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

[Justatruthseeker]

This seems a remarkable claim. Can you give the one or two best examples of evidence you believe is being ignored.

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ine-of-salvation.8072023/page-5#post-72907728

 

[Speedwell]

So the answer to the OP question is, no impact whatever. However, the impact on a literal reading of the "Garden" story is considerable.

 

[Inkfingers]

This way --

Nature works because God designed it, so of course all natural processes work naturally, without needing God to make them happen (because He created nature to work well to begin with).

But God intervenes! Hallelujah!

And here's one of His interventions:

7Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." (Gen chapter 2)

See? That's an intervention, and not simply nature operating.

How exactly does that get around the problem I actually raised?

This could be the moment on Earth when the first-ever spirit entered a human, creating the first ever human soul.

That would fit human types already existing, all the discovered remains of other forms, Neanderthal and others, but none of them having a soul breathed into them, but Adam truly the first ever. We can't know all things about all that happened, and the scripture intentionally only gives us the most meaningful things, and not things of lesser importance like the mere natural history of the dinosaurs, etc., etc., mere natural processes. Instead the scripture is about profound things.

Except that sin brought death that needs a saviour, but evolution is based on death happening anyway....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So the answer to the OP question is, no impact whatever. However, the impact on a literal reading of the "Garden" story is considerable.

Not sure how it would affect either, since there are many that believe God created life and then that it evolved. Not that I am one of those, since there is no speciation, just incorrect classifications.

 

[mark kennedy]

Ha, it was a typo that I corrected.



A fair question, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence in itself. We do know that crossover fossils exist (Archaeopteryx being the most famous). Plus there is a general absence of fossils from the rain forests...

Except there isnt an absence of fossils, they are being passed pf as our ancestors. With the demise of Piltdown there was a need for a transitional. Raymond Dart had discovered the Taung child which was small even for a chimpanzee. It was dismissed as a chimpanzee for decades by Aurthor Keith who built his career on the Piltdown hoax. Louis Leaky took Raymond Darts suggestion of the 'handy man', classification, aka Homo habilis and the myth of the stone age ape man was born.

 

[Inkfingers]

So the answer to the OP question is, no impact whatever. However, the impact on a literal reading of the "Garden" story is considerable.

Not so.

A world without death, which gained death from man's fall, and needs a saviour's sacrifice to atone and restore the pre-death immortality is NOT compatible with evolution in any way.

One is a world in which man was made perfect, fell, brought in death, requires an atoning sacrifice, and can be restored to the original condition.

The other is a world in which man ascended out of animals in a process of which death is an integral part and which has no perfect condition to be restored to.

So, as I said, Fall/Atonement only works with Creationism. It does not work with Evolution because Evolution is about ascending from an imperfect condition not falling from a perfect one.

 

[essentialsaltes]

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.

Can animals sin?

If not, then there was a previous condition in which no one was capable of sin.

 

[Inkfingers]

There are some odd comments from supposed atheists and agnostics emerging here...

 

[Inkfingers]

Can animals sin?

If not, then there was a previous condition in which no one was capable of sin.

They died.

Did not death come from sin?

 

[Steve Petersen]

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.

The fall is allegory. It is a way for us to understand why things are the way they are. Our behavior is still a problem that needs to be solved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation_in_Christianity#Paradigms_of_salvation

 

[Inkfingers]

The fall is allegory. It is a way for us to understand why things are the way they are. Our behavior is still a problem that needs to be solved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation_in_Christianity#Paradigms_of_salvation

Does an allegory need Christ nailed to a cross?

 

[Halbhh]

How exactly does that get around the problem I actually raised?

Except that sin brought death that needs a saviour, but evolution is based on death happening anyway....

Well, some speculate that before the fall (from the Garden) there was not death even for animals. Perhaps additionally while the Garden would then be a type of paradise in an ultimate way, deathless, could there have been death, natural, in the rest of nature outside of it? Well, this is speculation. But at least we do know the Garden was special, not like the rest of Earth, and very special events happened, including the creation of Adam and Eve. Did any of this help with what you are trying to get at?

Also, keep in mind that Adam did not evolve (that is, in every way, totally, even a soul) it would appear from the scripture, or rather even if a niche for humans had evolved naturally, still Adam was on some level a true intervention -- not evolution -- as pointed to above. Even if "formed from the dust" simply pointed to nature, even then still we are looking at a special intervention (a spirit breathed into him) that isn't natural, as above already in the earlier post.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Well, some speculate that before the fall (from the Garden) there was not death even for animals. Perhaps additionally while the Garden would then be a type of paradise in an ultimate way, deathless, could there have been death, natural, in the rest of nature outside of it? Well, this is speculation. But at least we do know the Garden was special, not like the rest of Earth, and very special events happened, including the creation of Adam and Eve. Did any of this help with what you are trying to get at?

Also, keep in mind that Adam did not evolve (that is, in every way, totally, even a soul) it would appear from the scripture, or rather even if a niche for humans had evolved naturally, still Adam was on some level a true intervention -- not evolution -- as pointed to above. Even if "formed from the dust" simply pointed to nature, even then still we are looking at a special intervention (a spirit breathed into him) that isn't natural, as above already in the earlier post.

I cant see that. How would Adam know what the punishment for sin was (death) if he had never observed it?

No one knows how long Adam was in the Garden. But surely long enough to realize all the other animals had mates, but not him.

http://biblehub.com/genesis/2-20.htm

That's why he willingly partook of the forbidden knowledge unlike Eve who was tricked. After an untold time alone, he chose to die with her rather than be alone again. Hence his blame, he failed to trust God to provide.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Does an allegory need Christ nailed to a cross?

No. Our penchant for misbehavior does.

 

[Halbhh]

I cant see that. How would Adam know what the punishment for sin was (death) if he had never observed it?

No one knows how long Adam was in the Garden. But surely long enough to realize all the other animals had mates, but not him.

http://biblehub.com/genesis/2-20.htm

That's why he willingly partook of the forbidden knowledge unlike Eve who was tricked. After an untold time alone, he chose to die with her rather than be alone again. Hence his blame, he failed to trust God to provide.

Good point about that non-death speculation, if I get your meaning. Even further, how would God's warning to Adam that he would 'die' make sense if 'die' had no meaning, not having happened in his life anywhere around him? (Not clear on what you mean about Adam had no mate (though we are only speculating about many things here), in that he had Eve, so really he did have a mate basically, even regardless of if and whether consummated yet in the way we think of it.) We definitely agree that Adam didn't trust God at that fateful moment, regardless of exact motive. I think the motive was that Eve conveyed the serpent's tricky words to Adam, and he failed to trust God just like she did.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution because Evolution is about ascending from an imperfect condition

Evolution isn't about perfect or imperfect. It's simply about biological change over time.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Good point about that non-death speculation, if I get your meaning. Even further, how would God's warning to Adam that he would 'die' make sense if 'die' had no meaning, not having happened in his life anywhere around him? (Not clear on what you mean about Adam had no mate (though we are only speculating about many things here), in that he had Eve, so really he did have a mate basically, even regardless of if and whether consummated yet in the way we think of it.) We definitely agree that Adam didn't trust God at that fateful moment, regardless of exact motive. I think the motive was that Eve conveyed the serpent's tricky words to Adam, and he failed to trust God just like she did.

No, he only had Eve, after the timeframe when all the animals were brought before him. None of which were suitable for him. So how long did that take?

http://biblehub.com/genesis/2-20.htm

"And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him."

21 "And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;"

22 "Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man."

So how long does it take for everything to be brought before him to be named? Why would Adam realize none were suitable for him if not observing them mate, give birth, live out their lives and die?

I simply believe it was because years passed, naming those animals. And when a mate for him was finally created, he chose to die with her instead of loose her and be alone again.

Not that I believe it was a rib, but half of the genome. Hence when they mate the "two" recombine and "one" flesh is made.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Evolution isn't about perfect or imperfect. It's simply about biological change over time.

Dont need evolution for that.

 

[Halbhh]

No, he only had Eve, after the timeframe when all the animals were brought before him. None of which were suitable for him. So how long did that take?

http://biblehub.com/genesis/2-20.htm

"And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him."

21 "And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;"

22 "Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man."

So how long does it take for everything to be brought before him to be named? Why would Adam realize none were suitable for him if not observing them mate, give birth, live out their lives and die?

I simply believe it was because years passed, naming those animals. And when a mate for him was finally created, he chose to die with her instead of loose her and be alone again.

Not that I believe it was a rib, but half of the genome. Hence when they mate the "two" recombine and "one" flesh is made.

Makes sense. About that very last bit, how the two become one, this refers to the profound gift of God in our nature that through consummation of true love in sex with fidelity, we truly are bonded together. It's the natural outcome (by God's design) that if a virgin has sexual consummation with someone he/she truly is in love with, mutual love, that this act of love consummation will naturally bond them together deeply and profoundly, deepen their love and union. That's the meaning of the two become one.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Not so.

A world without death, which gained death from man's fall, and needs a saviour's sacrifice to atone and restore the pre-death immortality is NOT compatible with evolution in any way.

One is a world in which man was made perfect, fell, brought in death, requires an atoning sacrifice, and can be restored to the original condition.

The other is a world in which man ascended out of animals in a process of which death is an integral part and which has no perfect condition to be restored to.

So, as I said, Fall/Atonement only works with Creationism. It does not work with Evolution because Evolution is about ascending from an imperfect condition not falling from a perfect one.

Again, physical or spiritual death?