My Dear Mark Kennedy...

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

And here I thought we were past this:

At that point the primary debater usually bows out and someone else comes in and derails the thread. Pressing them on theology is fruitless and finding a cohesive core set of convictions that defines TE is like making a sandcastle, it looks nice but sooner or later the tide comes in and washes it away.

My understanding of theology is very systematic, with all doctrines having bearing on the others.

Of course this is origins theology and I'd hate to introduce a thread involving an off-topic issue, but feel free to PM me and we'll run the gambit of doctrines.

But why must we persist in pressing these points? This is an origins theology forum- of course other areas of theology aren't going to be the central concern. Exegesis of Genesis 1, and 2-3, and 4-11 will be the central concern, and of course battering around scientific evidence.

But again, if you'd like to know about mine, or any of our theologies (mine consists of a robustly orthodox Christology and Trinitarianism, a basically Lutheran soteriology, a existential phneomological philosophy of religion, a very high view of communal worship and the Holy Sacraments, a covenental and redemptive-historical understanding of Scripture with a dose of moderate textual criticism, an inaugurated eschatology of the Kingdom and formal amillennialism, and a Eastern Orthodox-style mysticism involving unity with the divine nature), why not just PM us instead of talking about us behind our backs in the creationist forum?

I have no patience for that approach, they really don't have any veracity in TE for doctrinal preaching. TE affirms no essential doctrine that is essential to the Christian faith while YEC does. When I find something like that in the common forum it has been my experience that they won't go to the mat over it.

See this is just absolutely ridiculous.

Of course TE affirms an essential doctrine of the faith- theism!

Moreover, what essential doctrines of the faith does six-day YEC affirm?

Imputed guilt/original sin? Oh, wait, no, there are Eastern Orthodox YECs....

Justification by faith alone? Oh, wait, no, there are Roman Catholic YECs....

Divinity and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? Oh, wait, it says nothing about that.

What exactly is it that makes YEC so much more 'doctrinally orthodox' (a laughable term when you consider the hordes of anti-Catholic YEC evangelicals)? I don't see any theological doctrine that YEC necessarily implies or affirms other than a six-day creation and a young earth.

And here I thought we'd gotten past overgeneralizations, Mark....

 

[mark kennedy]

And here I thought we were past this:

That was general reflections on Theistic evolution at large, not an indictment of any Theistic Evolutionists in particular. I certainly did not have you in mind when I was responding to Busterdogs post.

My understanding of theology is very systematic, with all doctrines having bearing on the others.

You are the exception, in fact I have no quarrels with your theology as far as I have seen. Theistic evolution on the other hand is whatever the TE wants it to be.

Of course this is origins theology and I'd hate to introduce a thread involving an off-topic issue, but feel free to PM me and we'll run the gambit of doctrines.

I have only one doctrinal issue, original sin and the clear testimony of Moses, Paul and Jesus with regards to the creation of Adam. I am perfectly comfortable discussing this in the open forums or via PM at you discretion.

But why must we persist in pressing these points? This is an origins theology forum- of course other areas of theology aren't going to be the central concern. Exegesis of Genesis 1, and 2-3, and 4-11 will be the central concern, and of course battering around scientific evidence.

Indeed, I am perfectly willing to discuss these texts at any length and relish the opportunity. Science would also have something to contribute to our understanding of history or at least should be able to. I don't know what kind of a point you think I was pressing except that there is no cohesive doctrinal position of Theistic Evolution except that it is highly contentious against creationism.

But again, if you'd like to know about mine, or any of our theologies (mine consists of a robustly orthodox Christology and Trinitarianism, a basically Lutheran soteriology, a existential phneomological philosophy of religion, a very high view of communal worship and the Holy Sacraments, a covenental and redemptive-historical understanding of Scripture with a dose of moderate textual criticism, an inaugurated eschatology of the Kingdom and formal amillennialism, and a Eastern Orthodox-style mysticism involving unity with the divine nature), why not just PM us instead of talking about us behind our backs in the creationist forum?

All very good things, things I should like to discuss. The question comes to mind if you define Theistic Evolution is those terms because I have a hard time nailing down doctrinal points when talking to TEs the vast majority of the time.

I am restricted by the forum rules from questioning the Christian convictions of TEs even if I find their views highly suspect. I was not trying to sneak around behind anyones back, my views on TE as theology have been expressed in the common forum repeatedly. The fact of the matter is you really don't want to know what I think of TE.

See this is just absolutely ridiculous.

Is it? Let's talk about Theistic Evolution as theology. Not as the personal convictions of a single TE but Theistic evolution and things like original sin, the Exodus, Joseph, Danial and Queen Esther and the miracles of Elijah and Elisha.

Ridicules? I sincerely hope I find this to be the case but only time will tell. I know you affirm the Gospel in the strongest possible terms. However, I am not as confident that your confidence is the standard by which Theistic Evolution is defined as theology.

Of course TE affirms an essential doctrine of the faith- theism!

"Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." (James 2:19)​

Moreover, what essential doctrines of the faith does six-day YEC affirm?

Original sin and the Canon of Scripture for starters.

Imputed guilt/original sin? Oh, wait, no, there are Eastern Orthodox YECs....

You lost me, I have no idea what kind of a point you are tying to make here.

Justification by faith alone? Oh, wait, no, there are Roman Catholic YECs....

Your still not giving me anything tangible here.

Divinity and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? Oh, wait, it says nothing about that.

John one is inextricably linked to Genesis one and you are talking in vague generalities. It has been rare until you popped in the find TEs who affirm essential doctrine. They are uniform in their highly critical treatment of anything remotely theistic with regards to scientific analysis or conclusions.

What exactly is it that makes YEC so much more 'doctrinally orthodox' (a laughable term when you consider the hordes of anti-Catholic YEC evangelicals)? I don't see any theological doctrine that YEC necessarily implies or affirms other than a six-day creation and a young earth.

Let's not talk in circles, if you like I'll cut and paste the body of the post here and give Theistic Evolutions a chance to respond as they see fit. I don't know what these hordes of anti-Catholic YEC evangelicals are doing or what you might be implying here.

My issues are the Creation of Adam as the clear testimony of Moses, affirmed in the New Testament and consistent with the doctrines and traditions of the Church throughout Church history.

And here I thought we'd gotten past overgeneralizations, Mark....

The only thing I have seen Theistic Evolutionists do consistently is attack creationists. If there is some orthodoxy in Theistic Evolution I have yet to see it.

Feel free to respond as you see fit either in here, another forum or via PM. Also I will offer an open invitation to you and any theistic evolutionists to PM with anything they find in one of my posts in the Creationist subforum they wish to discuss.

In fact I would appreciate it if in the future when you start a thread with my name on it you extend that courtesy to me so I don't miss it. Currently I am only browsing this forum and it was nearly buried when I happened upon it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

In fact I would appreciate it if in the future when you start a thread with my name on it you extend that courtesy to me so I don't miss it. Currently I am only browsing this forum and it was nearly buried when I happened upon it.

My apologies. Hopefully there won't be any need in the future, but I'll make a mental note. Regardless, glad it caught your eye.

That was general reflections on Theistic evolution at large, not an indictment of any Theistic Evolutionists in particular. I certainly did not have you in mind when I was responding to Busterdogs post.

You are the exception, in fact I have no quarrels with your theology as far as I have seen.

Verywell, thank you.

You are the exception, in fact I have no quarrels with your theology as far as I have seen. Theistic evolution on the other hand is whatever the TE wants it to be.

I don't know what kind of a point you think I was pressing except that there is no cohesive doctrinal position of Theistic Evolution except that it is highly contentious against creationism.

Is it? Let's talk about Theistic Evolution as theology. Not as the personal convictions of a single TE but Theistic evolution and things like original sin, the Exodus, Joseph, Danial and Queen Esther and the miracles of Elijah and Elisha.

And once again, we come to the problem.

Of course theistic evolution defined solely by its antagonism with creationism.

Theistic evolution says nothing about the Exodus, Joseph, Daniel, Esther, and the miracles of Elijah and Elisha.

Neither does six-day young earth creationism!

All six-day young earth creationism says is that the Genesis account is a highly historicized, literal account of the creation of the world, which took six days a few thousand years ago, and involved the literal creation of Adam and Eve and their tempting by a serpent (or evil spirit in the form of a serpent).

One could quite conceivable believe in six-day young earth creationism without taking any other doctrinal stands.

One could, for instance, not believe in justification by faith alone:

Justification by faith alone? Oh, wait, no, there are Roman Catholic YECs....

Or imputed guilt/original sin:

Imputed guilt/original sin? Oh, wait, no, there are Eastern Orthodox YECs....

There are many six-day youth earth creationists in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, but the soteriological concerns you hold so dear are not held by them.

So when you repeatedly make the point that theistic evolutionists have no communal confessions on such positions, I'd try and get your own house in order, first.

Again, you say:

I don't know what kind of a point you think I was pressing except that there is no cohesive doctrinal position of Theistic Evolution except that it is highly contentious against creationism.

I say: Young earth six-day creationists have no coherent positions, either, except their mutual antagonism with theistic evolutionists.

The only thing I have seen Theistic Evolutionists do consistently is attack creationists. If there is some orthodoxy in Theistic Evolution I have yet to see it.

Then perhaps you could come over to GT and see what we're up to there. I know at least Mel and I spend more time over there than anywhere else.

And by the way, I could level the same charge.

Rarely do I see young earth creationists in other forums, and when I do, they're arguing for dispensationalism, Arminianism, credobaptism, nondenominationalism or congregationalism, or a representational communion- all of which I consider to be grave errors.

I have only one doctrinal issue, original sin and the clear testimony of Moses, Paul and Jesus with regards to the creation of Adam. I am perfectly comfortable discussing this in the open forums or via PM at you discretion.

We've been over original sin, and you know I fully believe that our damnation comes as a result of a legal imputation of the first image-bearer's guilt. A glorious parallel with the legal imputation of righteousness from Christ, I think.

But the actual special creation of the flesh of Adam? Boy, you're going to have to show me where our Lord and St. Paul say that.

 

[crawfish]

Theistic evolution on the other hand is whatever the TE wants it to be.

You could say "theology on the other hand is whatever the Christian wants it to be" and still have a point. Even creationists have vast differences between them, hailing from all sorts of denominations and faiths. I've seen many cases where two people look at the "literal" meaning of a piece of scripture and come up with two different answers.

I attend a fairly conservative Texas congregation. Most of them fall on the creation side of this argument. However, we attend the same classes, believe the same things about salvation, and worship the same God. TE isn't really a belief to me - it's an approach to the scripture that doesn't assume historical or scientific accuracy. It takes NOTHING away from what the scripture means.

 

[shernren]

Justification by faith alone? Oh, wait, no, there are Roman Catholic YECs....,

Your still not giving me anything tangible here.

MK doesn't understand the immense soteriological differences between the Roman Catholic position and his Protestant position, and he lectures us on theology?

 

[shernren]

The only thing I have seen Theistic Evolutionists do consistently is attack creationists. If there is some orthodoxy in Theistic Evolution I have yet to see it.

Mark, I totally understand what you mean! The other day in the shopping mall, I came across some people who actually believed that the earth went around the sun. What a ridiculous notion! I decided to test their theological understanding as well. Luckily they were all Christians, so I could label them as "theistic heliocentrists".

I started by asking them what they thought about original sin. And boy, were their answers amazing! They all agreed that all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. But some of them believed that Adam was literally formed from the dust of the earth, some believed that Adam was an evolved ape whom God made contact with, some believed that Adam was a picture of the first human community, and some believed that Adam is a representation of all humanity! The fact that they all agreed that all humans have sinned and need salvation through Jesus Christ is irrelevant - since they all disagreed about how to interpret the first few chapters of the Bible, theistic heliocentrists can't possibly have any systematic theology of sin at all.

Then I asked them what they thought about prophecy and the authorship of the Bible. And boy, again, you should have seen the disunity! I mean, they all did agree that God had chosen Abraham to be a blessing to all nations and that He did just that by sending Jesus Christ to all humanity through the nation of Israel. But what does that matter, right? For all you know, some of them could have been just pretending to be Christians just to humor me. Some of them believed that Isaiah was written by two people, some by three, others that the last half of Daniel was written after the events it described, while others held firmly to the traditional views about the authorship of those books, and yet others thought it didn't really matter. I didn't let their broad, firm agreement on the doctrine that God works in history fool me. The fact that they disagreed on a few issues about literary criticism of the Old Testament shows that theistic heliocentrists can't possibly affirm any doctrine essential to the Christian faith.

Finally I broke the ice and told them that I was a geocentrist. Boy, you should have seen them go at me! They had been disagreeing left, right, and center on how to interpret a few verses, and yet when I told them they became as one and tried to convince me that the earth goes around the sun! Never mind that all of them told me earlier that they had affirmed the Nicene Creed. Never mind that many of them had testified of God's personal providence in their lives. The only thing I could see that united them was their unanimous hatred towards geocentrism.

See, the only thing I have seen theistic heliocentrists consistently do is attack geocentrists. If there is some orthodoxy in theistic heliocentrists I have yet to see it. Sure, they believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior, that He lived a sinless life on earth and died and rose again and ascended to the right hand of God, and that He will return, and that all man has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and that God is both transcendent and immanent in the universe and is its divine Creator and Lord, and that God's providence is evident in history both of Israel and of the Gentile world, and that the Bible is correctly canonized and shouldn't include any Gnostic or apocryphcal material, and that all other religions are wrong one way or another about the spiritual realm, and that we should work out our salvation in fear and trembling. But I won't let them fool me. If they don't agree with me on the specifics of how I interpret every single letter in the Bible, then they can't possibly be doctrinally sound.

I hope you're not one of them too. Are you?

(OOC: I'm giving up on the "Creationism is the new geocentrism" debate, because I am not going to insult the geocentrists that way. They dealt honestly with all their data, never leaving out what was inconvenient for them, going with their models as far as they could and throwing them out the moment they failed. The neo-Ptolemaics never modified their theories ad hoc, and they criticized the ad hoc modifications of competing theories. The geocentrists were entirely willing to make field observations of astronomical events that had already been considered to contradict geocentrism, and when they saw that the observations could be replicated, they lost heart in their geocentric theories, which were nevertheless forced onto them by religious ordinances of obedience. The geocentrists, if scientifically flawed, were at least systematically honest, Clavius freely admitting that Ptolemy needed to withstand substantial modification if it was going to explain Galileo's new observations; creationism has a long way to go before I will consider it as honest as geocentrism in its final days.)

 

[Melethiel]

You are the exception, in fact I have no quarrels with your theology as far as I have seen. Theistic evolution on the other hand is whatever the TE wants it to be.

EXACTLY!!! There is NO solidified "TE theology." The theology of an individual TE will reflect whatever denomination they are. In this forum alone, you will find a wide range of views.

This is the same as in YEC. The majority of the YEC in this forum are evangelical, and so hold to similar theologies, but you will also find EO YEC (who do NOT hold to your understanding of original sin and imputed guilt) and RC YECs (who also have vast theological differences). While AiG et al. do have some sort of doctrinal position stated (I confess I haven't read their pages in a while), they are by and large evangelical. I know there are several Lutherans who are staunchly YEC who reject AiG/ICR.

It has been rare until you popped in the find TEs who affirm essential doctrine.

Essential as defined by whom? As previously mentioned, EO YECs do not hold to imputed original sin. On the other hand, a lot of YECs do not hold to the efficacy of the Sacraments, which I consider essential doctrine, or they DO hold to decision theology and arminianism, which I consider to be gravely incorrect.

If there is some orthodoxy in Theistic Evolution I have yet to see it.

Well, these type of things generally tend to be discussed in other forums. (Despite what GCC said, I don't spend that much time in GT anymore. He's so much more eloquent than I, and our doctrinal convictions are virtually identical.)

 

[mark kennedy]

My apologies. Hopefully there won't be any need in the future, but I'll make a mental note. Regardless, glad it caught your eye.

It's just that it's not the first time it has happened, I sometimes wonder how many threads I missed.

Verywell, thank you.

I want you to know I'm not being patronizing in the slightest, your testimony was a great encouragement to me.

And once again, we come to the problem.

I'm listening...

Of course theistic evolution defined solely by its antagonism with creationism.

I honestly have no idea how it is defined to tell you the truth. All I ever see is creationists treated with utter contempt.

Theistic evolution says nothing about the Exodus, Joseph, Daniel, Esther, and the miracles of Elijah and Elisha.

Now we come to the problem, the Bible is among other things, redemptive history. Will you or your theistic evolutionist brethren affirm or deny the claims of Moses, the Levetical and Prophetic writers of the Old Testament in that regard?

Neither does six-day young earth creationism!

The logo of AIG reads, affirming the truth of Scripture from the first page. Creationism does affirm the Bible as history from Genesis to Revelations. That is why it is otherwise known as literalism.

What is another way of saying Theistic Evolution, allegoricalism?

All six-day young earth creationism says is that the Genesis account is a highly historicized, literal account of the creation of the world, which took six days a few thousand years ago, and involved the literal creation of Adam and Eve and their tempting by a serpent (or evil spirit in the form of a serpent).

Not in my book it's not and we are getting to the why of it slowly but surely.

One could quite conceivable believe in six-day young earth creationism without taking any other doctrinal stands.

That is an interesting theory but I have never known that to be the case. As a matter of fact, I have never seen a creationist challenged on the basis of the Gospel by a theistic evolutionist. I've seen it called heresy and gnosticism by people who have no comprehension of what those terms mean but that's about it.

One could, for instance, not believe in justification by faith alone:

Justification by faith starts the sanctification process, it's never alone except in the coldest academic sense. You can't accept Christ as Savior and not worship Him as Lord, it just does not happen.

Or imputed guilt/original sin:

Evangelicals and fundamentalists are unanimous in the primacy of sin. Those tracts they hand out on street corners, they all start out with 'you are a sinner', so does the Gospel.

There are many six-day youth earth creationists in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, but the soteriological concerns you hold so dear are not held by them.

Most Christians have very little use for a systematic theology. It's unfortunate but it's nevertheless true. I do know one thing for sure, there is an ongoing effort underway to Christianize secular humanism and liberal theology. Essential doctrine involving the supernatural is not really denied, it is just ignored. The supernatural events surrounding the life, death, resurrection and soon return of Christ cannot be long ignored in a Christian context.

Christianity is dependent on performing miracles by the score. You cannot deny the supernatural intervention of God in human affairs. You know this, we worship a God of miracles and the secular world scoffs.

So when you repeatedly make the point that theistic evolutionists have no communal confessions on such positions, I'd try and get your own house in order, first.

You may elaborate on that one at will. Getting your house in order implies immediate peril, do you have some news of some impending judgment awaiting Creationists.

Again, you say:

I will not only restate it, I will be happy to elaborate on it.

I don't know what kind of a point you think I was pressing except that there is no cohesive doctrinal position of Theistic Evolution except that it is highly contentious against creationism. It is shunned by creations for the most part for it's divisive and contentious influence. Creationists are not offered the right hand of fellowship but attacked incessantly. They are insulted, ridiculed ostracized and the all for taking the Bible as written as more reliable then natural science with regards to human history.

I submit to you the Creationism is the traditional view of the Church and that Theistic Evolution is a modern a priori assumption. It has one principle point of contact with Christian theism, God's special creation cannot be an explanation of our origin.

I say: Young earth six-day creationists have no coherent positions, either, except their mutual antagonism with theistic evolutionists.

Have you browsed the pages of Answers in Genesis or ever found a Creationist organization that did not emphasize sound doctrine? They are not antagonistic toward Theistic Evolution or science for that matter. They simply defend their confidence in the Scriptures. Creationism is nothing more then evidential apologetics and I have been studying it for a couple of years now.

Then perhaps you could come over to GT and see what we're up to there. I know at least Mel and I spend more time over there than anywhere else.

Drop me a link in my PM box and I'll be glad to.

And by the way, I could level the same charge.

You could try but Creationists respond favorably to the Gospel and I have never seen one argue against the clear testimony of Scripture.

Rarely do I see young earth creationists in other forums, and when I do, they're arguing for dispensationalism, Arminianism, credobaptism, nondenominationalism or congregationalism, or a representational communion- all of which I consider grave errors.

You won't see a lot of Creationists in other forums, they don't come in here all that much. We have a few regulars but Creationism is anything but a heresy. You want to fill me in on how all have sinned apart from Adam and Eve?

We've been over original sin, and you know I fully believe that our damnation comes as a result of a legal imputation of the first image-bearer's guilt. A glorious parallel with the legal imputation of righteousness from Christ, I think.

Fine then, show me the traditional view the denies Adam and Ever were our first parents. We have not been over this but a couple of times we danced around it.

But the actual special creation of the flesh of Adam? Boy, you're going to have to show me where our Lord and St. Paul say that.

"the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world" (Luke 11:50-51)

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.(Romans 5:12-17)

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (I Cor 15:22)

"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female" (Matt 19:4)​

Note that there is nothing at all about apes in Christian theism until the advent of Darwinism.

 

[mark kennedy]

MK doesn't understand the immense soteriological differences between the Roman Catholic position and his Protestant position, and he lectures us on theology?

I know my theology well enough and I have no idea whether you have one or not.

 

[mark kennedy]

EXACTLY!!! There is NO solidified "TE theology." The theology of an individual TE will reflect whatever denomination they are. In this forum alone, you will find a wide range of views.

If they have a theology it's hard to nail it down has been my experience.

This is the same as in YEC.

The majority of the YEC in this forum are evangelical, and so hold to similar theologies, but you will also find EO YEC (who do NOT hold to your understanding of original sin and imputed guilt) and RC YECs (who also have vast theological differences). While AiG et al. do have some sort of doctrinal position stated (I confess I haven't read their pages in a while), they are by and large evangelical. I know there are several Lutherans who are staunchly YEC who reject AiG/ICR.

You don't have to support AIG/ICR to be a creationist or to affirm the Gospel. Evangelical theology for the most part is a pretty traditional Christian theology that emphasizes the Scriptures and faith. It is, however, a theology and it is not known for rejecting the traditional view of the church.

Essential as defined by whom? As previously mentioned, EO YECs do not hold to imputed original sin. On the other hand, a lot of YECs do not hold to the efficacy of the Sacraments, which I consider essential doctrine, or they DO hold to decision theology and arminianism, which I consider to be gravely incorrect.

You can't deny original sin and affirm the Gospel. You may be able to get around a literal Adam but you can't get around universal sin. Without Adam being our first parent you still have to come to terms with how we all sin since Paul makes it clear that it is due to Adam.

Well, these type of things generally tend to be discussed in other forums. (Despite what GCC said, I don't spend that much time in GT anymore. He's so much more eloquent than I, and our doctrinal convictions are virtually identical.)

Try a cut and paster here and there, I'm open to the idea that Theistic Evolution has some remote semblance of a Theology.

 

[Melethiel]

The basic tenets of my theology

Evangelical theology for the most part is a pretty traditional Christian theology that emphasizes the Scriptures and faith. It is, however, a theology and it is not known for rejecting the traditional view of the church.

Like the traditional views of the Church on eschatology and sacramentology? And here, I've found that most evangelicals are dispensational and Zwinglian.

You can't deny original sin and affirm the Gospel. You may be able to get around a literal Adam but you can't get around universal sin. Without Adam being our first parent you still have to come to terms with how we all sin since Paul makes it clear that it is due to Adam.

While I can't speak for others (because there is no monolithic "TE Theology"), I affirm a literal Adam and universal sin. Adam is not our biological first parent, but our federal head (as GCC has elucidated on previously). His sin is imputed to us in the same way that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. No biological descent necessary.

 

[shernren]

I know my theology well enough and I have no idea whether you have one or not.

Quite frankly, I was a bit worried that I had been a bit harsh to write this:

See, the only thing I have seen theistic heliocentrists consistently do is attack geocentrists. If there is some orthodoxy in theistic heliocentrists I have yet to see it. Sure, they believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior, that He lived a sinless life on earth and died and rose again and ascended to the right hand of God, and that He will return, and that all man has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and that God is both transcendent and immanent in the universe and is its divine Creator and Lord, and that God's providence is evident in history both of Israel and of the Gentile world, and that the Bible is correctly canonized and shouldn't include any Gnostic or apocryphcal material, and that all other religions are wrong one way or another about the spiritual realm, and that we should work out our salvation in fear and trembling. But I won't let them fool me. If they don't agree with me on the specifics of how I interpret every single letter in the Bible, then they can't possibly be doctrinally sound.

I hope you're not one of them too. Are you?

but now I can rest easy, knowing that I was fully justified to do so. Which of the fundamental Christian truths above do you think theistic evolutionists do not hold to? Or which of the fundamental Christian uniters below:

Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to one hope when you were called-- one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
(Ephesians 4:3-6 NIV)

do you believe that you cannot agree with TEs with? (And why is the Bible conspicuously absent? )

To say that your theology is not about rejecting tradition betrays an absurd lack of perspective. Your theology - and mine, for I am quite evangelical, although lately I've started to wonder if my RC brothers and sisters are more right about some things - grew out of the Reformation which was about practically nothing but rejecting tradition. There are hundreds of beautiful traditions maintained by the Catholic and Orthodox churches (some of which may not be true, but are still theologically exquisite) that were maintained by them expressly out of respect for the Apostolic authority of their teachings and which we evangelicals know next to nothing about and will not go near with a ten-foot pole. Their churches are so rich, deep, and fervent about theology that for hundreds of years they could consider each other absolute heretics for just three words in the Nicene Creed. And you want to lecture us about rejecting tradition?