What is the impact of Evolution on the doctrine of Salvation?

[Inkfingers]

Jesus' sacrifice is based on the idea of restoring us to a previous condition, correcting the good-which-became-bad, but if we evolved out of the apes there is (by definition) no previous condition to be restored to. Rather, there is instead a future condition to be evolved into - “image of God” is not something we were, but something we may possibly become. If true, doesn't evolution thus make a nonsense of the idea of Jesus being a substitutionary atonement (to bring us back to a 'golden age condition of pre-fall Eden); presenting us instead with a salvation that has to be evolved into rather than returned to?

I cannot see a way around this.

Either we were created and fell or we are evolved and arose.

Note: Keep in mind that I hold to Theistic Evolution, not Creationism, so I do not have a pro-Creationist axe to grind in any way.

 

[Job3315]

Jesus' sacrifice is based on the idea of restoring us to a previous condition, correcting the good-which-became-bad, but if we evolved out of the apes there is (by definition) no previous condition to be restored to. Rather, there is instead a future condition to be evolved into - “image of God” is not something we were, but something we may possibly become. If true, doesn't evolution thus make a nonsense of the idea of Jesus being a substitutionary atonement (to bring us back to a 'golden age condition of pre-fall Eden); presenting us instead with a salvation that has to be evolved into rather than returned to?

I cannot see a way around this.

Either we were created and fell or we are evolved and arose.

Note: Keep in mind that I hold to Theistic Evolution, not Creationism, so I do not have a pro-Creationist axe to grind in any way.

My dad said to me once that maybe apes were God’s first human prototype.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

My dad said to me once that maybe apes were God’s first human prototype.

Whoever taught him that was trying to deceive him and perhaps you also dangerously, away from Jesus.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The story/ theory of evolution was never truth.

The communists before/ during/ after wwII stated their purpose and used it on purpose to destroy families and to destroy faith in Jesus and in God.

 

[Job3315]

He deceived you dangerously, away from Jesus.

You know, when you answer I often wonder what’s your perspective of God. When I do something wrong He is the first one to correct me in a loving way. Yet you seem to always have a belt.

 

[Inkfingers]

Can we keep to the thread topic please.

If we evolved, we did not fall and Christ's death is not an atonement for sin.

If we fell, and Christ's death is an atonement for sin, we cannot be evolved.

 

[JIMINZ]

If we evolved, we did not fall and Christ's death is not an atonement for sin.

If we fell, and Christ's death is an atonement for sin, we cannot be evolved.

.
I don't think you could have said it more succinctly, well done!

 

[JIMINZ]

Jesus' sacrifice is based on the idea of restoring us to a previous condition, correcting the good-which-became-bad, but if we evolved out of the apes there is (by definition) no previous condition to be restored to. Rather, there is instead a future condition to be evolved into - “image of God” is not something we were, but something we may possibly become. If true, doesn't evolution thus make a nonsense of the idea of Jesus being a substitutionary atonement (to bring us back to a 'golden age condition of pre-fall Eden); presenting us instead with a salvation that has to be evolved into rather than returned to?

I cannot see a way around this.

Either we were created and fell or we are evolved and arose.

Note: Keep in mind that I hold to Theistic Evolution, not Creationism, so I do not have a pro-Creationist axe to grind in any way.

.
These two opposing beliefs, are in and of themselves mutually exclusive.

 

[Job3315]

Can we keep to the thread topic please.

If we evolved, we did not fall and Christ's death is not an atonement for sin.

If we fell, and Christ's death is an atonement for sin, we cannot be evolved.

I don't think we can separate the spiritual from the physical. The fall was spiritual in a physical world. The fall affected the spiritual and the physical as one. Jesus sacrifice corrected the spiritual fall (the disconnection of the creation with the Creator), the physical will be fixed when He returns or we go to heaven since we will receive new bodies and there will be a new earth.

What I meant with my initial post is that MAYBE, JUST MAYBE (people seem to miss that word when they read and strike with a rod) we did evolved in God’s mind. That’s why we look so similar to apes. We think He just said “let there be trees” and *poof!* a tree came to be without Him creating it first in His mind. It took creativity, work and lots of thoughts to create the perfect ecosystem that is called earth, and with that thought in mind, MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, humans had a prototype, creating the theory of evolution to those who don’t believe in God.

 

[Inkfingers]

.
These two opposing beliefs, are in and of themselves mutually exclusive.

Yes, that is my conclusion too.

We have to choose between believing in Evolution (and thus denying the fall and the atonement) and believing in the Fall and Atonement (and thus denying Evolution).

 

[Inkfingers]

I don't think we can separate the spiritual from the physical. The fall was spiritual in a physical world. The fall affected the spiritual and the physical as one. Jesus sacrifice corrected the spiritual fall (the disconnection of the creation with the Creator), the physical will be fixed when He returns or we go to heaven since we will receive new bodies and there will be a new earth.

What I meant with my initial post is that MAYBE, JUST MAYBE (people seem to miss that word when they read and strike with a rod) we did evolved in God’s mind. That’s why we look so similar to apes. We think He just said “let there be trees” and *poof!* a tree came to be without Him creating it first in His mind. It took creativity, work and lots of thoughts to create the perfect ecosystem that is called earth, and with that thought in mind, MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, humans had a prototype, creating the theory of evolution to those who don’t believe in God.

I don't think that would sit well with Creationism, as such generally goes with the idea of an unchanging God (who would then not need prototypes as the concept of Human would fully exist in God's mind without needing developing).

 

[JIMINZ]

I don't think we can separate the spiritual from the physical. The fall was spiritual in a physical world. The fall affected the spiritual and the physical as one. Jesus sacrifice corrected the spiritual fall (the disconnection of the creation with the Creator), the physical will be fixed when He returns or we go to heaven since we will receive new bodies and there will be a new earth.

What I meant with my initial post is that MAYBE, JUST MAYBE (people seem to miss that word when they read and strike with a rod) we did evolved in God’s mind. That’s why we look so similar to apes. We think He just said “let there be trees” and *poof!* a tree came to be without Him creating it first in His mind. It took creativity, work and lots of thoughts to create the perfect ecosystem that is called earth, and with that thought in mind, MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, humans had a prototype, creating the theory of evolution to those who don’t believe in God.

.
Wouldn't that be like saying, everything there is, came from the prototype it once was, and it is now itself the prototype, for what it will be in the future?

Nah, I don't think so.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Jesus' sacrifice is based on the idea of restoring us to a previous condition

Is it?

Is the story of salvation simply about returning us to Eden, or is it far, far, far more than that?

The Word became flesh. God became man. Deity and humanity were united in a Person. That's so much more than what we read in Genesis chapters 1-3.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Shemjaza]

Yes, that is my conclusion too.

We have to choose between believing in Evolution (and thus denying the fall and the atonement) and believing in the Fall and Atonement (and thus denying Evolution).

I'm no Christian, but given that a "fallen nature" is innate to humans in Christian theology without a specific personal sin, why does Adam have to be a specific guy in antediluvian Missouri (Hi @AV1611VET ), rather then an allegory for our personal failings?

 

[com7fy8]

Jesus' sacrifice is based on the idea of restoring us to a previous condition,

I offer a theology thread for discussing this >

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ve-were-before-the-fall-or-to-better.8072029/

The title for this thread is >

"Did Jesus die in order to bring us back to how Adam and Eve were before the fall, or to better?"

 

[Inkfingers]

Is it?

Is the story of salvation simply about returning us to Eden, or is it far, far, far more than that?

The Word became flesh. God became man. Deity and humanity were united in a Person. That's so much more than what we read in Genesis chapters 1-3.

-CryptoLutheran

Christ's role as atonement is to restore us, undoing the fall.

Evolution says we did not fall down into this condition, but rose up into it. Evolution denies the fall, and thus the atonement (atonement being a restoration).

Evolution/Rise and Fall/Atonement are inherently opposed.

 

[JIMINZ]

Is it?

Is the story of salvation simply about returning us to Eden, or is it far, far, far more than that?

The Word became flesh. God became man. Deity and humanity were united in a Person. That's so much more than what we read in Genesis chapters 1-3.

-CryptoLutheran

.

Jesus' sacrifice is based on the idea of restoring us to a previous condition, correcting the good-which-became-bad,

2Co. 5:18,19
18) And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19) To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Heb. 2:17
Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

 

[Shemjaza]

Christ's role as atonement is to restore us, undoing the fall.

Evolution says we did not fall down into this condition, but rose up into it. Evolution denies the fall, and thus the atonement (atonement being a restoration).

Evolution/Rise and Fall/Atonement are inherently opposed.

Surely "fallen" is a spiritual description and not a matter of genetics?

 

[Inkfingers]

I offer a theology thread for discussing this >

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ve-were-before-the-fall-or-to-better.8072029/

The title for this thread is >

"Did Jesus die in order to bring us back to how Adam and Eve were before the fall, or to better?"

The idea is that Jesus brings back to the pre-fall at the very least (and perhaps then takes us on further, but it is still a restoration of what is claimed to have formerly been).

It may be a Restoration+ rather than a simple Restoration(lite) but either way it is a restoration (and thus utterly opposed to Evolution which says there is no condition to be restored back to but rather only one to head forward into).

 

[JIMINZ]

I'm no Christian, but given that a "fallen nature" is innate to humans in Christian theology without a specific personal sin, why does Adam have to be a specific guy in antediluvian Missouri, rather then an allegory for our personal failings?

.
I don't think it's possible to fall from an allegory, ...is it?