Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

[Diamond7]

What boat did I miss?

Theistic Evolution.

 

[olgamc]

.

Theistic Evolution.

I believe that God may have created plants and animals by creating and guiding the evolution process. I do not believe that evolution explains how God created people. I also believe that there are other questions that current science does not have answers for. Eg - creation of the first cell or cells from inorganic matter. I also believe that science can come close, but never all the way, to understanding creation. Theistic creation, by definition, requires acts of God. And acts of God cannot be studied with the scientific method because they cannot be reproduced.

Do you still think I missed the boat?

 

[olgamc]

Supernaturally, we are more. But that has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution doesn't relate to the supernatural.

Finally!!!!

 

[sfs]

My claim is not "believing the Bible to be inerrant was a requirement for salvation".

Here's what you wrote: 'A more pointed question, along the same vein, would be "Can a person be a Christian and believe only parts of the Scriptures." That is what is really being asked. I would say no.' Do you no longer agree with that? Or what, exactly?

 

[sfs]

Hypothetically, if you believe that the Bible is errant, and if salvation plan is outlined in the Bible, how can you believe and be saved?

By believing and being saved.

How do you decide what to believe exactly?

How do you decide what to believe? About anything? Whatever that is, do that.

I see this kind of argument quite often and I've never understood it. How does it make sense to decide the Bible is 100% accurate about everything written in it in order to believe something else? If you already believe the something else (like the gospel), what's the point of the extra step? And if you don't, how does making up some other belief help?

 

[HarleyER]

Here's what you wrote: 'A more pointed question, along the same vein, would be "Can a person be a Christian and believe only parts of the Scriptures." That is what is really being asked. I would say no.' Do you no longer agree with that? Or what, exactly?

I see the confusion.

The Scriptures are the God-breathed Word of God, infallible and inerrant. God took over 2,000 years to write the Bible through various authors for our instruction. All Scripture is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in all righteousness. The Bible is the only inspired writing that is designed to quicken the heart and bring people to salvation. One must come to a saving knowledge of God before the Scriptures will make sense because only the Holy Spirit can illuminate the Scriptures so that we can understand its wisdom and apply it to our lives.

How that?

 

[sfs]

How that?

That's fine. Not that I agree with all of it, but I have no objection to any of it.

 

[olgamc]

By believing and being saved.

Believing what? Something that you consider to be not trustworthy? Isn't that an oxymoron, to put your trust into something you don't trust?

How do you decide what to believe? About anything? Whatever that is, do that.

Personally, I have to either experience it myself, or it has to be proven, or I have to trust whoever is presenting the idea. When my kid A tells me that he did his homework, I believe it. When my kid B tells me that he did his homework - I don't. LOL

I see this kind of argument quite often and I've never understood it. How does it make sense to decide the Bible is 100% accurate about everything written in it in order to believe something else? If you already believe the something else (like the gospel), what's the point of the extra step? And if you don't, how does making up some other belief help?

It’s not like that. You begin by deciding to figure out what to believe. Then you hear about this guy named Jesus who allegedly claimed that he knows the way to God. Then you do some research to see if you can trust him. Your research includes historical documents, of which Bible is one. Historical documents say conflicting things, so now you have to figure out which ones are trustworthy. You do more research and probably praying, and eventually, however it happens for you personally, you either decide that the New Testament authors can be trusted or not. If they can’t be trusted, you are back to square one. If they can, then you believe what they wrote about Jesus, then you trust Jesus, then you get saved. Then, since you already trust the NT authors, you see who they trusted, which is the Old Testament authors. And not only that, but Jesus Himself quoted the ot, and you are told that “all scripture is God-breathed” and that “prophets spoke as they were carried by the spirit”. So that’s how you eventually arrive to the conclusion that the whole Bible is the Word of God, which cannot be errant, and it is recorded by trustworthy people. Or, your personal journey might be a bit different, but it all starts with the question of who was Jesus.

So it’s not that you have to believe the Bible in order to be saved - you don’t, you need to believe that Christ, the Son of God, died in your place, and you need to be willing to agree to the exchange of your sin for His life. But that’s all written in the Bible, so it's like a catch 22. You either believe all of it, or you don't. If you just believe parts of the Bible, your beliefs eventually start contradicting, and then you have to somehow explain it away, which is of course why people try to justify that Bible is errant.

 

[sfs]

It’s not like that. You begin by deciding to figure out what to believe. Then you hear about this guy named Jesus who allegedly claimed that he knows the way to God. Then you do some research to see if you can trust him. Your research includes historical documents, of which Bible is one.

Your way seems to have very little in common with the Biblical picture of how people came to follow Jesus, before or after his death. From my perspective, it doesn't work at all. The books of the Bible are (to me) clearly not entirely reliable and they're certainly not on the face of it reliable enough to stake one's life on. If you don't find the gospel itself compelling, and you don't find yourself being called to follow him, the scheme you're suggesting seems completely barren to me.

 

[olgamc]

Your way seems to have very little in common with the Biblical picture of how people came to follow Jesus, before or after his death. From my perspective, it doesn't work at all. The books of the Bible are (to me) clearly not entirely reliable and they're certainly not on the face of it reliable enough to stake one's life on.

Well, the Biblical picture of how people came to follow Jesus was by either knowing Him personally (including folks that knew Him before He was born), or by believing someone else's testimony. Which, of course, if you believe, you then come to know Him personally, but not in a flesh real life touch and feel kind of experience. That was Thomas's experience - he didn't believe what the disciples were saying, so Jesus let Thomas actually touch Him.

But for us, we can't talk to the original witnesses, and the angels don't visit everybody. So how do you come to believe Jesus except to believe what the original witnesses wrote?

If you don't find the gospel itself compelling, and you don't find yourself being called to follow him, the scheme you're suggesting seems completely barren to me.

I don't understand what you mean. If you don't believe the gospel and you don't find yourself called to follow Him, then can't believe in Him or follow Him, so you can't say that you are saved or that you are Christian (which means a follower of Christ).

 

[sfs]

Well, the Biblical picture of how people came to follow Jesus was by either knowing Him personally (including folks that knew Him before He was born), or by believing someone else's testimony.

Where that someone else often (after the very early years) hadn't known Jesus in person.
ETA: and in any case, I don't think anyone had to decide that those who were testifying were infallible in order to be trusted.

 

[olgamc]

Where that someone else often (after the very early years) hadn't known Jesus in person.

Sorry, I still don't get you. What are you saying? That you know of someone who became a follower of Christ without personally being called, or believing someone else's testimony?

ETA: and in any case, I don't think anyone had to decide that those who were testifying were infallible in order to be trusted.

No, of course those testifying were sinful people just like you and me. But you have to believe that they were telling the truth, otherwise how do you believe their testimony? It's not that the writers were infallible. It's that they honestly wrote what God told them to write, and God is infallible.

 

[sfs]

Sorry, I still don't get you. What are you saying? That you know of someone who became a follower of Christ without personally being called, or believing someone else's testimony?

No, I'm saying that people became followers of Christ without first deciding that their source of information was infallible.

No, of course those testifying were sinful people just like you and me. But you have to believe that they were telling the truth, otherwise how do you believe their testimony? It's not that the writers were infallible. It's that they honestly wrote what God told them to write, and God is infallible.

I'm sorry, but your argument doesn't seem coherent here. I thought you were claiming that you had to know that the Biblical accounts were without error because otherwise you couldn't trust what they had to tell you about Jesus. Now you're saying that yes, we can believe what other people testify to us about Jesus even if they make some mistakes as long as their trying to tell the truth as they know. We're just not allowed to allow the same fallibility and sinfulness in Biblical writers because we're not just dealing with the basic correctness of what they said about Jesus, we're dealing with a dictated message of God.

In other words, your argument now is that, if we assume that God dictated an inerrant message to the Biblical writers, we have to conclude that the Bible is inerrant. Well, yeah, but that says nothing about why we should be making that assumption in the first place.

 

[olgamc]

No, I'm saying that people became followers of Christ without first deciding that their source of information was infallible.

So... in other words, the person they decided to follow may not be the person they decided to follow? I am sorry, but if I am going to trust my life to someone, I better ensure that I know who I am trusting my life to.

I'm sorry, but your argument doesn't seem coherent here. I thought you were claiming that you had to know that the Biblical accounts were without error because otherwise you couldn't trust what they had to tell you about Jesus.

Right, you had to know that the person spoke the truth.

Now you're saying that yes, we can believe what other people testify to us about Jesus even if they make some mistakes

even though they are sinners, yes

as long as their trying to tell the truth as they know.

right, and their testimony is confirmed by several other witnesses. That is how you determine that someone's story is true.

We're just not allowed to allow the same fallibility and sinfulness in Biblical writers because we're not just dealing with the basic correctness of what they said about Jesus, we're dealing with a dictated message of God.

So biblical writers were sinners. They also spoke what they understood to be true. Their story was confirmed by others. By many, in fact. So we can trust that what they said was actually true. But they also don't need to be perfect sinless people - we all know they weren't.

In other words, your argument now is that, if we assume that God dictated an inerrant message to the Biblical writers, we have to conclude that the Bible is inerrant. Well, yeah, but that says nothing about why we should be making that assumption in the first place.

Because God doesn't lie?

I mean, I am just really at a loss here... if you believe in a god that lies, why would you trust your life to him? ...Although... that is what satanists literally do. Mind boggling.

 

[expos4ever]

And acts of God cannot be studied with the scientific method because they cannot be reproduced.

This is a common notion - that to be "science", reproduction is required. However, I believe the expert consensus is otherwise - from Scientific American:

Creationist Claim: Evolution is unscientific because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

Response: This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time—changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.

 

[sfs]

It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.

Also, attempts at falsification are a pretty small part of science as actually practiced.

 

[olgamc]

This is a common notion - that to be "science", reproduction is required. However, I believe the expert consensus is otherwise - from Scientific American:

Creationist Claim: Evolution is unscientific because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

Response: This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time—changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.

I don’t think I said that evolution is unscientific. Evolution, as in the natural process created by God, can be studied, nobody is denying that.

What I am trying to get across though is this: yes, God created certain laws and processes that we can study, explain, and make predictions about. And yes, a lot of the time God works within the natural laws that He created. Like evolution. But we mere mortals should never ascend to such point of arrogance as to put God into a box of our own understanding and say that we know how God created things, and especially people, because bottom line is - we actually don’t. Both evolutionists and creationists make the same mistake. “This is what we know, therefore it had to be this way”. And then they argue.

My point is - God is God, He can do whatever He wants. He could have chosen to miraculously interfere at any point in time. So we can say He may have done it this way or that way, but anything more than that is foolish and arrogant. Again, attention is on the wording - “may have” versus “did”.

I have had this conversation with a number of people now. Everybody agrees that the whole person is a body and a soul. Everybody agrees that evolution, at best, can explain creation of the body only. Everybody agrees that it would be morally wrong to say that some Homo sapiens are not fully human, or that some animals are. And yet people insist that we evolved.

 

[expos4ever]

I don’t think I said that evolution is unscientific. Evolution, as in the natural process created by God, can be studied, nobody is denying that.

Fair enough, I did not read your post carefully enough.

Both evolutionists and creationists make the same mistake. “This is what we know, therefore it had to be this way”. And then they argue.

I am pretty sure you cannot support this claim with regard to evolutionists - no evolutionist has said anything like this, I believe.

My point is - God is God, He can do whatever He wants. He could have chosen to miraculously interfere at any point in time. So we can say He may have done it this way or that way, but anything more than that is foolish and arrogant.

Why is it arrogant? I agree that God could have done whatever He wanted to do, but if the evidence overhelmingly shows us what He did, why is it "foolish and arrogant" to follow the evidence?

I have had this conversation with a number of people now. Everybody agrees that the whole person is a body and a soul. Everybody agrees that evolution, at best, can explain creation of the body only.

I don't believe people have souls - I believe that the idea of an immaterial soul is actually a Greek idea that was imported into Christianity. I see no evidence in the scriptures for an immaterial soul that inhabits the body.

 

[olgamc]

Fair enough, I did not read your post carefully enough.

I am pretty sure you cannot support this claim with regard to evolutionists - no evolutionist has said anything like this, I believe.

No evolutionist has ever said “people evolved”?

Why is it arrogant? I agree that God could have done whatever He wanted to do, but if the evidence overhelmingly shows us what He did, why is it "foolish and arrogant" to follow the evidence?

Because you are believing fossils and human-made theories over the Word of God. Also because evidence supports regular natural events and does not support miracles. So if all you ever do is believe evidence, then you cannot allow the possibility of a virgin birth or resurrection. Again, it is not foolish to study, but it is foolish to claim that you know exactly how God brought about a particular event, especially as great an event as creation. I mean, if you think it is not arrogant, then explain scientifically something much smaller - how did Jesus turn water into wine?

I don't believe people have souls - I believe that the idea of an immaterial soul is actually a Greek idea that was imported into Christianity. I see no evidence in the scriptures for an immaterial soul that inhabits the body.

If there is no immaterial soul that inhabits the body, then when the body dies, you die. Your memories, your personality, your dreams, your love. Everything that is you ceases to exist. Like a hard drive that gets erased. So if you cease to exist, who gets resurrected?

With that thought in mind, you might want to consider at least the following verses: Mathew 17:3, Mathew 22:32, 1 Peter 4:5-6, not to mention that Jesus after He rose was still Jesus.

 

[The Barbarian]

Both evolutionists and creationists make the same mistake. “This is what we know, therefore it had to be this way”. And then they argue.

I am pretty sure you cannot support this claim with regard to evolutionists - no evolutionist has said anything like this, I believe.

No evolutionist has ever said “people evolved”?

I see some fudging going on here. Why?

Because you are believing fossils and human-made theories over the Word of God.

You are not God. Nor is any other creationist. We accept the evidence over the new interpretations of creationists. Don't put words in God's mouth.

Again, it is not foolish to study, but it is foolish to claim that you know exactly how God brought about a particular event

And yet, that's exactly what YE creationists do.