Creationism (doctrine and teaching)

[ChetSinger]

Mark, I have a question considering you are far more well read on the subject. Is there any true hard evidence for ucd, or is it mostly assumption to back a theory?

I believe UCD is the product of an observation and an assumption. The observation is that all living things share a similar chemistry: DNA, RNA, proteins, and the such. The assumption is that there is no God and therefore life had to have begun via abiogenesis. Put the observation and assumption together and you conclude there was a single abiogenesis event.

Belief in abiogenesis is faith. No one claims to have seen it, or produced it. And efforts such as the Minimal Genome Project have demonstrated the high bar that any theory of abiogenesis must leap. There's no doubt in my mind that life here was engineered. And engineered very exquisitely.

 

[miamited]

I believe UCD is the product of an observation and an assumption. The observation is that all living things share a similar chemistry: DNA, RNA, proteins, and the such. The assumption is that there is no God and therefore life had to have begun via abiogenesis. Put the observation and assumption together and you conclude there was a single abiogenesis event.

Belief in abiogenesis is faith. No one claims to have seen it, or produced it. And efforts such as the Minimal Genome Project have demonstrated the high bar that any theory of abiogenesis must leap. There's no doubt in my mind that life here was engineered. And engineered very exquisitely.

Hi Chet,

I like your answer. You know, I am awed by those who make truths based on such similarities as you mention. That we all have similar chemistry in DNA, RNA and so forth is taken by many to be 'proof' that we come from a common ancestor. The truth could also be that these similarities are just the basic building blocks of all life. When God made each creature they were made to be able to move and to breath and to think to some degree and just the commonality of those traits should infer that the building blocks of their bodies, just as ours, would be similar. The Scriptures tell us that both man and animal were made from the dirt of the earth. Now, if I'm made out of the same materials that a dog is made out of, why in the world wouldn't there be tons of similarity in our physical make-up? However, I believe that it stops there. God made each creature to be the indivdual creature that it is and to repopulate its own kind through some sort of reproductive event. That's how God made it!!!!

So, those who would try to defend evolutionary theory merely by the commonality of our physical forms, I think, have no understanding of what God has done. I mean, there are those who would say that we come from some ape-like creature because we share so much in common with the present day ape. Yea, well, I'm confident there is some animal like a dog that shares an abundance of a dogs biological make-up. That, in and of itself, is absolutely no assurance that they somehow evolved from some previously unknown creature that somewhere millions of years ago split into the two branches that ultimately became the dog and whatever else closely shares its common elements. At best it means that life, living creatures that move and breathe and live upon the earth all have this commonality because that's what makes life!

When we look at the angelic realm we see that they don't really have the same type of physical bodies as we do. They were obviously not made of the dust of the ground since the earth hadn't been created when they were created, but whatever it is that God put together and designed to give them life is how it must be that angels are angels and live. I propose that that is also why there is so much commonality in living creatures on this earth. Whatever it is, however it was that God created living breathing creatures of flesh and bone and blood and sinew, they all require, in order to exist, this commonality in their physical make-up.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[mark kennedy]

Naturalism is not UCD can we get that straight?

Call it what you will, UCD is an a priori assumption that transcends all life and all natural history excluding God categorically except as a remote secondary cause. The only real difference between Naturalism and UCD is that Naturalism is a systematic philosophy that clearly defines it's terms and meticulously details it's reasoning, something Darwinian UCD is never required to do. Your right, UCD is different, it's an abstraction without the requisite epistemology required of any legitimate philosophical system.

Except TE is Creationism it states that God created and is in control.

Theistic Evolutionists may well be Christians and even consider themselves to be Creationists but all they really do is argue against Creationism. If they are, in fact, Creationists then they have embraced a view that is inherently self deprecating.

I pointed to YEC specifically as having those two theologies of science, you reply by generalising it to all creationists, you either conflated the two or are misrepresenting what I am saying.

First of all you have neither identified the 'two theologies' nor have you defined 'science'. Given your insistence on changing the meaning of words beyond any resemblance of their actual meaning, I'm going to dismiss that statement as a rhetorical generality and yet another of the inevitable ad hominem attacks.

See I have that same problem with YEC, perhaps you'll remember my signature from a while back (paraphrasing because I can't find the copy I posted on Facebook);
As Christians and theists we should affirm that not only has God done it but that he is continuing to do it.

I don't know what you mean, I have no problem with YEC, never have, never will. I had to decide which path to take, geology or genetics, I decided on genetics. What is more there is ample room in the narrative for a vast passage of time between Genesis 1:1 and the beginning of Creation week. I simply concluded early on that the age of the earth was and is, irrelevant. I remain a Young Earth Creationist by default.

This is the definition of Deism that I am working from:
Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world in any way, allowing it to run according to the laws of nature that he configured when he created all things. God is thus conceived to be wholly transcendent and never immanent.

Which cannot possibly, even in the remotest sense describe Creationists. Creationists predicate everything on God's direct activity in Creation and attribute none of the creation events in Genesis 1 to secondary causes, elemental or otherwise. You have changed the meaning of Creationism not once but twice in this post alone. You call it deism which is by definition an opposing, if not, mutually exclusive view. You call Theistic Evolution Creationism which is equally self contradicting based simply on the contentious view Theistic Evolutionists have of Creationism in all it's forms.

Being Christian and Reformed informs my Theistic Evolution, my Theistic Evolution does not inform either my Christianity, nor my Calvinism.

I'm a traditional Reformation Calvinist affirming Christ alone, Scripture alone, grace alone with strong Dispensational convictions. I embrace a wide spectrum of theological views with the canon of Scripture as the only authoritative foundation for Christian doctrine. Theistic Evolution does not belong to any theology whatsoever, it's simply an intellectual skepticism of a literal reading of Genesis 1. It's focus is never Biblical and the arguments used are almost identical to modern skepticism towards Creationism as natural history.

You missed my point, the writers of scripture wrote what God wanted them to write without regard to modern concepts of genre.

Moses wrote an historical narrative, that much is clear and beyond skepticism.

I'm not really wanting to stress Gen 49 as a direct parallel with Gen 1 as you seem to think I do, if you want a parallel of what I think is going on Jdg 4-5, Ex 14-15 and Gen 1-2 would be the ones I draw.

I think expositional studies are in order whether you introduce what you learn in the thread or not.

Well they also don't say that they are one genre per book.

Genesis is an historical narrative.

I am talking about the continued sustaining act of God, nothing happens that is not his will, if he were to step away from creation as it were creation would no longer exist, that constant act which brings himself glory.

That glory is reflected in nature, giving light to everyone who comes into the world. It's called natural revelation and the only prerequisite to believing the Gospel except for being convicted of sin and called to faith by God the Father.

The start of this conversation was about a misunderstanding of how TEs understand UCD.

There was no misunderstanding on my part, just you trying to change the literal meaning of words.

I think you need to go back and look at the conclusion and application of Mendel's work, especially it's application since 1900.

This has been the course of the development of Mendelian Genetics since 1900. You don't seem to realize, I have studied this already and I know exactly what I'm talking about:

The rediscovery of Mendel's laws of heredity in the opening weeks of the 20th century sparked a scientific quest to understand the nature and content of genetic information that has propelled biology for the last hundred years. The scientific progress made falls naturally into four main phases, corresponding roughly to the four quarters of the century. The first established the cellular basis of heredity: the chromosomes. The second defined the molecular basis of heredity: the DNA double helix. The third unlocked the informational basis of heredity, with the discovery of the biological mechanism by which cells read the information contained in genes and with the invention of the recombinant DNA technologies of cloning and sequencing by which scientists can do the same.

The last quarter of a century has been marked by a relentless drive to decipher first genes and then entire genomes, spawning the field of genomics. (Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome)​

So enlighten me upon the Christian view of the transitional fossils.

I wouldn't be interested right now, thanks just the same.

Well I consider myself a Creationist and you are adamant that my position isn't, I'm just calling them as I see them.

If your a Christian then you are a Creationist, there are no two ways about that. Your determined criticism of Creationists and highly contentious attitude toward them is the sole focus of Theistic Evolution. If what you are telling me is true then you are confused about which side your supposed to be on here.

Whereas I have the issue of you treating my position as if it is mutually exclusive with itself.

Your only problem is that you are conflating and equivocating words with meanings that contradict the literal meanings.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[ChetSinger]

...The truth could also be that these similarities are just the basic building blocks of all life. When God made each creature they were made to be able to move and to breath and to think to some degree and just the commonality of those traits should infer that the building blocks of their bodies, just as ours, would be similar. The Scriptures tell us that both man and animal were made from the dirt of the earth. Now, if I'm made out of the same materials that a dog is made out of, why in the world wouldn't there be tons of similarity in our physical make-up? However, I believe that it stops there. God made each creature to be the individual creature that it is and to repopulate its own kind through some sort of reproductive event. That's how God made it!!!!

Hi Ted. That's how I see it. We're all required to share the same biosphere, so it makes sense to me that we're all designed to be chemically compatible with each other.

I can imagine some promoters of evolution trying to have it both ways: since we're all cut from the same cloth they say "see, it's proof of a single abiogenesis event", but if we weren't they'd say "see, it's proof that abiogenesis happens all the time".

 

[Metal Minister]

Hi Ted. That's how I see it. We're all required to share the same biosphere, so it makes sense to me that we're all designed to be chemically compatible with each other.

I can imagine some promoters of evolution trying to have it both ways: since we're all cut from the same cloth they say "see, it's proof of a single abiogenesis event", but if we weren't they'd say "see, it's proof that abiogenesis happens all the time".

Spot on my friend, spot on!

 

[Keachian]

Call it what you will, UCD is an a priori assumption that transcends all life and all natural history excluding God categorically except as a remote secondary cause.

Except when used in a theistic evolutionary context in which the immanence of God is mandated by the use of the term theist. This isn't getting us anywhere so this is my piece, this is what I believe;
God created all things, God created all life out of the dust of the ground, and through what we describe as evolution and universal common descent God created the variety of life on this planet, I believe that this lines up with how scripture describes God's creative acts in Gen 2 but believe that this is a simplification, as Calvin put it a communicating to us as infants.

First of all you have neither identified the 'two theologies' nor have you defined 'science'. Given your insistence on changing the meaning of words beyond any resemblance of their actual meaning, I'm going to dismiss that statement as a rhetorical generality and yet another of the inevitable ad hominem attacks.

I did indeed identify two theologies of science:

It all comes down to a poor theology of science, I personally haven't seen any YEC with a good one,

1. either it appeals to science being a tool of the devil,
2. or it is inherently deistic and believes that we can test for God.

I don't know what you mean, I have no problem with YEC, never have, never will. I had to decide which path to take, geology or genetics, I decided on genetics. What is more there is ample room in the narrative for a vast passage of time between Genesis 1:1 and the beginning of Creation week. I simply concluded early on that the age of the earth was and is, irrelevant. I remain a Young Earth Creationist by default.

Which cannot possibly, even in the remotest sense describe Creationists. Creationists predicate everything on God's direct activity in Creation and attribute none of the creation events in Genesis 1 to secondary causes, elemental or otherwise. You have changed the meaning of Creationism not once but twice in this post alone. You call it deism which is by definition an opposing, if not, mutually exclusive view. You call Theistic Evolution Creationism which is equally self contradicting based simply on the contentious view Theistic Evolutionists have of Creationism in all it's forms.

Some creationists, and I think this is the problem that we're both having, we're both using our own beliefs and using them as a pattern for all believers who we can identify. However I have always said that there are some YEC who have a deistic view of God's relationship with creation after the initial act of creation and it's something I ultimately had trouble with until I became Reformed.

I'm a traditional Reformation Calvinist affirming Christ alone, Scripture alone, grace alone with strong Dispensational convictions.

If you are dispensationalist then you are not traditional Reformed, I don't view myself as traditional Reformed because of my views on Creationism.

I embrace a wide spectrum of theological views with the canon of Scripture as the only authoritative foundation for Christian doctrine.

As do I, the main thing that drives my theology is a Christ focused hermeneutic.

Theistic Evolution does not belong to any theology whatsoever, it's simply an intellectual skepticism of a literal reading of Genesis 1. It's focus is never Biblical and the arguments used are almost identical to modern skepticism towards Creationism as natural history.

I believe mine is focused on the Biblical, it's a scepticism based on the parrallel in Gen 1 with Gen 2, the heavy use of Temple imagery and above all with my chosen hermeneutic
I believe that it ultimately talks eschatologically to both Christ's first and second coming.

Moses wrote an historical narrative, that much is clear and beyond skepticism.

I think expositional studies are in order whether you introduce what you learn in the thread or not.

Genesis is an historical narrative.

This discussion is going in circles, I have said my piece.

That glory is reflected in nature, giving light to everyone who comes into the world. It's called natural revelation and the only prerequisite to believing the Gospel except for being convicted of sin and called to faith by God the Father.

Amen

If your a Christian then you are a Creationist, there are no two ways about that. Your determined criticism of Creationists and highly contentious attitude toward them is the sole focus of Theistic Evolution. If what you are telling me is true then you are confused about which side your supposed to be on here.

Can you show me where I have criticised Creationists for their Creationism rather than their lack of understanding about my own position?

 

[Metal Minister]

Except when used in a theistic evolutionary context in which the immanence of God is mandated by the use of the term theist. This isn't getting us anywhere so this is my piece, this is what I believe;
God created all things, God created all life out of the dust of the ground, and through what we describe as evolution and universal common descent God created the variety of life on this planet, I believe that this lines up with how scripture describes God's creative acts in Gen 2 but believe that this is a simplification, as Calvin put it a communicating to us as infants.

I did indeed identify two theologies of science:

Some creationists, and I think this is the problem that we're both having, we're both using our own beliefs and using them as a pattern for all believers who we can identify. However I have always said that there are some YEC who have a deistic view of God's relationship with creation after the initial act of creation and it's something I ultimately had trouble with until I became Reformed.

If you are dispensationalist then you are not traditional Reformed, I don't view myself as traditional Reformed because of my views on Creationism.

As do I, the main thing that drives my theology is a Christ focused hermeneutic.

I believe mine is focused on the Biblical, it's a scepticism based on the parrallel in Gen 1 with Gen 2, the heavy use of Temple imagery and above all with my chosen hermeneutic
I believe that it ultimately talks eschatologically to both Christ's first and second coming.

This discussion is going in circles, I have said my piece.

Amen

Can you show me where I have criticised Creationists for their Creationism rather than their lack of understanding about my own position?

Hi progmonk! I have a question I hope you can clarify for me. How can one be a yec deist? I can't seem to wrap my mind around this. As a former deist I believed God started everything with the big bang, and got bored with it rather quickly and walked away to let it fend for itself. Since becoming a Christian I realized how silly that was. My study of the scriptures brought me to my yec belief. (God might have used billions of years, but that wouldn't change my faith in Him an iota.) I just can't reconcile yec and deism in my mind!

 

[Keachian]

Hi progmonk! I have a question I hope you can clarify for me. How can one be a yec deist? I can't seem to wrap my mind around this. As a former deist I believed God started everything with the big bang, and got bored with it rather quickly and walked away to let it fend for itself. Since becoming a Christian I realized how silly that was. My study of the scriptures brought me to my yec belief. (God might have used billions of years, but that wouldn't change my faith in Him an iota.) I just can't reconcile yec and deism in my mind!

I think judging by the last conversation I had with someone who I'd class as this (and I can't remember who it was with or find it) it came in an interesting meeting point between Arminianism, dispensationalism, dualism and Creationism. The adamant stance that it is no longer God who is control over creation but the Devil flies contrary to scripture and is more evident of dualism or Zoroastrianism and yet people see it as undeistic, Satan is a created being if Satan and not God is in control of the world then Creation has no interaction from God and it is deism.

 

[Metal Minister]

I think judging by the last conversation I had with someone who I'd class as this (and I can't remember who it was with or find it) it came in an interesting meeting point between Arminianism, dispensationalism, dualism and Creationism. The adamant stance that it is no longer God who is control over creation but the Devil flies contrary to scripture and is more evident of dualism or Zoroastrianism and yet people see it as undeistic, Satan is a created being if Satan and not God is in control of the world then Creation has no interaction from God and it is deism.

*edit* I've rephrased this because I realized my original came across as judgemental, and I'm certainly not trying to be.

I do wonder how someone would come to the conclusion that Satan was in control? Verses like Ephisians 1:11 seal it for me that God is firmly in control, as does all of Job. There Satan must ask permission to afflict Job, and then God sets limits on him. Sorry, I'm taking this way off topic, my apologies. I'll step aside now and allow you and Mark to continue. God bless!

 

[Keachian]

*edit* I've rephrased this because I realized my original came across as judgemental, and I'm certainly not trying to be.

I do wonder how someone would come to the conclusion that Satan was in control? Verses like Ephisians 1:11 seal it for me that God is firmly in control, as does all of Job. There Satan must ask permission to afflict Job, and then God sets limits on him. Sorry, I'm taking this way off topic, my apologies. I'll step aside now and allow you and Mark to continue. God bless!

Well yes, Human tradition is so much easier to cling to, it provides an easier answer to the question of evil and noone really wants to believe that we are inherently sinful.

 

[Sophophile]

Theistic Evolutionists may well be Christians and even consider themselves to be Creationists but all they really do is argue against Creationism. If they are, in fact, Creationists then they have embraced a view that is inherently self deprecating.

Hi mark

Perhaps I'm not following, but are you saying Christian evolutionary creationists have no right to criticize the claims of young-earth creationists?

Thanks
S

 

[mark kennedy]

Hi mark

Perhaps I'm not following, but are you saying Christian evolutionary creationists have no right to criticize the claims of young-earth creationists?

Thanks
S

I'm saying Theistic Evolutionists do little else. What they are attacking is essential doctrine and refuse to deal with it as such. There has to be a standard and that has always been the canon of Scripture. They don't have the right to change the meaning of words to suite their worldview and certainly don't have the right to change the testimony of Scripture.

I have no problem with their criticism, I welcome it. What I know to be wrong is the way they treat believers, simply for affirming the clear testimony of Scripture. Every single Creationist who has stopped posting here had the same complaint, the personal attacks came immediately and constantly. That is their error, their actual criticism is a secondary issue.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[KTskater]

I'm saying Theistic Evolutionists do little else. What they are attacking is essential doctrine and refuse to deal with it as such. There has to be a standard and that has always been the canon of Scripture. They don't have the right to change the meaning of words to suite their worldview and certainly don't have the right to change the testimony of Scripture.

I have no problem with their criticism, I welcome it. What I know to be wrong is the way they treat believers, simply for affirming the clear testimony of Scripture. Every single Creationist who has stopped posting here had the same complaint, the personal attacks came immediately and constantly. That is their error, their actual criticism is a secondary issue.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Perhaps this has been your experience with TE's because you mainly interact with them on a forum that is geared toward debating these issues?
I don't know if you interact with large groups of TE's at church or in your daily fellowships, but if you don't, those might be the places to look for the heart of people who espouse these view points. People rarely behave the same on the internet as they do in real life.

 

[mark kennedy]

Perhaps this has been your experience with TE's because you mainly interact with them on a forum that is geared toward debating these issues?
I don't know if you interact with large groups of TE's at church or in your daily fellowships, but if you don't, those might be the places to look for the heart of people who espouse these view points. People rarely behave the same on the internet as they do in real life.

In a church setting the subject rarely comes up, there is no real way of exploring the subject matter in depth. The real problem isn't coming from the Christian community at large, it's stemming from the academic bias in both the secular world and the seminaries.

Most of the discussion forums are so chocked with contention that the subject matter is trampled under foot. The only other discussion board I have found that is substantive and at the same time civil is Evolution Fairytale and it has no where near the member base. This is the right place for it, the moderation policy keeps things civil and there is a large enough member base to get a broad spectrum of views.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Sophophile]

Sophophile: Hi mark - Perhaps I'm not following, but are you saying Christian evolutionary creationists have no right to criticize the claims of young-earth creationists?

mark kennedy: I'm saying Theistic Evolutionists do little else. What they are attacking is essential doctrine and refuse to deal with it as such. There has to be a standard and that has always been the canon of Scripture. They don't have the right to change the meaning of words to suite their worldview and certainly don't have the right to change the testimony of Scripture.

I have no problem with their criticism, I welcome it. What I know to be wrong is the way they treat believers, simply for affirming the clear testimony of Scripture. Every single Creationist who has stopped posting here had the same complaint, the personal attacks came immediately and constantly. That is their error, their actual criticism is a secondary issue.

Thank you mark, but that is not very clear.

You appear to be saying evolutionary creationists/TEs attack essential doctrine and change the testimony of scripture, and you welcome it? I doubt that's what you meant.

Let me ask again in a different way.

In your view, are there any specific young-earth creationist claims that are not essential doctrine, and can you give an example of one?

I'm not asking about personal attacks. I'm asking about specific young-earth claims such as the earth being < 10,000 years old, separate ancestry of humans and chimpanzees, or an historical global flood that killed all life, and whether in your view any or all of these claims are essential doctrine.

Thanks
S

 

[mark kennedy]

Thank you mark, but that is not very clear.

You appear to be saying evolutionary creationists/TEs attack essential doctrine and change the testimony of scripture, and you welcome it? I doubt that's what you meant.

Let me ask again in a different way.

In your view, are there any specific young-earth creationist claims that are not essential doctrine, and can you give an example of one?

There are actually two issues here, one scientific and one theological. An example of a scientific problem I enjoy discussing with evolutionists would be comparative genomics. What they will tell you is that we are 98% the same in our DNA as Chimpanzees, this is simply contrary to what the research has determined. That's just one example, there are many more.

Now, as far as the doctrinal basis for Creationism the Nicene Creed starts right off with a confession of God being Creator, followed by a confession of Christ being the eternal Son of God, affirming Christ as Creator. The first three stanzas could not be clearer, to worship Christ as Savior and Lord is to worship Him as Creator. This creates a very serious problem for someone who wants to argue against Creationism on a constant basis. The doctrinal issues have to be addressed and they are completely ignored.

I'm not asking about personal attacks. I'm asking about specific young-earth claims such as the earth being < 10,000 years old, separate ancestry of humans and chimpanzees, or an historical global flood that killed all life, and whether in your view any or all of these claims are essential doctrine.

Thanks
S

Not so much the age of the earth, as I've said many times, there could be a long span of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Human ancestry is traced back to Adam and no further, that both the Old Testament and the New Testament and lineage is only the problem on the surface. The vital doctrine of the Christian faith is original sin:

According to Paul:

Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).​

The book of Romans tells us that God's invisible attributes and eternal nature have been clearly seen but we exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom 1:21,22). As a result the Law of Moses and the law of our own conscience bears witness against us, sometimes accusing, sometimes defending (Rom 2:15). We all sinned but now the righteousness of God has been revealed to be by faith through Christ (Rom 3:21). Abraham became the father of many nations by faith and the supernatural work of God (Rom 4:17). Through one man sin entered the world and through one man righteousness was revealed (Rom 5:12). It looks something like this:

1. Exchanging the truth of God for a lie, the creature for the Creator.
2. Both the Law and our conscience make our sin evident and obvious.
3. All sinned, but now the righteousness of God is revealed in Christ.
4. Abraham's lineage produced by a promise and a miracle through faith.
5. Through one man sin entered the world and death through sin.
6. Just as Christ was raised from the dead we walk in newness of life.
7. The law could not save but instead empowered sin to convict.
8. Freed from the law of sin and death (Adamic nature) we're saved.

The Scriptures offer an explanation for man's fallen nature, how we inherited it exactly is not important but when Adam and Eve sinned we did not fast. This is affirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms by Luke in his genealogy, in Paul's exposition of the Gospel in Romans and even Jesus called the marriage of Adam and Eve 'the beginning'.

Essential doctrine is involved, you can argue with me endlessly about fossils and comparative genomics, dispensationalism and whether or not the days in Genesis are literal. I have no problem with that. What I do not think is proper conduct for a Christian is to categorically reject Creationism, focusing exclusively on attacking anyone who happens to believe in it.

This is the standard by which a person is determined to be a Christian on these boards, clearly, you must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian:

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. (Nicene Creed)​

Theistic Evolutionists have to deal with this doctrinally. They can no more escape Creationism as essential doctrine then they can the doctrine of the Trinity. What they do on a nearly constant basis is to attack Creationists and there needs to be a very serious effort on their part to affirm with one voice the essential doctrine of Creationism.

That happens and I would welcome their criticisms of my views on natural history with open arms.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[crawfish]

Curious? That's the whole point of Darwinism, perhaps not as Darwin originally presented it but today God gets credit for nothing. What miamited did and TEs invariably fail to do is appeal to Scripture at the heart of the emphasis. Let me show you what I mean:

I give God all the glory, and all the credit. So do all TE's. Some Christians want to grant so much higher importance to the supernatural that they end up discrediting the natural. Either evolution is natural and every bit a part of God's intentional creation as weather patterns, or God is not in control of anything natural. You can't selectively take God out of one and not out of the other and be consistent.

That was not what he was talking about, not even close. This was what he was talking about:

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (Col 2:8)​

I linked the quote to a pretty interesting Blue Bible app, maybe you should check it out.

More importantly, when you read his post, did this verse come to mind because it was the first thing that came to mine. It was at the heart of the emphasis, did that escape your attention because I never hear this kind of thing from TEs.

When you read this, what does it bring to mind?

When I read that, I think that one would automatically tie it to whatever philosophy of the day they felt was anti-God. This is why it's absolutely essential to read the bible as a document in its time and not with a modern mindset; the meaning is cemented in the time and place in which it was written and must be applied forward - it wasn't written with the idea that its meaning would be discovered in time.

If TE's don't seem to appeal to scripture as much (and I'd disagree here, but I won't belabor it), it could be that we are typically more careful about applying extraneous meaning.

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. (Nicene Creed)​

Now the Scriptures that are the basis for this confession are familiar to me. I'm seriously asking you here, what do they have in mind when they write this because the heart of the emphasis is not Genesis. Historically, the existence, divine attributes and eternal nature of God has never been defended because it's rarely contested, except in heretical traditions. There has certainly been no question the God created the universe, life and man by divine fiat.

But never mind what I see here, what do these three stanzas bring to mind when you read them?

I see nothing that I or other TE's would disagree with. You'd have to make assumptions past the actual words to think otherwise.

Now you are part of a category of Christians? According to the Scriptures, there is no such thing but Christ is all and in all. I don't know what you think but I have never shut out TEs, fundamentalists and evangelicals are constantly confronted by them, that's why the apologetic tone of my posts. I just want you to understand something, there is nothing that can separate a believer from Christ. I'm not the one shutting you out, I'm here seeking you out. Look at the poll, 13 young earth creationists responded to the poll, well over half. Would you like to know why they didn't post that much, because I have a pretty good idea.

Better yet, can you think of some reason why a Christian would shun a conversation like TEs and myself are engaged in here? Do the words 'divisive' and 'contentious mean anything to you? Don't get me wrong, I'm as bad as any of you, maybe even worse since I know better. My point is simply this, Theistic evolution is simply not viewed as a positive influence, in fact, it's not all that different from what you would hear from atheistic materialists. Not because you don't agree with me or Creationist lay ministers like Ham, Morris or Gish but because it's really not all that different.

Didn't you notice that miamited appealed to Scripture? What I consider 'curious' is that TEs rarely, if ever do. When they do the discussion has a highly skeptical tone. That I find curious, very curious indeed.

Have you known anybody who was escorted out of their church and asked not to come back because they expressed an opinion? I have, an acquaintance said in class that he had no problem with evolution in a completely non-confrontational tone, and was told in no uncertain terms that he was no longer welcome there. That is certainly the extreme, but I have had friends be called in to talk church leadership after complaints based on simply expressing an opinion who have been silenced. I, personally, have been called a "wolf in sheep's clothing", a "servant of satan", a liar, an atheist, a deceiver and a God-hater (you'll just have to accept that my life shows nothing of the sort).

I'm sorry that your feelings get hurt. However, we are not the majority in evangelical churches and we do not control the conversation. I have learned to have a thick skin, to recognize that everyone who moved the church towards truth has been criticized by those who hold on tightly to tradition.

What is being described in Genesis is not divine providence, it's direct intervention. Is Christ being raised a naturally occurring phenomenon as well? What about the child of promse, Isaac? What about the nearly unbroken steam of miracles in Scripture.

What do you mean I can't accept that God works through other natural phenomenon? That's, as you've been told before, nonsensical. I just know the difference between a miracle and a natural phenomenon and to blend them together as if they were the same thing is deprecating to both.

Have a nice day
Mark

Genesis is very obviously not literal. I have not always thought that, but the more I delve into its depths the more I realize that it cannot be from a literary perspective. One must stop reading it as modern literature to realize this. In any case, though, it plainly states that God granted His creation creative power - the land was commanded to produce plants and living creatures, and it did so. It is very telling that farther into the story the language implies less direct means of creating.

To you and me, the difference between the natural and supernatural is that we can learn and utilize the former, and we cannot the latter. To God, there is no such distinction - they both happen because God intends for them to happen, and neither makes Him greater than the other. My challenge stands.

 

[mark kennedy]

I give God all the glory, and all the credit. So do all TE's. Some Christians want to grant so much higher importance to the supernatural that they end up discrediting the natural. Either evolution is natural and every bit a part of God's intentional creation as weather patterns, or God is not in control of anything natural. You can't selectively take God out of one and not out of the other and be consistent.

What you can't do is insist that every expression of Creationism is wrong and then pretend that you are a Creationist. The issue here is the origin of life and man, of course you would get no argument from a TE that God created the universe so on Genesis 1:1 we appear to be in agreement. There is that small problem of life being created (Gen. 1:21, 27), that seems to be where Creationists and TEs go their separate ways. One of the more telling points is that not one of you takes your stand on the Scriptures, I find that fairly inconsistent for someone who wants to be regarded as a Creationist.

When I read that, I think that one would automatically tie it to whatever philosophy of the day they felt was anti-God. This is why it's absolutely essential to read the bible as a document in its time and not with a modern mindset; the meaning is cemented in the time and place in which it was written and must be applied forward - it wasn't written with the idea that its meaning would be discovered in time.

Unlike many other sections in the Bible, Genesis 1 has no real interpretive challenges. The ones that exist are negligible with regards to doctrine and history. The truth is that what the secular world doesn't like about the Genesis account is the fact that it describes God creating the world and life in all it's vast array. Genesis never describes creation as being complete in all it's vast array after Genesis 1:1. Earth was uninhabitable until God made it suitable and created life, fully formed, by divine fiat. That's not my opinion, that is exactly how the Genesis account has always been understood and always will.

If TE's don't seem to appeal to scripture as much (and I'd disagree here, but I won't belabor it), it could be that we are typically more careful about applying extraneous meaning.

As well we all should be, the tendency is to bend the meaning to what you want it to say. TEs are notorious for neglecting the Scriptures or abandoning them altogether, there is really no sense in that. I'll tell you what has served me best as a rule of thumb, speak where the Scriptures speak and remain silent when the Scriptures are silent. With regards to Creation it has to be understood, Creationism is a New Testament doctrine. If you can grasp that much I could help you with the rest.

Just hammering away at Genesis 1 will get you no where.

I see nothing that I or other TE's would disagree with. You'd have to make assumptions past the actual words to think otherwise.

You have to understand, the Scriptures are not obscure references from a dead language or a dead culture. It's the way that Creationists are ostracized that tells me that TEs don't really understand the credibility of Scripture. TEs for the most part are Christians, I know that. The problem is that they want to take an antithetical view of the clear testimony of Scripture and occupy the bulk of their time attacking Creationists. There is a better way and if you guys would listen to me once in a while I could help you.

Have you known anybody who was escorted out of their church and asked not to come back because they expressed an opinion? I have, an acquaintance said in class that he had no problem with evolution in a completely non-confrontational tone, and was told in no uncertain terms that he was no longer welcome there. That is certainly the extreme, but I have had friends be called in to talk church leadership after complaints based on simply expressing an opinion who have been silenced. I, personally, have been called a "wolf in sheep's clothing", a "servant of satan", a liar, an atheist, a deceiver and a God-hater (you'll just have to accept that my life shows nothing of the sort).

That only happened to me once and I wasn't even spoken to, I was shunned. Believe it or not it was because I'm a Trinitarian and this was one of those Jesus Only churches. The biggest problem with 'evolution' is that there is more then one issue involved. The Creationist isn't opposed to science or evolutionary biology, most of them are pretty much oblivious. The problem is Darwinism and unless Theistic Evolutionists are willing to stand on sound doctrine most fundamentalist and evangelicals will regard them as unbelievers.

I'm sorry that your feelings get hurt. However, we are not the majority in evangelical churches and we do not control the conversation. I have learned to have a thick skin, to recognize that everyone who moved the church towards truth has been criticized by those who hold on tightly to tradition.

Trust me when I tell you, you guys can't hurt my feelings. The issues for me are doctrinal and they are intellectual depending on the subject matter. You should really give some thought to what the Christian traditions really are because the Gospel is a Christian tradition as well as the Scriptures themselves. One of the strongest points of credibility for the Scriptures for me early on was the fact that the Bible has always been in the custody of either the Hebrews (OT of course) and the Christian church. These are not obscure writings found in some Egyptian curio shop, the Scriptures are a living witness. These traditions, like the Nicene Creed have remained in tact because we have a standard that cannot be compromised. You might want to think about that a little.

Genesis is very obviously not literal.

Stop right there, where do you get your information? The fact of the matter is that Genesis is not only literal but explicit as an historical narrative. What the early chapters may well be is very general but the book is very obviously literal history.

I have not always thought that, but the more I delve into its depths the more I realize that it cannot be from a literary perspective. One must stop reading it as modern literature to realize this. In any case, though, it plainly states that God granted His creation creative power - the land was commanded to produce plants and living creatures, and it did so. It is very telling that farther into the story the language implies less direct means of creating.

While that is altogether true, it cannot be a substitute for what the text actually says. Of course things evolve with a vast array and capacity for adaptive evolution, no thinking person will deny that. What you should be coming to terms with is that the starting point of creation starts with God creation the universe, life and man by divine fiat and it is completely incompatible with secular bias against anything miraculous.

What is the naturalistic explanation for the birth of Isaac, the Exodus, the resurrection or the high degree of accuracy and details in predictive prophecy? Again, you might want to think about this, it could prove important at some point.

To you and me, the difference between the natural and supernatural is that we can learn and utilize the former, and we cannot the latter. To God, there is no such distinction - they both happen because God intends for them to happen, and neither makes Him greater than the other. My challenge stands.

That's not unreasonable, in fact, it's kind of nice to hear. Look, if you are satisfied that Genesis 1 is a hymn of praise with no real bearing on natural history I'm not going to beat you up over it. My issue is that Theistic Evolution is focused almost exclusively on attacking Creationism. What you really need to come to terms with is Creationism is a foundational doctrine of the Christian faith. You can no more dispose of Creationism then you can repentance, confession or the Lordship of Christ.

Modernism has been like a plague for the last 100 years, Liberal Theology has easily been the most prolific heresy of our time. The reason is that essential doctrine has been marginalized and believers have had to withstand wave after wave of constant criticism. We expect this from the unbelieving world, it should never come from other believers.

That said, I appreciate the civil tone and honest explanation for your views. I do believe that you will find you have far more in common with Creationists then you ever did with Darwinians. If it's true that you are certain of the Scriptures as a living witness then maybe you should take a good long look at Creationism from a New Testament perspective, the Nicene Creed does.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[crawfish]

Hope you had a good holiday - I've been insanely busy until now, finally calming down a bit now that family has left.

What you can't do is insist that every expression of Creationism is wrong and then pretend that you are a Creationist. The issue here is the origin of life and man, of course you would get no argument from a TE that God created the universe so on Genesis 1:1 we appear to be in agreement. There is that small problem of life being created (Gen. 1:21, 27), that seems to be where Creationists and TEs go their separate ways. One of the more telling points is that not one of you takes your stand on the Scriptures, I find that fairly inconsistent for someone who wants to be regarded as a Creationist.

If I didn't feel very strongly that evolution is true and literal creationism was a misinterpretation of scripture, then I would not be in this discussion. As to why we don't seem to "stand on the scriptures", I would argue that it is similar to a snake handler asking you to prove through scripture that a snakebite could kill a faithful Christian. The proper response cannot be to point to scripture to prove the opposite, but to point to the scripture they're using to show why they're wrong in their interpretation (plus mounds of physical evidence to the contrary).

I am a creationist in the sense that I believe that God is the ultimate cause, all things were intentional creations, and God is and has been active in the universe in a supernatural sense. For some, that is not enough to make me a creationist. I'm not really concerned about terms, but I do want to be very clear where I stand.

Unlike many other sections in the Bible, Genesis 1 has no real interpretive challenges. The ones that exist are negligible with regards to doctrine and history. The truth is that what the secular world doesn't like about the Genesis account is the fact that it describes God creating the world and life in all it's vast array. Genesis never describes creation as being complete in all it's vast array after Genesis 1:1. Earth was uninhabitable until God made it suitable and created life, fully formed, by divine fiat. That's not my opinion, that is exactly how the Genesis account has always been understood and always will.

That's a provably falsifiable statement. Genesis has been viewed as more or less symbolic by theologians longer than Christianity has existed. Some of the most influential theologians in the early church held a less than literal view of Genesis, and probably would have had no issues with it in light of evolution.

I would encourage you to ask yourself: does Genesis truly "lack interpretive challenges", or are you so sold to the literal interpretation that you are blinded to other alternatives? For me, earning to understand the simple difference between exegesis & eisegesis made a world of difference to my own views.

As well we all should be, the tendency is to bend the meaning to what you want it to say. TEs are notorious for neglecting the Scriptures or abandoning them altogether, there is really no sense in that. I'll tell you what has served me best as a rule of thumb, speak where the Scriptures speak and remain silent when the Scriptures are silent. With regards to Creation it has to be understood, Creationism is a New Testament doctrine. If you can grasp that much I could help you with the rest.

Just hammering away at Genesis 1 will get you no where.

I'd agree with you if my conclusions were a result of holding on and not letting go. It has taken a lot of humility to give up the biases that I was raised with -against musical instruments in the church, on the salvific nature of baptism, on the nature of grace. I don't feel I truly let the Spirit speak to me when reading Genesis until I finally understood it on the basis of an ancient text.

You have to understand, the Scriptures are not obscure references from a dead language or a dead culture. It's the way that Creationists are ostracized that tells me that TEs don't really understand the credibility of Scripture. TEs for the most part are Christians, I know that. The problem is that they want to take an antithetical view of the clear testimony of Scripture and occupy the bulk of their time attacking Creationists. There is a better way and if you guys would listen to me once in a while I could help you.

For me, I see the impossibility of holding one monolithic way to interpret scripture. It is a literary work, using human language and literary techniques, and these are driven by the intentions of the author. I have seen people promote the clear meaning of scripture where it appears to support their views, and then go to amazing lengths to interpret other scripture to be consistent where it appears not to. Scripture has ultimate credibility for its purposes. God does not honor giving it credibility when we misuse or misunderstand it.

That only happened to me once and I wasn't even spoken to, I was shunned. Believe it or not it was because I'm a Trinitarian and this was one of those Jesus Only churches. The biggest problem with 'evolution' is that there is more then one issue involved. The Creationist isn't opposed to science or evolutionary biology, most of them are pretty much oblivious. The problem is Darwinism and unless Theistic Evolutionists are willing to stand on sound doctrine most fundamentalist and evangelicals will regard them as unbelievers.

I don't even know what "darwinism' is. I accept where the facts and evidence point. Forcing me and others like me to reject what we believe is reality to accept Christ is to put up a huge barrier to salvation, one that I think God would find abhorrent. Sound doctrine? I have attended many different denominations and independent churches and heard dozens of definitions of what "sound doctrine" is. Sound doctrine is grace through Jesus Christ. You start from there, and the further you get to the fringes the less "essential" it should be.

You also don't speak for many Creationists, and don't seem to understand the level of antipathy that many of them have. A friend was told by one of his other friends that his soul was in jeopardy because of his acceptance of evolution; I should mention that this other friend was twice divorced and living with his girlfriend at the time. Christians often put their emphasis on things that don't affect their lives directly, and trumpet them as proof of their faith. YEC theology, by building this dichotomy, is creating a potentially dangerous situation for believers like me, and definitely an uncomfortable one.

Trust me when I tell you, you guys can't hurt my feelings. The issues for me are doctrinal and they are intellectual depending on the subject matter. You should really give some thought to what the Christian traditions really are because the Gospel is a Christian tradition as well as the Scriptures themselves. One of the strongest points of credibility for the Scriptures for me early on was the fact that the Bible has always been in the custody of either the Hebrews (OT of course) and the Christian church. These are not obscure writings found in some Egyptian curio shop, the Scriptures are a living witness. These traditions, like the Nicene Creed have remained in tact because we have a standard that cannot be compromised. You might want to think about that a little.

Perhaps you need to listen to us more to understand that many of us have a very strong understanding of scripture and of Christian history. Again, I see no problem with my belief and the Nicene Creed. (I don't feel that it's scripturally necessary to follow such a creed, mind you, but I don't see it as unbiblical.)

The truth is, if such things as re-evaluating secondary meanings of Genesis in light of modern discovery is going down a slippery slope, we've been sliding down that slope for over a thousand years. I prefer we're sliding towards a greater understanding of God's natural world.

Stop right there, where do you get your information? The fact of the matter is that Genesis is not only literal but explicit as an historical narrative. What the early chapters may well be is very general but the book is very obviously literal history.

Where do I start? John Walton for one. John Collins. James Kugel. Tom Wright. And a bunch of others I can't remember right now. I don't know what to say, but there are too many clues (ambiguities, for instance) that it's not literal for it to be literal. When you understand the culture behind the times, those clues gain real-world reasons for being in the text; then it becomes blatantly obvious.

What is the naturalistic explanation for the birth of Isaac, the Exodus, the resurrection or the high degree of accuracy and details in predictive prophecy? Again, you might want to think about this, it could prove important at some point.

Why does a natural creation mean that other text is not supernatural?

Think about this. For God, as mentioned in my last post, there is no real difference between natural work and supernatural work. God, as an eternal being, obviously doesn't care about time frames. God doesn't find one easier or harder than the other. The reason would seem to be in our perceptions; we see the supernatural as something that cannot be explained by anything other than God's direct intervention, while we can explain away the natural.

Why would God choose a natural creation? Well, a natural creation would leave history. It would leave tangible, repeatable, predictable evidence that we could use to divine the nature of the universe. It allows us to better harness creation, to bend it to our needs, to utilize it, to subdue it. A natural creation is useful.

A supernatural creation is certainly impressive; but to be obviously supernatural, it must not be something that contains history or predictability. It is useful for faith but not for science.

The vast majority of miracles in the bible - in fact, all but one that I can see (assuming creation is supernatural) - are done through a human intercedent or directly in view of a human intercedent. There is no reason to think that just because creation is natural that the other miracles of the bible are not - and I haven't discussed the literary reasons.

That's not unreasonable, in fact, it's kind of nice to hear. Look, if you are satisfied that Genesis 1 is a hymn of praise with no real bearing on natural history I'm not going to beat you up over it. My issue is that Theistic Evolution is focused almost exclusively on attacking Creationism. What you really need to come to terms with is Creationism is a foundational doctrine of the Christian faith. You can no more dispose of Creationism then you can repentance, confession or the Lordship of Christ.

I don't know where you get your information. From what I've seen, TE is mostly an apologetic. It definitely defends itself against attacks by YEC/OEC sources, and definitely points out why it believes that YEC/OEC are not truly viable beliefs. YEC and OEC act pretty much the same way towards each other. From where I sit, YEC is the only theology that is actively seeking to control the conversation about origins.

Modernism has been like a plague for the last 100 years, Liberal Theology has easily been the most prolific heresy of our time. The reason is that essential doctrine has been marginalized and believers have had to withstand wave after wave of constant criticism. We expect this from the unbelieving world, it should never come from other believers.

Then here is one suggestion: do not dish it out. Love us and treat us like the brothers and sisters in Christ that we are, not as heretics that should be expunged from the church. Let's make the origins debate a point of conversation between faithful Christians, like theologies such as Calvinism/Arminianism, eschatologies, OSAS, creeds and other such disagreements.

That said, I appreciate the civil tone and honest explanation for your views. I do believe that you will find you have far more in common with Creationists then you ever did with Darwinians. If it's true that you are certain of the Scriptures as a living witness then maybe you should take a good long look at Creationism from a New Testament perspective, the Nicene Creed does.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I prefer (and enjoy) a civil but honest discussion. However, if you think I haven't taken a long look at creationism or its arguments, then you don't know me well. I do not take a stand without trying to thoroughly understand each side as much as a can, from each side's own perspective.

 

[SkyWriting]

In the beginning, God... (Genesis 1:1)

What is time but a measurement of when something begins until it ends.

But the Father had no beginning or end, nor did His original Creation.
Adam was not destined for Death.....originally. And the rest of Creation
was not destined for death. But death entered the world through Adam.

Things changed. God no longer walked with Adam in the Garden.
God no longer walked on earth at all. After sin entered the world, it was
no longer "clean." Now dirt.....dirt will have an end.

God will restore the earth to it's original plan and it will have no end.
But for now, we have to deal with time.