntly, it makes no difference to me or any other Christian what you deem as salvational or not. You're acting like a pompous a-- with this post.

Cheers

Joe Meert

 

[JGMEERT]

Many books were added to the Bible after Proverbs. Do you reject them?

JM: Furthermore, do you reject the books that were originally included in the bible and later voted out?

Cheers

Joe Meert

 

[bevets]

The crux of the issue is 'What should be our final authority?'. Orthodox Christianity relies on the clear reading of scripture. Evolutionists give human speculation the final word.


Further, it is affirmed that the New Testament presupposes the historical exactness of the Old Testament; that the points of contact of “sacred” and “profane” history are innumerable; and that the demonstrations of the falsity of the Hebrew records, especially in regard to those narratives which are assumed to be true in the New Testament, would be fatal to Christian theology. ~ Thomas Huxley

It was obvious that both the general theory of evolution and its extension to man in particular must meet from the first with the most determined resistance on the part of the Churches. Both were in flagrant contradiction to the Mosaic story of creation, and other Biblical dogmas that were involved in it, and are still taught in our elementary schools. It is creditable to the shrewdness of the theologians and their associates, the metaphysicians, that they at once rejected Darwinism, and made a particularly energetic resistance in their writings to its chief consequence, the descent of man from ape. ~ Ernst Haeckel

Our science of evolution won its greatest triumph when, at the beginning of the twentieth century, its most powerful opponents, the Churches, became reconciled to it , and endeavored to bring their dogmas into line with it. ~ Ernst Haeckel

A widespread theological view now exists saying that God started off the world, props it up and works through laws of nature, very subtly, so subtly that its action is undetectable. But that kind of God is effectively no different to my mind than atheism. To anyone who adopts this view I say, ‘Great, we’re in the same camp; now where do we get our morals if the universe just goes grinding on as it does?’ This kind of God does nothing outside of the laws of nature, gives us no immortality, no foundation for morals, or any of the things that we want from a God and from religion. ~ William Provine

 

[Arikay]

I'm not christian but I would think that God should be your final authority, and if that was true then you need to take into account that he has two books, the universe that he created and the bible that he inspired.

but then again, im not christian, maybe we should listen to one of the creations while ignoring the other.

 

[JGMEERT]

The crux of the issue is 'What should be our final authority?'. Orthodox Christianity relies on the clear reading of scripture. Evolutionists give human speculation the final word.

JM: Baloney. The bible is not, was not and should never be used as a scientific textbook. Creationists who do so should NEVER call themselves 'orthodox' as they use the bible for something other than its intended purpose.

Cheers

Joe Meert

 

[bevets]

JM: Baloney. The bible is not, was not and should never be used as a scientific textbook. Creationists who do so should NEVER call themselves 'orthodox' as they use the bible for something other than its intended purpose.

Unfortunately scholarship is not on your side:

Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. ~ James Barr Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England

 

[Arikay]

Ok, so the bible is false then. Wahoo Bevets just proved that the bible is false.

You have two basic options,
1) Plug your ears, sing "la la la" and pretend you never saw (hmm ears) any of the evidence on the forum that falsifies a literal genesis. (and thus the bible if it Must be taken literally)

2) Decide that maybe genesis was not ment to be literal and the bible isn't false.

Unfortunatly I think I know Bevets pick.

 

[napajohn]

I'm not christian but I would think that God should be your final authority, and if that was true then you need to take into account that he has two books, the universe that he created and the bible that he inspired.

but then again, im not christian, maybe we should listen to one of the creations while ignoring the other.

actually the Bible is in agreement with your point:

Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these [things], that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that [he is] strong in power; not one faileth. Why sayest thou, O Jacob, and speakest, O Israel, My way is hid from the Lord, and my judgment is passed over from my God? Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, [that] the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? [there is] no searching of his understanding.

Isaiah 40:26-28
and

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Romans 1:20

Yes arikay the heavens declare the glory of the lord

 

[packsaddle]

Evolution is not a salvational issue and, more bluntly, it makes no difference to me or any other Christian what you deem as salvational or not. You're acting like a pompous a-- with this post.

you are right to be offended by my post.

you're name-calling is merely justification of the power and effectiveness of simple biblical revelation, and the animosity that is aroused when one's worldview clashes with basic biblical instruction.

mormons likewise get offended when one uses the bible alone to refute their claim that Jesus is the brother of the devil, begotten through sexual intercourse from a god who came from another planet.

jehovah's witnesses also get offended when one uses the bible alone to refute their claim that Jesus was Michael the archangel who became a man and returned to earth invisibly in 1914.

evolutionists are no different when their claim that man was not specially created, but instead, emerged (sic) from lower life forms is biblically refuted.

this too is refuted by the words of the biblical God, throughout the entire book.

theistic evolutionists attempt to harmonize the ways of God with the ways of man, as if evolution has trumped God's words in Isaiah 45:12, "It is I who made the earth and created mankind upon it."

there are many warnings about adding and/or taking away from His words, and those warnings should be examined thoroughly.

however, I am afraid that since you have a vested financial, professional, and political interest in evolutionary theory, you will find it most difficult to face the painful truth, as revealed to us in the Source of truth.

most debates I have ever engaged in (both formally and informally) nearly always have deteriorated into ad hominems or name-calling by the evolutionists.

that is a good indication that their arguments are shallow at best, and when pressed for further details, usually incites verbal hostility, as you have confirmed.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

that is a good indication that their arguments are shallow at best, and when pressed for further details, usually incites verbal hostility, as you have confirmed.

This is pretty ironic, given the number of times I've seen creationists come up empty in the face of raw scientific evidence on this forum.

 

[MoonlessNight]

You never answered my question. If proverbs says that we should not add to God's word (as in the Bible), then why can you hold the New Testament as part of the Bible?

 

[Jet Black]

The crux of the issue is 'What should be our final authority?'. Orthodox Christianity relies on the clear reading of scripture. Evolutionists give human speculation the final word.

for the millionth time bevets, your final authority is the assumption that it should be taken literally.

 

[Jet Black]

evolutionists are no different when their claim that man was not specially created, but instead, emerged (sic) from lower life forms is biblically refuted.

no, it is not bibically refuted, because you have not actually proven to be false the claim that we evolved from lower [sic] life forms. Really we shouldn't say lower, we should say we evolved from earlier homonids, since to do otherwise indicates your species bias, which is not present in evolution.

 

[Mandi N.]

you are right to be offended by my post.

you're name-calling is merely justification of the power and effectiveness of simple biblical revelation, and the animosity that is aroused when one's worldview clashes with basic biblical instruction....

that is a good indication that their arguments are shallow at best, and when pressed for further details, usually incites verbal hostility, as you have confirmed.

there are 2 things i absolutely despise on message boards:

1.) people who play the "i'm-not-a-dork-i've-got-lots-of-friends-card" on a internet message board.

2.) people who get all bent out of shape and start saying that the other side is getting flustered and defensive, when in reality they didn't really do anything (in this case, he just called you a pompous a--). there is truly no worse logical arugment than "hey, you used the a-word, you're flustered, so i win! YEC is correct!" there's got to be a name for that sort fallacy (paging Jet Black?)

 

[Split Rock]

The Old Testament may have been inspired by God, but it was not written by God... it was written by Men. Any arguments concerning God's words are therefore irrelevant. Also, I think it is very doubtful that Moses wrote the first books of the Old Testament, as the writing styles vary too much. Is there any evidence for this idea, or is this just traditionally assumed?

 

[packsaddle]

You never answered my question. If proverbs says that we should not add to God's word (as in the Bible), then why can you hold the New Testament as part of the Bible?

now you're thinking!

critical thinking is encouraged (unless you're an evolutionary biologist) when the ultimate goal is truth.

let's examine the verse in it's totality:

Proverbs 30:5-6

"Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar."

since we know that Jesus is really God in bodily form (Colossians 2:9), and since we know that Jesus inspired additional books (NT), why would Jesus want to "rebuke" his own prior works? Also, if the NT were nullified by proverbs 30:5-6, then there would be no fulfillment of prophecy, which is a major tenet of Christianity (i.e. eternal life, etc.).

regardless, the creation account stands on it's own, since it is found in both the OT and the NT.

 

[packsaddle]

The Old Testament may have been inspired by God, but it was not written by God... it was written by Men. Any arguments concerning God's words are therefore irrelevant.

"All Scripture is God-breathed..." (2 Timothy 3:16)

God used certain fallible men to deliver his infallible message.

Jesus quoted scripture many times.

would Jesus have quoted erroneous messages?

it is against God's nature to err.

if God is omnipotent (Job 42:2, Matthew 19:26, etc.), is it beyond his abilities to correspond an infallible message to fallible men, to produce an infallible message for the benefit of all who believe?

 

[Jet Black]

aren't you making lots of presuppositions.