Creation is Essential Doctrine

[mark kennedy]

Arguments to the contrary are invited. I warn you, reading Nicene Creed is important and an understanding of the New Testament basis for your position is required. Make no mistake, I am challenging Theistic Evolutionists to defend their views doctrinally. What is the Theistic Evolutionist position on the doctrine of Creation, what did God create at Creation? Answer the question directly or you will face this question again.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Papias]

Welcome back mark! How is that college life treating you?

You wrote:

Arguments to the contrary are invited. I warn you, reading Nicene Creed is important and an understanding of the New Testament basis for your position is required. Make no mistake, I am challenging Theistic Evolutionists to defend their views doctrinally. What is the Theistic Evolutionist position on the doctrine of Creation, what did God create at Creation? Answer the question directly or you will face this question again.

Grace and peace,
Mark

This is nearly identical the the thread you started a year ago, here: http://www.christianforums.com/threads/what-is-creation-as-essential-doctrine.7835606/

Just as in that thread, the essential doctrine of creation answers What? Why? & Who? In other words, it is essential doctrine that everything is created by God according His divine plan. Questions like "How does He create?", etc, are non-essential. That's why whether or not God did His creating by using evolution is a non-essential question, and as such can't be doctrine.

That's all backed up by the scripture, including the fact that creation is an ongoing process, not a one-time event. Asking "what did God create at creation" is like asking "How many hearts did God change, back during the only time he changed hearts?". Both are incorrect questions because they suggest that God's action is limited to one time in the past, which is deism.

So to directly answer the corrected question: "What does God create?"

The answer: God creates everything. That includes everything we see, and things that we don't see.

In Christ Jesus-

Papias

 

[Willtor]

Arguments to the contrary are invited. I warn you, reading Nicene Creed is important and an understanding of the New Testament basis for your position is required. Make no mistake, I am challenging Theistic Evolutionists to defend their views doctrinally. What is the Theistic Evolutionist position on the doctrine of Creation, what did God create at Creation? Answer the question directly or you will face this question again.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Are you arguing that a specific interpretation of Genesis is essential doctrine, or just generally that God created/creates all things? In the latter case, I think all of us in this subforum are creationists. AFAIK, this is not in dispute.

 

[mark kennedy]

Are you arguing that a specific interpretation of Genesis is essential doctrine, or just generally that God created/creates all things? In the latter case, I think all of us in this subforum are creationists. AFAIK, this is not in dispute.

Which leads one to ask the question, what did God create because the New Testament emphasizes that God created life. This fact of Scripture is to be taken quite literally because the promise of the Gospel is inextricably linked to the resurrection and new birth. The doctrine of creation is in John 1, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1, Romans 1, not just Genesis 1. It is never taken figuratively.

Creation is essential doctrine, the interpretation is not difficult, you either believe it or you don't.

 

[Papias]

mark, Willtor asked a pretty straightforward question. It looks like you didn't answer it, instead making a bunch of claims. Is there a reason why?

In His name-

Papias

 

[Willtor]

Yeah, I'd like a candid response, as I gave you. Then I'm happy to move on to your second question.

But I asked my question because you've been on CF for a long time, and although the context makes it look like you are unaware that we accept the doctrine of creation, it has been said many times. I have said it many times. So it would make more sense for you to be making a statement about a particular interpretation of Genesis. But that isn't what it looked like. Please clarify.

 

[Willtor]

Bump.

 

[gluadys]

Arguments to the contrary are invited. I warn you, reading Nicene Creed is important and an understanding of the New Testament basis for your position is required. Make no mistake, I am challenging Theistic Evolutionists to defend their views doctrinally. What is the Theistic Evolutionist position on the doctrine of Creation, what did God create at Creation? Answer the question directly or you will face this question again.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I don't know why you persist in this illusion that Theistic Evolutionists have any problem whatsoever with the doctrine of creation or affirming that it is an essential doctrine. Do you forget that you don't even get to post in this forum unless you affirm the Nicene Creed (which CF has chosen as a de facto standard of orthodox Christianity)? Do you forget its first clause? "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things, seen and unseen." I think that statement directly answers your question.

Nothing more than that is essential.

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't know why you persist in this illusion that Theistic Evolutionists have any problem whatsoever with the doctrine of creation or affirming that it is an essential doctrine. Do you forget that you don't even get to post in this forum unless you affirm the Nicene Creed (which CF has chosen as a de facto standard of orthodox Christianity)? Do you forget its first clause? "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things, seen and unseen." I think that statement directly answers your question.

Nothing more than that is essential.

No dear, I promise you I don't believe for a minute that you are capable of denying the doctrine of creation. It has always been my intention of reminding you that you cannot.

 

[mark kennedy]

Are you arguing that a specific interpretation of Genesis is essential doctrine, or just generally that God created/creates all things? In the latter case, I think all of us in this subforum are creationists. AFAIK, this is not in dispute.

First of all, yes it is in dispute. Secondly, no I don't believe for a minute that any Christian can deny the doctrine of creation. My intention is to get them to honestly admit, despite what it might cost them academically, that creation is essential Christian doctrine.

 

[sfs]

First of all, yes it is in dispute. Secondly, no I don't believe for a minute that any Christian can deny the doctrine of creation. My intention is to get them to honestly admit, despite what it might cost them academically, that creation is essential Christian doctrine.

The universal reaction to you every time you start one of these threads is, "Yes, of course we believe in the doctrine of creation. We believe that God is the creator of everything." We also say the same thing repeatedly in other threads. Given that, your suggestion that we need your urging to acknowledge God as creator, and that we've somehow been behaving dishonestly, is unfounded.

 

[Willtor]

First of all, yes it is in dispute. Secondly, no I don't believe for a minute that any Christian can deny the doctrine of creation. My intention is to get them to honestly admit, despite what it might cost them academically, that creation is essential Christian doctrine.

Who has disputed it? Who has been cost, academically, by supporting it?

 

[random person]

The truths most important to be taken from the Creation account.

1. God created the universe and everything in it.

2. Man had fellowship with God, but sinned and became alienated from God.

3. Christ came and died to restore that fellowship between God and man.

Until creationism is better represented by scientists possessing greater credentials in their respectable fields of study and makes some truly groundbreaking progress in supporting their arguments, I say leave the academics and the scientists alone. There's no comparision between learned scientists and Christian laymen. No comparision at all. It is almost a form of cruelty in what Creation Science is doing to laymen Christians today.

I reiterate, the spiritual truths found in Genesis chapters 1 & 2 is the weightier matter.

 

[mark kennedy]

The universal reaction to you every time you start one of these threads is, "Yes, of course we believe in the doctrine of creation. We believe that God is the creator of everything." We also say the same thing repeatedly in other threads. Given that, your suggestion that we need your urging to acknowledge God as creator, and that we've somehow been behaving dishonestly, is unfounded.

It should be obvious but you remain obscure, the Scripture are not. God created life, how is that different from the naturalistic view of the origin of life? I ask the question because the essential doctrine I speak of is inextricably linked to the promise of the Gospel. It is dishonest to deny that you can assume natural means and still be Christian. God created life, right or wrong?

 

[mark kennedy]

Who has disputed it? Who has been cost, academically, by supporting it?

I asked a direct question regarding the doctrine of Creation. What is that doctrine?

 

[mark kennedy]

The truths most important to be taken from the Creation account.

1. God created the universe and everything in it.

So the Big Bang was an act of God, a miracle right?

2. Man had fellowship with God, but sinned and became alienated from God.

Now we are into basic doctrine, no question.

3. Christ came and died to restore that fellowship between God and man.

There is the Gospel.

Until creationism is better represented by scientists possessing greater credentials in their respectable fields of study and makes some truly groundbreaking progress in supporting their arguments, I say leave the academics and the scientists alone. There's no comparision between learned scientists and Christian laymen. No comparision at all. It is almost a form of cruelty in what Creation Science is doing to laymen Christians today.

It's asking a question with the only rational possibility absent. If God created life then what would be the empirical evidence. In Darwinian thought God is not a possibility, that is absurd.

I reiterate, the spiritual truths found in Genesis chapters 1 & 2 is the weightier matter.

Indeed they are weightier matters but I would add, they must be defined and they are defined.

 

[random person]

So the Big Bang was an act of God, a miracle right?



Now we are into basic doctrine, no question.



There is the Gospel.



It's asking a question with the only rational possibility absent. If God created life then what would be the empirical evidence. In Darwinian thought God is not a possibility, that is absurd.



Indeed they are weightier matters but I would add, they must be defined and they are defined.

Are we witnessing a clash of sciences here, Mark Kennedy, 4000/6000 BCE versus 2015 CE?

Is even Moses the original author of those first two chapters of Genesis or was it passed down orally for a couple of thousand years? Is is possible Moses began his first chapters of Genesis from an oral tradition?

Whatever, it may be, it still does not delineate its spiritual truth and power.

 

[Willtor]

I asked a direct question regarding the doctrine of Creation. What is that doctrine?

How about you answer my question?

 

[Colter]

Genesis was akin to some preistly guys writing on an Internet forum from the vantage point of the Babylonion captivity. With fragments of ancient stories in hand of an Adam and Eve arriving on earth, incarnate celestials on a mission of salvation and leadership on behalf of Michael, they assumed that must have been right after the creation of the world. But being unable to trace their self important blood lines back to this Adam family, they decided to drown the whole world in its own wickedness. They made no claim of divine authorship or inspiration, that was an invention of later generations of Chuch government.

 

[gluadys]

It should be obvious but you remain obscure, the Scripture are not. God created life, how is that different from the naturalistic view of the origin of life?

Why should it be different? "Naturalistic" does not exclude God except in the minds of atheists and misguided Christians who agree with them. Until quite recently "natural" was used almost exclusively in opposition to "artificial" (i.e. made by human art or skill). IOW "natural" and its derivatives were used primarily to refer to what God alone had done, with no admixture of human work. For example, a prairie is natural; a wheat field artificial. A pond in the woods is natural; a swimming pool in the backyard is artificial. Which of each pair is made solely by God?

It is dishonest to deny that you can assume natural means and still be Christian.

No it is not dishonest. This is a false dichotomy. God is not prohibited from using natural means.

God created life, right or wrong?

Right.

So the Big Bang was an act of God, a miracle right?

The Big Band was an act of God. It may or may not have been a miracle. Are you limiting the acts of God to miracles?

In Darwinian thought God is not a possibility, that is absurd.

Only if you falsely equate "Darwinian" with "atheistic". Darwin did not make that equation.