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

[AV1611VET]

You need to head back to Dartmouth harbour before you sink and take down good pilgrims with you...

Dartmouth is probably where he learned it.

 

[Speedwell]

Dartmouth is probably where he learned it.

Dartmouth is the Royal Naval Academy. If I had learned anything at all there I would be unlikely to sink.

 

[Speedwell]

I try to go with scripture over time honored traditions.
I was looking for creation Ex Nihilo but couldn't find it.
So now I wonder who made it up?

Second century churchman who were afraid that the traditional creation ex materia of the Jews and early Christians would lead to Gnostic dualism. and who wanted in an case to bring Christian theology more into line with Greek philosophy where the idea originated.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Dartmouth is the Royal Naval Academy. If I had learned anything at all there I would be unlikely to sink.

True, just collide with things instead

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/world/asia/fitzgerald-collision-investigation.html

 

[AV1611VET]

Dartmouth is the Royal Naval Academy.

No wonder you said this then:

I worked up a calculation once upon a time based on cedar (since we don't really know what "gopher wood" was) and the idea that the Ark was really a raft with superstructure. That is, the part of the Ark below the waterline was solid wood. It wouldn't leak, and it would withstand considerable more flexing than a conventional hull.
Creationists didn't like the idea, even though it solved a number of the engineering problems which skeptics come up with.

 

[Erik Nelson]

You have to look at each from it's own values and perspective.

Under evolution, we start low and mortal, and ascend - needing a teacher not a punishment.

But the doctrine of the fall says we started high and immortal, and fell, bringing death into being and needing a redemptive sacrifice to pay the price of the failing.

The two are polar opposites.

i'm sorry I don't know how to make myself clear

yet there is no contradiction

yes, "Under evolution, we start low and mortal, and ascend - needing a teacher" = God guides evolution on Earth from planetary formation (Gen 1) to Eden (Gen 2-3)

basically yes, "the doctrine of the fall says we started high... and fell, bringing death [= fall under Divine Judgement of capital punishment & Wrath] into being and needing a redemptive sacrifice to pay the price of the failing." We wound up "high" after eons of God-guided evolution, then we fell by the first, initial act of disobedience in the God-directed history of this star system.

God brought us all the way "up". Through TE, God-guided evolution. Then we suddenly rejected God's Authority -- due to the "snake" (Hebrew nachash) -- and have been falling ever since, save through the Cross back up towards salvation.

If humankind chooses to submit to the nachash, humanity will be destroyed -- the whole point of the nachash's deceptive intervention into terrestrial history (as all acknowledge, "the Devil gets his due" eventually). If humankind chooses God, salvation.

God has plans for the population of this planet, ultimately to outrank even the Angels (1 Corinthians 6:3). Our present level of development is "a little lower than the Angels" (Hebrews 2:7 = Psalm 8:5).

But, plausibly due to jealousy over our God-ordained future status, the nachash and "a third of the angels of heaven" (Revelation 12:4) have for ages intervened in terrestrial affairs to derail human development, undermine human civilization, and prevent our emergence to supra-Angelic status.

The crumbling ancient "Babylon-like" ruins littering the cradles of human civilization stand in mute testimony to human failure which (I understand) the Bible would ultimately attribute to the deceptive interventions & influences into terrestrial affairs of "the Dragon" and co. (apparently a race of serpentine beings vaguely reminiscent of say Ridley Scott's Aliens).

 

[Inkfingers]

We wound up "high" after eons of God-guided evolution, then we fell by the first, initial act of disobedience in the God-directed history of this star system.

TE has no problem with that, but that line of ascension to pure rather than made pure and fell denies the need for a substitutionary atonement sacrifice (because the fall becomes a fault needing correction rather than a crime needing punishment).

Think of it as some IF/THEN statements....

If TE then "teach not punish"

If "punish not teach" then not TE

we suddenly rejected God's Authority -- due to the "snake" (Hebrew nachash) -- and have been falling ever since, save through the Cross back up towards salvation.

I am aware of the hebrew word for serpent, but I'm not sure of its relevance here....

the deceptive interventions & influences into terrestrial affairs of "the Dragon" and co. (apparently a race of serpentine beings vaguely reminiscent of say Ridley Scott's Aliens).

*blink*

Well THAT came out of left field and (although an interesting idea) is a little beyond the scope of this thread.

 

[Steve Petersen]

TE has no problem with that, but that line of ascension to pure rather than made pure and fell denies the need for a substitutionary atonement sacrifice (because the fall becomes a fault needing correction rather than a crime needing punishment).

Think of it as some IF/THEN statements....

If TE then "teach not punish"

If "punish not teach" then not TE



I am aware of the hebrew word for serpent, but I'm not sure of its relevance here....



*blink*

Well THAT came out of left field and (although an interesting idea) is a little beyond the scope of this thread.

Penal substitution is a Protestant doctrine that is a VERY late comer in the world of Soteriology:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation_in_Christianity#Penal_substitution_and_faith

 

[Speedwell]

Penal substitution is a Protestant doctrine that is a VERY late comer in the world of Soteriology:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation_in_Christianity#Penal_substitution_and_faith

But it is one of the five "Fundamentals" so creationists are stuck with it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You have to look at each from it's own values and perspective.

Under evolution, we start low and mortal, and ascend - needing a teacher not a punishment.

But the doctrine of the fall says we started high and immortal, and fell, bringing death into being and needing a redemptive sacrifice to pay the price of the failing.

The two are polar opposites.

And hence quite a lot of the genome no longer codes for proteins, because what was once a perfect genome, has over time, been corrupted through mutation.

And it never once says we were immortal to begin with, but could attain that state. "lest he reach out his hand and also eat of the tree of life and live forever....." Genesis 3:22 Doesn't sound to me like an immortal being, just one of long lifespan.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ok your not interested in the best historical narratives from antiquity, that's your prerogative

No, I am interesting in historical narratives.
It's just that the legends in the bible, like genesis and the flood, aren't such narratives.

[qutoe]As far as evidence would you like rationalism, paleontology or genomic comparisons? [/quote]

Any empirical, independently testable evidence will do.

You see unlike most atheists I actually took the time to explore the evidence before getting embroiled in my pet dogmas.

What evidence?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

For the same reason as one would hold to theories like relativity, atomic theory, germ theory, plate tectonics,....

You know. Because science.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Is that what the Germans and Russian Communists did ?

No.

Germans were racists who made macabre use of over 2000 years of prosecution of jews by catholics. Due to that history, they didn't have a lot of problems rallying their people against that "common enemy" through propaganda.

As for the Russians, they pretty much installed a state religion where the state and the dictator were to be worshipped as if they were practically gods.

In any case, none of what they did had anything to do with an explanatory scientific theory of biology.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Dont need evolution for that.

You can call it by a different name, if that makes you sleep better.

Won't change anything though.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

For the same reason as one would hold to theories like relativity, atomic theory, germ theory, plate tectonics,....

You know. Because science.

Relativity theory?

You mean the theory that is applicable to .1% of the universe?????

Let's look at that. We know it is 99.9% accurate in describing planetary systems (non-ionized matter). But the second one tries to apply it beyond the solar system to ionized matter (plasma) you suddenly have to add 96% ad-hoc theory to what was just tested to a 99.9% accuracy without it.

So I agree with you. All those theories are perfectly valid in .1% of the universe, and fail miserably in 99.9% of the rest. In fact, the other three are valid at most in .0000001% of the universe.....

So evolutionary theory may explain .1% of life......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You can call it by a different name, if that makes you sleep better.

Won't change anything though.

I know, you'll continue to ignore that natural changes by mating are two to three orders of magnitude greater than that produced by mutations. Nothing will change. You will continue to believe that your mutations are the cause of everything.....

That's how fanaticism works.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No.

Germans were racists who made macabre use of over 2000 years of prosecution of jews by catholics. Due to that history, they didn't have a lot of problems rallying their people against that "common enemy" through propaganda.

As for the Russians, they pretty much installed a state religion where the state and the dictator were to be worshipped as if they were practically gods.

In any case, none of what they did had anything to do with an explanatory scientific theory of biology.

Why were they racists? Because evolution led them to believe they were the biologically superior race????

Perfectly logical reaction under a theory where one can assume one may evolve a superior intelligence or strength over another form.....

Why doesn't it have anything to do with biology? Under the explanatory theory of evolution it is perfectly logical to assume that one might become more biologically superior to another. In fact that is the core tenet of the theory..... That evolved creature A is more fit for survival than creature B.....

 

[Ophiolite]

Why were they racists? Because evolution led them to believe they were the biologically superior race????

That is almost certainly correct. Evolution of humans occurred within tribal groupings that consisted of only a hundred or so individuals. This setting encouraged suspicion of anyone outwith the familiar group, with moderate acceptance of groups one came into occassional contact with, but hostility towards any alien group. This is the basis of racism.

So, I repeat, you are correct: evolution is probably what was responsible for the racism exploited by the Nazis. However, evolutionary theory was in no way responsible. That would be equivalent to me claiming that my high blood pressure was a consequence of my doctor diagnosing the fact that I had high blood pressure. If you wish to appear a fool by making such claims, go ahead. Be my guest, but you really ought to be more serious about such a serious matter.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Relativity theory?

You mean the theory that is applicable to .1% of the universe?????

No.

Let's look at that. We know it is 99.9% accurate in describing planetary systems (non-ionized matter). But the second one tries to apply it beyond the solar system to ionized matter (plasma) you suddenly have to add 96% ad-hoc theory to what was just tested to a 99.9% accuracy without it.

So I agree with you. All those theories are perfectly valid in .1% of the universe, and fail miserably in 99.9% of the rest. In fact, the other three are valid at most in .0000001% of the universe.....

So evolutionary theory may explain .1% of life......

One face wasn't enough for that facepalm

 

[DogmaHunter]

I know, you'll continue to ignore that natural changes by mating are two to three orders of magnitude greater than that produced by mutations. Nothing will change. You will continue to believe that your mutations are the cause of everything.....

I'm not the one who's ignoring anything.

That's how fanaticism works.....

That's rich, coming from someone who can't see a single sentence related to anything of physics, without yapping about plasma and who can't see a single sentence related to biology without yapping about dog breeds.