Creationism (doctrine and teaching)

[mark kennedy]

In another thread the question: Is Theistic Evolution Heresy? was being discussed. Creation is a foundational Christian belief as indicated in the Nicene Creed.

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
(Nicene Creed)​

No one has effectively argued against this, in fact, theistic evolutionists are compelled to confess that theistic evolution is itself a form of Creationism. This has not been an issue in Christian theism down through the centuries, the deity of Christ and the Trinity have been. So if you look at the confession the deity of Christ is sandwiched in between two confessions of God as Creator. The essential meaning being, to worship Christ as Savior and Lord is to worship Him as Creator.

Enter Darwinism, from the beginning Darwinian natural selection has been one long argument against 'special creation'. The question becomes whether or not Darwinism is mutually exclusive with essential Christian doctrine:

In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. Lamarck seems to have been chiefly led to his conclusion on the gradual change of species (On the Origin of Species, Darwin)​

At this point there was no real Christian doctrine of 'Creationism', for one simple reason, no one was denying it. The only doctrine remotely effected would have been original sin, that is, we all inherit sin from Adam and Eve. As a matter of fact Christians, by and large ignored Darwinism for decades. Darwinism has been beaten up by scientists who blast holes in it's patented absurdities since it's inception. Meanwhile a new science was emerging, Mendelian Genetics at the dawn of the 20th century was being introduced with Chromosome theory.

It would take over 25 years for Genetics to be fully recognized, Darwinism never was. What Darwinians did was to blend the now legitimate science of Mendelian genetics with Darwinian natural selection in what came to be known as the Modern Synthesis.

You may well be wondering what on earth Mendel and Darwin have to do with Christian theology. Well, as far as it goes it has nothing at all to do with Christian theism, in fact, Darwin himself didn't believe it should?

Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, (On the Origin of Species, Darwin)​

Darwin is talking about secondary causes, not original creation. He had said that he read Intelligent Design and enjoyed it very much, he never expressed the slightest animosity toward it. So what is the problem?

Creation is what you call transcendent, that is, it blends throughout Scripture. It is essentially miraculous and only the worst kind of distortion could render it a naturalistic process of secondary causes. In order for it to be 'Creation' it must be God acting in time and space, doing what only God can do.

The designation of an old earth and a young earth are meaningless with regards to Creation. The first verse of Genesis 1 indicates, in absolute terms, that God created the heavens and the earth. It does not say when, the introduction of the timeline doesn't come until the Creation week starts. When the Spirit of God is 'hovering over the face of the deep' the earth is described as covered in water, thick clouds and darkness. Then over the course of the week all life is fully formed and complete in it's vast array.

Still there is no real problem, a number of Biblical scholars have warned that taking the 'days' of creation too literally can be a mistake. The language of the Hebrew text certainly allows a little wiggle room here and if a person wanted to take it as more of a literary feature then a literal 24 hour day it is certainly permissible. I tend to agree even though it's clear to me that what is indicated is a literal day and it didn't take God all day to get it done.

So what on earth is turning these seemingly compatible views into a no man's land? It's not Darwinism and it's not Creationism so what could be causing Christians to argue so bitterly against one another being just as harsh and critical as they can be?

It's because of the advent of Modernism, aka Liberal Theology. This is a form of Christian theism that simply rejects any hint of miracles, in fact, any hint of the supernatural is either ignored or rejected as delusional. I had encountered it a number of times and basically rejected it as simple unbelief. You can't have Christian theology without God doing what only God can do with regards to Creation, the Incarnation, the resurrection, being born again and final judgement.

Because essential doctrine was at stake many Christians began to defend their theology against Modernism and an Apologetic (literally a defense) arose known as Fundamentalism. The two camps fought bitterly but in relative obscurity, Modernism was a small minority view easily isolated as the doctrine and teachings of any other false doctrine has been historically. The problem started when these Modernist views crept into Christian seminaries unawares. They had redefined Christian theism with the secular philosophies, now prevalent in the secular world, blending them with a superficial Christian language. What they didn't tell you was that they had change the meaning of the terminology.

My interest originally was simply Christian Apologetics, a formal defense of the Christian faith and the Bible. The Scriptures are the witness of Redemptive history as it has passed from original sin all the way to the New Testament advent of Christ and the Apostle's doctrine. Reducing this testimony to myth and metaphor is simply unbelief, ignoring the enormous implications of these testimonies is an abandonment of essential Christian theism. I had spent a great deal of time exploring internal, external and bibliographical testing, determined to learn the evidences of the Christian faith.

I mentioned once on a secular board that I do not support Creationism being taught in the public schools even though I'm a young earth creationist. I was inundated with one wave of criticism after another. I was kind of stunned by the whole thing to be honest and eventually censored on the board that simply banned any discussion of religion whatsoever. I ended up on CF, perhaps the only place on the Web at the time where you could have a civil conversation on the subject.

I spent most of my time in the common area, arguing with atheists and agnostics directly from the scientific literature. I could have choose geology but I thought genetics was a far better developed science. I eventually argued them to a standstill with the publication of the Chimpanzee genome in 2005. What remained a puzzle for me were the theistic evolutionists that would weigh in with the secular voices showing no signs of disagreement with their Darwinian cohorts.

Over time I have managed to debate and discuss these issues doctrinally. What is most confusing about the theistic evolutionists is the seeming lack of doctrinal clarity. All they seem interested in doing is criticizing and correcting Creationists, in fact, their arguments have been invariably directed to the person (ad hominem) rather then the substance of Creationist belief.

If you are looking for a Creationist who is interested in evolutionary biology and stands on Fundamentalist apologetics you need look no further. I am open to casual discussion and if you really have the convictions of your beliefs I will be delighted to debate you formally, something I have done my entire time on CF.

You must understand, I do not compromise on essential doctrine and I am well acquainted with the scientific literature regarding human origins. I know what the issues are and even though the Creation/Evolution controversy is fading away, stand ready to defend Creationism first as doctrine but also as an historical series of events. Inextricably linked to essential Christian theism it is subject matter that is ripe for an evidential apologetic, readily defended.

I have been gone sometime and only recently made my way back to the boards. I wanted to introduce myself again and invite anyone who is interested to start a dialogue with one very simple warning. I'm a Christian fundamentalist with an avid interest in evidential apologetics. I am well read both in the Scriptures as well as the scientific literature related to human origins. I have no patience for fallacious arguments and I will tell you plainly when you are using flawed logic instead of a substantive argument.

The rest is up to you, feel free to respond to this post as you see fit.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[jlmagee]

In another thread the question: Is Theistic Evolution Heresy? was being discussed. Creation is a foundational Christian belief as indicated in the Nicene Creed.

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
(Nicene Creed)
​

No one has effectively argued against this, in fact, theistic evolutionists are compelled to confess that theistic evolution is itself a form of Creationism. This has not been an issue in Christian theism down through the centuries, the deity of Christ and the Trinity have been. So if you look at the confession the deity of Christ is sandwiched in between two confessions of God as Creator. The essential meaning being, to worship Christ as Savior and Lord is to worship Him as Creator.

Mark,

No one is attempting to refute this. I feel "compelled" to confess that God is the Creator because it is the undeniable truth found not only in Genesis but numerous passages throughout the OT when He creates (bara).

Enter Darwinism, from the beginning Darwinian natural selection has been one long argument against 'special creation'. The question becomes whether or not Darwinism is mutually exclusive with essential Christian doctrine:

In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. Lamarck seems to have been chiefly led to his conclusion on the gradual change of species (On the Origin of Species, Darwin)
​

At this point there was no real Christian doctrine of 'Creationism', for one simple reason, no one was denying it. The only doctrine remotely effected would have been original sin, that is, we all inherit sin from Adam and Eve. As a matter of fact Christians, by and large ignored Darwinism for decades. Darwinism has been beaten up by scientists who blast holes in it's patented absurdities since it's inception. Meanwhile a new science was emerging, Mendelian Genetics at the dawn of the 20th century was being introduced with Chromosome theory.

It would take over 25 years for Genetics to be fully recognized, Darwinism never was. What Darwinians did was to blend the now legitimate science of Mendelian genetics with Darwinian natural selection in what came to be known as the Modern Synthesis.

You may well be wondering what on earth Mendel and Darwin have to do with Christian theology. Well, as far as it goes it has nothing at all to do with Christian theism, in fact, Darwin himself didn't believe it should?

Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, (On the Origin of Species, Darwin)
​

Darwin is talking about secondary causes, not original creation. He had said that he read Intelligent Design and enjoyed it very much, he never expressed the slightest animosity toward it. So what is the problem?

There is no "problem" with this. The Discovery institute (the Intelligent Design advocates including Michael Behe, Stephen C. Meyer, etc.) has stated that their objection is not evolution but the inference of it as purposeless and random.

Creation is what you call transcendent, that is, it blends throughout Scripture. It is essentially miraculous and only the worst kind of distortion could render it a naturalistic process of secondary causes. In order for it to be 'Creation' it must be God acting in time and space, doing what only God can do.

God's involvement throughout our history is miraculous.

The designation of an old earth and a young earth are meaningless with regards to Creation. The first verse of Genesis 1 indicates, in absolute terms, that God created the heavens and the earth. It does not say when, the introduction of the timeline doesn't come until the Creation week starts. When the Spirit of God is 'hovering over the face of the deep' the earth is described as covered in water, thick clouds and darkness. Then over the course of the week all life is fully formed and complete in it's vast array.

Still there is no real problem, a number of Biblical scholars have warned that taking the 'days' of creation too literally can be a mistake. The language of the Hebrew text certainly allows a little wiggle room here and if a person wanted to take it as more of a literary feature then a literal 24 hour day it is certainly permissible. I tend to agree even though it's clear to me that what is indicated is a literal day and it didn't take God all day to get it done.

So what on earth is turning these seemingly compatible views into a no man's land? It's not Darwinism and it's not Creationism so what could be causing Christians to argue so bitterly against one another being just as harsh and critical as they can be?

I really appreciate your position and your intent in this section.

It's because of the advent of Modernism, aka Liberal Theology. This is a form of Christian theism that simply rejects any hint of miracles, in fact, any hint of the supernatural is either ignored or rejected as delusional. I had encountered it a number of times and basically rejected it as simple unbelief. You can't have Christian theology without God doing what only God can do with regards to Creation, the Incarnation, the resurrection, being born again and final judgement.

Because essential doctrine was at stake many Christians began to defend their theology against Modernism and an Apologetic (literally a defense) arose known as Fundamentalism. The two camps fought bitterly but in relative obscurity, Modernism was a small minority view easily isolated as the doctrine and teachings of any other false doctrine has been historically. The problem started when these Modernist views crept into Christian seminaries unawares. They had redefined Christian theism with the secular philosophies, now prevalent in the secular world, blending them with a superficial Christian language. What they didn't tell you was that they had change the meaning of the terminology.

Modernism/minimalism is a problem within the church. I will agree with this. However, I do not recall anyone denying the miraculous work of God in the "Heresy" thread. A conflict that may be kin to modernist thinking is evidentialism vs. presuppositionalism. Presuppositionalism is dishonest.

My interest originally was simply Christian Apologetics, a formal defense of the Christian faith and the Bible. The Scriptures are the witness of Redemptive history as it has passed from original sin all the way to the New Testament advent of Christ and the Apostle's doctrine. Reducing this testimony to myth and metaphor is simply unbelief, ignoring the enormous implications of these testimonies is an abandonment of essential Christian theism. I had spent a great deal of time exploring internal, external and bibliographical testing, determined to learn the evidences of the Christian faith.

I mentioned once on a secular board that I do not support Creationism being taught in the public schools even though I'm a young earth creationist. I was inundated with one wave of criticism after another. I was kind of stunned by the whole thing to be honest and eventually censored on the board that simply banned any discussion of religion whatsoever. I ended up on CF, perhaps the only place on the Web at the time where you could have a civil conversation on the subject.

I spent most of my time in the common area, arguing with atheists and agnostics directly from the scientific literature. I could have choose geology but I thought genetics was a far better developed science. I eventually argued them to a standstill with the publication of the Chimpanzee genome in 2005. What remained a puzzle for me were the theistic evolutionists that would weigh in with the secular voices showing no signs of disagreement with their Darwinian cohorts.

Over time I have managed to debate and discuss these issues doctrinally. What is most confusing about the theistic evolutionists is the seeming lack of doctrinal clarity. All they seem interested in doing is criticizing and correcting Creationists, in fact, their arguments have been invariably directed to the person (ad hominem) rather then the substance of Creationist belief.

If you are looking for a Creationist who is interested in evolutionary biology and stands on Fundamentalist apologetics you need look no further. I am open to casual discussion and if you really have the convictions of your beliefs I will be delighted to debate you formally, something I have done my entire time on CF.

You must understand, I do not compromise on essential doctrine and I am well acquainted with the scientific literature regarding human origins. I know what the issues are and even though the Creation/Evolution controversy is fading away, stand ready to defend Creationism first as doctrine but also as an historical series of events. Inextricably linked to essential Christian theism it is subject matter that is ripe for an evidential apologetic, readily defended.

I have been gone sometime and only recently made my way back to the boards. I wanted to introduce myself again and invite anyone who is interested to start a dialogue with one very simple warning. I'm a Christian fundamentalist with an avid interest in evidential apologetics. I am well read both in the Scriptures as well as the scientific literature related to human origins. I have no patience for fallacious arguments and I will tell you plainly when you are using flawed logic instead of a substantive argument.

The rest is up to you, feel free to respond to this post as you see fit.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Mark,
I do not pretend to be an expert in any field. For evidence, I have to weigh the testimony of experts in their field. We all have to unless, it is our profession.

As a YEC, I became very interested in the theological writings of N. T. Wright, Alistair McGrath, and others. I really began to investigate the Intelligent Design advocates at the Discovery Institute. As I watched more and more of the debates, I really appreciated the confidence that W. L. Craig, John Lennox, McGrath and others spoke with against the "New Atheists" (anti-theists is a better term). As a philosophy student, I read material by Craig and Alvin Plantinga. I have read many books from all of the above mentioned Christians who have terminal degrees in their field. They are experts. They all support evolutionary creationism. (Discovery Institute has fellows from various outlooks, but their statement is that evolution and ID do not conflict with one another. Their objection is the purposeless and randomness that many neo-Darwinians espouse. I was shocked.

I was taught various views of Genesis at one fundamental Pentecostal university (Our biology textbooks were ordered with 234 pages that dealt specifically with evolution; the numbering stops at 237 and picks back up at 471.) and of the literary styling that the authors implemented to help the priests and laity memorize the texts at another leading fundamentalist Baptist university (One requirement for graduation in my degree was a semester course in Creationism).

I do not know anyone who would suggest that the Christians I list have a "lack of doctrinal clarity". The views I lean towards were taught at fundamentalist universities.

I would like to point out you state that TE's criticize and correct EC's, however, the very purpose you state at the start of this thread was in response to a thread that insinuated that TE was heresy. Another of the popular threads in this forum is titled "Evolution is STUPID" (seemingly not allowing for God's involvement.) Somehow, I do not see those thread titles as inviting casual discussion or friendly debate.

I wish that the volatile rhetoric would stop from both sides. YEC's are not ignorant flat earthers and orthodox TE's care about the Word of God. I do not totally rule out YEC. I think Progressive Creationists have some good points as well. My studies have lead me toward evolutionary creationism.

Mark, you are very knowledgeable. I respect the effort you have made to have confidence in your position. (By the way, I would like to point out my respect for Miamited in his responses that are knowledgeable and respectfully disagreeable.) While I cannot speak for everyone, I will say that I have not taken lightly my change of view on this doctrinal issue.

I affirm the Nicene Creed. I have run way longer than I intended (It is bathtime for my children). I will lay out further details if you respond.

When I voted, I assumed that by the first "Theistic Creationism"you were referring to TE. Actually, I think the first three could be called Theistic Creationism.

Grace and Peace,
Your brother in Christ,
Jerry

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark,

No one is attempting to refute this. I feel "compelled" to confess that God is the Creator because it is the undeniable truth found not only in Genesis but numerous passages throughout the OT when He creates (bara).

We are in agreement. In my opinion God's revelation reaches everyone, giving light to every soul that comes into the world. I also believe God is glorified in this confession, God bless you.

There is no "problem" with this. The Discovery institute (the Intelligent Design advocates including Michael Behe, Stephen C. Meyer, etc.) has stated that their objection is not evolution but the inference of it as purposeless and random.

They are skeptical of Darwinism, not opposed to evolutionary biology.

God's involvement throughout our history is miraculous.
I really appreciate your position and your intent in this section.

Thank you.

Modernism/minimalism is a problem within the church. I will agree with this. However, I do not recall anyone denying the miraculous work of God in the "Heresy" thread. A conflict that may be kin to modernist thinking is evidentialism vs. presuppositionalism. Presuppositionalism is dishonest.

They didn't exactly affirm it either, but your right, theistic evolutionists won't deny Creationism when confronted with it as doctrine.

You kind of lost me with the distinction you make between evidential and presuppositional apologetics. I personally find both useful and neither without their shortcomings. For me, it just depends on what kind of evidence and arguments you are dealing with.

Mark,
I do not pretend to be an expert in any field. For evidence, I have to weigh the testimony of experts in their field. We all have to unless, it is our profession.

I would think you would defer to experts especially if you were a professional scientist but let's move on.

As a YEC, I became very interested in the theological writings of N. T. Wright, Alistair McGrath, and others. I really began to investigate the Intelligent Design advocates at the Discovery Institute. As I watched more and more of the debates, I really appreciated the confidence that W. L. Craig, John Lennox, McGrath and others spoke with against the "New Atheists" (anti-theists is a better term). As a philosophy student, I read material by Craig and Alvin Plantinga. I have read many books from all of the above mentioned Christians who have terminal degrees in their field. They are experts. They all support evolutionary creationism. (Discovery Institute has fellows from various outlooks, but their statement is that evolution and ID do not conflict with one another. Their objection is the purposeless and randomness that many neo-Darwinians espouse. I was shocked.

You seem to be learning from a fine group of scholars. I think you might be experiencing some confusion about the differences between Intelligent Design and Creationism. Creationism is essentially a Christian doctrine, Intelligent Design on the other hand, is simply an intellectual and philosophical ideal that their is a Creator making no real claims about what the Creator is like.

As a matter of fact Young Earth Creationism requires a radical evolutionary scenario, did you know that? When was the Flood, how many creatures on the Ark, how many of their descendants exist today? Now for the really big question, how much time did they have to evolve into the vast array we see today?

I was taught various views of Genesis at one fundamental Pentecostal university (Our biology textbooks were ordered with 234 pages that dealt specifically with evolution; the numbering stops at 237 and picks back up at 471.) and of the literary styling that the authors implemented to help the priests and laity memorize the texts at another leading fundamentalist Baptist university (One requirement for graduation in my degree was a semester course in Creationism).

How interesting...

I do not know anyone who would suggest that the Christians I list have a "lack of doctrinal clarity". The views I lean towards were taught at fundamentalist universities.

Seems pretty reasonable.

I would like to point out you state that TE's criticize and correct EC's, however, the very purpose you state at the start of this thread was in response to a thread that insinuated that TE was heresy. Another of the popular threads in this forum is titled "Evolution is STUPID" (seemingly not allowing for God's involvement.) Somehow, I do not see those thread titles as inviting casual discussion or friendly debate.

It's really not easy to get a friendly conversation going around here. It's too bad really, there are a lot of really interesting aspects to the subject matter.

I wish that the volatile rhetoric would stop from both sides. YEC's are not ignorant flat earthers and orthodox TE's care about the Word of God. I do not totally rule out YEC. I think Progressive Creationists have some good points as well. My studies have lead me toward evolutionary creationism.

I would be interested in discussing your studies further if your going to be around for a while.

Mark, you are very knowledgeable. I respect the effort you have made to have confidence in your position. (By the way, I would like to point out my respect for Miamited in his responses that are knowledgeable and respectfully disagreeable.) While I cannot speak for everyone, I will say that I have not taken lightly my change of view on this doctrinal issue.

Well, you are certainly welcome to respond to any of my posts with that attitude. It is, in fact, quite refreshing.

I affirm the Nicene Creed. I have run way longer than I intended (It is bathtime for my children). I will lay out further details if you respond.

By all means, respond as you see fit at your convenience. I'll be glad to consider your ideas on the subject and look forward to hearing more from you.

When I voted, I assumed that by the first "Theistic Creationism"you were referring to TE. Actually, I think the first three could be called Theistic Creationism.

I am not especially picky about what you call it or how you define your particular persuasion. The poll is just to get an idea of who is interested in the thread.

Grace and Peace,
Your brother in Christ,
Jerry

Looking forward to hearing more from you.

Grace to you and peace, through our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ,
Mark

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:
<edit>

The two definitions for "creationist" <edit> are:

1. "evolution denier" and,
2. "anyone who believes God created, even through evolution"

<edit>
I fully affirm the Nicene Creed. After all, it is fully consistent with an understanding of our evolution from earlier forms of life, under God's constant guiding hand.
​

You can believe in theistic evolution as far as I'm concerned but you must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian.

Yes, but can you believe in theistic evolution and be a Christian? A simple yes or no will suffice.

mark, you could easily refute me by simply stating that you see theistic evolution supporters (evolutionary creationists) as acceptable Christians.

That's no problem, as long as they are Creationists, believe the Gospel, are indwelled with the Holy Spirit of promise they are Christians. I personally don't care if they believe in lucky pennies, leprechauns or stone age tool making apemen myths.

Sounds pretty close, but still equivocating on the term "creationist".

mark do you agree that a theistic evolution supporter can be fully consistent with the Nicene Creed because they believe that God did the creating, regardless of the method used by God, or not?

<edit>
If we agree that by simply referring to theistic evolution supporters as "evolutionary creationists", then you'll consider them Christian, then mayber we have some common ground here?

Papias

 

[jilfe]

The reason a Holy Spirit filled Christian, could never accept theistic evolution on a "ORIGINS" basis, is because it goes against the character of God and His redemption for mankind.

The Holy Spirit will always bring back into the light, the person of Jesus Christ, and when He "the Holy Spirit", speaks that to our spirits, we find it very difficult to accept the flaws of theistic evolution, as being of God.
That's why it is so important to let God's Spirit direct us into all truth, as He has promised.

When you really consider Gods saving grace you can't help but come to this conclusion about Theistic evolution, in order to be a genuine TE, you need to accept the Biblical teaching of Creation, just as it was given by the Holy Spirit. (that is the Theistic part)

Then to take the data, of todays scientific discoveries, and instead of throwing out the Biblical teaching, to combine the 2 together, to come to the conclusion, that whatever evolutionary things are possible, proven scientifically, had there begining, during the Biblical creation time frame, in accordance to the geneologies of man, as recorded in the biblical text.

So that says, that scientific data of any evolutionary changes, only BEGAN its functionality within the time frame from the creation of Adam, any TE's has to agree that God created everything within the geneology time frame written in the biblical text, starting with Adam, in order to be a Theistic evolutionists,

otherwise, to believe that God used evolution to bring about mankind, means there has to be the FALSE assumption of a time frame beyond what has been recorded by the Holy Spirit, in the biblical record starting from Adam.

So to believe that God used evolution to bring about mankind, and all the animals, cannot be Theistic evolution, but rather Atheistic evolution.
Because THEISTIC evolution must accept the time frame starting with Adam as written in the biblical record, given to us by the Holy Spirit.

 

[RareLight]

Does not God use natural forces to accomplish many miracles? Floods of water, storms, earthquakes, etc. the sun produces light on the earth yet God created the light. God created you yet you were born of a mother through natural processes. Something can have a natural reason and a supernatural cause all at the same time. God is brilliant how He does this.

 

[mark kennedy]

<edit>

The two definitions for "creationist" <edit> are:

1. "evolution denier" and,
2. "anyone who believes God created, even through evolution"

​

<edit> I am not defining Creation really, I defer to the Nicene Creed and the rendering of the original words from Genesis. You cannot deny that you must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian, I know your theology, it's unavoidable.

I never said, nor have I ever believed it was wise or required to deny 'evolution'. The problem is that you are using two different defintions<edit>. It is the 'change of alleles (traits) in populations over time' and 'the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means'. What is important to realize here is that the scientific definition is not mutually exclusive with the creation of life some 6,000 years ago as the Genesis narratives indicate. Special creation is not mutually exclusive with the natural evolution of living creatures after the initial creation, in fact it requires it.

<edit>

OK, then do you agree that one who believes that God created by using evolution over billions of years, consistent with the scientific evidence, can be a saved Christian? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Of course. You can belief what you like about that, it makes no difference to me. With one condition, you cannot reject God acting in time and space by divine fiat. The problem is that Darwinian evolution is not a limited view, it is transcendent and never allows for miracles, which would appear to be the whole point.

I fully affirm the Nicene Creed. After all, it is fully consistent with an understanding of our evolution from earlier forms of life, under God's constant guiding hand.

Then what's the problem?

Yes, but can you believe in theistic evolution and be a Christian? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Again, as a matter of conviction I do not go around deciding who is and who is not saved. When you are trusting Christ for your salvation you necessarily have to trust Him to save others. That was never the issue.

The real issue is the way Theistic Evolutionists dodge doctrinal issues with these incessant personal attacks, continually criticizing Creationists simply for being creationists. No self respecting Darwinian would ever admit to an actual miracle, when you do it brands you with these people.

Would you be comfortable identifying yourself as an evolutionary creationist? Because once you do you are little more then a UFOlogist or Astrologist. <edit>

mark do you agree that a theistic evolution supporter can be fully consistent with the Nicene Creed because they believe that God did the creating, regardless of the method used by God, or not?

Depends on whether they are simply convinced from the evidence or intellectually rejecting the miraculous aspect. You know that.


<edit>

If we agree that by simply referring to theistic evolution supporters as "evolutionary creationists", then you'll consider them Christian, then mayber we have some common ground here?

We do have common ground, if you are a Christian we are both Creationists. If I believe that God created life on this planet 6,000 years ago can we both be evolutionists?

Better yet, does the Incarnation have a naturalistic explanation?

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Then to take the data, of todays scientific discoveries, and instead of throwing out the Biblical teaching, to combine the 2 together, to come to the conclusion, that whatever evolutionary things are possible, proven scientifically, had there begining, during the Biblical creation time frame, in accordance to the geneologies of man, as recorded in the biblical text.

That's the catch, something evolutionists never tell you. If life begins, 6,000 years ago then that's where evolution starts. What they really want you to believe is that the laws of nature are sufficient to explain all of life in all it's vast diversity throughout all natural history. You can't make those kind of naturalistic assumptions and accept the New Testament testimony regard Jesus Christ.

So that says, that scientific data of any evolutionary changes, only BEGAN its functionality within the time frame from the creation of Adam, any TE's has to agree that God created everything within the geneology time frame written in the biblical text, starting with Adam, in order to be a Theistic evolutionists,

Many evolutionists don't believe Adam ever existed, or that he represents a population of apes that were evolving into humans. Catholics are pretty clear in their dogma that Adam and Eve were our first parents. Which is because that is the clear testimony of Scripture.

So to believe that God used evolution to bring about mankind, and all the animals, cannot be Theistic evolution, but rather Atheistic evolution.
Because THEISTIC evolution must accept the time frame starting with Adam as written in the biblical record, given to us by the Holy Spirit.

I would agree to a certain extent. The primary influence prompting theistic evolution is atheistic materialism, mutually exclusive with both God and miracles. Theistic evolutionists either don't know this or don't care. Whether they like it or not, realize it or not, want to admit it or not the underlying assumptions for what they are calling evolution are atheistic.

I think they have been conned into buying a lemon, I don't feel a bit sorry for them when it breaks down and leaves them stranded. I mean that it has left them stranded with regards to the science as well as the theology of Christian theism.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Papias]

mark wrote;

<edit>

I am not defining Creation really,

<edit>
I defer to the Nicene Creed and the rendering of the original words from Genesis.
[/quote]Neither of which define the word "creation". Heck, neither of them are oringinally written in english, for that matter.


<edit>

I never said, nor have I ever believed it was wise or required to deny 'evolution'.

To avoid equivocation, could you state if you mean "changes in allele frequency" or "common descent of humans and all life" for the word "evolution" in the above sentence?

The problem is that you are using two different defintions<edit>.

Yes, and I apologize for that. Hopefully we can remedy that, as above.

It is the 'change of alleles (traits) in populations over time' and 'the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means'. What is important to realize here is that the scientific definition is not mutually exclusive with the creation of life some 6,000 years ago as the Genesis narratives indicate. Special creation is not mutually exclusive with the natural evolution of living creatures after the initial creation, in fact it requires it.

I don't see "exclusively naturalistic means" as needed in the defintion. The evidence for the ages of the earth is mutually exclusive with a 6,000 year old age for the earth. I think that common descent is not compatible with your idea of creation, but correct me if I'm wrong there.

OK, then do you agree that one who believes that God created by using evolution over billions of years, consistent with the scientific evidence, can be a saved Christian? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Of course. You can belief what you like about that, it makes no difference to me. With one condition, you cannot reject God acting in time and space by divine fiat.

Thank you. I think we agree on this point. I certainly agree that God acts in time and space by divine fiat, including suspensions of his own natural laws.

The problem is that Darwinian evolution is not a limited view, it is transcendent and never allows for miracles, which would appear to be the whole point.

I agree that I reject any creation story or cosmology that a priori bars God from ever intervening. The modern synthesis doesn't do that. Perhaps you are putting too much creedence in Darwin's words to that effect - Darwin didn't write scripture, and I hope neither myself nor anyone else treats the OOS or anything else Darwin wrote as scripture.

I fully affirm the Nicene Creed. After all, it is fully consistent with an understanding of our evolution from earlier forms of life, under God's constant guiding hand.

Then what's the problem?

Maybe we don't have one? Would you agree to offer "evolutionary creationist" as an option in your poll?

Yes, but can you believe in theistic evolution and be a Christian? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Again, as a matter of conviction I do not go around deciding who is and who is not saved. When you are trusting Christ for your salvation you necessarily have to trust Him to save others. That was never the issue.

I apologize for thinking it was. Thank you.

​

The real issue is the way Theistic Evolutionists dodge doctrinal issues with these incessant personal attacks, continually criticizing Creationists simply for being creationists.

I don't intend to ever dodge a doctrinal issue. I believe God created everything, as it states in the Nicene creed. If I point out when evolution deniers are dishonest, it's not a personal attack, but rather pointing out their dishonesty. I'm not doing that simply because they are creationist, but because they are violating the 8th (RCC) or 9th (Prot.) commandment. If you see me dodging a doctrine or personally attacking someone just for being a (common descent denying) creationist, please let me know and I'll fix it.

No self respecting Darwinian would ever admit to an actual miracle, when you do it brands you with these people.

You might have a hard time finding someone who claims to be a "Darwinian". Often that's a caricature used to attack TEs. I think a lot of TE's would agree that, for instance, the resurrection was an actual miracle.

Would you be comfortable identifying yourself as an evolutionary creationist?

Sure. I'm an evolutionary creationist.

Because once you do you are little more then a UFOlogist or Astrologist.

Why? Both of those go against the evidence, while evolutionary creationism (theistic evolution), is completely consistent with all the scientific evidence.


<edit>

Depends on whether they are simply convinced from the evidence or intellectually rejecting the miraculous aspect. You know that.

Maybe a word on the "miraculous aspect" is in order. I see all of God's actions as, well, "God's actions". That includes everything that happens, since Hebrews chapter 1 is clear in that God runs the natural laws. Does God sometimes intervene? Sure. More than that though, a lot of His intervention may be subtle enough not to be obvious to us. For instance, if I roll a die, and God makes a "6" come up, I wouldn't have anyway of knowing God intervened, as a "6" may have come up anyway. In fact, since God is running the natural laws anyway, God sort of made the "6" come up either way. So was it a miracle? I think the distinction may be a useless distinction. In the same way, God likely intervened to make the billions of beneficial mutations that grew us from single cells.

After all, any miracle uses natural laws as part of it. Say God makes a blazing light in the sky - that light is still made up of photons, which hit our retinas and that's all naturalistic. That's part of why I think too much focus on "what is miraculous and what istn't" isn't very helpful.


<edit>
​

If we agree that by simply referring to theistic evolution supporters as "evolutionary creationists", then you'll consider them Christian, then mayber we have some common ground here?

We do have common ground, if you are a Christian we are both Creationists.

I think we covered that, and it sounds like we agree.

If I believe that God created life on this planet 6,000 years ago can we both be evolutionists?

Perhaps. I generally don't use the term "evolutionist" because it is already defined as a person in a specific subfield of biology, which is not what you are using it as.

If by "evolutionist" you instead mean "someone who believes that a change in allele frequency happens", then I answer your question "yes".

If by "evolutionist" you instead mean "someone who believes in common descent and speciation by natural selection", then I answer your question "no", because 6,000 years is insufficient time for the evolution of, say, octopi from bacteria.

Better yet, does the Incarnation have a naturalistic explanation?

Have a nice day
Mark

A naturalistic explantion without any divine action? Then no, it doesn't have a naturalistic explanation. The Incarnation goes beyond an atheistic, naturalistic explanation, and includes the action of God. This ties into my discussion above about seeing everything as God's action.

Thanks-

Papias

 

[miamited]

mark wrote:

Pointing out that you are equivocating is not an ad hominim attack. It is simple discussion of your posted ideas.

Now let's be completely frank here. Isn't that what most of the posts on these boards are about? Duh!!

I have shown the two things being equivocated, right there in the section you quoted. I pointed those two out in the "heresy" thread too. I'll point them out again here, since you somehow cut and pasted them without noticing what they said. I'll even make them a list to make it easier for you:


The two definitions for "creationist" mark is equivocating between are:

1. "evolution denier" and,
2. "anyone who believes God created, even through evolution"

Oh, I think that mark's position has very strong legs to stand on. The Scriptural foundation.

OK, then do you agree that one who believes that God created by using evolution over billions of years, consistent with the scientific evidence, can be a saved Christian? A simple yes or no will suffice.

I certianly have my doubts, knowing that Jesus said that the job of the Holy Spirit was to lead those who are born again of the Spirit of God into all truth.


I fully affirm the Nicene Creed. After all, it is fully consistent with an understanding of our evolution from earlier forms of life, under God's constant guiding hand.
​

Yes, but can you believe in theistic evolution and be a Christian? A simple yes or no will suffice.

See above response.

​

Sounds pretty close, but still equivocating on the term "creationist".

mark do you agree that a theistic evolution supporter can be fully consistent with the Nicene Creed because they believe that God did the creating, regardless of the method used by God, or not?




More equivocation, and putting words in my mouth.

If we agree that by simply referring to theistic evolution supporters as "evolutionary creationists", then you'll consider them Christian, then mayber we have some common ground here?

Papias

I'll gladly give you my understanding of 'Scriptural creationist'. One who believes that God, about 6,000 years ago created this entire realm. From the farthest star in the universe to the smallest micro-particle upon the earth. That the earth was the first created body in our entire universe and all else followed.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Maldoren]

For my own part, I was a staunch young-earth creationist until a few years ago. I learned everything I could from Answers in Genesis, ICR, several other young-earth organizations, and the Discovery Institute for good measure. I was fairly fluent in the ideas of baraminology, accelerated decay, flood geology, white-hole cosmology, etc. Ironically, the deeper I got into these ideas, the more they troubled me.

Finally, I emailed ICR and asked them why we don't find, say, elephants and dinosaurs in the same strata. They referred me to a story about a tree trunk that was imbedded in several different strata. So I said, "I know, but why don't we find elephants or dogs or people in dinosaur strata?" and they referred me to a slightly more detailed, but still irrelevant, link. I was deeply troubled until I read "The Language of God" by Francis Collins, and I have been pretty content ever since.

 

[KWCrazy]

One thing remains consistent among those who believe in evolution, be it theistic evolution or other believes which are at there core antagonistic to both the believe and the belief of those who hold the Bible to be the inerrant word of God. Mark touched on this earlier. Because the events of the Great Flood happened about 5,000 years ago or so which we know from the genealogy of the tribe of Israel from Noah to Jesus, and because the speciation of all living things couldn't happen via random mutations in a tenfold increase of the elapsed time, all proponents of evolution theory must deny that the Great Flood was an actual event. In doing so they call the events of the first three chapters of Genesis myth or allegory, despite their mention over 200 times in the New Testament alone. Indeed, though Jesus Christ mentioned Noah by name and cited the destruction of man by the Great Flood; though He spoke of Adam and Eve as the first man and woman; though He affirmed that the Scriptures were the word of God, they still contend that there is no conflict between Biblical doctrine and origins theory. In debate the evolutionist sides with the atheist in bearing a hostility to the accuracy of the Scriptures.


The fact remains that if one is to stand on the inerrant veracity of the Bible then he stands in direct conflict with the teachings of evolution; which has supplanted other religions as the predominant belief of so many. While it is not in dispute that after the flood the animals were fruitful and multiplied, nor is it in dispute that from a much smaller number of animals all the world's population became what it is today, evolution believers steadfastly disagree with the time line and hold to the premise that no action by any God had anything to do with it.


The most irritating thing about their arguments besides their near universal lack of character as demonstrated by constant ad homonym attacks is their accusation that because they interpret data the way they do that somehow God must be a liar or a deceiver who planted evidence of an old earth. The possibility that they are misinterpreting data or that there may be other principalities with an interest in fostering the denial of God never registers with them. The believe as they choose to believe and personally attack those who disagree with their positions.


It is good to see that there are people who can approach the matter with an intelligent and informed opinion, and can see the obvious contradictions that arise when you begin with the premise that there is a God and that He is a liar.

 

[mark kennedy]

For my own part, I was a staunch young-earth creationist until a few years ago. I learned everything I could from Answers in Genesis, ICR, several other young-earth organizations, and the Discovery Institute for good measure. I was fairly fluent in the ideas of baraminology, accelerated decay, flood geology, white-hole cosmology, etc. Ironically, the deeper I got into these ideas, the more they troubled me.

Finally, I emailed ICR and asked them why we don't find, say, elephants and dinosaurs in the same strata. They referred me to a story about a tree trunk that was imbedded in several different strata. So I said, "I know, but why don't we find elephants or dogs or people in dinosaur strata?" and they referred me to a slightly more detailed, but still irrelevant, link. I was deeply troubled until I read "The Language of God" by Francis Collins, and I have been pretty content ever since.

Never read the Francis Collins book but he is a traditional evangelical, believing the miracles of the New Testament without reservation. I have no explanation for dinosaurs and dogs in the same strata but I approached the subject matter from another direction, only genetics interested me. My primary interest was human lineage in general and the evolution of the human brain from that of apes. I am convinced that there was neither the time nor the means for the three-fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes.

That's why I'm still a young earth creationist in spite of the fact that TOE at large creates no real conflict for me doctrinally.

Thanks for sharing.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

The believe as they choose to believe and personally attack those who disagree with their positions.

My real problem with them is that they simply don't know the science they pretend to defend in most cases. I mean to say, that's what makes their arguments almost entirely unconvincing. I also have real problems with the constant personal attacks which appear to represent the bulk of their intentions. I find this approach to the subject matter highly inconstant with the profession that they are in fact, creationists.

I know why Darwinians want to undermine a confidence in Creation but for a professing Christian it's self deprecating.

 

[jlmagee]

We are in agreement. In my opinion God's revelation reaches everyone, giving light to every soul that comes into the world. I also believe God is glorified in this confession, God bless you.




They are skeptical of Darwinism, not opposed to evolutionary biology.

Agreed

Thank you.

You are welcome.

They didn't exactly affirm it either, but your right, theistic evolutionists won't deny Creationism when confronted with it as doctrine.

You kind of lost me with the distinction you make between evidential and presuppositional apologetics. I personally find both useful and neither without their shortcomings. For me, it just depends on what kind of evidence and arguments you are dealing with.

Yes, presuppositional apologetics in the proper usage. For example, Alvin Plantinga provided an argument that belief in God and the authority of the Bible is a properly basic belief. I hold to the verbal plenary inspiration of scripture, inerrant in the original autographs. (I am confident this is your view as well.) This pushes the envelope but still would be in the limits of Plantinga's argument. The next step would be literal or figurative reading which would not be within the scope of the argument. In order to discuss the view, evidence or testimony for a position is required. This is where we are at. You present your reasons for your view. That is not my issue. My issue is when folks take the AiG view that holding to a YEC view is properly basic. Having to have your YEC glasses on. It is eisogesis. It is dishonest.

From AiG:

For instance, my presupposition is that God exists and He has given us His Word (the Bible) that is absolute truth. So I use the Bible as the basis for how to think, interpret evidence, explain the world around me, and read the Bible. An atheist’s presupposition will most likely be that there is no God and that truth is relative. An atheist believes that man decides truth, and so he thinks, interprets evidence, and views the world and Bible accordingly.
If we start off believing the Bible is the Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16; Psalm 18:30; Proverbs 30:5), then we use it as our axiom. An axiom (often used in logic) is a proposition that is not susceptible to proof or disproof; its truth is assumed. The Bible takes this stance, assuming God’s existence to be true and not something to be proven (Genesis 1:1; Exodus 3:14; Revelation 1:8).

This is from AiG. For the most part, I agree except the phrases I bolded. It is dishonest for the atheist as well.

The battle is not over evidence but over philosophical starting points: presuppositions. As Christians, we should never put away our axiom—the Bible—when discussing truth with others. This would be like a soldier going into battle without any armor or weapons. Asking a Christian to abandon the Bible for the sake of discussion is like asking an atheist to prove there is no God by using only the Bible. You would be asking the atheist to give up his axiom.
The prophets and the apostles never tried to prove God’s existence. They started by assuming God’s existence, and they always reasoned from Scripture (Acts 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19). By using the Word of God, we are actually pitting the unbeliever against God and not our own fallible thinking.

I agree, however, AiG insinuates the way they choose to interpret the scripture is presuppositional/properly basic. It is not. Listen to Bart Ehrman. His whole argument against the integrity of the NT we have right now versus the original autographs is based on erring presupposition upon erring presupposition. It pushes presupposition too far,

I would think you would defer to experts especially if you were a professional scientist but let's move on.

You are correct. Experts defer to other experts all the time. When researching, all pertinent information is gathered from other experts early in the process. However, an archaeologist can refer to first hand finds; I cannot. I have to trust paleographers in their testimony. That is my point.

You seem to be learning from a fine group of scholars. I think you might be experiencing some confusion about the differences between Intelligent Design and Creationism. Creationism is essentially a Christian doctrine, Intelligent Design on the other hand, is simply an intellectual and philosophical ideal that their is a Creator making no real claims about what the Creator is like.

My point is that the ID guys craft their rhetoric in such a way that a YEC who is just passively listening can feel that they are YEC's. Fact is, ID would be compatible with any Creator driven model.

As a matter of fact Young Earth Creationism requires a radical evolutionary scenario, did you know that? When was the Flood, how many creatures on the Ark, how many of their descendants exist today? Now for the really big question, how much time did they have to evolve into the vast array we see today?

Assuming a global flood, the historical record, and archaeological record, maybe a hundred years. Maybe.

How interesting...

OK, I meant that the textbooks were ordered with the 234 pages left out.

It's really not easy to get a friendly conversation going around here. It's too bad really, there are a lot of really interesting aspects to the subject matter.

Forums like this could be a great tol to come together, challenge, defend, edify, and understand each other nad their points of view. Being challenged is good. Defending is good. Criticizing, ...umm..., not so much.

I would be interested in discussing your studies further if your going to be around for a while.

Well, you are certainly welcome to respond to any of my posts with that attitude. It is, in fact, quite refreshing.

By all means, respond as you see fit at your convenience. I'll be glad to consider your ideas on the subject and look forward to hearing more from you.

Creation is ex nihilo.

Genesis 1 is a literary framework which show the superiority of YHWH of the pagan deities that the children of Israel had left and they would encounter in Canaan (and even the more ancient deities.) Israel had no copies of the Torah, so this gave them a devotional framework and memory aid as well. (Further evidence of the devotional theory would be the singularity of the seed, animal, and material in Lev. 19:19 which would bring the Shema to mind in daily life) I also like the way day 7 has no end as our sabbath rest in Jesus has no end. Origen and Philo taught that Genesis was not literal, therefore, this is not a new view.

I have started looking into the chronologies once again. One problem is obvious. The Septuagint leaves Methuselah alive after the flood. Theophilus, Hippolytus, and other ECF's have the birth of Jesus around 5500 years after the creation of Adam. These do not line up with the genealogy we have in the modern translations. Inerrancy is in the original autographs not the Septuagint,, translation or any other transcription now known.

Archaeologists have discovered other texts from the ANE that show genealogies with numbers that are religiously symbolic. This article discusses this as well as the "Mesopotamian worldview of numbers" and the "Sexagesimal view". I do not know. I am sincerely looking at this because I see the issue, not because I want to hold to a particular view. That would be dishonest.

http://www.asa3.org/ed/Chapter3.pdf

The line of prophecy pointing to Jesus is paramount.

Probably too much already.

Grace to you and peace, through our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ,
Mark

In Christ,
Jerry

 

[Metal Minister]

To dovetail a bit with what Mark is saying, I have to agree. To be a Christian, you in some way must be a "creationist". Whether you believe God created the first cell, and then let it progress untouched for billions of years, or if you believe Genesis 1 as literal, it all starts in one place. God. Yet we see here on these forums, Christians attacking other Christians, and using the word "creationist" like an insult. I have been on the receiving end on more than one occasion. However, I wear that word as a badge of honor...as an affirmation of my faith in God as the Creator! To do otherwise is to deny the very essence of what it means to be Christian. If God is not our creator, how can He be our saviour?

 

[Keachian]

To dovetail a bit with what Mark is saying, I have to agree. To be a Christian, you in some way must be a "creationist".

Creationist in that God is involved in creation, yep.

Whether you believe God created the first cell, and then let it progress untouched for billions of years,

That would be deism.

or if you believe Genesis 1 as literal, it all starts in one place. God.

Those aren't the only two options

Yet we see here on these forums, Christians attacking other Christians, and using the word "creationist" like an insult. I have been on the receiving end on more than one occasion. However, I wear that word as a badge of honor...as an affirmation of my faith in God as the Creator! To do otherwise is to deny the very essence of what it means to be Christian. If God is not our creator, how can He be our saviour?

Hear hear!

 

[Metal Minister]

Creationist in that God is involved in creation, yep.

That would be deism.

Those aren't the only two options

Hear hear!

I didn't mean to insinuate that, my apologies. I only meant to show the two opposite ends of the creation models Christians use. I believe most fall somewhere in between.

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes, presuppositional apologetics in the proper usage. For example, Alvin Plantinga provided an argument that belief in God and the authority of the Bible is a properly basic belief. I hold to the verbal plenary inspiration of scripture, inerrant in the original autographs. (I am confident this is your view as well.) This pushes the envelope but still would be in the limits of Plantinga's argument. The next step would be literal or figurative reading which would not be within the scope of the argument. In order to discuss the view, evidence or testimony for a position is required. This is where we are at. You present your reasons for your view. That is not my issue. My issue is when folks take the AiG view that holding to a YEC view is properly basic. Having to have your YEC glasses on. It is eisogesis. It is dishonest.

From AiG:

...If we start off believing the Bible is the Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16; Psalm 18:30; Proverbs 30:5), then we use it as our axiom. An axiom (often used in logic) is a proposition that is not susceptible to proof or disproof; its truth is assumed. The Bible takes this stance, assuming God’s existence to be true and not something to be proven (Genesis 1:1; Exodus 3:14; Revelation 1:8).

I tend to agree with this AIG statement but in a limited way, truth is, I'm not crazy about their proof texts. Genesis 1:1 is certainly an axiom for Christian theism, it transcends all of redemptive history, God graciously provides us our salvation and the testimony of Scripture is a living witness to that fact. Evidences for the Christian faith exist and I have explored them as long as I have been a Christian. Believing the Gospel on the other hand is only something that can happen through the power of the Holy Spirit. What I believe about the historical narratives as real world history is subject to logical proofs and disproofs. What I believe regarding the risen Savior is based on my relationship with Him through the witness of the Spirit.

I'm an evangelical, I believe that your thinking can begin and end with the Scriptures. However, my faith in Christ is not tied to the evidential apologetics I have explored and employed intellectually. Certainly they are related but bottom line, God alone convinces me and in fact provides me with, faith in the risen Savior.

This is from AiG. For the most part, I agree except the phrases I bolded. It is dishonest for the atheist as well.

The battle is not over evidence but over philosophical starting points: presuppositions. As Christians, we should never put away our axiom—the Bible—when discussing truth with others. This would be like a soldier going into battle without any armor or weapons. Asking a Christian to abandon the Bible for the sake of discussion is like asking an atheist to prove there is no God by using only the Bible. You would be asking the atheist to give up his axiom.
The prophets and the apostles never tried to prove God’s existence. They started by assuming God’s existence, and they always reasoned from Scripture (Acts 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19). By using the Word of God, we are actually pitting the unbeliever against God and not our own fallible thinking.​

I run into this a lot, sometimes I will be challenged to offer evidence for the reliability of Scripture. What this neglects is the fact that the Scriptures, are in fact, a living witness and a vital evidence of redemptive history. I'm not entirely sure I'm comfortable with confidence in the reliability of Scriptures as an 'axiom' for faith. It's just too ambiguous.

I agree, however, AiG insinuates the way they choose to interpret the scripture is presuppositional/properly basic. It is not. Listen to Bart Ehrman. His whole argument against the integrity of the NT we have right now versus the original autographs is based on erring presupposition upon erring presupposition. It pushes presupposition too far,

Ehrman made a big deal about there being no autographs or reliable copies. Where I stepped in was on whether or not we have the testimony of the original authors. This comes down to something called bibliographical testing and the rule of thumb is that the closest the copy is to the original (time wise) the greater the accuracy. The papyrus scrolls have long ago disintegrated to dust. This creates no real problem because of the number of copies we have and the agreement between them with very marginal differences.

You are correct. Experts defer to other experts all the time. When researching, all pertinent information is gathered from other experts early in the process. However, an archaeologist can refer to first hand finds; I cannot. I have to trust paleographers in their testimony. That is my point.

Understood.

My point is that the ID guys craft their rhetoric in such a way that a YEC who is just passively listening can feel that they are YEC's. Fact is, ID would be compatible with any Creator driven model.

I'm not sure that Intelligent Design was ever more then an intellectual exercise. I happen to like the Paley watch and stone on a beach analogy, the stone has any number of explanations but the watch was clearly designed. I see ID of limited relevance to YEC and it basically falls under a category of natural theology. An approach I don't disapprove of exactly but regard it as rather limited.

Assuming a global flood, the historical record, and archaeological record, maybe a hundred years. Maybe.

I think it can happen within a couple of generations otherwise the tendency is to revert back to the grandparent form. What prompted the experiments Mendel (quoted below) was done because of the tendency of hybrids to revert back to the wild type. It seems to me that your estimate is pretty close to my own but the details can get a little tedious so let's move on.

Forums like this could be a great tol to come together, challenge, defend, edify, and understand each other nad their points of view. Being challenged is good. Defending is good. Criticizing, ...umm..., not so much.

I found CF to be an interesting sounding board as I explored the scientific literature on the subject of comparative genomics. I learned a great deal about paleontology as well. The problem is that when it gets bogged down with constant criticism, usually instigated by a badly misinformed critic, the substantive evidences and arguments get buried. That's exactly what happens in these forums and I think it's directed by unbelievers who are simply undermining confidence in the Scriptures.

Many well meaning Christians think that taking up the opposing view point to Creationism lends credibility to the Christian faith. I honestly believed they are being lulled into a false sense of security and their criticism is self deprecating. I like to think that my discussions with them help them to realize that their efforts are self defeating.

Creation is ex nihilo.

Genesis 1 is a literary framework which show the superiority of YHWH of the pagan deities that the children of Israel had left and they would encounter in Canaan (and even the more ancient deities.) Israel had no copies of the Torah, so this gave them a devotional framework and memory aid as well. (Further evidence of the devotional theory would be the singularity of the seed, animal, and material in Lev. 19:19 which would bring the Shema to mind in daily life) I also like the way day 7 has no end as our sabbath rest in Jesus has no end. Origen and Philo taught that Genesis was not literal, therefore, this is not a new view.

Interesting...

I have started looking into the chronologies once again. One problem is obvious. The Septuagint leaves Methuselah alive after the flood. Theophilus, Hippolytus, and other ECF's have the birth of Jesus around 5500 years after the creation of Adam. These do not line up with the genealogy we have in the modern translations. Inerrancy is in the original autographs not the Septuagint,, translation or any other transcription now known.

Virtually anything given an amount or a date is always less then reliable in the Old Testament. Sure, the timeline makes a nice benchmark but the way they numbered things in those days was nothing like the decimal numbering system we have today. The genealogies represent a bloodline much more so then a timeline. That doesn't mean that we don't have a reliable timeline just not a very precise one.

Archaeologists have discovered other texts from the ANE that show genealogies with numbers that are religiously symbolic. This article discusses this as well as the "Mesopotamian worldview of numbers" and the "Sexagesimal view". I do not know. I am sincerely looking at this because I see the issue, not because I want to hold to a particular view. That would be dishonest.

http://www.asa3.org/ed/Chapter3.pdf

Numbers very often can be used symbolically, Revelations does a lot of this. I am aware of the ANE basis for the kind of theories described in the document you linked to. I think you can go too far with this sort of thing, in fact, many times making something symbolic just because it's awkward to defend as historically relevant is a negative tendency. It lends far too much credibility to skeptics who are continually undermining the reliability of Scripture.

Of course I think it's healthy to explore this sort of thing, I know I do. I would advise caution though, they can go too far.

The line of prophecy pointing to Jesus is paramount.

Two primary lines of evidence are what convinced me when I was first a Christian. Messianic prophecy and bibliographical testing.

At any rate, thanks for that Jerry, it was very interesting. I hope you will continue to share from your studies with us when time permits. I can tell you from personal experience that in spite of the many negative criticisms Creationists will face on here it's far milder then any other board I have found. At the same time there is an ongoing active interest on the part of the participants.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

To dovetail a bit with what Mark is saying, I have to agree. To be a Christian, you in some way must be a "creationist". Whether you believe God created the first cell, and then let it progress untouched for billions of years, or if you believe Genesis 1 as literal, it all starts in one place. God. Yet we see here on these forums, Christians attacking other Christians, and using the word "creationist" like an insult. I have been on the receiving end on more than one occasion. However, I wear that word as a badge of honor...as an affirmation of my faith in God as the Creator! To do otherwise is to deny the very essence of what it means to be Christian. If God is not our creator, how can He be our saviour?

I think the harsh negative criticism was unavoidable at one time and it drove many Creationists out of here almost constantly. The whole creation/evolution thing is starting to fade away, it's simply not the hot topic it was a few years ago. I think the time is ripe for Creationists to start to explore the subject matter without having secular skeptics beating them down every time they make a post or offer an opinion.

The way this forum is moderated can screen most of that sort of thing before it gets to be a problem. Currently I am simply reminding TEs that they must be creationists in order to be Christians so they can't be vehicles of arguments they learned from unbelieving skeptics. It would have been a waste of time and energy a few years ago but the skeptics have moved on to other things. Without that catalyst the TEs that post here tend to be rather civil if you are willing to deal with some of the criticisms early and effectively.

If you look below there is a rather typical conflict of the type that used to be nearly constant on here and worse in the common forums. There would always be a Papias who would respond to every post with as much animosity as they could muster. They used to be able to gang tackle and tag team but their numbers are dwindling because interest in the subject matter is fading. The Creation/evolution thing is kind of a passing trend that is slowly drifting into the obscurity it came from. When all is said and done the clear testimony of Scripture will stand and these 'interpretations' and arguments of science, falsely so called, will be another footnote in Christian apologetics, like so many that came before it.

Grace and peace,
Mark