Theistic evolution makes no sense

[Akar]

It may turn out less mangificent than you had hoped, given that I strongly disagree with basics' neo-Calvinist convictions of predestination as a Catholic, but here is an answer from someone considering themselves a Christian:

The self-sacrifice on the cross erased that very original sin basics speaks about for everyone. It is not predetermined that only a small number will be saved. The free will granted to humans furnishes everyone with the capacity to not sin or to repent once they have sinned.
Humans are fallible and imperfect beings, but the divine grace and mercy is in every aspect greater than the human capacity to sin. (cf. the Augsburg Join Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, wherein the Catholic and Lutheran churches agreed that salvation is based on divine grace alone and that is sufficient.)
Hell is not an eternal torment but the self-chosen aversion from God, which in a Christian point of view is bad enough as it is for (self inflicted) punishment. This state may last arbitrarily long (given free will), but not eternally, because ultimately divine grace overcomes human obstinacy. (If you want to discuss the difference between arbitrarily long and eternal, i.e. mathematically speaking the difference between arbitrarily large numbers and infinity, we should do so separately in the Athenaeum.)

In short, dead babies go to heaven.

Amen, urbi et orbi, deus lo vult, or whatever you would be expecting Catholics to say.

This is a great reply, thank you. If I was a christian, this is the kind of christian I would want to be.

In short, dead babies go to heaven.

Well, you don't need to affirm universal salvation or appeal to extrabiblical tradition to believe in infant salvation. Even just going off of Scripture alone, you can make a strong case that all babies (and mentally handicapped adults) go to heaven.

Which leads to my follow up question:

So then is abortion ever morally wrong? If every dead baby goes to heaven, isn't abortion always the moral choice? The chances of all of those babies growing up to become christians is less than 100%, whereas if you were to abort them all then 100% would go to heaven.

[Iskar]

@Prodromos: Well, for quite some time during the history of Christianity opinions prevailed that held that divine grace alone was not enough, but required baptism and good deeds as well for salvation. Hence the need to baptise newborns as quickly as possible lest they die unbaptised of post birth complications.

It was in fact one of Luther's more poignant theses that humans are not saved by their good deeds but sola gratia - by divine grace alone. In the Augsburg declaration the Catholic church actually agreed to this position of Luther in the wake of the Vatican II reforms.

There has furthermore been the debate whether "righteous" people died before the birth of Christ were saved or not. In Dante's Divina Commedia the opinion is still visible that these people would go to some sort of realm-in-between, the purgatory, as - unbaptised - they could not go to heaven, but - righteous - could neither go to hell. This has only in modern times been resolved by the concept of "exculpable ignorance": The church holds that people are not barred from heaven simply because they had no chance to know of Christ historically or by other circumstances (early death, mental impairment, isolated life without contact to missionaries).

Which leads to my follow up question:

So then is abortion ever morally wrong? If every dead baby goes to heaven, isn't abortion always the moral choice? The chances of all of those babies growing up to become christians is less than 100%, whereas if you were to abort them all then 100% would go to heaven.

By that logic murdering everyone would be the moral choice in every case, since by divine grace in the end everyone could go to heaven.
However, by Christian belief, life is granted by God, hence taking it prematurely is wrong, as life was given to us for a purpose. (God could have just created us all in heaven to begin with, but that is not the case, hence by premise of God not being a maniac doing random things for no reason, there must be a purpose for our worldly existence.)
Hence taking that life from a baby, born or yet-to-be-born, deprives that baby of ever exerting its God-given free will and making moral choices of its own. Hence it is morally wrong.*

---

*Of course there is a whole rat's tail of caveats regarding abortions where there are medical or psychological indications (like complications leading to the mother's death when untended to, the cases of rape victims, etc.). This is an entire discussion of its own, but I'd dare to anticipate the bottom line of my position on this: Every life than can be saved, should be saved, and instead of condemning women who see themselves forced to abort by social, medical or psychological circumstances, the church should do everything to enable them to have their baby or offer what consolation there is, when it cannot be saved. Some constellations are always tragic in the classical sense (like mother-or-child choices in case of medical complications, or cases of rape where the mother is herself deeply scarred mentally and physically) and there can never be an entirely "good" outcome by human means alone.

[Prodromos]

Which leads to my follow up question:

So then is abortion ever morally wrong? If every dead baby goes to heaven, isn't abortion always the moral choice? The chances of all of those babies growing up to become christians is less than 100%, whereas if you were to abort them all then 100% would go to heaven.

No, because abortion is still the deliberate killing of an innocent human being and hence unlawful, and doing evil that good may result is evil. (Romans 3:8)

We don't know the mechanism of infant salvation. For example, it could be that God has ordered the universe in such a way that the only people who die in childhood are those who would've accepted him as adults, so killing children to save them is pointless. In general, any human attempt to 'game' the system of salvation is futile.

[Akar]

Those are both great answers, thank you guys.

[basics]

Jesus' words were that, " No man may enter heaven unless he is born again of the Spirit of God," or " No man can come to the Father except by Me and no man can come to Me except the Father draws him." That is the only way a person can enter God's house. So, if one assumes that dead babies go to heaven then one must assume that every single dead baby of any race or creed is in heaven without having been born again. Again Jesus says to the rulers of Israel that they were conceived in sin and if so being sinners from conception how is it that they get into heaven even if they died as babies? There is no Biblical evidence for such a thing why? Because it destroys Justification by Faith which is by the Grace of God. Some suggest that a dead child is covered by its parents but only if the parents are born again but that is even questionable and perhaps wishful thinking.

As for abortion one cannot complain when it is called murder. Life begins at conception and so to tear out a fetus from its mother's womb is murder, and quite premeditated.

[Iskar]

The physical act of dying on the cross may have happened at a particular point of time in history due to the necessary temporal constraints of Christ being vere homo (besides vere deus), but the transcendent act of salvation corresponding to the physical sacrifice on the cross is - as the will of a super-temporal creator - super-temporal itself: It saves every human at any place in any time from Original Sin. That is the universal rebirth effectuated by God and granted to everyone by grace alone that you so jealously want to guard for a select few.

[Cope]

Separation between the saved and the condemned is well established in Scripture. Justice cannot prevail without it. The sophistry and inventions of the Roman church should be ignored.

Matthew 5:20

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 7:12-14

12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Matthew 24:21-23

21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

Matthew 24:44-51

44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.
45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?
46 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.
48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,
51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Mark 13:27

27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

2 Timothy 2:9-10

9 Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound.
10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

[Muizer]

Separation between the saved and the condemned is well established in Scripture. Justice cannot prevail without it. The sophistry and inventions of the Roman church should be ignored.

Without sophistry, no religion.

[basics]

The physical act of dying on the cross may have happened at a particular point of time in history due to the necessary temporal constraints of Christ being vere homo (besides vere deus), but the transcendent act of salvation corresponding to the physical sacrifice on the cross is - as the will of a super-temporal creator - super-temporal itself: It saves every human at any place in any time from Original Sin. That is the universal rebirth effectuated by God and granted to everyone by grace alone that you so jealously want to guard for a select few.

Ishkar,

No, Jesus' actions on the cross saves only those whose names are in the book of life. If His blood covered every person then every person could enter heaven but that is clearly not the case. His blood covered only the elect of His Father Who gave them to Him even before the worlds were formed. Jesus declared this when He said, " All that the Father hast given Me I have lost not one, " and there is a hell awaiting whom? Why those on the wide path heading directly to that place. The elect are a people separated from the world by rebirth, those that Jesus said are born again, a new creation in Him. Christ was never bound by anything apart from His preordained destiny to be " The Lamb of God sacrificed before the worlds were made." This wasn't sprung on Him for I believe He carried that knowledge the day He took up union with the egg of Mary that was prepared for Him. He always knew why He was here on this planet and if He had any restraint it was time, the Father's time again set before the worlds were made.

Concerning the physical act of dying may I say bad as that was, it was the Spiritual act of dying by His Father's wrath which played the deeper role. The curse of wrath laid on every single person that He died for was placed on Him being their substitute something we can never quite grasp. The Law had to be satisfied and satisfied, one hundred, one thousand, one hundred thousand, millions and more times over as He hung there. I can imagine what my sins would have done for me had I been physically on that cross and just physically been killed but to take on the Spiritual wrath of God His Father as well one would think that all men would fall on their faces in sheer worship at such a sacrifice. The sad thing is that they don't for the most and can't for the most because all are dead in their sin. The only thing that can awaken them is when God the Father reveals His Son's sacrifice for them, to them, then regeneration can take place, only then do they get on the narrow road.

[Iskar]

@Cope: People may, according to their righteousness or lack thereof, spend longer in self-chosen aversion from God (read "weeping and gnashing of teeth") upon parousia, but there is no way the finite human capacity to sin could outlast the infinite divine grace.

No, Jesus' actions on the cross saves only those whose names are in the book of life.

Then why do you even preach to us about it? Those of us who are predestined don't need preaching, obviously, and on those who are not it is wasted. Your missionary attitude is entirely inconsistent with your stated convictions.

If His blood covered every person then every person could enter heaven but that is clearly not the case.

How would you know? Have you seen the ranks of the blessed with your own eyes?

His blood covered only the elect of His Father Who gave them to Him even before the worlds were formed. Jesus declared this when He said, " All that the Father hast given Me I have lost not one, "

Why should that not include everyone?

Concerning the physical act of dying may I say bad as that was, it was the Spiritual act of dying by His Father's wrath which played the deeper role. The curse of wrath laid on every single person that He died for was placed on Him being their substitute something we can never quite grasp.

Christ being a mere substitute sacrifice so we don't have to be nailed to the cross ourselves is a rather base view. Christ was - vere deus - free of sin, and hence cannot be subject to God's (his own!) wrath. He did not take the sins of mankind upon him, he took them away, which makes the difference between a petty quasi-legal shift of guilt and the supreme act of divine grace.

[Cope]

@Cope: People may, according to their righteousness or lack thereof, spend longer in self-chosen aversion from God (read "weeping and gnashing of teeth") upon parousia, but there is no way the finite human capacity to sin could outlast the infinite divine grace.

Human beings die; the abyss of death is the ultimate consequence of sin. There is no basis in Scripture for the idea of "self-chosen aversion" beyond the grave. God's elect will overcome death as Christ did. Their reward is eternal life.

Luke 23:39-43

39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

[Iskar]

That part only states that the humble one went straight to paradise. It does not say that the other one went to eternal torment without any possibility of repentance and redemption.

[Cope]

That part only states that the humble one went straight to paradise. It does not say that the other one went to eternal torment without any possibility of repentance and redemption.

I did not claim that the unrepentant endure eternal torment; I suggested that their punishment is the finality of death (though there is clear evidence of the hell fire). The purpose of the quote was to show that God's elect have, like Christ, conquered death.

[Iskar]

Death has been entirely overcome on Easter Sunday, there cannot be anymore absolute finality to it.

[Cope]

Death has been entirely overcome on Easter Sunday, there cannot be anymore absolute finality to it.

Death is overcome for the faithful (that is the elect) alone.

John 3:16

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

John 11:25-26

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

2 Timothy 4:8

Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

The faithless shall experience the abyss of death.

Romans 6:23

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Psalm 115:17

The dead do not praise the Lord, nor do any who go down into silence.

Ecclesiates 9:10

Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

[alhoon]

Akar,

The curse of sin belongs to us all so in Jesus' own words being conceived in sin makes us sinners from the beginning of our lives. No one is innocent.

God also said that the kingdom of heaven belongs to them. When Jesus said that we're born in sin, it doesn't mean we don't get to heaven, it just means we're born in sin and we will sin during our lives. That we're not innocent doesn't mean we will not get into Heaven because just as you said nobody is innocent.
You take the Bible way too literal. As God says in pretty much each of the gospels, the way His teaching works are not direct or literal as we're expected to do our own thinking. Yes, we will err, but we can find forgiveness besides that. We will certainly err as we're too small to understand God.

God will decide in His mercy who gets to heaven. We don't know who is blocked from heaven, we know what we have to do to get to heaven. We don't know how others will be judged. There's a parable about it, about the worker that wakes up early and does his job and gets the pre-arranged salary while other workers that show up late also take the same salary. You do what you have to do but your path to heaven is personal and you'll be judged fairly and with love.

Saying that unbaptized babies can't get to heaven is not ironclad. When Jesus died, he taught the dead so they would have the chance to earn redemption.
Who is to say that the unbaptized babies won't be given such a chance? Or people that died before listening the word of God? We know that God loves us all, that He wants all of us to be saved. I am sure, in His mercy He will find a way to judge the unbaptized fairly so they will have their chance to enter Heaven.

Let me give you an example: The bandit next to Jesus was not baptized. And he got to Heaven because God is merciful. If that bandit was given a chance, why do you automatically assume that unbaptized babies won't be given a chance?
We don't know.

[Iskar]

Death is overcome for the faithful (that is the elect) alone.





The faithless shall experience the abyss of death.

Everyone has been given the capacity to have faith in time. There is no reason why "the faithless" should eschatologically not end up being the empty set.

[Cope]

Everyone has been given the capacity to have faith in time. There is no reason why "the faithless" should eschatologically not end up being the empty set.

If we accept Ecclesiates and Pslams (and many other parts of the Old Testament) the dead have ceased to exist. They have passed into the abyss and are beyond redemption.

Gensis 3:19

In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Humanity's inheritance of death as a consequence of Adam's sin prompts God to offer life as a reward for righteousness. This idea is introduced as early as the Great Flood and is fulfilled by the crucifixion.

Genisis 6:17-18

And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

The separation of the righteous from the wicked will continue at the time of the resurrection. The faithful will be saved for all time and the wicked punished for all time. The idea of a post judgement judgement is not Scriptural.

Daniel 12:2

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Matthew 25:31-46

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand,Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

[Iskar]

That presumes that judgement is a point in time, with a distinctive "before" and "after". But since judgement, reckoning, parousia, second coming (call it what you will) is an act of God, who is above time and space, I think confining it such is extrapolating human limitations of thought in an inadmissible way. (Even the word "act of God" is somewhat inadequate, as "act" implies being bound by the passage of time.)

If I had to approach it with human means, I'd rather seek the analogy from relativity: Just as the Big Bang is not the beginning of time, as beginning implies a relation to a preexisting timescale, the parousia would not be the end of time, but a point where all of time is concentrated.

The Scripture was written by humans shaped by their particular experience of life and knowledge and understanding available to them and we must burn away the slag of that historical context to approach the divine truths they were inspired with to write down. Maybe people in 70AD Judea could not conceive of time being actually part of curvable spacetime, concepts of supratemporality etc., but we are, and we were given brains by God for a reason, to ever better understand his creation and ever closer approach the truths contained in Scripture, as buried as they may be below historical ballast and personal bias of the human writers.

[Cope]

That presumes that judgement is a point in time, with a distinctive "before" and "after". But since judgement, reckoning, parousia, second coming (call it what you will) is an act of God, who is above time and space, I think confining it such is extrapolating human limitations of thought in an inadmissible way. (Even the word "act of God" is somewhat inadequate, as "act" implies being bound by the passage of time.)

If I had to approach it with human means, I'd rather seek the analogy from relativity: Just as the Big Bang is not the beginning of time, as beginning implies a relation to a preexisting timescale, the parousia would not be the end of time, but a point where all of time is concentrated.

The text specifically refers to it as the "day of judgement" (Matt. 12:36), "the last day" (John 12:48) and the "day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus." (Rom. 2:16). The language is clearly expressing a temporal event in much the same way as the beginning of creation (also a temporal event) is noted.

The Scripture was written by humans shaped by their particular experience of life and knowledge and understanding available to them and we must burn away the slag of that historical context to approach the divine truths they were inspired with to write down. Maybe people in 70AD Judea could not conceive of time being actually part of curvable spacetime, concepts of supratemporality etc., but we are, and we were given brains by God for a reason, to ever better understand his creation and ever closer approach the truths contained in Scripture, as buried as they may be below historical ballast and personal bias of the human writers.

In other words, you prefer you own philosophies to what is written. I refer you to my original comment.

Separation between the saved and the condemned is well established in Scripture. Justice cannot prevail without it. The sophistry and inventions of the Roman church should be ignored.