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

[Inkfingers]

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

Not if it made plant-eaters into meat-eaters....which is the claim in Creationism.

 

[com7fy8]

if we evolved out of the apes there is (by definition) no previous condition to be restored to.

I trust that we did not evolve. But I think your logic here can be questioned.

Even if God had us "theistically" evolve from apes, we then could have fallen in the Garden, in my opinion.

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

God created life or the promise of eternal life is meaningless. Thats just on creationists opinion, for another try John 1, Romans 1, Hebrews 1 or maybe Genesis 1.

 

[JIMINZ]

I trust that we did not evolve. But I think your logic here can be questioned.

Even if God had us "theistically" evolve from apes, we then could have fallen in the Garden, in my opinion.

.
No Theistic's to it, Adam was Created as he was, a man, not as an evolved man.

Gen. 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

[mark kennedy]

.
No Theistic's to it, Adam was Created as he was, a man, not as an evolved man.

Gen. 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Which is repeated three times in Genesis 1:27.

 

[JIMINZ]

God created life or the promise of eternal life is meaningless. Thats just on creationists opinion, for another try John 1, Romans 1, Hebrews 1 or maybe Genesis 1.

.
Nah, let's not.

 

[mark kennedy]

.
Nah, let's not.

Yea, we really should.

 

[JIMINZ]

Yea, we really should.

.
It only complicates the basic question asked by the OP.

 

[Inkfingers]

I trust that we did not evolve. But I think your logic here can be questioned.

Even if God had us "theistically" evolve from apes, we then could have fallen in the Garden, in my opinion.

Why take the garden literally but not the creation?

 

[Inkfingers]

God created life or the promise of eternal life is meaningless. Thats just on creationists opinion, for another try John 1, Romans 1, Hebrews 1 or maybe Genesis 1.

I'm not sure where you are going there but it looks like a wider discussion on creation/evolution when all I am asking about here is the relation between creation and salvation (and how evolution is incompatible with the fall and atonement).

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm not sure where you are going there but it looks like a wider discussion on creation/evolution when all I am asking about here is the relation between creation and salvation (and how evolution is incompatible with the fall and atonement).

I'm going to.the point of origin got life, we were created or the promise of eternal life is meaningless. I went out of my way to be straightforward here, is my meaning some how hard to understand?

 

[mark kennedy]

.
It only complicates the basic question asked by the OP.

Frankly, I think.it clarifies it. God is either the creator of life or nature.

 

[Inkfingers]

I'm going to.the point of origin got life, we were created or the promise of eternal life is meaningless. I went out of my way to be straightforward here, is my meaning some how hard to understand?

A little, yes, as your sentence structure is a little odd and your other point was just general Bible links without unpacking what you think they say in each.

But as I said, it is sufficient here to discuss how atonement/fall is incompatible with evolution and not make yet another Creationism vrs Evolution thread.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

You haven't said yet in your posts (as far as I know or saw) that you were corrected by anyone ever correctly, and appear to still believe the dangerous (types of?) beliefs of what you said your father told you.
Remember Yahweh's Word is even stronger
against false teachings - and for false gospels says anyone who brings one "let them be anathema! (accursed!) "

Hopefully no false gospel is involved, just false teachings, which are still sinful and prevent /stop /corrupt fellowship with the Father and with the Ekklesia in Christ.

No where in the NT does Yahshua (Jesus) and no where in Scripture or ever does Yahweh (God) ever tell us to meekly or gently accept false teachings nor any false gospel, but rather to expose them.

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.

 

[Strathos]

There is no impact. Non-overlapping magisteria.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

There is no impact. Non-overlapping magisteria.

That's the world's unspiritual view,
not the view from Scriptural Truth or in the fellowship Christ seeks,
especially as seen in the world - the destructive purposes that various enemies used the theory of evolution for (in the last century) against children and families, men and women.

 

[mark kennedy]

A little, yes, as your sentence structure is a little odd and your other point was just general Bible links without unpacking what you think they say in each.

But as I said, it is sufficient here to discuss how atonement/fall is incompatible with evolution and not make yet another Creationism vrs Evolution thread.

I really don't know what you missed, God created life or the promise of eternal life is meaningless. You don't know how to unpack John 1 where Jesus is the light, that was from the beginning, thats Geneiss 1. Hebrews 1, you don't have to even get past the opening verses and Romans 1, sin came from somewhere and it's universal.

Ive fielded countless creation v. Evolution threads and this one is moving along fine, enjoy.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

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.

No belt- open rebuke is better than hidden love (from God's Perspective, as His Word Says Clearly). A wise man welcomes criticism and correction, even though discipline at the time be uncomfortable.

The only perspective anyone can have of God, me included, is what God reveals by His Spirit and in line with His Word - and His Spirit/our spirit is continually at war with the flesh and with the world, as written in His Word and as revealed by His Plan in Jesus Christ.

The world serves things created, like theory of evolution, instead of the Creator. Ekklesia, the body of Christ believers, serve the Creator by grace and faith in and through Jesus' faithfulness and the power of His Blood.

 

[mark kennedy]

No belt- open rebuke is better than hidden love (from God's Perspective, as His Word Says Clearly). A wise man welcomes criticism and correction, even though discipline at the time be uncomfortable.

The only perspective anyone can have of God, me included, is what God reveals by His Spirit and in line with His Word - and His Spirit/our spirit is continually at war with the flesh and with the world, as written in His Word and as revealed by His Plan in Jesus Christ.

The world serves things created, like theory of evolution, instead of the Creator. Ekklesia, the body of Christ believers, serve the Creator by grace and faith in and through Jesus' faithfulness and the power of His Blood.

Why are you never on topic?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

A supposed quote by Galilleo comes to mind...

"The bible tells you how to get to heaven. It doesn't tell you how the heavens go".

Not that I agree, but it seems a lot more sensible then how certain theists read the bible. At least such an understanding doesn't require you to deny the evidence of reality.