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

  • Why is human evolution not a slippery slope?

    I would agree (albeit not adopt the belief myself) that evolution doesn't have to affect the foundations of Christianity, which is the resurrection, if the Genesis creation story wasn't directly connected to the New Testament. For example, Paul referencing Adam and the Genesis creation in his defense of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 and Luke referencing the genealogy of Adam in his defense of Jesus' miraculous birth. How can the argument then be made here that TE is not a slippery slope?
    Last edited by seanD; 02-11-2014, 11:48 PM.
    "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

  • #2
    Originally posted by seanD View Post
    I would agree (albeit not adopt the belief myself) that evolution doesn't have to affect the foundations of Christianity, which is the resurrection, if the Genesis creation story wasn't directly connected to the New Testament. For example, Paul referencing Adam and the Genesis creation in his defense of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 and Luke referencing the genealogy of Adam in his defense of Jesus' miraculous birth. How can the argument then be made here that TE is not a slippery slope?
    seanD:

    I can very much resonate with your concerns. I have yet to adapt to theistic evolution as my own personal understanding of Scripture (pun intended).
    For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by seanD View Post
      I would agree (albeit not adopt the belief myself) that evolution doesn't have to affect the foundations of Christianity, which is the resurrection, if the Genesis creation story wasn't directly connected to the New Testament. For example, Paul referencing Adam and the Genesis creation in his defense of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 and Luke referencing the genealogy of Adam in his defense of Jesus' miraculous birth. How can the argument then be made here that TE is not a slippery slope?
      Who says TE cant be reconciled with the idea of a literal Adam?
      -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
      Sir James Jeans

      -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
      Sir Isaac Newton

      Comment


      • #4
        A theory of evolution as a substitute for a revealed religion is nearly always going to be worse, because the worship of the theory will prevent you from seeing its effects in practice. For most people it's a catch-all lazy Occam's-Butterknife-of-the-Gaps to offer a generally positive and progressive mental narrative to stick all historical events on, which is a terrible way to understand what people actually thought and why, or why life develops the way it does, and not in other ways, and whether it's likely to develop that way again.

        Comment


        • #5
          The NT typological references, and the issue of original sin in general, are going to be the main topics of discussion along this topic in the next decade or so. Peter Enns's The Evolution of Adam is a decent discussion starter but doesn't delve particularly deeply, but it does strongly argue that Paul's usage of the OT typology is completely consistent with Jewish exegesis of that time. The evidence for common descent is overwhelming enough that these possibilities need to be explored sooner than later.
          "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


          • #6
            Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
            Who says TE cant be reconciled with the idea of a literal Adam?
            You would have to inject some pretty outlandish theories into both the theory itself and in scripture to make it work. My point was not that a Christian could disagree that it's a slippery slope, but why that Christian finds it so disingenuous or surprising of other Christians that consider it a slippery slope as per those two NT passages noted in the OP. It seems like a perfectly logical argument from a theological perspective why it would be a potential slippery slope.
            "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by seanD View Post
              You would have to inject some pretty outlandish theories into both the theory itself and in scripture to make it work. My point was not that a Christian could disagree that it's a slippery slope, but why that Christian finds it so disingenuous or surprising of other Christians that consider it a slippery slope as per those two NT passages noted in the OP. It seems like a perfectly logical argument from a theological perspective why it would be a potential slippery slope.
              Yes, it is rather difficult in light of what we know about genetics. Some recent attempts to do that have resorted to some very unlikely explanations (like Adam actually being a tribal chieftain).
              "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


              • #8
                Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                Yes, it is rather difficult in light of what we know about genetics. Some recent attempts to do that have resorted to some very unlikely explanations (like Adam actually being a tribal chieftain).
                So then I'm confused by what you said here, which actually inspired me to start this thread. Note that I'm not solely picking on you, but I wanted to address it because I've heard this expressed before by other Christians. I just don't understand why other Christians are so surprised by this when it's a perfectly logical theological problem.
                "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by seanD View Post
                  So then I'm confused by what you said here, which actually inspired me to start this thread. Note that I'm not solely picking on you, but I wanted to address it because I've heard this expressed before by other Christians. I just don't understand why other Christians are so surprised by this when it's a perfectly logical theological problem.
                  The OT passages by themselves might be understood in a different genre than pure history, which would solve problems from an inerrancy standpoint, but in the NT, Paul at least seems to understand it as pure history, which requires some serious thought.

                  Even if inerrancy had to go, it's not a death knell for Christianity unless the resurrection of Jesus is disproved, but these issues/solutions do not fit in comfortably with American evangelism's normal hermeneutics.
                  "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


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                    The OT passages by themselves might be understood in a different genre than pure history, which would solve problems from an inerrancy standpoint, but in the NT, Paul at least seems to understand it as pure history, which requires some serious thought.

                    Even if inerrancy had to go, it's not a death knell for Christianity unless the resurrection of Jesus is disproved, but these issues/solutions do not fit in comfortably with American evangelism's normal hermeneutics.
                    I think the ramifications are much worse. If human evolution was the lie, then what are the spiritual consequences of interpreting scripture in a way to accommodate that lie? If human evolution is true, I don't think it's as problematic but it does cause some pretty weighty problems, not just for Luke's understanding of the virgin birth (which already has enough issues from a skeptical point of view), but Paul's understanding of redemption from physical sin and death. I agree that it's not fatal to the resurrection from a historical perspective, but it does bring up some problematic theological issues.
                    "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by seanD View Post
                      I think the ramifications are much worse. If human evolution was the lie, then what are the spiritual consequences of interpreting scripture in a way to accommodate that lie? If human evolution is true, I don't think it's as problematic but it does cause some pretty weighty problems, not just for Luke's understanding of the virgin birth (which already has enough issues from a skeptical point of view), but Paul's understanding of redemption from physical sin and death. I agree that it's not fatal to the resurrection from a historical perspective, but it does bring up some problematic theological issues.
                      How do you see it as affecting the virgin birth? I'm not sure where the connection is there.

                      You've hit the nail on the head with the issue focusing on Paul's understanding of redemption. I've mentioned it in a couple of other threads but one consequence of this debate is that Irenaeus'ssecond-century view of creation being in a form of immaturity with an atonement/incarnation being inevitable from the beginning (a view that took off more in the Eastern church than in the West) is getting a second look.
                      "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


                      • #12
                        Umm...it doesn't have to be a slippery slope. One can understand the Genesis Passage to simply mean that "man fell" and reconcile the understanding that at some point sin happened. I think that's more the point what than how or when.
                        A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
                        George Bernard Shaw

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by seanD View Post
                          I would agree (albeit not adopt the belief myself) that evolution doesn't have to affect the foundations of Christianity, which is the resurrection, if...
                          Even resurrection may be somewhat affected. It seems that at least part of the point of resurrection (both Christ's resurrection and our future resurrection of the body) is that physical death is an evil to be conquered, a consequence of the Fall, and resurrection is victory over that evil. Thus the question can be raised: What is the point of resurrection if physical death is a good, natural part of God's Creation long before the Fall?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
                            Umm...it doesn't have to be a slippery slope. One can understand the Genesis Passage to simply mean that "man fell" and reconcile the understanding that at some point sin happened. I think that's more the point what than how or when.
                            One could also simply understand the gospels to mean that "God saves sinners" without intending the story of Jesus to be historical. You'll find no shortage of theologians who would affirm such a statement on the same grounds that they affirm a non-historical view of Genesis. That's what makes for a slippery slope, when one starts taking narrative accounts in Scripture and re-interpreting them thematically based not on the evidence of the text, but rather based on the fact that the text conflicts with some cherished belief of the World.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by RBerman View Post
                              One could also simply understand the gospels to mean that "God saves sinners" without intending the story of Jesus to be historical. You'll find no shortage of theologians who would affirm such a statement on the same grounds that they affirm a non-historical view of Genesis. That's what makes for a slippery slope, when one starts taking narrative accounts in Scripture and re-interpreting them thematically based not on the evidence of the text, but rather based on the fact that the text conflicts with some cherished belief of the World.
                              I agree. Excellent observations.
                              For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by seer, 10-21-2020, 12:37 PM
                              2 responses
                              40 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Faber, 10-13-2020, 03:13 PM
                              4 responses
                              26 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Faber
                              by Faber
                               
                              Started by Christian3, 10-09-2020, 08:37 AM
                              33 responses
                              194 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Andius
                              by Andius
                               
                              Started by mossrose, 10-07-2020, 08:10 PM
                              6 responses
                              36 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post mossrose  
                              Started by Thoughtful Monk, 09-26-2020, 07:50 PM
                              0 responses
                              6 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                              Working...
                              X