# Jesus Would Believe in Evolution and So Should You



## ClayPot (Apr 10, 2011)

Before I get kicked off the board, that is the title of the article at the following link, not my opinion:

My Take: Jesus would believe in evolution and so should you – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

This makes my angry and sad. Many non-believers are encouraged in their God-hating when members of the church espouse these types of beliefs.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 10, 2011)

> They hold on to a particular interpretation of an ancient story in Genesis that they have fashioned into a modern account of origins - a story that began as an oral tradition for a wandering tribe of Jews thousands of years ago.





> This is but one of many, many evidences that support the truth of evolution - that make it a “sacred fact” that Christians must embrace in the name of truth.



Typical of a theistic evolutionist to downplay Scripture and what it teaches and should be learned from it, and exalt the popular naturalistic view of origins of current science.

"Hath God really said ?" all over again.


----------



## Curt (Apr 10, 2011)

I didn't notice a lot of Scriptural evidence for his opinion regarding Biblical subjects.


----------



## brianeschen (Apr 11, 2011)

Interestingly enough, this is similar to what is being promoted in a Christian homeschool curriculum. A Review of Peter Enns’ Bible Curriculum « Johannes Weslianus


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 12, 2011)

I think that evolution is one of the single greatest apologetical tasks facing the church today. The problem is we don't realize how pervasive evolutionary thinking is, example. I was watching the movie "cloudy with a chance of meatballs" with my 8 year old daughter a few weeks ago or more and in the movie, *spoiler alert!*, a sattelite basically shoots up into the sky and rains down any kind of food you want. But when it gets out of control and the inventor goes into the sky to stop it they discover that through a series of small changes and additions of food the sattelite has become "self-concious" and tries to stop them. This idea of small mainly physical changes that produce a whole new type of thing, self-concious verses nonself-concious, is evolutionary logic to its core. So there I was amazed that they would seep this type of ideas into a childrens movie just to advance their worldview. Someone once said that the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world that he didn't exist. I say that the second greatest trick the devil pulled was to realize that if he changes the way that we ordinaraly talk about things he can change how we think about things. He is doing this for evolution in our societies, when two love struck, probably young people, talk about just happening to meet eachother, implying an almost random meeting, and being "perfect" for eachother is changing the way we talk into evolutionary ways of thinking. This change in talk softens the blow when they ask us to blindly accept evolution as truth when it is false.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 12, 2011)

Since the roots of evolutionary theory pre-date the Incarnation by about 3 centuries (e.g., Aristotle), the idea that Jesus would believe in evolution if He were around is pure fantasy.

Incidentally, the title of that article betrays the unbiblical nature of all this. Jesus "would believe" implies that He is absent from history. He is not. He is alive and well and risen and ascended. And He still does not believe in evolution. Attempting to speculate on what Jesus would think -- apart from biblical revelation -- is dangerously close to rank idolatry.


----------



## sastark (Apr 12, 2011)

So, I read the opinion piece linked to in the OP. James, I think you are correct that evolution is the single largest apologetic challenge facing the Church today (at least, it is in the top 3!). The arrogance and the ignorance of the article is disgusting. Biologos is a horrible institution and anyone associated with it should be swiftly driven from our churches!


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Apr 12, 2011)

> Interestingly enough, this is similar to what is being promoted in a Christian homeschool curriculum. A Review of Peter Enns’ Bible Curriculum « Johannes Weslianus






> As for how to teach our children about sin, Dr. Enns writes:
> 
> What should not be emphasized is the child’s miserable state of sin and the need for a savior.
> 
> ...



That's just plan scary. How can you have good biblical parenting without this emphasis?


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 12, 2011)

"In Adam's fall, we sinned all." That's how Puritan children learned their ABC's, Dr. Enns.


----------



## jwithnell (Apr 12, 2011)

I was at the Science and Faith Conference at Westminster last weekend and one speaker mentioned that some adopt a theistic evolutionary position for the very dubious reason that it would specifically appeal to the non-believer. 



> What should not be emphasized is the child’s miserable state of sin and the need for a savior.


Disclaimer: I'm fully aware of the writer's theological shortcomings. However, there is a distinction between paedo- and credo- baptism in this statement and it's entirely possible that Enns statement is driven by his paedobaptism position. A baptized child is to be treated as a member of the visible church unless that child grows and shows by his action that he is not a believer at which point he should be put out of the church. Certainly as parents, we should teach our children the full counsel of God's word, including man's fallen estate and his desperate need for a savior. However, telling a covenant child that he is in a miserable state of sin contradicts both what the scripture and the WCF teaches.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 12, 2011)

jwithnell said:


> However, telling a covenant child that he is in a miserable state of sin contradicts both what the scripture and the WCF teaches.



I didn't know that. I know this is off topic, but are you sure of this? Without a being in union with Christ this most certainly would be true. Being a Covenant Child from the Paedo perspective might assume regeneration if the child shows fruit but I am not so sure the WCF would solidly affirm what you are saying. One can be a Child in the Covenant (from a paedo perspective) and be lost. From a paedo perspective Ishmael would be an example.


----------



## jwithnell (Apr 13, 2011)

I've had my views on this shifted in the last number of years to what I believe is a more historic perspective on covenant children.

A covenant child should be viewed as being in Christ unless he shows evidence to the contrary. We as parents vow to bring our children up in the Lord at their baptism. Certainly that involves teaching them the distinction between being covenant keepers and covenant breakers and the severe and awful consequences should they find themselves in the latter group. But to tell him he is in a miserable state of sin? We don't know that. He may have been regenerated before he was even born. She might be moving from a very simple understanding of the gospel to one of a greater complexity day be day as we teach her and is actually growing in grace.

I find with my own children that aspects of the gospel come up almost every day. It seems like lately with my two youngest that they've been asking a lot of questions about death, the lake of fire and so forth. My answer is always some variant of: you must trust in Jesus alone for your salvation, trust in His righteousness, throw yourself upon his mercy ....


----------



## Philip (Apr 13, 2011)

jwright82 said:


> I think that evolution is one of the single greatest apologetical tasks facing the church today.



That's a major question, actually: is it apologetic or theological? A debate between Christianity and Scientism makes sense. A debate between Christianity and naturalism makes sense. But the debate over evolution is about neither of these things---the debate is over how Scripture and general revelation are to be interpreted. This is a question that only makes sense in the Church. When Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, or others try to set this up as a debate between faith and science, it sets us off on a side track. The debate there is over whether Jesus is Lord or not. The question of origins assumes that Scripture is authoritative and can take place on no other basis. Therefore the debate can only take place in the Church, not out of it. It's not a debate over apologetics: it is a debate over hermaneutics.


----------



## bouletheou (Apr 13, 2011)

Puritan Covenanter,

Since the Covenant of Grace is made with Christ, and through him, with all of the elect, (Larger Catechism 30 and 31.) One cannot simultaneously be a member of the Covenant and be lost. Some Reformed theologians talk about all of our baptized children being in the "shell" or the external administration of the Covenant, but only the elect are, strictly speaking, covenant children.

What jwithnell is articulating is the concept of presumptive regeneration, which is more emphasized by the Continental Reformed. We presume that since Christ is our God the God of our children after us that our children will be saved and ought to be treated as saved unless they show themselves to be Esaus. I do not believe that's what Enns is advocating here, for he explains his reasoning. It's not that we aren't to tell our children about the judgment of God upon sin because they're already saved and we don't want to confuse them. Rather he states that it's because they'll get the wrong view of God.... that the judg-y God is something that's reserved for more mature minds.

I entertained the presumptive regeneration view for a number of years, but have recently abandoned it in favor of presumptive election.... that we may presume that our children are elect and will be saved, but that does not negate the duty to evangelize them, for them to repent and profess faith in Christ for themselves, and for them to practice self examination and look for fruit.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 13, 2011)

*Jwithnell*


> However, telling a covenant child that he is in a miserable state of sin contradicts both what the scripture and the WCF teaches.



Well even if you believed that your child was saved from the womb, you'd still have to tell him that he was saved from sin and also was still a sinner, albeit a saved one.

The reality is that covenant parents don't know if their children are saved or not - like John the Baptist, although Elisabeth knew by special revelation - until they grow up a bit, and even then there's a lack of infallibility regarding our knowledge of the spiritual state of others.

*Brian*


> that we may presume that our children are elect and will be saved,



This is off message and would warrant another thread, but how can one presume election when it appears that many who were born into the Covenant administration died unsaved?


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 13, 2011)

All this is very much 

Start a new thread.


----------

