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

[pitabread]

As I just said to HITCH "It's foolishness to you" because you are a natural man with all of your natural understanding, anything Spiritual you cannot grasp because, you are not Born Again of the Spirit, ie, Saved.

Is the irony not lost on people who claim that one cannot understand something because they are not a member of a special club when the requirement for being a member of the special club is just the belief that one is a member of the special club?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is the irony not lost on people who claim that one cannot understand something because they are not a member of a special club when the requirement for being a member of the special club is just the belief that one is a member of the special club?

The irony is that one has to admit they don't belong before they can be made a member.

 

[HitchSlap]

The irony is that one has to admit they don't belong before they can be made a member.

Nudge nudge, wink wink.

 

[JIMINZ]

I switched it from "Anglican" to "other religions" because too many people like you in this forum become irritated that I should call myself a Christian when I don't believe in the literal inerrancy of Genesis. (BTW, I don't see anything in that scripture you posted which would require it.) But you are denying the faith of most of the world's Christians whether you include me in that number or not. Like it or not, belief in literal inerrancy is not a requirement for salvation. You are still violating the rules of this forum.

You use a very wide brush about Christians you know nothing about, especially myself, I don't give two hoots what Denomination you belong to if you are a Christian then you are my Brother, but when you list your affiliation with "Other Religion" then your not, therefore you fall into the category of Non Believer, Un-Saved and I will then speak to your ignorance on Spiritual matters.

But being a Believer, you are entitled to your Misunderstandings, or Misinterpretations, then again, you would have to prove your point Biblically wouldn't you?

Now, if you would take the time to go back through all of the posts I have made to this thread you would find, I have not made one mention of "Inerrancy" in regard to anything written in the Bible, that is an axe your attempting to grind.

To be perfectly clear, I am only violating the rules as you personally understand them to be and with a skewed understanding of what I originally said.

When I made my statement which you misunderstood, I was speaking to Atheists, and an Agnostic, you placed yourself into the conversation by what you said, I wasn't speaking to you, so you can get off that high horse you think your on, I was merely giving Non- Believers information on why it is they cannot understand Spiritual matters, and it is therefore useless for them to comment on anything in this entire Forum, because they are out of their element, and depth.

 

[JIMINZ]

The fact you're making so many unsupportable assertions and think that preaching is an effective communication technique... if I had to guess.

I believe I supported my statements very well thank you.
Did you not read the verses I posted which speak directly to my Statements.

if I had to guess.

Why not, your guessing about everything else you have said.

 

[JIMINZ]

Is the irony not lost on people who claim that one cannot understand something because they are not a member of a special club when the requirement for being a member of the special club is just the belief that one is a member of the special club?

Nudge nudge, wink wink.

Thank you very much, you have both managed to make my point better than I ever could have.

 

[ralfyman]

My understanding is that for Christianity salvation involves saving man from death and separation from God.

 

[Speedwell]

You use a very wide brush about Christians you know nothing about, especially myself, I don't give two hoots what Denomination you belong to if you are a Christian then you are my Brother, but when you list your affiliation with "Other Religion" then your not, therefore you fall into the category of Non Believer, Un-Saved and I will then speak to your ignorance on Spiritual matters.

But being a Believer, you are entitled to your Misunderstandings, or Misinterpretations, then again, you would have to prove your point Biblically wouldn't you?

Now, if you would take the time to go back through all of the posts I have made to this thread you would find, I have not made one mention of "Inerrancy" in regard to anything written in the Bible, that is an axe your attempting to grind.

To be perfectly clear, I am only violating the rules as you personally understand them to be and with a skewed understanding of what I originally said.

When I made my statement which you misunderstood, I was speaking to Atheists, and an Agnostic, you placed yourself into the conversation by what you said, I wasn't speaking to you, so you can get off that high horse you think your on, I was merely giving Non- Believers information on why it is they cannot understand Spiritual matters, and it is therefore useless for them to comment on anything in this entire Forum, because they are out of their element, and depth.

As I understood your argument, it was that only those who are "saved" understand that creationism is true so that anyone who does not accept the truth of creationism is not saved, i.e. not really a Christian. If that is not what you are arguing, then I apologize.

Earlier, you appeared to be making the argument that unless The Fall happened as literally described in the Garden story we are not sinners in need of redemption and Jesus died for nothing. If that is not what you were arguing then I apologize.

 

[HitchSlap]

Thank you very much, you have both managed to make my point better than I ever could have.

You're welcome.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

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.

The fall was eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Rather than people choosing guided by God the holy spirit, they calculate a course of action, using the knowledge of good and evil to calculate the best option.

As people became calculating, materialistic, this changed people physically. Apparently the calculation was mainly in regard to superficial sexual pleasure, and people became deformed to optimize sexual success.

Evolution theory exploits mankinds sinful nature for asserting what is good and evil as fact. In fact evolution theory does assert what is good and evil as scientific fact, with it's emotive talk of struggle for survival, beneficial mutations, and differential reproductive success.

So one should be aware of having a calculating materialistic nature, and being deformed, and the forgiveness of God enables us to deal with our calculating nature, and be guided by God the holy spirit directly, instead of being guided by our calculations based on facts what is good and evil.

 

[hedrick]

Almost all of the answers have ignored the topic of the thread. What effect does evolution have on doctrine?

The Catholic church has accepted evolution, but held to a literal Adam and Eve who literally fell. This position is logically possible, and would have almost no effect on doctrine.

But I think it’s implausible. Evolution happens to populations, not individuals. There couldn’t have been only two humans. The idea that the whole human race was in some way present in them is not impossible, but it is implausible.

While it’s not in the Biblical account explicitly, many people have assumed that there was no suffering and death before Adam and Eve’s sins. That is, of course, impossible in the evolutionary account.

What’s the impact on salvation? I think the biggest problem is for the idea that we started out perfect, fell when two people sinned, that sin is somehow passed to us, and we need to be saved.

But I’m not quite sure why the idea that we started out perfect is so important. A reasonable alternative would say that we developed as natural creatures, and need God’s intervention to give us eternal life. In this view, Adam and Eve would be symbols for the natural origin of our species. Paul’s analogy still works. We are all subject to death as children of Adam, but as children of Christ, he brings us a new kind of life.

This is not the only way to accommodate evolution, but I think it’s the one that is closest to theology as it developed in the West.

 

[AV1611VET]

While it’s not in the Biblical account explicitly, many people have assumed that there was no suffering and death before Adam and Eve’s sins. That is, of course, impossible in the evolutionary account.

I've had it explained like this:

Take a dry erase board and let it represent a new-born child.

The board is white and clean.

When that child commits its first sin, it is now in need of our Saviour.

But that's now how the Bible describes us.

We are born with the words SIN NATURE written on the board; and Jesus is the eraser.

As my pastor is fond of putting it:

We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we're sinners.

Aside:

Infant Baptism assumes the board is white and clean, therefore baptize the infant BEFORE he commits his first sin.

In some Satanic cults, the fat of an [unbaptized] newborn baby is one of the holiest substances on earth.

Once the infant is baptized, it is not fit for use.

 

[HitchSlap]

As my pastor is fond of putting it:

We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we're sinners.

Hitch said it best; created sick, commanded to be well.

Aside:

Infant Baptism assumes the board is white and clean, therefore baptize the infant BEFORE he commits his first sin.

In some Satanic cults, the fat of an [unbaptized] newborn baby is one of the holiest substances on earth.

Once the infant is baptized, it is not fit for use.

Aside: you've seen too many movies.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hitch said it best;

Hitch is in aitch.

 

[HitchSlap]

Hitch is in aitch.

Yep, they have all the interesting people.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep, they have all the interesting people.

None of which are atheists.

 

[HitchSlap]

None of which are atheists.

Of course not. They're Satanists- eating baby fat... nom nom

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course not. They're Satanists- eating baby fat... nom nom

Don't you mean "making candles"?

 

[Belk]

As I just said to HITCH "It's foolishness to you" because you are a natural man with all of your natural understanding, anything Spiritual you cannot grasp because, you are not Born Again of the Spirit, ie, Saved.

I see. So your claim is that you have understanding that extends beyond human reasoning? An understanding that can, apparently, not be conveyed using human logic?

 

[AV1611VET]

I see. So your claim is that you have understanding that extends beyond human reasoning? An understanding that can, apparently, not be conveyed using human logic?

Call it a "sixth sense," if it'll help you understand.