Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Why is human evolution not a slippery slope?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    The irony is that it was the Greek thinkers (analogous of the secular world of today) that insisted on geocentrism. The church merely followed what conventional worldly wisdom accepted and understood at the time because it seemed obvious via the assessment of nature. Then they used isolated passages (many of which were misinterpreted or mistranslated) as opposed to a whole book to affirm that belief. It took other Christian thinkers to actually debunk the belief.
    Last edited by seanD; 02-23-2014, 12:09 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
      Isn't the reason we can even label a passage of the bible as "phenomenological" due to the input of scientific findings? Without the aid of science to inform our interpretation how would you ever conclude that the phenomenological language of the sun setting, for example, is not literally true, but only how it appears?
      This is just a basic function of human speech: We talk about things as we perceive them. Knowing this, we come to the Bible expecting it to describe the way things appear. So whether science says geoecentrism or heliocentrism or lunacentrism or Scrawlycentrism is the objective reality, that doesn't change what we should understand the Bible to mean by "sunset" or the like.

      Didn't everyone also pretty much agree that the earth was stationary as well? At another point in time I am sure most everyone agreed that the earth was flat, and I am sure the Bible was evoked to support that belief at various points in time.
      All these things have been matters of debate for as long as we've had records. Some societies thought the land rested on a giant turtle who roamed the heavens.

      Here are a few samples of the theological momentum behind a geocentric view in the early church, for instance:
      Those could just as easily be examples of phenomenological language, whether in the early church fathers or in a newspaper today.

      Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
      Caught in the middle are those that interpret Genesis in light of ANE findings and other support from the sciences. They are questioning an interpretation of the text by utilizing other tools for a more accurate analysis so as not to repeat the mistakes of history - such as the mistakes of:

      Melanchthon: The eyes are witnesses that the heavens revolve in the space of twenty-four hours. But certain men, either from the love of novelty, or to make a display of ingenuity, have concluded that the earth moves; and they maintain that neither the [stars] nor the sun revolves...Now, it is a want of honesty and decency to assert such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious. It is the part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God and to acquiesce in it.

      &

      John Calvin: The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion -- no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wandering, maintain their respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God's hand? (Job 26:7) By what means could it [the earth] maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it? Accordingly the particle, ape, denoting emphasis, is introduced -- YEA, he hath established it--John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Psalm 93, verse 1, trans., James Anderson (Eerdman's, 1949), Vol. 4, p. 7
      Eagerness to avoid the errors of the past is all well and good but does not justify adopting a hermeneutic whereby the words of Scripture, understood within their genre, are expected to conform to the conclusions of a theory which assumes the irrelevance of God.

      So you are sure that all theistic evolutionists behave in this manner when doing science?
      Depends on which science we're talking about. Someone may be a theistic evolutionist who is a chemical engineer and does his chemistry in constant appreciation for God's ongoing work, but when he turns to consider the questions of origins, he accepts the claims of scientism without considering the underlying non-theistic philosophical framework.

      So would it be proper to say that a YEC assumes his interpretation of the biblical text is the correct one, and then analyzes scientific data through those interpretative lenses? What if his interpretation is wrong, how will he ever be corrected?
      Everyone analyzes scientific data through whatever biases he has. Discussions about the truth or falsity of YEC, as with any other topic that involves the work of God, should include all relevant Biblical data. The decision to exclude God's own testimony about the manner of creation will lead to various sorts of error.

      I agree, but I think its wise to be open to the possibility that the earth appears to be old, because it actually is.
      If you can demonstrate that Scripture does not teach otherwise, that would be a reasonable direction to go.

      Scientism is essentially naturalism so no Christian will read the Bible through those lenses. Christian scientists wisely, I think, let the scientific data inform their interpretation of the text which is why geocentrism and a flat earth, for example, are rejected as valid interpretations. Although, there are many well meaning Christian's who take the Bible as a guiding principle and thus affirm a flat earth and geocentric view in spite of scientific findings under the banner of "let God be true and every man a liar".
      It is not the scientific data that we are disputing. It is the whether a naturalistic interpretation of that scientific data is an appropriate tool for overturning what the text of a historical section in the Bible says is so. No Christian should read the Bible in a naturalistic way, but that is not the same thing as saying that none do. Many do, because they have obtained their education on such matters primarily from sources which have their wellspring in humanistic naturalism.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
        I don't think there was theological momentum for the age of the earth until the advent of the relatively new movement of young earth creationism.
        To add to this: note that Christian theologians through history since at least Clement of Alexandria consistently dated creation to somewhere in the range of about 4000BC to around 5500BC. Young-earth creationism is not a recent invention.

        For a sampling of such theologians stretching from Clement to Isaac Newton, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_creation

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by seanD View Post
          I admit, this is something I've struggled with for a long time. As a creationist, I have to believe human evolution is a lie, one of the biggest lies to ever befall the intellect of man. So I struggle with the issue of why God would allow such a powerful lie that would ensnare so many Christians, and a lie that is upheld as undeniable by the most prestigious institutions of the world. The same institutions we hold with much esteem and as an authority on other issues that affect our lives. In some respects, I happen to agree with phat8594. There are a lot of Christians that claim they're TEs without really having a grasp of the theory, just because it's the less embarrassing belief to hold. But this can't be the case with all Christians. I struggle with the scope of that deception.
          I'll leave most of this for KG to answer. There's an inherent problem with the 'it looks old' thing - we don't honestly know how the young universe came into being. It may simply be that the appearance is 'deceptive' because the assumption(s) under it is(are) wrong. It involves a LOT of assumptions when you're going from 'physics won't go there' to 'physics as we know it'. I don't think it's actually warranted to assume any high degree of certainty about the earliest stages of existence - and hence it's probably not a great idea to draw definitive conclusions about how old the thing is.

          But let's assume the current estimate is correct - does that mean Genesis cannot be literally true? If we go at it hyperliterally, yes; but the first day and first night occur before there's a planet rotating so maybe hyperliteralism isn't justified. Genesis doesn't provide a scientific blueprint (poor Moses' head would probably have exploded...) or an exact timescale so maybe we shouldn't treat it as something it's not.

          Myself, I fully believe God created the universe (I use the term in its original meaning so the multiverse, if it exists, would be a subset) and that when we fully understand the process (I'm expecting the Second Coming long before this happens here) Genesis will make perfect sense compared to that process. I'm not sure it's worthwhile to let mechanics compete with actual faith (trusting God). Science can't tell us diddly about why - that is its limitation. It gets a huge amount wrong (eggs, anyone?) and doesn't 'self correct' nearly as well as folks like to believe - but so what? Science is just a really technical process of muddling through - it will eventually catch up. But it will never tell us anything truly important about ourselves or our Creator - human nature and a Holy God are beyond its abilities. So seriously, do we care that stars appear really far apart more than why people find it so impossible to truly love one another? Which is really more important in life?

          Quit worrying about making the peg of unknown shape go in the round hole - that's concentrating on the wrong part.
          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

          My Personal Blog

          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

          Quill Sword

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
            But let's assume the current estimate is correct - does that mean Genesis cannot be literally true? If we go at it hyperliterally, yes; but the first day and first night occur before there's a planet rotating so maybe hyperliteralism isn't justified.
            It says that on the first day there is light day and dark night. Where does it say the earth isn't rotating then?

            Genesis doesn't provide a scientific blueprint (poor Moses' head would probably have exploded...) or an exact timescale so maybe we shouldn't treat it as something it's not.
            It does give time-spans in numbers of days and years. Are these not exact?

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Joel View Post
              It says that on the first day there is light day and dark night. Where does it say the earth isn't rotating then?


              It does give time-spans in numbers of days and years. Are these not exact?
              As for the second question: Almost certainly not. In Evolutionary Creationism, Denis Lamoureux points out that there are a number of numerical patterns in the genealogies that are far too striking to be simply coincidence. There was a choice of what was included. While this is often ascribed to the common practice of telescoping genealogies (common elsewhere in Scripture, which is not controversial), he sees theological values in what numbers were included. Keep in mind that numerology was very important to Mesopotamians. Here is a paper by Carol Hill that explores this more. Of course, given how much is lost across the millennia, some is bound to be speculation.

              http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Hill.pdf
              "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                Quit worrying about making the peg of unknown shape go in the round hole - that's concentrating on the wrong part.
                We know it fits in, somehow. Our faith does not have to sit on the edge of the latest edition of Scientific American. It is firmly rooted on what happened on a cross two millennia ago.
                "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                Comment


                • #38
                  This always inevitably leads to debates about what is true about the universe and who’s right, but that wasn’t the intention of the thread.

                  Scripture doesn’t explicitly state how old the universe/earth is so it’s not consummate religious truth anymore than scientific theory is consummate about the origins of the universe. The age on both accounts is based on assumptions and presuppositions with information we presently do have against possible information we don’t. This is why I lament the fact that “age of the earth” is often associated with the creationism/evolution debate even though the former doesn’t present the same theological problem. Scripture explicitly states how humans were created, something that is not stated about the age, which is why I always use “human evolution” to try and distinguish the subjects, usually to no avail.

                  My point was not whether one must believe it’s literal or not, but why the Christian that doesn’t interpret it as literal history can’t understand why the Christian that does sees it as a slippery slope. I’ve even seen TE Christians treat these Christians with animosity for thinking this, when it’s a perfectly justifiable conclusion in light of the fact that Paul and Luke obviously believed the creation of Adam was literal history and used it as a premise for their theology.

                  I’m also equally mystified why Christians think this subject is not essential to the basics of the faith, something I hear Christians ALWAYS say about this issue, when in fact it is essential. Either Paul was wrong about his theology and Luke was in error about Jesus’ true genealogy or human evolution is a lie, both can't be right and both of have monumental consequences to our understanding of either religious or scientific truth.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I do understand why people see it as a slippery slope, though I believe this has more to do with what people expect out of God/the Bible. If, hypothetically, one were to find an error in scripture, this logically would not invalidate the Resurrection, but I see how it would make people uncomfortable. I grew up thinking of the Bible in a strikingly hyper-literal fashion; not because of how I was raised, but because of how literal/black and white I see things, and even some things that barely cause other people discomfort rocked my world (like realizing that Amos was written in a less formal style of Hebrew than, say, Isaiah). When one is used to seeing through this paradigm, having it disturbed can be greatly discomforting.

                    I think the key to thinking through these issues is rethinking what we expect out of God, even if just as a thought experiment.
                    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by seanD View Post
                      I admit, this is something I've struggled with for a long time. As a creationist, I have to believe human evolution is a lie, one of the biggest lies to ever befall the intellect of man. So I struggle with the issue of why God would allow such a powerful lie that would ensnare so many Christians, and a lie that is upheld as undeniable by the most prestigious institutions of the world. The same institutions we hold with much esteem and as an authority on other issues that affect our lives. In some respects, I happen to agree with phat8594. There are a lot of Christians that claim they're TEs without really having a grasp of the theory, just because it's the less embarrassing belief to hold. But this can't be the case with all Christians. I struggle with the scope of that deception.
                      I think I understand your dilemma, predicated upon: "As a creationist, I have to believe human evolution is a lie ..."

                      But you do not have to be a creationist in this sense. Is that something that you choose at some level? Is it a predestined faith that is beyond your control? If it is a choice, then you are free to make other choices that may make more sense of the world around us ... and God above.
                      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by seanD View Post
                        ... I’m also equally mystified why Christians think this subject is not essential to the basics of the faith, something I hear Christians ALWAYS say about this issue, when in fact it is essential. Either Paul was wrong about his theology and Luke was in error about Jesus’ true genealogy or human evolution is a lie, both can't be right and both of have monumental consequences to our understanding of either religious or scientific truth.
                        Just because Paul and Luke were ancient men with a prescientific view of human history, that invalidates the Christian faith, the faith and teachings of Jesus?
                        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                          Just because Paul and Luke were ancient men with a prescientific view of human history, that invalidates the Christian faith, the faith and teachings of Jesus?
                          It would never invalidate the resurrection because I don't believe humans evolved from lower primates. But assuming it to be true, no, it doesn't invalidate it on a historical level, hence, for me, is on solid ground regardless, as far as the theology behind it. But it does make me wonder why we needed redemption if the fall never happened or when the fall actually occurred, why it occurred, and it how it occurred, and now there is no foundation for this because Paul's interpretive theology was pretty much THE theological foundation for it. However, for others not so established in belief of the resurrection from a historical perspective, like say... most modern churches and congregants today... I could only imagine how much of an issue this could be if they faced it as directly and honestly as the OP is attempting to do.
                          Last edited by seanD; 03-11-2014, 09:49 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by seanD View Post
                            It would never invalidate the resurrection because I don't believe humans evolved from lower primates. But assuming it to be true, no, it doesn't invalidate it on a historical level, hence, for me, is on solid ground regardless, as far as the theology behind it. But it does make me wonder why we needed redemption if the fall never happened or when the fall actually occurred, why it occurred, and it how it occurred, and now there is no foundation for this because Paul's interpretive theology was pretty much THE theological foundation for it. However, for others not so established in belief of the resurrection from a historical perspective, like say... most modern churches and congregants today... I could only imagine how much of an issue this could be if they faced it as directly and honestly as the OP is attempting to do.
                            It seems as if you think Paul's theology can only be understood historically. I do not doubt that Paul understood Adam to have been an historical person, but there is also plenty of later Jewish mythological reference to Adam, and Paul himself is not at all averse to midrashic and symbolic interpretations of scripture. I do not think Paul's theology is invalidated by progress in the scientific and historical view of man's origins. Were Paul around today, I think he would be the first to adapt his theology to the situation of today's believers. Of course that is merely a 'thought experiment', but can you seriously imagine Paul saying, 'No, I give you this as a commandment from the Lord, you must abandon science and hold to the common beliefs of first century'?
                            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                              It seems as if you think Paul's theology can only be understood historically. I do not doubt that Paul understood Adam to have been an historical person, but there is also plenty of later Jewish mythological reference to Adam, and Paul himself is not at all averse to midrashic and symbolic interpretations of scripture. I do not think Paul's theology is invalidated by progress in the scientific and historical view of man's origins. Were Paul around today, I think he would be the first to adapt his theology to the situation of today's believers. Of course that is merely a 'thought experiment', but can you seriously imagine Paul saying, 'No, I give you this as a commandment from the Lord, you must abandon science and hold to the common beliefs of first century'?
                              You're talking about two different things. Midrashic interpretation doesn't solve the problem of historical error; the latter being the topic of the OP.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by seanD View Post
                                You're talking about two different things. Midrashic interpretation doesn't solve the problem of historical error; the latter being the topic of the OP.
                                Yes, I am intentionally talking about (actually more than) two different things. If you look at how 'adam' is used in the Jewish scriptures, it functions first and foremost in a mythological, quasi symbolic sense and only as an historical man in a secondary sense. While I think Paul also understood Adam to have been a man living at a certain point in history, his theology is much more meaningful (to me) from the mythological, symbolic, collective sense. It does not concern me that Paul was not aware of modern scientific knowledge such as genetics, evolutionary biology, and archeological discoveries as I feel his theology is based on a deeper experience of God and grace.
                                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
                                35 responses
                                166 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
                                4 responses
                                49 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                                Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
                                10 responses
                                119 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post mikewhitney  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
                                14 responses
                                72 views
                                3 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                                13 responses
                                60 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X