They Sold Their Souls

[Sir Adrian]

The Catholic church believing in evolution officially is absolutely not the same thing as "evolution being integrated into Christian reasoning for decades", because it's not true. The majority of Christian groups absolutely do not acknowledge the legitimacy of evolution - nor do you personally, if I recall.

https://protestia.com/2020/12/12/pew...-in-evolution/

Christians, especially in America, are far more likely to not believe in evolution compared to non-religious persons.

40% of American's don't believe in Evolution at all.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/...eationism.aspx

It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest there is any sort of consensus amongst the Christian community regarding the truth of evolution.



That just ignores the huge portion of believers who believe the bible is literally true.

31% of Americans for example believe the bible to be literally true, while even more believe it to be the inspired word of god.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/148427/...literally.aspx

The christian church has said that Genesis is an allegory and should not be taken literally since day 1. The fact that bunch of cultists and sectarians in America decided to go against 2000 years old teachings of the church does not change that fact.

The 5th east-wing pentecostal congregation of south Bullup county is not the majority of Christianity. The Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental churches are the majority of Christianity and all 3 agree, and have always agreed, that biblical literalism is a heresy.

[Lord Thesaurian]

To me Christianity was always centered on complete and total obedience to God. Nothing more, nothing less. So if the Bible in its entirety isn’t a precise instruction manual for how to do that then it is of no use to me. I’ve no interest in human tradition and no faith in things which aren’t at least consistent with observable reality.

[Abdülmecid I]

The 5th east-wing pentecostal congregation of south Bullup county is not the majority of Christianity. The Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental churches are the majority of Christianity and all 3 agree, and have always agreed, that biblical literalism is a heresy.

That's not true, literal interpretations of the Bible and especially the Genesis were in vogue since the beginning. There was no general consensus, but the most famous treatise on the subject, Saint Basil's Hexaemeron was pretty explicit on this regard:

There are those truly, who do not admit the common sense of the Scriptures, for whom water is not water, but some other nature, who see in a plant, in a fish, what their fancy wishes, who change the nature of reptiles and of wild beasts to suit their allegories, like the interpreters of dreams who explain visions in sleep to make them serve their own ends. For me grass is grass; plant, fish, wild beast, domestic animal, I take all in the literal sense. For I am not ashamed of the gospel. Romans 1:16

Why does Scripture say one day the first day? Before speaking to us of the second, the third, and the fourth days, would it not have been more natural to call that one the first which began the series? If it therefore says one day, it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day — we mean of a day and of a night; and if, at the time of the solstices, they have not both an equal length, the time marked by Scripture does not the less circumscribe their duration. It is as though it said: twenty-four hours measure the space of a day, or that, in reality a day is the time that the heavens starting from one point take to return there. Thus, every time that, in the revolution of the sun, evening and morning occupy the world, their periodical succession never exceeds the space of one day.

From the early theologians, Origen was the most favourable to allegorical interpretations, but his reputation has not been stellar among ecclesiastical circles. His teaching have been anathematised by the Orthodox Church and, ironically, he's viewed positively only among a few Protestant Churches.

[Cope]

To me Christianity was always centered on complete and total obedience to God. Nothing more, nothing less. So if the Bible in its entirety isn’t a precise instruction manual for how to do that then it is of no use to me.

Odd to claim that Christianity demands obedience to God only to complain that His divinely inspired Scripture is inadequate.

I’ve no interest in human tradition and no faith in things which aren’t at least consistent with observable reality.

Scientism (which is what I assume is meant by "observable reality") precludes the supernatural by necessity.

[Sir Adrian]

That's not true, literal interpretations of the Bible and especially the Genesis were in vogue since the beginning. There was no general consensus, but the most famous treatise on the subject, Saint Basil's Hexaemeron was pretty explicit on this regard:

Except that if you bother to read the whole thing St Basil does not comment at all on the literalism of the events as he never believed the world was made in 7 literal days, only that everything was the will of God and that the sequence of events was more or less correct. On the flip side you have other fathers of the Church such as Iraeneus of Lyon who was pretty adamant about genesis not being a literal book

As for Origen, he is controversial because of his belief in universalism, not because of his teachings on genesis. In fact his teachings on genesis have been included in the Philokalia

[Akar]

Odd to claim that Christianity demands obedience to God only to complain that His divinely inspired Scripture is inadequate.

No? No it's not. What are you even saying?

Scientism (which is what I assume is meant by "observable reality") precludes the supernatural by necessity.

Because supernatural means something that exists outside of nature and the natural process. The very definition of the word places it inherently outside of the realm of scientific explanation.

[Cope]

No? No it's not. What are you even saying?

Questioning Scripture (i.e. claiming it to be an insufficient personal "instruction manual") is not consistent with the prior suggestion that God is to be obeyed without question.

Because supernatural means something that exists outside of nature and the natural process. The very definition of the word places it inherently outside of the realm of scientific explanation.

Glad we agree. Although I used the term scientism because science does not preclude other ways of knowing.

[Akar]

Where did he say "obey without question"?

[Prodromos]

As explained:

All right, but I was hoping you'd address some of the specific criticisms I raised in my first post, such as the problem of suffering and death before Adam's Fall.

The Bible states that death came into the world through Adam's sin and that death is an enemy which Christ came to defeat. Adam's Fall is presented as a cosmic catastrophe which ruins the purity and excellence of the prelapsarian world. In contrast, evolutionary theory seems to posit that death was already part of the world for millions of years prior to Adam and suggests that suffering, predation, disease and death are not negative consequences of the Fall but were actually part of God's original and "very good" design for the world. Is that something you'd affirm, and how would you resolve these seeming inconsistencies between the Biblical and evolutionary accounts?

It should be added that, even though the issue is interesting in its own right, I don't view it as fundamental. Disbelieving in evolution is unlikely to lead one away from Christ.

I agree for the most part, but I think one's view on evolution can reveal a great deal about where they fall on other, more essential issues like the authority and reliability of God's Word. I also think it's important for Christians flirting with evolutionary theory to be fully cognizant of its entailments; sometimes an idea can seem harmless on the surface but when taken to its logical conclusion can conflict with other things we know to be good and true.

As for Origen, he is controversial because of his belief in universalism, not because of his teachings on genesis. In fact his teachings on genesis have been included in the Philokalia

Origin held to young-earth creationism.

After these statements, Celsus, from a secret desire to cast discredit upon the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that, while concealing his wish, intimates his agreement with those who hold that the world is uncreated. For, maintaining that there have been, from all eternity, many conflagrations and many deluges, and that the flood which lately took place in the time of Deucalion is comparatively modern, he clearly demonstrates to those who are able to understand him, that, in his opinion, the world was uncreated. But let this assailant of the Christian faith tell us by what arguments he was compelled to accept the statement that there have been many conflagrations and many cataclysms, and that the flood which occurred in the time of Deucalion, and the conflagration in that of Phæthon, were more recent than any others. And if he should put forward the dialogues of Plato (as evidence) on these subjects, we shall say to him that it is allowable for us also to believe that there resided in the pure and pious soul of Moses, who ascended above all created things, and united himself to the Creator of the universe, and who made known divine things with far greater clearness than Plato, or those other wise men (who lived) among the Greeks and Romans, a spirit which was divine. And if he demands of us our reasons for such a belief, let him first give grounds for his own unsupported assertions, and then we shall show that this view of ours is the correct one.

CHURCH FATHERS: Contra Celsum, Book I (Origen)

The christian church has said that Genesis is an allegory and should not be taken literally since day 1. The fact that bunch of cultists and sectarians in America decided to go against 2000 years old teachings of the church does not change that fact.

The 5th east-wing pentecostal congregation of south Bullup county is not the majority of Christianity. The Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental churches are the majority of Christianity and all 3 agree, and have always agreed, that biblical literalism is a heresy.

Sorry, but that's not true. It's beyond dispute that young-earth creationism was the dominant position among historical professed Christians, including the Fathers of the Eastern church.

Seraphim Rose, a prominent Eastern Orthodox theologian, investigated the teachings of the Eastern Fathers on creation. He found that of the Fathers who wrote commentaries on Genesis, all held to young-earth creationism. His lectures, letters and articles on the subject were published in the 700-page volume Genesis, Creation and Early Man. From a review of the book:

Among the details of Genesis 1–11 that the ‘Holy Fathers’ (even the most mystical ones) clearly took literally are these: length of days (24-hours), order of Creation events (e. g. earth and plants before the Sun), instantaneous creation of living things with maturity (e. g. Adam being created as an adult not an infant, plants with fruit on the branches, etc.),5 Adam created from the dust and Eve from Adam’s rib, Adam’s naming of the animals, a literal talking serpent in the literal Garden of Eden, a global Flood, the 900-year life-spans of the pre-Flood patriarchs, and the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 (no gaps, strictly chronological). They were not dogmatic about the precise age of the earth since the Greek text of the OT (Septuagint (LXX)—preferred by Orthodox theologians) and Hebrew (Masoretic) text disagreed (which didn‘t bother the ‘Fathers’),6 but they placed it approximately at 5500 BC.

...

But while EO theology affirms that Scripture is divinely inspired, that Genesis is ‘the only inerrant account of Creation the world has ever known’ (p. 586), and that we should not ‘accept every word of the Fathers’ (p. 83), in reality EO locates its supreme authority in the writing of the ‘Holy Fathers,’ who were also ‘God-inspired’ (p. 409). They believe that the ‘Holy Fathers’ had (and some have today) the light of ‘Divine vision (theoria)’, by which Moses received the text of Genesis, and so are ‘the only sure interpreters of Moses‘ text’ (pp. 43, 586), as Rose and his editor repeatedly emphasize (e. g. ‘the whole world outlook and philosophy of life for an Orthodox Christian may be found in the Holy Fathers’ [p. 393], ‘the unquestionable authority of a Holy Father’ [p. 415] and ‘our only wisdom comes from the Holy Fathers, and all that contradicts it is a lie’ [p. 453]).

The idea that young-earth creationism is a modern or evangelical departure from Christian tradition is simply not backed by the historical evidence. YEC was the dominant view of the 'Church Fathers', held even by the most radical allegorizers like Origen. It was held through the medieval era (including by 'Doctors of the Church' like Bede and Aquinas) and then by all major Protestant Reformers, including Luther and Calvin.

[fkizz]

Akar doesn't believe that abiogenesis is anything other than a term to describe a process.

A process occurred, whereby existing organic compounds and other non-living matter went from having near living properties to having living properties. Acknowledging that there are grey areas in understanding this process doesn't undermine that we have evidence that this process occurred.

There are a number of competing theories on how this process occurred, and you can add the hand of god in there if you like. But a process did occur.

In this context, your semantic argument is unreasonable. It is not a question of belief, but a question of seeking to understand how something that is evidenced to have happened, did so.

He said abiogenesis was the thing he went for, I asked why (not to explain again what was taught in biology and chemestry classes). Well seems there was no why to back it up.
If my argument is unreasonable, his post was too ambitious and shouldn't be used in discussions regarding the Origin of Life.

The Bible states that death came into the world through Adam's sin and that death is an enemy which Christ came to defeat. Adam's Fall is presented as a cosmic catastrophe which ruins the purity and excellence of the prelapsarian world. In contrast, evolutionary theory seems to posit that death was already part of the world for millions of years prior to Adam and suggests that suffering, predation, disease and death are not negative consequences of the Fall but were actually part of God's original and "very good" design for the world. Is that something you'd affirm, and how would you resolve these seeming inconsistencies between the Biblical and evolutionary accounts?

There was a functionality reason for millenia one was suposed to study 6-8 years before interpreting the Bible. If Bible was literal, not even one year would be needed in traditional settings.

Origin held to young-earth creationism.
Sorry, but that's not true. It's beyond dispute that young-earth creationism was the dominant position among historical professed Christians, including the Fathers of the Eastern church.

Define young earth creationism. You're mixing up people of almost 2 millenia ago with modern protestant denominations today, when ancient Christianity always went for non-literalism in the Bible.
YEC as the modern phenomna of a 6000 year earth is honestly beyond me, Sumeria is ~6000 years old and epic of gilgamesh speaks of a giant flood and pre-flood people, same for Xia Dinasty in Ancient China claims of a giant flood, 6000 years YEC are ironically sceptical of the great flood given there is very little time left to make the flood relevant to such a point.

That said in ancient times geology was less advanced and even knowing the earth was round people had to trust math and numbers ran by astrologists and math enthusiasts, even in Ancient Athens. Creationism vs whatever else of the time wasn't a religious issue but a product of its time.

So the Bible was never intended to be interpreted literally, in middle ages there was ~7 year period training before you would qualify to be an official interpreter for a reason, just knowing what it said or reading it wouldn't do the job, and in Roman times it wasn't meant to be taken literally.
Biblical literalism went viral when a several layers-depth text became an easy surface read, like reading the newspaper.

Actually before Council of Nicea one of the problems of Constantine was Bishops being too flexible on Biblical interpretation, Coucil of Nicea demanded consensus, its mere existance and Sponsorship by the Emperor wouldn't make sense if Biblical Literalism was already thing.

[Lord Thesaurian]

It would appear that what one might consider mainstream Christianity in the US has moved on from the question of how to confront evolutionary biology with some sort of alternative, Biblically consistent science some time ago. It’s a matter of how to reconcile Biblical Christianity with reality.

The Adam account in Genesis has long been subjected to scientific challenges, but "there was a lot of wiggle room in the past. The human genome sequencing took that wiggle room away" during the past decade, said Randall Isaac, executive director of the American Scientific Affiliation (asa), which has been discussing Adam issues for decades. The organization's 1,600 members, Collins among them, affirm the Bible's "divine inspiration, trustworthiness, and authority" on "faith and conduct," though not on scientific concepts.
The unnerving new genetic science was assessed with considerable detail in last September's issue of the ASA journal Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. The articles were elaborated versions of papers delivered at the ASA's 2009 annual meeting at Baylor University, the organization's first major discussion of the Adam question that included religion scholars as well as scientists.

Foundational confessions of faith from the Protestant Reformation assume a historical Adam, and official Roman Catholicism defined this teaching at the 1546 Council of Trent, in the 1950 encyclical Humani Generis of Pope Pius XII (who cautiously allowed leeway for humanity's bodily evolution), and in the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church.

So, is the Adam and Eve question destined to become a groundbreaking science-and-Scripture dispute, a 21st-century equivalent of the once disturbing proof that the Earth orbits the sun? The potential is certainly there: the emerging science could be seen to challenge not only what Genesis records about the creation of humanity but the species's unique status as bearing the "image of God," Christian doctrine on original sin and the Fall, the genealogy of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke, and, perhaps most significantly, Paul's teaching that links the historical Adam with redemption through Christ (Rom. 5:12-19; 1 Cor. 15:20-23, 42-49; and his speech in Acts 17).

[….] Pastor Tim Keller offered a workshop paper laying out in irenic but firm terms a conservative stance on Paul's view of the first humans. "[Paul] most definitely wanted to teach us that Adam and Eve were real historical figures. When you refuse to take a biblical author literally when he clearly wants you to do so, you have moved away from the traditional understanding of the biblical authority," Keller wrote. "If Adam doesn't exist, Paul's whole argument—that both sin and grace work 'covenantally'—falls apart. You can't say that 'Paul was a man of his time' but we can accept his basic teaching about Adam. If you don't believe what he believes about Adam, you are denying the core of Paul's teaching."

South Carolina pastor Richard Phillips, a blogger with the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and chair of the Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology, sees serious doctrinal danger if the historical Adam disappears. "Can the Bible's theology be true if the historical events on which the theology is based are false?" he asks. If science trumps Scripture, what does this mean for the virgin birth of Jesus, or his miracles, or his resurrection? "The hermeneutics behind theistic evolution are a Trojan horse that, once inside our gates, must cause the entire fortress of Christian belief to fall."

What next with Adam and Eve? "It seems urgent that the best people stop trading emails and get together for a real meeting in the same room," Cromartie said. He wants leading evangelical thinkers in science and Scripture to jointly work out an accord, because otherwise this problem "could produce a huge split right through the heart of conservative, orthodox, historic Christianity."
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct...ricaladam.html

[basics]

Now you see how it is that man has sold his soul. God made in six wonderful days everything to be mature and up and running only some six thousand odd years ago and such was the complexity in that making science has been thrown out in terms of time and man in his knowledge. Being in sin he would rather grasp on to anything rather than believe God and so nothing has really changed in this fallen world.

[Cope]

All right, but I was hoping you'd address some of the specific criticisms I raised in my first post, such as the problem of suffering and death before Adam's Fall.

The Bible states that death came into the world through Adam's sin and that death is an enemy which Christ came to defeat. Adam's Fall is presented as a cosmic catastrophe which ruins the purity and excellence of the prelapsarian world. In contrast, evolutionary theory seems to posit that death was already part of the world for millions of years prior to Adam and suggests that suffering, predation, disease and death are not negative consequences of the Fall but were actually part of God's original and "very good" design for the world. Is that something you'd affirm, and how would you resolve these seeming inconsistencies between the Biblical and evolutionary accounts?

I agree for the most part, but I think one's view on evolution can reveal a great deal about where they fall on other, more essential issues like the authority and reliability of God's Word. I also think it's important for Christians flirting with evolutionary theory to be fully cognizant of its entailments; sometimes an idea can seem harmless on the surface but when taken to its logical conclusion can conflict with other things we know to be good and true.

The criticism is structured around the assumption that the story of Adam is literal rather than literary (hence the prior explanations being treated as inadequate). The alleged contradiction requires that I acknowledge the narrative as an historical account.

As above, I don’t view the disagreement as consequential. Scripture was not intended to detail the infinite complexities of the universe, nor was it intended to blunt our faculties. As per the Lewis explanation provided above, the “logical conclusion” of evolution is neither the nonexistence of God nor the fallibility of Scripture.

[fkizz]

As above, I don’t view the disagreement as consequential. Scripture was not intended to detail the infinite complexities of the universe, nor was it intended to blunt our faculties. As per the Lewis explanation provided above, the “logical conclusion” of evolution is neither the nonexistence of God nor the fallibility of Scripture.

Exactly. Also if "science is meant to trump scripture" then that kinda puts the Scientists in the XXI century Clergy people. People need to decide if they want to see Scientists as Scientists, or more Research Focused Priests and Bishops.

Pope Francis has a Masters Degree in Chemestry, he is a Clergy person. The two areas are suposed to not interfere with each other in theory at least.

Now you see how it is that man has sold his soul. God made in six wonderful days everything to be mature and up and running only some six thousand odd years ago and such was the complexity in that making science has been thrown out in terms of time and man in his knowledge. Being in sin he would rather grasp on to anything rather than believe God and so nothing has really changed in this fallen world.

With all respect, but suppose the new claim is that Earth is 8000 years old or 9000 years old. Everything else stays the same. Would it affect your faith?

[Akar]

He said abiogenesis was the thing he went for, I asked why (not to explain again what was taught in biology and chemestry classes). Well seems there was no why to back it up.

"Why" is an illogical question, as Antaeus already explained to you. The "Why" is because that's what it's called when life arises from non-living matter.

Pope Francis has a Masters Degree in Chemestry, he is a Clergy person. The two areas are suposed to not interfere with each other in theory at least.

Okay, but he's a Catholic, one of the few Christian groups that openly admit the validity of evolution.

[EmperorBatman999]

Regarding Evolution and in relationship to whether the Bible should be read as literal or allegory, we need to consider that Christ spoke almost constantly as a teacher through parables. He gives his followers a story or a metaphor for them to use their God-given faculties to ponder. As God speaks through Christ, we can say that that allegory is part of the language of God, and that this allegorical messaging also reflects in the moral lessons of the Old Testament, right down to Genesis.

Where did he say "obey without question"?

There are several instances. Most prominently there are the Commandments handed down to Moses:

You shall have no other gods before me.

We can take this to insist on the primacy of the one God. He is the ultimate authority for humanity.

Fear the LORD your God, serve Him only, and take your oaths in His name...Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you; for the Lord your God, who is among you, is a jealous God and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land

Here we see a reference to service to God, and in a threatening and demanding tone.

And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

Again, a demand for love and service, calling for the whole human body, mind, and spirit to serve God. Jesus then reflects this back in Matthew 23:37.

We also see this in the New Testament

It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'

This reflects back on Deuteronomy and other OT scriptures.

All of these are some of the most oft-quoted scriptures in the western churches, and they reflect the primacy that God is supposed to have in our lives and our faith, and that means complete, unquestioning obedience to Him.

[Akar]

I wasn't asking where it appears in the bible, I was asking where Legio had said it.

[Cope]

I wasn't asking where it appears in the bible, I was asking where Legio had said it.

"Complete and total obedience" suggests obedience without question. Hence the oddity of the claim.

[Akar]

No, it doesn't?

It means you obey it totally and completely.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Oddities can be pretty cool.