Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

[_ Old Earth _] Theistic Evolution and Essential Doctrine

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00
X

xsearnold

Guest
I thought I'd start a new topic because, after a stint of research, I'm coming to the realization that I'll never be sufficiently motivated to attempt to become expert at the ins and outs of evolution theory and fact.

I guess where I'm coming from, as an evangelical Christian and, I hope, reasonable person open to learning, is trying to understand how theistic evolutionists deal with two items that I would consider "essential doctrine" from a Biblical perspective. I realize some will disagree with my definition of "essential doctrine" but I understand this to mean those elements typically found in the various creeds developed in early Christianity and oft recited in many different denominational worship services.

Specifically, I would like to understand how theistic evolutionists deal with 1) Adam as the "common ancestor" of all humanity (Homo sapiens sapiens) and 2) the virgin birth of Christ.

Perhaps overarching these issues is the whole issue of one's understanding of the attributes of God (omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent) and the possibility of supernatural activity (where God acts NOT through natural processes or natural timetables?).

I'll defer further questions to future posts.
 
The only single common ancestor we have is mitochondrial eve, and she wasn't that important to our genetic diversity. She simply provides the first infusion of mitochondrial RNA for our species.

The idea of virgin birth...man you people are gullible.
 
I don't want to misunderstand. Are you an atheist? If not, then do you believe in a God that is powerless to cause a virgin to give birth? Or do you simply believe God, although capable, simply did not do such a thing?
 
I am an atheist so none of those questions really apply to me. Your all powerful all knowing all loving god who allegedly sends people to hell for doing things he knew they would do from before he created the universe really makes no sense to me at all. I mean if your god is supposed to be all powerful why can't he even get a date? :tongue
 
You might consider the fact that science does not rule out miraculous intervention by God. It just doesn't have the means to evaluate such a thing.

So a virgin birth or a Resurrection are not a problem. Neither is God giving to two primates somewhere, the ability to understand God and evil, and thereby become like Him.
 
The Barbarian said:
You might consider the fact that science does not rule out miraculous intervention by God. It just doesn't have the means to evaluate such a thing.

So a virgin birth or a Resurrection are not a problem. Neither is God giving to two primates somewhere, the ability to understand God and evil, and thereby become like Him.

I guess I'm looking for something more than a mere "does not rule out" concept. What I'm wondering is how the Theistic Evolutionist addresses/reconciles these essential doctrines with their belief in evolution. Some specific questions:

How is Adam explained as the original man from whom the entire human race descended?

How is the formation of Eve from Adam's rib treated?

Do you believe that man alone possesses a soul (opposed to other animals)?

Is the virgin birth viewed as yet another instance where Scripture should NOT be interpreted literally, or do you believe God impregnated Mary with miraculously created sperm, or something else?

Numerous evolutionists explain that evolution and Christianity are not incompatible, so I'm trying to understand more of the details of the supposed compatibility, from a doctrinal standpoint.
 
Barbarian observes:
You might consider the fact that science does not rule out miraculous intervention by God. It just doesn't have the means to evaluate such a thing.

So a virgin birth or a Resurrection are not a problem. Neither is God giving to two primates somewhere, the ability to understand God and evil, and thereby become like Him.

I guess I'm looking for something more than a mere "does not rule out" concept. What I'm wondering is how the Theistic Evolutionist addresses/reconciles these essential doctrines with their belief in evolution. Some specific questions:

How is Adam explained as the original man from whom the entire human race descended?

Nothing in evolution rules out the possibility that God conferred immortal souls on one man and one woman, from which the rest of us descended.

How is the formation of Eve from Adam's rib treated?

As the text makes clear, this is allegorical for man and woman becoming one flesh.

Do you believe that man alone possesses a soul (opposed to other animals)?

God gave us an immortal soul, something other animals lack. When this happened, I do not know, but given what we know of Neandertals, it seems very likely to me that they had them.

Is the virgin birth viewed as yet another instance where Scripture should NOT be interpreted literally, or do you believe God impregnated Mary with miraculously created sperm, or something else?

There's no reason to suppose that the Immaculate Conception was not a miraculous event. It could not be mere parthenogenesis, since Jesus would have been a womn in that event.

Numerous evolutionists explain that evolution and Christianity are not incompatible, so I'm trying to understand more of the details of the supposed compatibility, from a doctrinal standpoint.

It's just that there aren't any contradictions in the two. Does evolutionary theory require Christianity? No. Does it rule out Christianity? Again, no.

That's how it is. Plumbing is like that, too.
 
Thanks, Barbarian, for your input. If you'd like to elaborate on what you specifically believe, as opposed to "evolution does not rule out the possibility," I'd be interested.

Also, are there other Theistic evolutionists that could offer their views? I'd be interested in learning about other perspectives.

Thanks,
Scott
 
The Barbarian said:
Nothing in evolution rules out the possibility that God conferred immortal souls on one man and one woman, from which the rest of us descended.

God gave us an immortal soul, something other animals lack. When this happened, I do not know, but given what we know of Neandertals, it seems very likely to me that they had them.

Are you saying that you believe Adam and Eve were Neanderthals, or some species of Homo whatever that predated Neanderthals? You would not consider them to be the first H. sapiens sapiens?

There's no reason to suppose that the Immaculate Conception was not a miraculous event. It could not be mere parthenogenesis, since Jesus would have been a woman in that event.

I understand your point, but my understanding is that the Immaculate Conception refers to the virgin birth of Mary, not of Jesus (no doubt a topic for another forum). :wink:
 
SyntaxVorlon said:
The only single common ancestor we have is mitochondrial eve, and she wasn't that important to our genetic diversity. She simply provides the first infusion of mitochondrial RNA for our species.

The idea of virgin birth...man you people are gullible.

That's me...gullible. Gullible enough to believe I can never earn my way into heaven. Gullible enough to believe I need a Savior. Gullible enough to believe there's more to life than this temporary, terrestrial existence.

Gullibility is bliss.
 
And with understanding, happiness.
Be happy with your bliss.
 
I understand your point, but my understanding is that the Immaculate Conception refers to the virgin birth of Mary, not of Jesus (no doubt a topic for another forum).

Far as I know, we are all born virgins.
 
The Immaculate Conception is the doctrine that Mary was born without Sin. From the Catholic Encylcopedia:

In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."
 
It's the catholic idea of original sin, based on the eating of the apple of knowledge. Everyone was born with original sin. Thus god's son had to be born by abnormal means. At least that's the way philosopher/priests of the first thousand years of the CE decided to interpret scripture. All of it requires a number of assumptions that are just downright silly: Existence of god, divinity of jesus, virginity of mary, etc.

Man in confessional: I've commited an original sin father.
Priest: What is it my son?
Man: I hit a badger with a blanched trout.
Priest: Yes, I've never heard that one before, 4 hail mary's, 3 our father's, and 5 jumping jacks. :lol:
 
It's a shame that your only conception of Christianity is Catholicism. There is a difference between penance and repentance. And as far as we are concerned, CE is just another satanic tactic to diminish the influence Jesus had on the world. BCE and CE don't mean squat!

Oh, one more thing...who said it was an apple? :-?
 
Vicjr said:
It's a shame that your only conception of Christianity is Catholicism. There is a difference between penance and repentance. And as far as we are concerned, CE is just another satanic tactic to diminish the influence Jesus had on the world. BCE and CE don't mean squat!

Oh, one more thing...who said it was an apple? :-?
I was responding to Free's query, which regarded a quote from the catholic encyclopedia. And I did mention catholicism as the origin of that belief, not christianity in general.
The use of the term Common Era is a secular push to rid science of catholic terminology. How odd that you define history by it.
 
We seem to have deviated from the original topic. I'm still looking for more input from those who would consider themselves "Theistic Creationists". They are purportedly the majority in Christendom, but seem to be the minority in this forum. :)
 
I'm a self described believer in Theistic Evolution, and I agree primarily with what The Barbarian said. Believing in evolution does not mean believing that God can't perform miracles. I believe that all the miracles attributed to Jesus, from his Virgin birth, to his healings, to his Resurrection from the dead are actual historical events. The Gospels are written as biographies, not as mythologies.

OTOH, the beginning of Genesis is full of mythological and allegorical stories, and I do not think it is to be taken literally. I do think that Mankind is a special creation, and that at some point in history God took a primate and imbued it with a soul, setting it apart from all other animals. IMO, this probably took place around 10 thousand years ago, when homo sapiens stopped being a hunter/gatherer, and starting forming civilization.
 
Thanks, Cubedbee, for the lucid explanation.

I'm not sure if I totally comprehend the difference between something written figuratively versus something written allegorically. I tend to believe that the Bible is to be taken literally where the context implies a literal treatment and figuratively where the context clearly indicates.

I read an interesting article contrasting the views of Phillip Johnson with a man named Van Till (link from talkdesign.org to First Things article from 1993, I think). Van Till gives an interesting explanation of the Augustinian view of God's creation of the world with all potential life within it. I can see how what constitutes creation might be hard to nail down in the physical sense, given how human life has all that it needs at conception to mature into a full-term baby. The only thing that strikes me about the Genesis account, however, is the formation of Eve from Adam's rib. It seems to be too detailed to imply a figurative reading. I guess we'll find out one day eventually.
 
Back
Top