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?
Announcement
Collapse
Why is human evolution not a slippery slope?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostI 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?
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>
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostI 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?-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
-
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
-
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
-
Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View PostWho says TE cant be reconciled with the idea of a literal Adam?
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostYou 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 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
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostYes, 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).
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostSo 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.
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
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostThe 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostI 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.
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
-
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
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostI would agree (albeit not adopt the belief myself) that evolution doesn't have to affect the foundations of Christianity, which is the resurrection, if...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Catholicity View PostUmm...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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RBerman View PostOne 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.For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Thoughtful Monk, 04-14-2024, 04:34 PM
|
5 responses
49 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-28-2024, 05:40 PM | ||
Started by One Bad Pig, 04-10-2024, 12:35 PM
|
0 responses
28 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
04-10-2024, 12:35 PM
|
||
Started by NorrinRadd, 04-13-2022, 12:54 AM
|
45 responses
342 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by NorrinRadd
04-12-2024, 04:35 PM
|
||
Started by Zymologist, 07-09-2019, 01:18 PM
|
369 responses
17,369 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by NorrinRadd
04-27-2024, 01:18 PM
|
Comment