- May 17, 2014
- 5,638
- 1,547
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
Not if it made plant-eaters into meat-eaters....which is the claim in Creationism.
Upvote
0
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.
Surely "fallen" is a spiritual description and not a matter of genetics?
I trust that we did not evolve. But I think your logic here can be questioned.if we evolved out of the apes there is (by definition) no previous condition to be restored to.
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.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.
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.
Which is repeated three times in Genesis 1:27..
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.
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.
Yea, we really should..
Nah, let's not.
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.
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 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?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).
Frankly, I think.it clarifies it. God is either the creator of life or nature..
It only complicates the basic question asked by the OP.
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?
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.
That's the world's unspiritual view,There is no impact. Non-overlapping magisteria.
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.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.
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.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.
Why are you never on topic?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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?