How Do Christians Explain Evolution?

by Jack Wellman · 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 not abstract but concrete.  They are quantifiable, measurable, repeatable, and they can be falsified (capable of disproof).  They must be falsifiable in order that one can identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions that are deduced from the hypothesis, otherwise the hypothesis cannot be tested in a meaningful way.  Every hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable, meaning there must be a possible negative answer to the hypothesis.  Evolution is something that cannot be measured, quantified, repeated, and then falsified, therefore, it cannot be established as fact.  And interestingly, evolution isn’t really that concerned with the origin of life, something you’d think they’d have a great deal of interest in since that is where “evolution” began!

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.

Would you like to get the daily question in your FB messenger? Just click the button below to get started.



Share this post:  |  |  |  | Twitter

{ 46 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

Christina September 1, 2014 at 11:02 pm

Hello Mr. Wellman, I have really enjoyed reading your article and it has really brought me peace and more understanding. However,and despite the fact that want to believe so, I don’t think that one can believe in evolution and God simultaneously. To believe in evolution means that you believe that humans have evolved, not created. God is known as the Creator; so if if one believes in evolution, they would be, albeit subconsciously, denying that God is the Creator. Therefore, they would be insinuating that the Bible contains lies. So, that would mean that God himself would be considered to be a liar since he had inspired the “writers” of the Bible to fulfill the duty that they have. This point has probably been made in the comments before, but I just needed a clarification from you; I need to know how you feel about the point that I’ve made (or think I’ve made). The last thing I want to be is closed minded, so please, enlighten me.

Reply

Jack Wellman September 2, 2014 at 6:35 am

Thank you Christina for your comment and question. I see your point but the reason that I wrote what I did was because we all are fallen and have imperfect understanding of everything in the Bible and I know that we are saved by faith alone, by grace alone, by Christ alone and not by knowledge alone nor can we be lost by having wrong biblical knowledge. As long as we get it right about our need to repent, confess our sins, and trust in Jesus Christ to save us, we can be saved, faults and all. Make sense to you Christina? I hope it does and thank you so much for a very good question.

Reply

Anthony Cotton September 16, 2014 at 3:13 pm

I watched two very good films “Gods not Dead”and “Heaven is Real”.
They were both true stories but it was the “Gods not Dead”one witch shocked me.
I will not tell you much about them because you may want to watch them.
I will just say this The lecturer was an atheist,and he gave out a peace of paper to all the students to get this topic out of the road for good.
He told them to write Gods Dead and sign it,which they all did apart from one. (Now you can watch the film)
These two films knocked me for six.
Then I began to research Richard Dawkins,and Stephen Hawking who are both atheist`s.
Needless to say I disagreed with them,but another said the universe is expanding,and he used a coin spinning round a ball in the centre to represent the Sun.
In time which he said was trillions of years the Sun would get too small and explode in on it`s self.
I couldn`t see what was wrong with that,and I thought what I say to my son when he tells me it`s just a story.
I say to him what would happen if I tossed a bomb into a house. I give him plenty of time to think.
So I tell him before the bomb was tossed in the house it would be in order and their would be no damage.
All the things would be in place and not scattered about.
I say this in the beginning God created everything in our little part of the universe the Sun is in the middle and the Earth with the other planets go round the Sun in harmony the Earth spins round and it takes 24 hrs to do this and at the same time we are going round the Sun and that takes a year to go round and come back to where it started.
That`s why I believe God made the universe in harmony.

Reply

Jack Wellman September 16, 2014 at 3:46 pm

Amen my friend. There is intelligence, organization, and laws that the material universe has to obey. I would be saddened by these who believe that God’s dead because of the impossibility of proving that God does not exist. They proclaim a thing that they cannot prove and they have exponentially more faith that we do and so their atheistic belief is as much as religion as Hinduism or Islam…but to prove God is dead, I would ask them “prove it.” Thanks brother. Good to hear from you my very good friend.

Reply

James Spear April 4, 2016 at 10:10 pm

Sorry, but you made a typo. The professor in “God’s not dead” was an anti-theist. (He hated God, but still believed in his existence.) 🙂

Reply

bigscott March 5, 2015 at 7:59 pm

Evolution is just a theory and nothing more, nothing can be proven to complete fact. Adam and Eve on the other hand are complete truth, as God himself teaches us. The Way, The Truth and the Light and no one goes unto the father but by me (Jesus Christ). I chose to believe, Love and Obey the Lord my God and his Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ. There are no theory’s here, Just eye witnesses and proven Miracles.

Reply

Jack Wellman March 5, 2015 at 8:03 pm

Amen my friend. Well said indeed. Thank you.

Reply

floppythebunny June 7, 2015 at 10:42 am

I firmly believe in Christian and evolution, but not in a normal way. I believe that God helped us evolve slowly and therefore don’t think it’s a crime or or sin to believe

Reply

Jack Wellman June 7, 2015 at 2:38 pm

Did Jesus believe in evolution. Did God create Adam and Eve or amoeba’s? Amoeba’s are not made in the image of God, we are (Gen 1:27-28). If you think Jesus believed in evolution then read this first: http://www.everydaychristian.com/blogs/post/did_jesus_believe_in_evolution/ You cannot believe in evolution and believe that God created but even without knowing this for sure, no one is saved by this but by repenting and trusting in Christ.

Reply

Tate Robinson June 14, 2015 at 3:45 pm

Hi Mr. Wellman, its Tate again. I know that this doesn’t necessarily have to do with the topic of evolution, but I wasn’t really sure where within the site to go. I am presenting to my class about how people today are not very religious(and personally not religious enough) and wanted to get a quick interview with you if its not too much trouble.

1) Do you feel that as a society we have never been very religious, or that we have only become less religious recently?
2) Do you think that Christians individually are putting less importance on their faith. Do any of the other religions have a more dedicated following as of late?
3) What would you say the most effective strategy is either on this website or at your church to draw people closer to faith?
4)Do you think that there is one supreme factor,that is pulling people away from Christianity(money, evolution, other religions, etc.) or is it the little bits of how society is structured today?

Thank you again, Tate

Reply

Jack Wellman June 14, 2015 at 4:24 pm

Thank you Mr. Robinson

As for #1; It is easier to look back twenty years ago to see the decline in America’s morals but this is happening around the world too. This decline in morality includes a steep rise in sexual immorality and promiscuous behavior; the large growth of profanity, even among youth; the growth of rudeness and decline of patience overall in society, and again, the spike in crime that continues to increase every year, particularly violent crime like assaults. Jesus spoke about the end of the age in the Olivet Prophecy and in one place in particular He said, “And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold” (Matt 24:12) and the church is catching this “disease.” That time has apparently come.

#2 Yes, many are putting less stress on faith and more on “feelings” or “beliefs” of a personal nature. That’s not good. Other religions are growing like Islam, Jehovah Witnesses, and Mormons because they are more aggressive in witnessing (almost 90% do) but only 4% of Christians do. That’s a big problem.

#3 They need to see the desire to grow more holy and live lives that are more dedication to Christ. If we truly are to turn our life over to God, it means that we will put God’s will over our own, we will follow Christ wherever He leads us; we will die to our own self, meaning our passions, desires, and wants; we will be crucifying the flesh which is our natural, earthly desires, and we will take up our cross and put to death the old man or woman because we’ve become new creations in Christ (2 Cor 5:17) and all things will be new, like new desires to obey God, new passions for the things of God, and a new will that matches closely to that of the Father. Easy to say but so very hard to do but through Christ, we can do all things (Phil 4:13).

#4. People don’t want to sacrifice for the Lord. They want creature comforts and easy lives. Jesus is still calling out men and women to follow Him. It is an all-or-nothing call. Discipleship is a call to follow Jesus, to obey what He taught, and to be about discipline others – whether in the church or in the world. It’s not about religion but about a relationship. He isn’t calling out religious people but seeking believers who are men and women after His own heart. He isn’t interested in building larger church membership or to increase attendance but in building godly men and women who are willing to disciple others. Like the ripples in a pond, the Kingdom of Heaven is to be forever expanding and why it was written about Jesus that “Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end” (Isaiah 9:7a).

Jesus said to them and to us, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will save it” (Luke 9:23-24). The fact is “whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:27). You can not be nor can I be a disciple of Christ unless I deny my own self-interests and take up my cross, daily. Jesus was very clear about this saying, “those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples” (Luke 14:33). Luke chapter 14 and 9 are great reads for anyone interested in knowing more about discipleship.

The answer is yes, Christians are to make disciples of others and themselves be discipled. He already has all authority for us to do this (Matthew 28:18) and so why not “Go!” and make disciples of all nations. Is this not part of the Great Commission to go into all the world…even if its starts with your next door neighbor? We are becoming more and more like “pew potatoes” and it is more about “me-ology” than “theology.”

Hope that answered your questions sir.

Reply

Vanessa September 1, 2015 at 4:37 pm

The emphasis you put on the difference between Scientific Law and Scientific Principle is something I think a lot of struggling Christians will find comfort in. In today’s world we simply cannot deny science has a place but knowing what is fact and what is subjective is something more Christians should seek. I wish more Christians would explore and understand how science works so that when theories and principles arise they know what is worth questioning.

Reply

DonnéKruger October 3, 2015 at 3:13 am

Good day Mr Wellman!

Being both a Christian and in the sciences line, I would lie if I said it didn’t have it’s challenges. In a scientific field you are taught to question everything and believe what can be visibly proven; while Christianity is faith based. However, I don’t believe the two are mutually exclusive – I personally see science and Christianity going hand-in-hand! Instead of arguing against science, I choose to argue for it and see God’s hand always busy in it!

We know God created the universe, I believe He initiated the big bang – matter cannot be created, nor destroyed. From that point forward, God used the laws of of the universe to mould life into what we know today. Why would God create the rules whereby the universe abides, if He wasn’t going to use them?

In the Bible, it says Adam was made from the dust. On a scientific level, atoms and the elements are also referred to dust. They cannot (yet) explain how life started – my answer, God (and science will one day tell me how He did it!). From dust, He lead evolution. We sing a popular song about God being the potter, and we the clay, and how He moulds us. In the same way, God took the dust and started moulding, starting with single celled bacteria and later the dinosaurs (not mentioned in the Bible yet we know they existed) and they eventually evolved into the animals we know today. Somewhere along the line, the hominids began, and they were shaped and moulded until God perfected them, a being made in His image; man was created. Evolution only tells me how God created us, it by no means disproves that God exists.

Nor does this in any way disprove the Bible! The Bible was written by and for people who live a time long ago. No one can dispute that our general level of intelligence and understanding far exceeds that of those who lived even 100 years ago. The people in the biblical times simply would not have grasped these concepts and so it is understandable that all these details were not included. It would be comparable to trying to explain postgraduate chemistry to a toddler.. The details of creation also don’t serve a purpose in the Bible – only a summary of creation was needed. The Bible must be read in context – just as we need to read each verses in context, so we also need to understand the context of the time that it was written in.

Christians should not fear science and try to disprove it. Instead we should be embracing it, marveling at the incredible discoveries and supporting science.. Science is simply showing us the finer details of God’s work. It does not in anyway disprove the He exists, to me it only strengthens the proof that He does!

Thats just my 10c 😉

Blessings from South Africa!

Reply

David June 14, 2016 at 10:23 pm

Well said DonnéKruger.
As a fellow Christian I agree totally with what you have written except one little point where you say that Christianity is Faith based.
I think saying this is actually inaccurate and makes people who are yet to become Christians think that you cannot use reason to decide to follow Christ and that it is just a leap of Faith with no good evidence.
Rather once we have decided with good evidence and reason to follow Christ THEN we must have “faith” to trust his ways are best- even when it doesn’t appear to be so.
I have been told that the word “faith” that we have in our Bibles is actually better translated from the Greek to mean trust.

Reply

Allan November 30, 2015 at 11:14 pm

If evolution were real (profound evolution) we would have to see monkeys and man in different stages of evolution. do you see any part monkeys and part man in every stage of evolution today!
NO of course not.
Allan

Reply

cruz bryan February 7, 2016 at 1:58 am

This is an interesting article. Some of your terminology is quite a bit off though. You called a theory something hypothetical and based on speculation and conjecture, which isn’t the case. That’s really more of a hypothesis. Hypotheses, theories, and laws don’t exist in a hierarchy. With a hypothesis, generally you look at several consistent observations and then create a specific, directional, falsifiable prediction based on the observations. The vast majority of the time a hypothesis is a slightly modified version of a previous hypothesis that was supported through a study, unless there is no previous data available in which case it’s exploratory and truly just a guess. After supported hypotheses build up, you create a theory, which is a general and strong explanation behind the phenomena that unifies the hypotheses. A hypothesis is falsiable. A theory usually isn’t (because it’s a general explanation and not a specific prediction). A law isn’t the next stage and doesn’t explain anything, it’s a set of consistent observations with no observed exceptions. Theories can explain laws; laws don’t explain anything. They just appear to be true 100% of the time (although even then you don’t really have proof because it’s based on supporting observations and things could be different somewhere else).

Reply

James Spear April 4, 2016 at 10:02 pm

I’ve heard this sometimes from people who try to mash the “BBT” with the biblical account, but it simply doesn’t work. Firstly, the big bang was not an explosion. It was an expansion of space-time. Secondly, in the biblical account the Earth (formless and empty, with darkness over the surface of the deep) existed BEFORE “Let there be light!”. I don’t think I need to say how this is incongruent with the BBT.

Reply

Rach September 7, 2016 at 1:40 pm

I’m homeschooling and we are doing evolution of life more on animals not humans . I had planned to teach evolution thru the way that it was gods plan but not sure how to explain humans?

Reply

Jack Wellman September 7, 2016 at 1:54 pm

Hello Rach. For one thing, the Bible says God created all living things (Gen 1) and Adam named each one, so there was no amoeba’s developing millions of years to produce animals…and they falsely believe, produced man. Evolution is only a theory. The Bible states God created mankind in His own image (Gen 1:27). The idea that man evolved into a human being has never been proven to be true. In fact, the “molecules-to-man” theory of evolution cannot be proven that we evolved into human beings. The Bible simply says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen 1:1). For us, that is enough. We know that God is Creator of all things, and of course, “all things” includes human beings and all life forms. The Bible says, “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27), so this leaves no room for a single-cell amoeba to eventually evolve into a male and a female. The Bible states as a fact, which of course it is, that “God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Gen 1:28), so Adam and Eve were created as adults and certainly God didn’t wait for them to “evolve” into an organism that could “have dominion over the…earth and subdue it.” That would take millions of years (we presume). For this reason, I can’t understand why there are Christians who believe in the theory of evolution when God says He created them, male and female, after His own image, not after the image of a single-cell amoeba. Besides, theories are not the same as scientific facts, and certainly biblical truth.

Reply

Megan Gilbert October 30, 2016 at 2:44 am

This article is very interesting and helpful however I am grappling with one thing, and that is how can you be a Christian and not believe in creation? The whole idea of creation is that it is a miracle, it highlights the awesomeness of our God. Believing in creation requires faith. However I believe in micro-evolution as there is evidence of this. But as for the origin of life on earth, I believe my sovereign God created everything. In Christianity you cannot chose what you’ll believe and pick out certain things that you like. You either believe the whole thing or nothing at all. That is why I’m struggling with the whole concept of if you can be a Christian and not believe in creation.

Reply

William Anhang September 17, 2017 at 10:54 am

At 07:54 AM 12/8/2006, you wrote:

To:
From: William Anhang Subject: GENERIC JESUS or GenericMoses

In my kitchen, very likely the first Friday in march of 1970 at nine ish in the evening while washing up the kitchen dishes, I experienced what I take it is called in the literature “The Beautific V ision”, namely the clear apparition of the Divine Countenance. After all these years I wish to delve into the literature of this sort of occurrance. It might be fair to set down my account before partaking of others good fortune.

The not too seldom told account is as follows.

I was washing the dishes this Friday evening while a party of young folk was getting going in the rest of the house to which I presumed I had no right to mingle as I had no one of my age to mingle with and an intrusion into paired or unpaired youngsters (late teens, early twenties) would not be appreciated. I had not planned to step out either, so I was just floating, but for the moment restrained to the kitchen and the dishes in the sink needed to be readied for future use. Simply, I was doing the dishes.

It came as an awakening into a surprise, I felt a something had happened ; I became aware that I was hanging overtop my head, in the form of an elongated droplet suspended downward from a surface that was above me, like an inverted lake, all crystal clear, all light and the substance of which was simply love. The first flash to enter my awareness was, eh, that flower display in front of the nearby Baptist church spelling out “God is Love” actually is true, for here is the love and it is god. I knew that there was a Christian tradition to this effect or something but had not taken it literally.

I (the droplet) felt fear because the Me that was hanging in this precarious form, a droplet of liquid could break away and be gone, or alternatively I could be sucked up (by the force of surface tension which was what was keeping me stuck to the surface) into this ocean and I d be no more. So either way I felt I might be annihilated.

The rewards however in being this eternal globual made the fear vanishe (I got used to it very quickly indeed), because this I, this far away absolute I which belonged to me was also part of this much much vaster situation, in fact the words which came to me very quickly were, eh, Jesus said it and here I see, the Father and I are one. And not only am I I which sees by means of this clear droplet, but I m His witness, the observer, the very distant bystander, so far removed from the regular going on which are still here, …. I AM OUT OF TIME,,,,,,, but the frig and the wall clock are still buzzing and moving on as usual. But what I am seeing from this No Time Zone is something that shines from within itself and very evidently is uncreated, and needs no creating, so something has been fooling me that all things come and go. There is this problem that I need a beginning attached onto everything but IT IS NOT always so. This thing sees, knows my thoughts on instant before I do and is really near me but at this point is no longer the same me as started some instants ago….I slipped from just witnessing into a more rounded place lower down, seeing the dream that I was in and the curvature of space all around me….like the walls of the kitchen were curved AND SO WAS THE SPACE BELOW THE SEEING POINT..

And yes, this is a familiar thing that I d somehow forgotten and now that it s happening and its so totally natural this extra presence is so easy to take and so belongs, I m into a new era and thats so nice. And yes it has a Face, the Face of Father, made out of light which shines from its own internal source but yet relates to the ambient kitchen light because where the white walls reflect the bulb the most, that is where the love seems concentrated into strings. And the face looks at me with recognizable expression, –––-–compassion but inaction and somewhere I become aware of its Isness…..it s a lot and cannt be otherwise, it really is just is is, and the oneness presents itself as something so ungranular that no exacto blade could force it into division and that is followed by the awareness that it is Consciousness, Life, Peace and it is Truth , the peace I somewhat understand as security but the thing that I see as truth I cannt quite unriddle to this day.

I ve left out that as my head had turned anticlockwise, from easterly to northerly, there over the frig which was humming as friges do, was Buddah Consciousness, awareness but no face; it took the full turn to the west to see the face which had no distinguishing features; what I remember is Father, Compassion, and within the Face in readable print or something the clear words SAT CHIT ANANDA which I took to be a revelation of Its name. And that It knew everything, specifically my thoughts,my degree of sincerety..no fooling it… and the place sort of seemed to point to the chest or heart.

I have also left out the most striking feature of the Face, its increadible beauty; it left me astonished that such a thing could be.. There was also the emptyness in the corner where the kitchen closet is, but this emptyness seemed the be the specific organ of knowing the past prestent and future….I was a bit astonished that it should be down toward the floor, whereas the face was well over the table. It had the aspect of “black velvet light”.

It was somewhere about now that my house mate who was the thrower of the party, Steve , entered the kitchen; I dont know what he saw but some hunch was with me as unhesitatingly I asked him “Steve, you know where I am” What I meant, was do you see the transformation as to where I m seeing from but also more strongly,” do you know that God sees and knows everything”? He s real, he s right here. It is not anacdotal at all.

Steve wanting to be a rascal or make it plainer than words, reached out with both arms to eye level, palms open, and grasped one of the tendons of reflected light and played like he was trying to stretch it…….you can stretch it but not break it….seems what he was indicating and hence testifying to participating in the Vision.

So I added, “Does any one else know ” (of this inherent divine presence) and he came back with someone I think was a younger Steve, and we three embraced. They left, no big deal to them apparently. So I was left closer to the doorway now looking back into the kitchen. My parting thought..words were..”He knows everything, why doest he do something”. I think that at this point the phone rang and the atmosphere changed, someone was being recalled home. The party was collapsing.

I think that the whole episode left my mind, not forgotten but fallow, until maybe three months later when during conversation I first told it to my supervisor, Jung Mar, a somewhat cultured Chinese immigrant from Hong Kong to Canada who was an engineer by training but still retained a bit of the classic Chinese heritage. I dont know how he took it exactly, but probably it did me no harm. Whenever else I ve told it s brought me no harm, though the immmediate reason that I m typing it out now is that a hitch hicker in Toronto suggested that I do.

Contrary to expectation,the vision has never reoccured. At first I called it something Buddist like Kensho then swittched to calling it the Beautific Vision, and more lately I associate it with the priestly blessing out of the Hebrew bible “May his Face shine down upon you and bring you Peace.”

Along with “”the seeing of my being” has come a totally democratic attitude; hence if this type of vision is what produced Jesus , how did this Only Son of God come into existence? …. are we all one son so to speak, in spite of the diversity …one father, one son…..you can Hindu wise see many gods and hence many sons……..no no……I remember that in this ocean of love there were other s bobbing about but I hadnt the time to investigate, as basically it was all indivisibly one………the way I joke about it now is that it is not the one of arithmatic which proceeds upward, it is a non mathematical one, held in by its isness into only one.

Some fragments that were not mentioned above are:

the foregoing succeeded by two three weeks the passage through my house of Baba Ram Das, at that time prominent as the retournee from India with “authority” from his guru, Neem Karolee Baba.

Jews tend to dismiss the story …..too many reasons why it cannt be ……at best it was an angel……this much was conceeded by an authority.

The content of the vision included seeing Life, but also the great loneliness of this Face of Father who also seemed to be somewhat dreamed out while being the stuff of life.

The clearest allusion to the Vision is in the Swami Vivedananda writings, where his guru, Ramakrishna, promised the Vision, not just the dogmas and the theories..I m not familiar with the exact circumstance. Ramakrishna does respond to someones criticism of suicide by saying that for those who have seen god, suicide is no sin.

The writings of Meher Baba ….. , a prolific writer, say that the reality of the Vision exceeds all other realities and goes into a bunch of stuff about removing the veils and great prose, but when I visited his Samadi in India, the caretakers of the estate seemed to know nothing of it.

Baba Hari Das in Santa Cruz holds annual workshops and practically promises the vision through something called tradition ceremonies…..I m tempted to attend someday.

The best allusions occur in the writings of Bhagawan Sathya Sai Baba, who s writings must proceed from a thorough knowledge of spiritual reality. However he belittles short Visions such as mine, holding out for persisting Vision, however only one of his disciples claims to have seen god but are quite satisfied that to see Baba is to see god.

Moslems almost univervaly consider the claim as outrage or blasphamy, although one prominent one conceeds that at death it might occur to a supremely righteous individual.

To me it is an unfinished episode; it has not reoccured, I have not been designated a mission, I certainly am not all knowing and suffer as a result of the disparity, but of course it s a healthy sort of suffering .I ve lost belief that it will occur during my life or at death. The main benefit is that I am able to console people who are dying or close to someone dying that you dont actually die, something happens, there is need for a funeral, but dont worry, it does not end in a toilet flush.

At times I do adopt the reincarnational model, but more generally I stay dogma/model free except maybe to comfort myself that there is nothing to die because existence as we understand it is misshpapen..you see the bulb, and the room and all but not the illuminating filaments that make it all possible. .

I ve spelt out my dissatisfaction to this division of identity and all that in a document called A Propolal for Better God -Man Relations. Appended.

I also cooked myself up a soup called G7…..God in Seven Parts..appended… the joke of which is that the numeral 7 yields 1——1+2+3+4+5+6+7=28……..2+8=10, hence digitaly (at the heart of modern technology) it means yes or no, or freedom from subservience to ridgit belief…..truth is relative but falsehood is absolute.

I think that I saw a subtil allusion to this Vision in the writings of the Tibetan, Trumpa Rinpoche, kind of hoping too that the Vision might come to him again….but rather disillutioned by the waiting.

Oh yeh, there is the credible chap in California who has me believing that he s had it three times….I havent been able to talk it over with him…a bit elusive.

So now I am free to look up the literature on the Beautific Vision…..I think that Theresa of Avila makes a gentle alluson to it….I just dont believe that austerities are legitimate ways of attaining to it. Better have a near death experiences.

As for prayer…….I m not much for it, I ve not known it to work for me, I do not hesitate to assert that God knows my thouthts… as who s having them anyway…but there is no guaranteed personal practice that works..meditation included.. that I m aware of…I know of the different teaching….I m on the look out for evidence of fulfilments, but it s sporadic at best and illusory at worst. So that I prefer to keep my integrity and fly in the face of conventionality, and say that Karma shwarma, God helps those who help themselves, so its tough when push comes to shove in the personal or international/political arena. Oh , it may be that with meditation or whatever your road is a bit graded but still full of potholes; the history of the churches, the dessecrations of America and Africa and all othr pre existing peoples in Europe and Siberia and all the world is of cruelties performed by pagans claiming Judeo/christion/Islamic religious views over pagans who who were not pagans at all. —

Experience of the Infinite Being of God by limited human beings

Note. The original essay with this title was simplified as follows. An extension might be seen on My Name is Existence. Click to see it.

Experience of God. We are talking about the experience of God in time. But, may a limited human being enter in communication with the Infinite? May he experience God? Is it possible that finite beings experience that which is spiritual and infinite?

Perhaps some physical or emotional feelings are considered “experience” of God, because human beings are a “mixture” of mind and body; but the “experience” of God would rather be awareness or consciousness of God. The intuition that the Being of God is within us or that our own existence is Being of God, could be called experience of God.

Is the experience of God a natural act? Or is God’s supernatural intervention required? Supernatural would mean exceeding natural laws. God communicates with us in a divine way, and we are conscious of God in a human way. The simple fact of being conscious that the Being of God is present in everything is a natural act.

God “invades” the whole creation. We are created with a “spark” of divinity that enables us to experience or enter into communication with the Infinite-Eternal. God-Existence “invades” the whole creation; he is “embodied” in creation. Infinity, and space and time, are naturally exclusive; but paradoxically, the Infinite “penetrates” and comes into time: “Singularity One,” to use the physical term, the Infinite, is also in time. (See essay God in Spacetime Perspective – Time and Eternity 080.)

God, a “mysterious” reality. God is a “mysterious” reality. If the quanta, being physical, are such a mysterious reality (unpredictability) not subject to the laws of Newton, with greater reason God is not subject to the laws of physics. This explains how God is not affected by time and space. There is neither here or there for God, nor yesterday or tomorrow; this can be said only metaphorically; and there are not as well actions of God coming from “there” and produced “here,” but God-Existence is always present “everywhere.” The same One who created the Big Bang, is present “here” and now. It is marvelous to be aware of this reality!

Back to Directory

Reply

Leave a Comment





Previous post:

Next post: