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

[HitchSlap]

Jesus' sacrifice is based on the idea of restoring us to a previous condition, correcting the good-which-became-bad,

The idea of a human sacrifice goes back thousands of years and is inextricable from our earliest ancestor's superstitious notions that attempt to effect what is not fully understood about the nature of reality.

but if we evolved out of the apes there is (by definition)

Which all evidence overwhelmingly suggests.

no previous condition to be restored to.

Agreed.

Rather, there is instead a future condition to be evolved into

Not sure I quite understand what you mean here. There is no goal or target with evolution, other than to survive.

- “image of God” is not something we were, but something we may possibly become.

Recorded human history is rife with beliefs that allow humans to cheat death.

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);

Yes, the idea of a human sacrifice is antiquated and has no relevance in modern society.

presenting us instead with a salvation that has to be evolved into rather than returned to?

The only "salvation" one has, is the realization that if you're fortunate to be born, and make it past infancy, and understand that you only have this life to make a difference. There is no second chance. That, my friend is more precious than any fickle promise of a salvation and the promise of an 'afterlife.'

I cannot see a way around this.

Nor can I.

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

The evidence seems to be overwhelming on this.

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.

Understood.

 

[TLK Valentine]

However this thread is not about whether people are sinners (that is taken for granted).

Then their need for a savior is also "taken for granted."

It's about how Evolution is incompatible with Fall/Atonement/Restoration; because evolved creatures ascended to this state, they did not fall to it. Fall/Atonement/Restoration is only compatible with Creationism, which, to a TE like myself is a bolt from the blue.

When you speak of "ascension" and "falling," are you referring to physically or spiritually?

 

[Strathos]

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.

ToE is descriptive, and not prescriptive.

 

[Inkfingers]

Then their need for a savior is also "taken for granted."

Yup

When you speak of "ascension" and "falling," are you referring to physically or spiritually?

I make no particular distinction - life is embodied.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

Why would you hold to any evolutionary view, theistic or not?

It's all misclassification an uncorrected errors.

Want variation? Look at dogs. All the variation you could ask for, but they remain the same species. The Husky does not evolve into the Chinook, neither does the Mastiff. The Husky remains Husky, the Mastiff remains Mastiff, and the Chinook appears suddenly in the record where it never existed before.

The same occurs with the fossil record. Every single creature from the oldest one found to the youngest one found for that type of creature remains exactly the same. New forms appear suddenly in the record. Of course their confusion is understood, being they cant see what mated with what from a pile of bones.

Look at humans. Asian mates with Asian and produces ONLY Asian. African mates with African and produces ONLY African. Only when Asian mates with African is variation seen in the species (Afro-Asian). The Asian remains Asian, the African remains African, and neither evolved into the Afro-Asian.

They simply misclassify subspecies in the fossil record as separate species, because they ignore how variation occurs.

Look at Finches. They classify them as separate species following their belief. DNA tests are done which conflict with every classification of them into separate species. Not to mention they are mating right in front of their noses.

http://www.pnas.org/content/96/9/5101.full

"“The traditional classification of ground finches into six species and tree finches into five species is not reflected in the molecular data.”

Let me say that in plain English. The DNA results do not support their classification of them into separate species.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14181

"“Extensive sharing of genetic variation among populations was evident, particularly among ground and tree finches, with almost no fixed differences between species in each group.”

Let me say that in plain English. The DNA results showed extensive breeding between them, with no distinguishing markers to justify calling them separate species.

But do they correct Darwin's incorrect classifications?

Are you kidding? Of course they don't.

So let me ask you. If they won't be honest with such a little thing as the classification of birds, what makes you believe you can trust them on the larger issues?????

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yahweh NEVER says to trust them about anything.

Or practically any man, for that matter. "Test everything"

So let me ask you. If they won't be honest with such a little thing as the classification of birds, what makes you believe you can trust them on the larger issues?????

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm not sure what you mean there...

Ive read a lot of the scientific literature related to human origins. I'm also fairly well read on the history of the Scriptures that include interal, external and bibliographical testing as lines of evidence. It's been my experience the average evolutionists uses the word evidence, like the word evolution, as a clutch phrase. The actual evidence is rarely of interest to them. If this is going to reduced to ad hominem taunts I like to know that early before I start actually getting into an evidential argument.

As far as the doctrine of creation the Scriptures, Old and New Testament, emphasis God is the creator of life. I say again, if God didn't create like in the first place what does that say about the promise of eternal life?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ive read a lot of the scientific literature related to human origins. I'm also fairly well read on the history of the Scriptures that include interal, external and bibliographical testing as lines of evidence. It's been my experience the average evolutionists uses the word evidence, like the word evolution, as a clutch phrase. The actual evidence is rarely of interest to them. If this is going to reduced to ad hominem taunts I like to know that early before I start actually getting into an evidential argument.

As far as the doctrine of creation the Scriptures, Old and New Testament, emphasis God is the creator of life. I say again, if God didn't create like in the first place what does that say about the promise of eternal life?

devolving into ad hominem attacks is the path to evolution.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

devolving into ad hominem attacks is the path to evolution.

Is that what the Germans and Russian Communists did ?

 

[mark kennedy]

devolving into ad hominem attacks is the path to evolution.

Well it's definitely the inevitable path of Darwinian logic. It's actually a fascinating subject if it's approached properly. For some reason the evidence gets trampled underfoot which leads me to wonder if Darwinians really have the convictions of their beliefs.

 

[Inkfingers]

Ive read a lot of the scientific literature related to human origins. I'm also fairly well read on the history of the Scriptures that include interal, external and bibliographical testing as lines of evidence. It's been my experience the average evolutionists uses the word evidence, like the word evolution, as a clutch phrase. The actual evidence is rarely of interest to them. If this is going to reduced to ad hominem taunts I like to know that early before I start actually getting into an evidential argument.

You are such an idiot

There, happy.

No, it's not going go be ad hominem. I tend to avoid such unless on the receiving end myself.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Well it's definitely the inevitable path of Darwinian logic. It's actually a fascinating subject if it's approached properly. For some reason the evidence gets trampled underfoot which leads me to wonder if Darwinians really have the convictions of their beliefs.

Because the evidence means nothing in the face of their beliefs.

Look at the finch data, they will do anything to avoid admitting Darwin simply made a mistake in classification. And such a little thing it is too, but religious fanatics, be they Christians or Evolutionists.....

When you call the data into question, your not challenging science, but a faith system.

 

[mark kennedy]

You are such an idiot

There, happy.

No, it's going go be ad hominem. I tend to avoid such unless on the receiving end myself.

Well it's nice that someone just came right out and say it for a change. I know the threads get contentious, it goes with the territory. But there is a awfull lot there creationists aren't aware of. Personally I think their main strategy is to poison the well.

Little fun fact in case your interested. Parathropos is the only transitional fossil representing our ancestors 2-3 mya. Then over night the brain nearly triples in size and the hominid line starts. By a couple of hundred thousand years ago the Neanderthals had a cranial capacity 20% greater then our own. Parathropos was a transition from the gracial (smooth) skull of the ancestor of the chimpanzee, changing into the gorilla. The Neanderthalls show a migration pattern across Europe starting in the area around Ararat.

The evidence isn't even tricky, its actually pretty straight forward. Tell you what, consider this. Why are there no chimpanzee fossils in the fossil record but hundreds of our own?

 

[Ophiolite]

The idea of a human sacrifice goes back thousands of years and is inextricable from our earliest ancestor's superstitious notions that attempt to effect what is not fully understood about the nature of reality.

This matter is treated in revealing detail in Sir James Frazer's magesterial work, The Golden Bough. This is an essential read for anyone interested in comparative religion, even if it is only one of the abridged versions. (The full work is, in the third edition, twelve volumes and I confess I have read only the 1922 abridged edition.)

 

[Inkfingers]

Well it's nice that someone just came right out and say it for a change.

Ha, it was a typo that I corrected.

Why are there no chimpanzee fossils in the fossil record but hundreds of our own?

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...

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yup



I make no particular distinction - life is embodied.

No difference whatsoever between body and spirit. Interesting.

 

[Ophiolite]

Ive read a lot of the scientific literature related to human origins. I'm also fairly well read on the history of the Scriptures that include interal, external and bibliographical testing as lines of evidence. It's been my experience the average evolutionists uses the word evidence, like the word evolution, as a clutch phrase. The actual evidence is rarely of interest to them. If this is going to reduced to ad hominem taunts I like to know that early before I start actually getting into an evidential argument.

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

As far as the doctrine of creation the Scriptures, Old and New Testament, emphasis God is the creator of life. I say again, if God didn't create like in the first place what does that say about the promise of eternal life?

You appear to be arguing that a natural explanation for the origin life should be rejected because the consequences (no eternal life) is unpalatable. If that is not your argument, what are you saying? If that is your argument, don't you think it is rather an illogical one?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Tell you what, consider this. Why are there no chimpanzee fossils in the fossil record but hundreds of our own?

Shhhh, you are not supposed to mention our cousins fossils cant be found anywhere even close to the age of man.

But that's what happens when one kind of ape mates with another - a new form suddenly appears in the record.

Just like Husky and Mastiff made the Chinook.

Just like Asian and African make the Afro-Asian.

Suddenly where it never existed before.

 

[pitabread]

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

Having viewed many of the discussions around the evidence mark claims is being ignored, it is safe to say mark's claim of evidence being ignored is horse doody.

 

[Halbhh]

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.

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.

----

A 2nd thing to think on -- consider that God choose to breathe life into Adam.

Of course God could do any action He wished, but He chose to breathe into Adam.

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.