How Do Christians Explain Evolution?

by Jack Wellman on September 18, 2011 · Print Print · Email Email

How should a Christian respond to a question over evolution?  What would you say to someone who believes in evolution?  Can a Christian believe in evolution and be saved?

How Should a Christian Respond To a Question Over Evolution? 

I have been asked many times by Christians and non-believers about evolution.  They asked me what I think about it.  Did I believe that evolution was true?  What about all the “evidence” for evolution?  How can I not believe in evolution with all the “facts” that science has “proven”?  Why do you believe in creation when there is real, hard evidence for evolution?

These are all great questions and I always answer in a loving, kind, but intelligent (I hope) way.  Peter told us to “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” for (I Peter 3:15). The point of emphasis to me is to answer them with gentleness and respect. Nobody has ever been argued into heaven and no one has won a soul to Christ by winning a debate.  I have had experiences with other Christians who get into heated arguments with evolutionists and the debate turns into an all out fight.  The debate lowers itself into name calling, vehement exchanges, and behavior very unbecoming of a believer in Christ.

Jesus apparently did not believe in evolution for when He answered the Pharisees about divorce, He quoted Genesis 5:2, “He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them man.” First of all, Jesus believed in Creation (see the Gospel of John, chapter one).  And He made reference to the first male and female being created.  He did not say that they evolved or that God created the amoeba after the amoeba kind and they evolved into humans – male and female.

In the Gospel of John (1:1-3) Jesus is referred to as creator:: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was in the beginning with God.  All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.”  The key point is that “without Him nothing was made that was made.”  The word “made” in the Greek has the same meaning as the word created so this obviously refers to a creation.  The Word of God plainly says that nothing was made that He did not create (John 1:3).

What Would You Say To Someone Who Believes in Evolution?

I would explain that Scientific Theories and Scientific Laws are not the same thing.  Newton’s Three Laws of Motion have been confirmed and validate to be true.  They are:

I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

II. The relationship between an object’s mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors. In this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.

III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

These three laws have been confirmed and validated as true and thus they are not held to be theoretical.  They are objective, scientific facts.  On the other hand, the theory of evolution remains a theory, even after more than 150 years when it was first theorized by Charles Darwin.  A theory by definition is basically a supposition and is hypothetical.  Further it is defined as an idea of or a belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture.  Conjecture and speculation are highly subjective as opposed to laws which can be shown to be true and thus can be stated as objective.  Subjective is speculative, objective is factual.  Merriam-Webster describes a theory as an analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another based upon general or abstract principles.  Conversely, Scientific Laws are quantifiable, measurable, repeatable, and can be falsified.

Evolution is a Scientific Theory which is comprised of a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties.  It expresses relationships between observations of such concepts. It is constructed to conform to available empirical data about these observations but is only put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.   The key words here are that it is a “principle” for “explaining” and not for making objective statements of facts.  A theory is always subjective and without complete objectivity.  If a given theory were able to be proven, then it would cease to be a subjective theory and become an objective scientific fact or law.

The origins of life or the universe can never be tested or repeated in any laboratory.  The fact is that the origins of the universe and of life are outside of the parameters of the theory of evolution.  In the first place, there could have been no supposed evolution without matter and without the first appearance of life.   Evolutionists have no explanation for these origins only vague theories.  Evolution is an easy-out for atheists and agnostics who do not want to believe in God.  Then, they do not have to worry about heaven, hell or sin.  They have no moral ethics or mores to have to be concerned about.  The person who does not believe in God has no one to be accountable to.  Evolutionists flatly deny the need for a God and thus a Creator, even though the laws of physics and the first cause (causality) demand that for ever effect there must be a cause.  The universe had to have been caused by something (or Someone).

Can a Christian Believe In Evolution and Be Saved?

A person that believes in Christ and believes in evolution can still be saved.  This is good news to many Christians who do believe in evolution and in God.  A person is saved by their faith in Christ and that believer can not lose their salvation or not be saved despite their belief in evolution.  Even though a Christian has imperfect understanding about the universe and the origin of life, I see no reason why they can not still be saved according to Scripture (Rom 10:9-13; John 3:16, etc.).    A person’s salvation is not based upon false reasoning or faulty assumptions.  A person’s salvation is based upon a secure, firm, foundational principle that those who are Christ’s will remain as Christ’s (John 6:37, 10:28-29).

Was this Article Helpful?

If this article was helpful to you, please consider linking this article to your own blog or sharing this through the social buttons to the left. You might also find some of these other good Christian Answer articles helpful:

What Are the Gifts of the Spirit?

What Does The Bible Say About Divorce and Remarriage?

How Do you Talk To Your Children About Sex?

Sources

The Holy Bible, New International Version

THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.



Share this post:  |  |  |  | Twitter

{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }

Andrae Palmer September 19, 2011 at 11:33 am

jack thanks for clearing this up i always wondered about the same thing and now i have something to clear up the misconception about the evolution stories

Reply

Jack September 19, 2011 at 2:08 pm

Andrae, thank you so much my friend. I appreciate your edifying comments as always. You seem to always be a breath of fresh air and I can tell that Christ lives in you by the way you edify people with your comments. Thank you for visiting the site and May God richly bless you.

Reply

randy September 27, 2011 at 2:53 am

there is no evolution, there is only a difference in species in the kind of environment they live in .have you ever seen a whale with two human legs in our days, {eg if a dog was buried near a human remain and years pass by and someone dig it up and the skeleton is mixed up and some parts are missing what will they say when they assemble it}and animal of long ago would have been bigger than in our days due to variety and quality of air and freedom of living evolution is dead,christian be wise

Reply

Jack Wellman September 27, 2011 at 1:16 pm

Randy, thank you my friend. I appreciate your visiting the site and for your words of wisdom. There is nothing in or about the Bible that can be disproved by science in either quantifiable, measurable, repeatable, and falsifiable evidence to contradict it is not true. God is Creator. No science has ever proven this to be false nor indeed can it be. Evolution on the other hand remains theoretical and in theory form for almost 160 years and counting.

Reply

Pierce November 8, 2011 at 8:41 pm

Wow. Such a complex and almost dogmatic question in te church.

My best answer is this,

I believe that we are not to question the work and will of God. Who are we to do that? This is much like the Big Bang Theory(BBT) vs Christianity….does it matter? Not really.
Perhaps the BBT is correct. My answer to someone would maybe this is how God chose to creat this universe.
Theologically it works out…
Gen 1:3
“Then God said, ‘Let there be light’ and there was light”
Could God have made an explosion I.e. The BBT? And explosion large enough to cause creation would certainly give off light!!
Science and Christianity don’t have to be enemies. Just stay openminded!
The same goes for evolution, God very well have used evolution to creat life.
Believe it or not- the book of genisis is NOT a science text book like so many Christians think it needs to be to contend for the faith. LET THE BIBLE SAY WHAT THE BIBLE NEEDS TO SAY.
It does not have to be a black and White book. Let God speak Through the Holy Spirit from the bible.
Hope this is helpful!

Reply

Jack Wellman November 9, 2011 at 3:52 pm

This was helpful Pierce, thank you for adding to the conversation my friend, as always. You are most welcome here anytime sir.

Reply

Stephanie January 23, 2012 at 2:03 pm

What about the fossil records that evolutionists have of species. my human evolution professor talked about Whale Evolution over the past 65 million years and how they have evolved from the pakicetus (60 mya) to the ambulocetus (47 mya) and so on to our present day whale, and they have fossil records of such. Did God create all of those whales? Were they all alive at the same time? I mean God created adam and eve aged so He could have created the earth aged too, right?

Reply

Jack January 23, 2012 at 3:18 pm

Stephanie, you are so right. Your professor is discussing evolution which is only a theory. It is unproven and speculation, hypothesis, and assumptions. Evolution has never been observed, it has never been repeated, it can not be tested. God created the earth with already mature mountains, plants bearing fruit, stars already mature, and so too Adam and Eve as adults because they were able to bear children. You nailed it in saying that God created an already mature universe and earth. To see the scientific explanation of this already aged-appearing earth, I suggest you read an in-depth article that I wrote last year along with scientific notation. Thank you for resisting the urge to believe in evolution and thus push the possibility for a Creator God out of the picture. Check this out: http://www.everydaychristian.com/blogs/post/the_universe_young_or_old/

Reply

Mac March 26, 2012 at 8:36 pm

Why could you not say that God imbued a soul into the first man and woman who evolved from early hominids, thus making them the first man and woman? And what about prehistoric animal skeletons that do not resemble modern animals? Also, could God not have purposefully initiated the Big Bang or any other way scientists explain creation, essentially being a purposeful catalyst, knowing how it would turn out since he is all knowing?
-Just a curious Christian, not an antagonist

Reply

Jack March 26, 2012 at 8:45 pm

Very interesting observation Mac. I see why you might say that. I suppose because Jesus said, in Matthew 19:4-6, in response to a question about divorce from the Pharisees saying, “4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? ‘ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together let no man separate.” So God did not create amoebas after the amoeba kind or single-celled creatures after the single-celled creature kinds. He named the first man Adam and Eve the first woman.

Prehistoric animal skeletons, now extinct, must also have been created by God but they purportedly do not posses a soul. That is what makes mankind unique. If these prehistoric animals were not human or made after the God-kind, then they are certainly not more important that humans and God regarded them as in the same category as other animals and mammals. They are not created in God’s image and God has a specific purpose…still does, in mankind. Not so much in the other species.

I agree with you about the Big Bang because God could have initiated this “bang” into His divine purpose.

Good stuff Mac. Sometimes I must just openly and honestly acknowledge that “I just don’t know.” Where God is silent, then I will choose to be. Otherwise its just speculation. Its not essential for Christians to know or He would surely have told us. The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing and that is Christ and Him crucified for us. That we can not with certainty. Make sense my friend?

Reply

Josh July 31, 2012 at 9:35 pm

Jack, this is an interesting article. It’s a question that’s always on my mind, but I never had the courage to ask my pastor. Thanks for sharing and I just had to share this too. God bless you.

According to Genesis chapter 1 (NIV), God first created vegetation. “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kind. And it was so.” (Genesis 1:11)

Then God created living creature in the water and birds. “Let the water teem with living creature, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” (Genesis 1:20)

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” (Genesis 1:26)

So, God first created plants, then animals before he created human. My question is, doesn’t this go along with the basic concept of evolution? According to science, plants did exist first before any animals and we did come last.

I think that people just feel repulsive when they realize that they came from a one cell organism so they became defensive and narrow-minded about it. But like you said:-

[In the Gospel of John (1:1-3) Jesus is referred to as creator: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” The key point is that “without Him nothing was made that was made.” The word “made” in the Greek has the same meaning as the word created so this obviously refers to a creation. The Word of God plainly says that nothing was made that He did not create (John 1:3).]

Nothing was made that He did not create. In other words, God must have a purpose for creating amoebas. Like maybe to evolve into higher beings like apes and humans? Maybe. I’m not sure myself. I just like to think that if evolution exists, God must have a role in it because nothing was made that He did not create.

Reply

Jack Wellman August 1, 2012 at 7:35 pm

Creation and evolution are not compatible at all. Here’s why. If you could ask Jesus about evolution, would He say He believed in it? You can find His answer in the scriptures. It is clearly obvious that Jesus did not believe in evolution and if you can believe in Jesus, which I do, then let His words prove it to you. Don’t believe me, believe what Jesus says.

In Matthew 19:4-6, He answers the question about divorce from the Pharisees saying, “4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? ‘ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together let no man separate.” So God did not create amoebas after the amoeba kind or single-celled creatures after the single-celled creature kinds.

God gave them names…specific names and these were real, living human beings. A man named Adam and a woman named Eve which Paul talks about too in Romans. God created the amoebas too, but God said that He created them, male (Adam) and female (Eve). You can’t have a slime pit evolve into an Adam or Eve because God said He created them…not amoebas after their own kind. Thanks Josh. Does this help?

Reply

Josh August 3, 2012 at 5:09 am

Thanks for the reply, Jack. I’m not sure how Jesus would answer when ask about evolution and I can’t find it on the bible. That’s why I asked.

I thought that Matthew 19 is talking about divorce. I don’t understand how it could be linked to creation or evolution.

In Matthew 19:26, Jesus said it himself, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” So, why can’t it be impossible for God to create amoebas first and give them the power to evolve into human? I feel that by not accepting that God has the power to do anything, I do not have enough faith of Him. This is why I was torn in believing or not believing about God’s role in science/evolution.

Reply

Gerf February 12, 2013 at 4:15 am

Hi!

I found myself reading this page, not really in purpose, but I thought I still could make a comment on its content. Specially, as any scientist would do, I have to disagree with you for mischaracterizing some basic concepts. It’s not because you reject evolution or believe into creation, but only because you get science wrong.
The comment is bit long, sorry for that…

1. ‘Just a theory’ mistake
“A theory by definition is basically a supposition and is hypothetical”
No, it isn’t. Not in science. A theory is actually the best explanation set that science can propose. It is a well-constructed explanation for a class of phenomena, supported by a big set of evidence. It is a body of explanations linking natural facts observed and making sense out of it.
If you would like, a scientific theory is an explanation based on one or several hypothesis that have become substantiated by a lot of observations. So it isn’t a “supposition” anymore.

“the theory of evolution remains a theory”
And it will always remain such because it is the highest level reached by explanatory ideas in science… Confirmed hypothesis become theories (or are included in theories) and are from then on considered as scientific facts (we can argue about the use of the word “fact”
However evolution as the simple idea that living species change over time is not a theory but an observed fact.

2. ‘Laws beat theories’ mistake
“Scientific Theories and Scientific Laws are not the same thing”
Indeed, they aren’t.
Scientific laws are quite simple principles (yes principles) that can be measured and quantified and give information about how something behave in nature. They are considered as absolutely intangible, essentially because every observation has confirmed them and it is unlikely that any observation would show anything else in the future. There are not “demonstrated” though.
A theory will never become a law. Again, a theory is much more than a law (specially by its explanatory power) and sometimes contains one or several laws.

“Newton’s Three Laws of Motion have been confirmed and validate to be true. [...] ”
Already answered: confirmed by every observation but not explicitly “proven” (we also can argue about what a proof is, yes). Laws are largely accepted but less explanatory than theories.

“A theory is always subjective and without complete objectivity”
I’m sorry but science try to propose objective explanations everytime. And the less substantiated parts of a theory will be the more attacked and corrected and the theory will become more accurate (which means more objective and thus more true). If by “complete objectivity” you are expecting to obtain theories about which we have absolute certainty, you don’t understand what science does. But I can understand the frustration of not being sure of reaching the truth (which can lead to decide that we actually know it and so we get the relief we were looking for…).

3. ‘Theory of evolution should explain origin of life’ mistake
“Evolutionists have no explanation for these origins only vague theories”
Here I would say “hypothesis”… But so what? The theory aims at explaining the natural causes that best describe the biodiversity and the historical changes in already existing life. Because a theory lacks explanation of something in the universe (possibly outside its framework), it doesn’t become useless, invalid, etc. Please avoid such simplistic straw man attack.

4.
“Evolution is an easy-out for atheists and agnostics who do not want to believe in God”
Here you are to using naïve ridiculous critics. Scientists as a whole are not primarily dedicating their life to finding a way to put God out of our way because they don’t like him. And if people believe that evolution is real for irrational reasons, it’s not the problem of scientists themselves.

5. ‘evolutionists are evil’ insult
“They have no moral ethics”
Ok, now that can’t be serious, please…

That would be all. Actually, points 1 and 2 are the main. 3 may be added. 4 and 5 are not really “loving”, neither “kind”, nor “intelligent”.

Regardless of what you think about the accuracy or truth of the theory of evolution, I would like to see at least a better effort to correctly characterize science and its basic notions. It would also help Christians to be taken more seriously when they want to discuss or critic scientific notions (because they would better understand what science is, how it works, etc.).

Thank you and have a good day.

Reply

Ms. Brown October 12, 2013 at 3:45 pm

Science only focus on the creation and not the creator so evolutionist will never get it. I respect science but most evolutionist are missing the most important piece of the puzzle. They try to remove GOD almighty from the equation and rely on guess and theory which to me are one in the same-no matter how educated the theory or guess is.

Reply

Jack Wellman October 12, 2013 at 5:33 pm

Thank you Ms. Brown. I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. I know what Paul wrote is true that the suppress the truth and are without excuse (Rom 1,2) and so they don’t want to believe in a Creator because they don’t want to be accountable and give up the pleasures of sin.

Reply

RoLaAus March 24, 2014 at 1:51 pm

GERF said “However evolution as the simple idea that living species change over time is not a theory but an observed fact”

Unfortunately for evolutionists, the only “observable facts” are that yes indeed species to adapt to their environment. However, it has NEVER ONCE been witnessed that one species changes in to another – no matter how many intermediary steps.

Point in fact, can you follow any SINGLE known species from it’s previous species? or vica versa? (start with a KNOWN species and show how it’s steps changed it into something else)

I say “known” because I don’t care if they are currently alive or extinct …
give us all here, ONE SINGLE solitary example of progression from one species to another, and then you can say that Darwinian evolution is “observable”.

But we all here know that you can not meet this challenge, and why not? because of the magical mystical ingredient of time … but wait, YOU just said it IS OBSERVABLE!

So, either SHOW US or admit you are believing the LIE that Darwinian evolution is observable.

And here is another LIE that you believe – that ALL “true” scientists will tell us that evolution is true … here is a list of EIGHT HUNDRED (800 – nearly one thousand!) that would disagree!

http://creationsd.org/creation-scientists.html
(this page points to the list – the list that you see ON this page is just a subset of the full list that has a link to the PDF file)

Oh, and by the way, I counted that about 80+ % of these people listed are listed as Dr. or Prof.! So, they aren’t just Associate of SCIENCE degree holders, they have some 20 years of education and then some of them continued to work in education, and in the science field, like BIOLOGISTS, anthropologists, geologists, archeologists, etc. This list is quiet extensive, and anytime there is someone that has a degree such as “computer science” they also have a natural sciences degree as well.

you also said “Confirmed hypothesis become theories”

actually confirmed hypothesis become LAWS, which I thought the article showed you when discussing the Laws of the Thermodynamics and how about the THEORY of Gravity .. oh, no wait, that’s Law too!

you then go on to say …
“Scientific laws are quite simple principles (yes principles) that can be measured and quantified and give information about how something behave in nature. They are considered as absolutely intangible, essentially because every observation has confirmed them and it is unlikely that any observation would show anything else in the future.”

Yes, true, indeed – that is exactly what we are asking for (INTANGIBLE evidence, CONFIRMED observations, etc.) from evolutionists.

Creationists don’t doubt that species change in adapting to their environment, what we doubt is ONE SPECIES becoming ANOTHER SPECIES, as the Bible says
“according to their kinds” (please don’t confuse this with the scientific “man made” classification term of ‘kind’)

You also said
“Because a theory lacks explanation of something in the universe (possibly outside its framework), it doesn’t become useless, invalid, etc.”

Well, the problem we have is in the ASSUMPTION that there is something “outside of its framework” (and you know what is said about ASSUMPTIONS!)

Evolutionists say because A (species adapting) then B (species change in to other species OVER LONG PERIOD OF TIME and suquences of minor/small changes)

The fact is that when you cross certain species, you do get new species, like a horse and a donkey produce a mule.

Do you know what you get when you cross/mate/breed a mule and a mule? NOTHING, because they are STERILE!

The same is true with “hybrid” seeds. When you plant them (different strands of the same plant, like tomatoes, or oranges, or anything). When you plant them, they produce what you planted, but if you took these 2nd generation seeds and planted them … you won’t get ANYTHING! Why? because you have to plant something called an HEIRLOOM seed, in order to continue planting subsequent generations of plants.

THIS is common knowledge (I don’t even garden, or work in agriculture), and yet you want us to believe that when a species changes, it produces (anything – let alone one of it’s own same new species).

Reply

Jack Wellman March 24, 2014 at 1:55 pm

Hello “RoLaAus” and I am overwhelmed by the sheer logic and reasoning of this sir. Well said. Spot on. I don’t even know where to start except to say that this is impossible to argue with. Thank you for contributing more in your comment than I did in the entire article. Thank you sir.

Reply

RoLaAus March 24, 2014 at 2:08 pm

Well, I don’t know if there is a hint of sarcasm in your response (just a hint), but the fact is I was answering another person’s comment, not the article itself, and well, since his response was longer than the article, my response would naturally match theirs.

Reply

Jack Wellman March 24, 2014 at 2:18 pm

No sarcasm at all intended sir. Please do take my comment at face value and I meant what I said because you broke down each of his arguments piece by piece so well that is was difficult to “follow up” specifically with such reasoning’s as yours. I should have been more specific in my assessment so my apologies sir. I checked out your website and resume and indeed, you are obviously a man of great intellect and your responses were stated so eloquently that in my reply I was hard pressed to even give an intelligent response to your comment. It was like a surgeon’s knife cutting out and extricating the gentleman’s arguments and while observing them, I was so much like the anesthesiologist watching the surgeon operating and being in sheer admiration sir. Thank you.

Rachel March 20, 2013 at 12:13 am

You say: They have no moral ethics or mores to have to be concerned about. The person who does not believe in God has no one to be accountable to.
That is an ignorant, unfair statement. You seem to be saying that if an atheist, for example, cheats on their spouse, they would feel no remorse, only a christain who cheats on their spouse feels remorse?
Lots of atheists have someone (or something) to be accountable to.

Reply

Jack Wellman March 20, 2013 at 11:44 am

Thank you Rachel. I am glad that you said that I SEEM to be saying that “if an atheist, for example, cheats on their spouse, they would feel no remorse, only a christain who cheats on their spouse feels remorse? Lots of atheists have someone (or something) to be accountable to.”

It may seem that way but I never implied that an atheist who cheats on his or her spouse would not feel remorse. I am just saying that they have no one to be accountable in the context of a Supreme Being. Yes, atheists have someone to be accountable to like a spouse but the context of that paragraph was relating to their not being accountable to God and that was my intent. Perhaps I did a poor job of specifying that and for that I am sorry.

Reply

Julie June 9, 2013 at 12:52 am

Why no response to GERF? He is right on track. I actually believe in God and that Christ died for my sins and I fully believe that evolution is the best known explanation for how the Earth began and continues to teem with life as spoken into existence by God.

Since you believe that God created the world with age, couldn’t you see that God’s explanation in Genesis could have simply been put into layman’s terms in order to relate creation in a more understandable manner to people of that time?

Reply

Asante Williams July 20, 2014 at 7:59 pm

Hello Mr. Wellman,
This reply is being written to point out a small typo in this paragraph. I’m not sure if it is too late to edit the your submission but the part where you wrote “Romans 9:10″ as an example should be “Romans 10:9-10.” Thanks!

“Can a Christian Believe In Evolution and Be Saved?

A person that believes in Christ and believes in evolution can still be saved. This is good news to many Christians who do believe in evolution and in God. A person is saved by their faith in Christ and that believer can not lose their salvation or not be saved despite their belief in evolution. Even though a Christian has imperfect understanding about the universe and the origin of life, I see no reason why they can not still be saved according to Scripture (Rom 9:10, John 3:16, etc.). A person’s salvation is not based upon false reasoning or faulty assumptions. A person’s salvation is based upon a secure, firm, foundational principle that those who are Christ’s will remain as Christ’s (John 6:37, 10:28-29).

Reply

Jack Wellman July 20, 2014 at 8:06 pm

Thank you so much Mr. Williams. I so agree and thank you for catching that typo. Big difference between Rom 9:10 & 10:9 which I expanded to be 10:9-13 wherein the gospel is at. Thank you again and let me know if I ever make mistakes. Only the Bible is perfect, and the Author, God…me, no way! :>)

Reply

Leave a Comment

Powered by sweet Captcha





Previous post:

Next post: