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

What does love have to do with it ?

Search Results
1 Corinthians 6:16 Or don't you know that he who unites himself with a ...
biblehub.com/1_corinthians/6-16.htm
New International Version Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."

Mark 10:8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer ...
biblehub.com/mark/10-8.htm
and the two shall become one flesh: so that they are no more two, but one flesh. ... Or don't you know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her ...

Inkfingers said:

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.

Click to expand...

What's wrong with the idea that Jesus is a way of becoming a new type of human? That's the implication of Rom 5:14 ff. Paul doesn't say Jesus is restoring us to something we were before. Rather, he's giving us something new and better.

While that's my understanding, it's also worth noting that humans universally sin. You can certainly say that Christ died for our sins, whether they came from Adam or not.

As you presumably know, there are (at least) two takes on original sin. One is that we're guilty of Adam's sin. That seems inconsistent with evolution. If Adam didn't exist, he didn't sin, and we can't be guilty of it. However the other approach is that as a result of Adam's sin, our nature was corrupted. We're not guilty of his sin, but we do have a corrupted nature, which Christ redeems. (This is Calvin's approach, by the way.) This works fine with evolution. Our nature can be in need of redemption whether or not it was ever unfallen.

hedrick said:

...As you presumably know, there are (at least) two takes on original sin. One is that we're guilty of Adam's sin. That seems inconsistent with evolution. If Adam didn't exist, he didn't sin, and we can't be guilty of it. However the other approach is that as a result of Adam's sin, our nature was corrupted. We're not guilty of his sin, but we do have a corrupted nature, which Christ redeems. (This is Calvin's approach, by the way.) This works fine with evolution. Our nature can be in need of redemption whether or not it was ever unfallen.

Click to expand...

Why inconsistent? Ancient prehistoric humans ("Adam & Eve") lived in obedience to the Divine influences of God in heaven on earth... until some act of rebellious disobedience ("Fall") which incurred God's Wrath... the Divine decree of death was satisfied on the Cross, satisfying God's Justice, enabling God's Mercy to believers

Inkfingers said:

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

Click to expand...

1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

As I understand it, whole populations evolve, not individuals.

In evolutionary parlance, who was the first Adam?

Notice Luke didn't say:

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of [y-Adam], which was the son of God.

Did mtDNA Eve bring the forbidden fruit to y-Adam?

Adam can only be referred to as a "son of God" by virtue of creatio ex materia.

If however y-Adam is meant, then God must have been a Homo ergaster.

Evolution is blasphemy, and an affront to God, who made us in His image & likeness.

Inkfingers said:

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.

Click to expand...

Hey, you put "nonsense" and "evolution" in the same post...whatever the case, you got my vote.

Inkfingers said:

That would suggest that there are two ways to reach the Kingdom:

1) evolve there

2) get there through Christ if we fall after evolving there

I still cannot see how Evolve and Fall/Redemption are compatible...

* If we evolved to Eden/Kingdom level once before, we can do so again (and do not need Christ's atoning sacrifice to get there).

* If we evolved to a point higher than the beasts, but not to all the way Eden/Kingdom, and so were always beneath that level of Eden/Kingdom, we did not actually fall from grace because we were never in that condition to begin with (and so do not need Christ's atoning sacrifice).

The only situation where Christ's sacrifice and its offer of redemption have meaning is if we were once in a state of grace that we did not reach by evolution (ie: Creationism).

Click to expand...

"evolve there" --> "evolve under the direct Supervision & Intervening Influences" of God in heaven...

not purely naturally as if isolated from outside factors

Gen 1 suggests that God in heaven has been shaping terrestrial history... since the planet (was) first formed & assembled... geology & geo-biology have all occurred under Divine Intervening Influence, the whole entire time from "the geological Hadean eon" to present

Inkfingers said:

Restored implies we used to have it.

Used to have it implies made perfect and fell. Evolution never made us perfect, it evolved us out of tree-swingers.

Evolution and the idea of needing a restorative sacrificial atonement of Christ are utterly opposed.

Click to expand...

God remade the natural man into the image of the Spiritual God.
God does not care about arms or swinging or is offended by trees
as you are. Do you hate bananas and peanuts too?

Inkfingers said:

Where exactly does Jesus refer to God remaking man in his own image...?

Click to expand...

Sure. I can go over it again. Even though I only highlighted one instance,
the other usages are a similar process applied to something that already exists.

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and the livestock, and over all the earth itself and every of creature that crawls upon it.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.…

asah: accomplish
Original Word: עָשָׂה
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: asah
Phonetic Spelling: (aw-saw')
Short Definition: accomplish

accomplish (8), accomplish much (1), accomplished (4), accomplishing (1), achieve (1), acquired (6), act (22), acted (12), acts (7),bear (4), bearing (2), bring (4), bring it about (1), bring about (1), bring forth (1), brought (1), brought about (4), brought forth (1),celebrated (12), celebrates (1), certainly carry (1), certainly make (1), certainly makes (1), certainly perform (2), commit (8), commits (7), commits and does (1), committed (35), committed and practices (1), committing (6), construct (3), deal (30), deals (1), dealt (22), desisting (1), destroy* (2), developing (1), did (310), did not do (1), displease* (1), do (479), do as has been done (1), do as i have done (1), doer (1), doers (1), does (48), doing (63), done (327), done you will do (1), done* (1), earns (1), established (1), establishes (1), evildoer* (2), evildoers* (1), execute (24), executed (10), executes (5), executing (1), exercise (1), exercises (1), exerted (1), fared (1), fashions (1), fit (1), follow (1), followed (1), fulfill (1), fulfilling (1), gather (1), gave (4), give you over (1), grant (1), granted (1), greedily (1), happen (1), happened (1), held (2), help (1), hold (1), imitate (1), imparted (1), inclines (1), indeed perform (1), industrious* (1), inflict (1), inflicted (1), inlaid (1), instituted (2), introduced (2), keep (1), kept (1), labored (1), laborers (1), made (369), maintain (6), maintained (1), make (200), make your ready (1), Maker (13), maker (4), makes (19), making (5), obey (1), observe (33), observe them carefully (1), observe to do (2), observe carefully (2), observed (12), observes (5), offer (35), offered (4), offering (1), oppressed* (1), ordained (1), perform (31), performed (23), performers (1), performing (2), performing the made (1), performs (3), practice (9), practice* (1), practiced (4), practices (6), practicing (1), prepare (26), prepared (19), preparing (2), present (5), presented (1), produce (4), produced (5), provide (13), provided (2), provides (1), punish (1), put (1), put into effect (1), put forth (1), ready (1), reign* (1), remade* (1), responsible (1), sacrifice (2), set (3), set* (1), show (16), showed (6), showing (2), shown (9), shows (3), spend (1), surely show (1), take action (6), thoroughly deal (1), treat (3), tried (1), trim (1), trimmed (1), truly practice (1), use (1), used (4), wage (2), waged (2), work (12), worked (7), worker (2), working (3), workmen* (5), works (6), woven (1), writing (1), wrought (2), yield (5), yielded (1), yields (1).


I discovered this while looking for "Quick Creation" language and finding nothing.

Inkfingers said:

So in all the uses, you found "remade" once and completely ignore the description in the next chapter which describes man being made from scratch rather than getting an update?

Click to expand...

The basis of science investigation declares that all life and man came from the earth.

Genesis 1:24
And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, land crawlers, and wild animals according to their kinds." And it was so.

Genesis 2:19
So the LORD God formed out of the ground every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and He brought them to the man see what he would name each one. And whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

Genesis 2:7 Then the LORD God formed the man out of the dust from the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being.

Creator (1), devises (1), earthenware* (1), fashion (1), fashioned (1), fashioning (2), fashions (1), formed (20), forming (2), forms (2), made (1), Maker (2), maker (4), ordained (1), planned (4), potter (9), potter's (7), potters (1).

Inkfingers said:

They were not, according to Evolution, made from clay though, shaped into such form directly.

Click to expand...

So you're going to claim the scriptures are litterally accurate then?
Or only when you wish them to be literal?

Genesis 49:26
The blessings of your father have surpassed the blessings of the ancient mountains and the bounty of the everlasting hills. May they rest on the head of Joseph, on the brow of the prince of his brothers.


Habakkuk 3:6
He stood and measured the earth; He looked and startled the nations; the ancient mountains were scattered; the perpetual hills bowed. His ways are everlasting.

DogmaHunter said:

For the record...

I completely agree with you that in light of the evolution of species, including (or perhaps "especially") humans, no borderlining narcistic human-centric religion makes any sense.

By that, I mean, religions where humans are the center or even the entire point of "creation" / the universe.

Because what evolution tells us, is that no species was ever "meant" or "intended" to exist. We exist only due to past circumstances. You can call that "luck" if you will, but I don't agree with that. It's neither luck nore bad luck. It just is.

You can also turn it around... Think of the bazibillios of species that could have existed, but don't. Do they have "bad luck"? I don't see how that is a sensible position.

Consider yourself as an individual.

YOU are the result of a specific egg of your mother and a specific sperm cell of your dad.
When your parents had sex, your dad 'donated' MILLIONS of sperm cells. And that's just counting the time they had sex where you were conceived. I think it's safe to assume that it wasn't the first and only time that your dad [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. Each time = millions of sperm cells. In total, BILLIONS.

Put this into perspective for a second....
Your conception was incredibly circumstantial. So circumtantial in fact, that the odds of YOU existing (a priori) were so ridiculously low, you'ld have more chance of winning the lotterly several times in a row.

Among those billions of other potential children they could have had, surely there were potential humans there smarter then Einstein, more talented with their pen then Shakespear, better at soccer then Eden Hazard (on a sidenote GO BELGIUM!!!! ). So, do all those potential humans have "bad luck"?

You can take a step back and say the exact same thing on the species level.
BILLIONS, nay, TRILLIONS of potential species that could have existed, but never did.

If you could press a reset button, turning back time 3.8 billion years, and have "life" play out again on this planet.... Humans would not exist. They just wouldn't.


In light of this, I say that any religion that puts humans in the center, as being "the point" of the universe, is pretty much absurd.



The fact of the matter is that if our sun would explode tomorrow and obliterate the entire solar system - the universe as a whole would remain virtually exactly the same as before.

That's how insignificant and irrelevant we are on the cosmic scale.
While narcisistic religions would have you believe the exact opposite.


It makes no sense to me at all.

Click to expand...

Your points here could intiate an interesting dicussion that might be best served in a separate thread. I'll kick off the next stage and, if you are interested, we could start such a thread and avoid taking this one too off topic.

• You are correct in pointing out the contingent nature of evolution, but have perhaps underestimated the presence of underlying trends:
  • Convergent evolution is commonplace.
  • e.g. Sight is variously estimated to have arisen independently between six and twenty times. (IIRC)
  • Over time there the most complex organisms have increased in complexity.
• From a religious perspective the creation of man in "God's image" makes more sense if we consider the "spiritual" rather than "physical" image. In that case there would be no problem if "Man" turned out to be a six limbed, vegetarian amphibian with a purple tail.
  
• Stephen Gould, emphasising evolutionary contingency, famously remarked that if we "replayed the tape of life" it would turn out quite differently. On the other hand Conway Morris has argued persuasively that evolution, given sufficient time, was likely to produce intelligent, bipedal lifeforms having a central nervous system, with principal sensory devices, situated atop the trunk.
  
• The most interesting thing I find about humans is that they are the first instance known to us (and just possibly the only one) that represent a portion of the universe consciously contemplating itself.

Based upon the foregoing I do not find it absurd, as you do, "that any religion (would) put humans in the center, as being "the point" of the universe". Equally, I do not find it necessarily true, merely plausible.

Inkfingers said:

I do not find that absurd at all. On the contrary, I agree that humans would naturally create a religion that puts them at the centre.

Click to expand...

I don't think I was suggesting (or denying) that humans would create an anthropocentric religion. Rather I was suggesting that humans might actually be important, if they are among the more intelligent and reflective lifeforms in the universe.

Inkfingers said:

My question here though is to do not with religion in general but with how an evolved creature needs a teacher not a restorative sacrifice to reach perfection. A restorative sacrifice only makes sense if we have fallen from Eden rather than risen from the Jungle.

Click to expand...

Why should the sacrifice not be seen as exemplerary than executive in nature? Thus the sacrifice is a demonstration of how man should behave, not a device to "save" man through the action alone. If Christianity were presented in this way and we dumped the silliness (from my perpsective) of eternal damnation or everlasting life, as well as the notion that God was an entity, rather than a process, then I would have no trouble declaring myself a Christian.
(Just out of interest - a question to those well versed in Christian theology. How many heresies did I manage to rack up there?)

Inkfingers said:

Such is not the subject of this thread.

The subject of this thread is how Evolution is incompatible with a view of man as a created being, made perfect, falling from grace, and needing the sacrifice of a saviour to atone for their fall.

I can find nothing in scripture to support the idea of God improving a previously utterly imperfect being into the state of Adamness. If that were the route, it would be a simple matter for God to fix our fall "back" into carnality (and it would no more need a saviour nailed to a cross now than it did before).

Click to expand...

When was Adam "perfect?" The Bible doesn't tell us.