Christian Faith Requires the Acceptance of Creationism

[metherion]

The resurrection is a special manifestation of the same miracle, but it's a new creation, a new man, a new Adam.

Really? I thought that it was Christ coming back to life. Unless you mean he’s a figure of Adam and not Adam himself. I seem to recall quite a hullabaloo about that earlier.

A prophetic and poetic description of the new birth, aka, new creation.
...
Exactly
...
Again, 'new creation
...
again, 'created'
...
Yea, about that, I have no idea what part of 'new creation' has escaped you.

And all these verses directly tie back to the creation of the earth and the universe how? I see God making new creations in each one of them, sure.

So it's a coincidence that John, Romans and Hebrews start by proclaiming Christ as Creator.

Nope. If you read my very next sentence, where I say I DO think there is a reason, you’d know that I don’t think it’s a coincidence.

Which make you a creationist, I believe that only accelerated evolution explains how the handful of animals offspring became the populations of mammals, reptiles and birds that inhabit the entire globe making me an evolutionist.

Really? Well, since you haven’t given your own definition of the word, have not used my definition, and have given no indication you might mean something else, I’m sure you’ll forgive me for disagreeing that I’m a creationist. Also, I’m remembering this use of evolutionist.

I would call it sound doctrine and a denial a false teaching.

Did I ever say it was correct to deny it? No.

Then there are the theistic evolutionists which are anti-creationists.

So no disagreement with my terms?

Oh, and I can’t be an ANTI-CREATIONIST and a CREATIONIST at the same time. You called me a creationist just a few sentences back. So, which am I? A TE (anticreationist) or a creationist?

All groups have only one thing in common, a belief that God created the heavens, earth and life by divine fiat. What would be the alternative to the 'biological' theory of evolution? Organic?

All groups have in common that God created the heavens, like, and earth by divine fiat ACCORDING TO A LITERAL READING OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. You left that part out.

As for the ‘biological ToE’, I referred to it that way so you would know I meant the current scientific consensus on what evolution is. You know, explicitly showing my terms.

And the alternative would be divine fiat. God speaking creatures into existence is not the same as creatures evolving from earlier creatures, who arose from abiogenesis (which isn’t part of the TOE).

Historical narratives are always literal, even if they use figurative language.

You’re making the a priori assumption that Genesis MUST be a historical narrative, instead of a narrative presented as such to teach a lesson, and deriving everything from that point. God forbid that God would ever do such a thing to His people. Except for the dreams, and parables, and so on.
You are also making the assumption that if Scripture is not read literally, according to the way you believe it, then the person reading differently is actively disbelieving in Scripture.

But believing and zealously arguing that God created and developed life through exclusively naturalistic means is not an acceptance of God as Creator, it's a rejection of it.

So, to get this straight, if I say that God CREATED the universe, and God CREATED all the laws and rules and whatnot of the universe, and GOD set the universe in motion so that according to the will of GOD and the divine sustaining of the universe by GOD, the rise to life and planets and everything happened... I am saying that God isn’t the creator?

That is what you are saying, isn’t it?

Do you see just how self-contradictory that is?

Let’s give an analogy: I figure out how to make a better fuel-injection system for cars. I design and build an automated assembly line (with all that entails) to make the fuel injection system. After I am done making it, the automated assembly line starts churning out these new fuel injection systems.

Did I create the fuel injection systems?

It's easy enough to know what Creationism and Creator have in common, creation.


Nope, actually, the root is create. There is no -ion in Creator. Creation comes from the root word create, Creator comes from the root word create, and creationism comes from the root word creation.

So Creator is one who creates, Creation is what is created, and CreationISM would be the specific belief(s) about what is created (which I have already defined for you).

We are not talking about black squirrels and red squirrels, we are talking about prokaryotes, animalia and plantea having a common ancestors. Evolution is transcendent.

I don’t see what this has to do with what I said, but you are saying that evolution involves “ prokaryotes, animalia and plantea having a common ancestors”. Let’s run with that.

Hang on there, if common descent is not universal then what is it? What kind of life did God originally create, or did God originally create natural laws from which all of life was developed because you denial here is hard to fathom.

I don’t know. I’m not the one who denies universal common descent. The idea of those who reject it usually goes back to the whole ‘kinds’ schtick, so there is common descent within an undefined kind, but no further back.

I define my terms early and often, something evolutionists never do. The change of alleles in populations over time is dramatically different from the a priori assumption of universal common decent. What exactly was your definition for evolution, I don't remember you ever offering it.

No, you don’t. Don’t evolutionists all accept UCD? Yet you are HAPPY to call yourself an evolutionist when it suits your terms, even though you clearly do not accept that idea, or the descent of man from earlier primates. Nor are you anti-creationist, which you say all TEs are... yet you believe in God, so you would be a TE, and you cannot be one and a creationist at the same time. HRM.

As for my definition of evolution, I used the words ‘biological theory of evolution’. That ought to be enough to tell you what I mean.

You also might want to learn the definition of ‘a priori assumption’, so you know that it is inapplicable in regards to evolution, if you bother to familiarize yourself with the evidence of things such as the twin nested hierarchy, the fossil record, et cetera. It’s possible to have limited common descent, the idea exists with the whole ‘kinds’ schtick, and baraminology, and such... but it doesn’t work.

I did, early, often and at least once in this post.

Nope. The closest you came was saying TEs are anti-creationists.

My definition is not as important as what evolutionists say about themselves:
‘the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species...being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.’
Take a wild guess who said that.

Not interested in guessing games. I don’t hold the words as people as the words of prophets, where the name matters.

But for the record, that part is from the preface to the 3rd edition of Origin of Species, penned by Darwin, about the work of Lamarck, and is given in its entirely here:

Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. Lamarck seems to have been chiefly led to his conclusion on the gradual change of species, by the difficulty of distinguishing species and varieties, by the almost perfect gradation of forms in certain groups, and by the analogy of domestic productions.

My google-fu is strong

ETA: Oh, and wait a sec. Wait a sec. I thought universal common descent was supposed to be a priori. Yet, after the part you quoted, Darwin details what Lamarck put forth as evidence that he *ahem* "seems to have been chiefly led to his conclusion on the gradual change of species" by. But I thought a priori assumptions were made BEFORE ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION, something that comes beforehand, without any experience. Isn't that the main definition of a priori? Yet, here we are, being told what things LEAD SOMEONE TO THE CONCLUSION. Hrm...

Oh, but then again, if you’ve called yourself an evolutionist (as you did earlier this post), you CLEARLY accept that quote, don’t you?

Wait. You don’t.

So you’ve been using an inconsistent definition of evolutionist and CHANGING IT WITHOUT LETTING PEOPLE KNOW EVEN IN THIS VERY THREAD.

But your terms aren’t well defined, so you’re partway there, at least.

Metherion

 

[theFijian]

So please don't insinuate that anyone here rejects God as Creator, that's bearing false witness.

-CryptoLutheran

Unfortunately for Mark, that's the sum of his argument.

 

[gluadys]

If there is a watershed issue at the heart of this controversy it is that God as Creator is rejected by evolutionists, theistic or otherwise.

That may be your opinion, but it amounts to calling every theistic evolutionist a liar.

The title of the thread is word for word the one Papias started except I substituted creationism for evolution.

This is the thing, not one of you will confront him the way you confront me. The only difference comes down to one root word, 'creation'.

No, the one word it comes down to is "creationism" not "creation".

The Scriptures proclaim Christ as Creator at the beginning of John, Romans and Hebrews. There is a reason the Genesis starts with creation, it is a foundational doctrine and all of you argue continuously against it. I have seen no exceptions.

Show us where any TE has argued against any of these statements.

I do argue, and I will continue to argue, against creationism, which I believe to be a pernicious travesty of sound exegesis. I do not argue against Christ as Creator or against creation. I agree that creation is a foundational doctrine and further that it requires Christians to accept our evolutionary origins.

 

[philadiddle]

If there is a watershed issue at the heart of this controversy it is that God as Creator is rejected by evolutionists, theistic or otherwise. The title of the thread is word for word the one Papias started except I substituted creationism for evolution.

This is the thing, not one of you will confront him the way you confront me. The only difference comes down to one root word, 'creation'. You act as if your indignant with me for an audacious claim but where is that indignation when creationists are being maligned?

The Scriptures proclaim Christ as Creator at the beginning of John, Romans and Hebrews. There is a reason the Genesis starts with creation, it is a foundational doctrine and all of you argue continuously against it. I have seen no exceptions.

I didn't read Papias' thread. I'm not too active these days on here. I just wanted to know which specific TE you have talked to that has rejected God as creator. If you can't answer that, maybe you should rethink your stance.

 

[Mikecpking]

I never said you were going to hell and I certainly don't go around jumping Darwin impersonators. What I said was that to worship Christ as Savior and Lord is to worship Christ as Creator, to reject Christ as Creator is to reject the Gospel.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Mark,
Look at the title of the OP. Do you really think that we TEs will have to convert to creationism in order to become a 'true' christian? Like the other have said, we accept that God created, but not in the literal way you said we should believe.
I was so incensed by what I heard from my firend, it really was a poor show byy the creationist and also the nonsense in the tract. Moreover, when I looked at the thread title page, I felt I had to say something against this position.

 

[crawfish]

If I'm accepting young-earth (or even old-earth) creationism, I'm accepting flat earth theory and geocentricism as well. If I'm going to throw away science and take the bible at face value, then I'm not going to be hypocritical - I'm going all the way.

 

[Willtor]

The creation of life on this planet, the resurrection, being born again and the new heavens a the new earth are all the same miracle, just a different manifestation. To worship Christ as Savior is to worship Christ as Creator and to reject Christ as Creator is to curse the light of revelation and flee to the darkness.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome [understand] it. (John 1:1-5)​

Creation began with this simple command Let there be light, this same light that was brought forth on the surface of primordial earth raised Christ from the dead:

We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. (Romans 6:4)​

The glory of God being reveled to people of faith has been the key to redemptive history from the beginning.

And Moses and Aaron went into the tabernacle of the congregation, and came out, and blessed the people: and the glory of the LORD appeared unto all the people. And there came a fire out from before the LORD, and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat: which when all the people saw, they shouted, and fell on their faces. (Leviticus 9:23,24)
​

The regeneration of the believer is what faith produces, to deny creation is to deny the very power of God with regards to salvation. (Ezek 36:26; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15; Eph 4:24)

Back last Easter the Pope made this statement:

"To omit the creation would be to misunderstand the very history of God with men, to diminish it, to lose sight of its true order of greatness..."The sweep of history established by God reaches back to the origins, back to creation...If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature," he said. "But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason." (VATICAN CITY, APRIL 23, 2011, Zenit.org)​

I concur. There is more to the evolution/creation controversy then old bones and dirt. There is a reason that evolutionists go after creation with so much zeal and vigor. It's because denying God's ability to create is a denial of God's ability to save.

The Bible is a book of history and our true lineage is found there, not in the modern mythology of Darwinian evolution. Essential doctrine is at stake and while you can accept evolution as natural history in part rejecting the creation of Adam and original sin runs contrary to sound doctrine. Accepting human evolution is not a rejection of orthodoxy but the rejection of the creation of Adam and original sin definitely is. Believing that land dwelling creatures became amphibians, transposed into whales and dolphins are certainly interesting ideas but would have no bearing on doctrinal issues. The doctrine of justification by faith has a central focus, the sin of Adam and it's inextricably linked to special creation.

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

There is a reason that John's Gospel, the book of Romans and Hebrews all begin by exalting Christ as Creator. It is the same reason that the prophet Moses starts the written record of redemptive history with Creation, faith begins with God as Creator. To reject God as Creator is to reject Christ as Savior and Lord.

I'm exposed to that as well, and they keep trying to make us believe that chance exists as a force. That everything by chance spontaneously generated. Nobel laureate, George Wald, brilliant man, I quote him, "One has only to wait, time itself performs the miracles. Given so much time the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable actually certain," end quote. What in the world is that? That is just double talk. That is absolutely meaningless. Self-creation is absurd no matter how much time because chance does not exist...it doesn't exist.​

Creation: Believe it or Not--Part 1

You either believe the Scriptures or you don't. You either believe the account of the generations of life, Adam, Noah and Abraham or you don't. You either believe the record of the prophets and the apostles with regards to God's interventions in human history or you don't.

John Macarthur expressed it this way:

So-called theistic evolutionists who try to marry humanistic theories of modern science with biblical theism may claim they are doing so because they love God, but the truth is that they love God a little and their academic reputations a lot. By undermining the historicity of Genesis they are undermining faith itself. Give evolutionary doctrine the throne and make the Bible its servant, and you have laid the foundation for spiritual disaster Don’t Surrender the Ground!​

I concur.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Willful ignorance, Mark. You have been shown many times that the Pope that you cite is an evolutionist. I'll be really impressed if you respond to my second sentence with something relevant and cogent.

 

[mark kennedy]

Willful ignorance, Mark. You have been shown many times that the Pope that you cite is an evolutionist. I'll be really impressed if you respond to my second sentence with something relevant and cogent.

Willful ignorance Wiltor, I have demonstrated many times that theories and conjecture with regards to evolution are permissible. Pope Benedict espouses a view that can only be described as Intelligent Design.

In his homily at the Easter Vigil, held tonight in St. Peter's Basilica, the Pope asked, "Is it really important to speak also of creation during the Easter Vigil? Could we not begin with the events in which God calls man, forms a people for himself and creates his history with men upon the earth?"

"The answer has to be no," he stated. "To omit the creation would be to misunderstand the very history of God with men, to diminish it, to lose sight of its true order of greatness."

"The sweep of history established by God reaches back to the origins, back to creation," the Pontiff explained. "Our profession of faith begins with the words: 'We believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.' If we omit the beginning of the Credo, the whole history of salvation becomes too limited and too small." (Faith in God Begins With Creation, Says Pope GLOBAL ZENIT NEWS Rome's Zenit News)​

Creation, according to Pope Benedict, is foundation to the Christian faith.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark,
Look at the title of the OP. Do you really think that we TEs will have to convert to creationism in order to become a 'true' christian?

Why on earth would I want TEs to convert to creationism?

If I'm accepting young-earth (or even old-earth) creationism, I'm accepting flat earth theory and geocentricism as well. If I'm going to throw away science and take the bible at face value, then I'm not going to be hypocritical - I'm going all the way.

There are New Testament doctrinal issues at stake and for Creationists to adopt a view like this is absurd. This is the kind of fallacious satire that poisons the well for real Creationists and derail a coherent discussion of real world issues.

Like the other have said, we accept that God created, but not in the literal way you said we should believe.

So you believe that God is Creator but not that God actually created anything. Yea, that's a much more substantive approach to the subject of origins, thanks for clarifying your views.

I was so incensed by what I heard from my firend, it really was a poor show byy the creationist and also the nonsense in the tract. Moreover, when I looked at the thread title page, I felt I had to say something against this position.

Right! You thought it was important to oppose anyone who would have the audacity to affirm the clear testimony of Scripture with regards to the role of God as Creator. Evolutionists always do.

 

[mark kennedy]

I didn't read Papias' thread. I'm not too active these days on here. I just wanted to know which specific TE you have talked to that has rejected God as creator. If you can't answer that, maybe you should rethink your stance.

My two previous responses are pretty much the kind of thing I find objectionable. In addition Papias and I had a formal debate on the subject, it's in the Formal Debate forum if your interested. All Theistic Evolutionists argue zealously against God as Creator, that is the central focus of every thread. I have no reason to reconsider my stance, standing on the Gospel is not a popularity contest, it's a matter of conviction.

To worship Christ as Savior and Lord is to worship Christ as Creator. To reject Christ as Creator is to reject the Gospel. That's my stance and I have no intention of reconsidering it.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

To reject creationism is not to reject God as a creator, it is simply to name a different process by which he has our universe and all therein.

The process of common descent and macro-evolution described by the theory of evolution cannot be shown to have happened. And it is not logically necessary to assume that it happened. The theory is full of non-sequiturs and false causal connections. To claim that God has created all species according to the what the theory claims to have happened is to attribute things to God that cannot be shown to have happened,and for which there is no logical necessity to believe.

For the record, the Pope and the majority of the Catholic Church accepts theistic evolution, the official position of the Church is that it does not conflict with Biblical teaching.

The pope has expressed doubts about the theory of evolution,so it is wrong to say that he accepts theistic evolution,which is nothing but belief in the scientific theory,which is naturalistic and neo-Darwinist,and saying "God did it". It is illogical to believe that God did things that cannot be known to have happened and which we are not compelled by reason to believe. The pope and the Church have not accepted the theory of evolution. Cardinal Schonborn,who is close to the pope,denied this claim in 2006,in an article he wrote for the New York Times.

< Ever since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define) was "more than just a hypothesis," defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance &#8212; or at least acquiescence &#8212; of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.

But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things. >

< In an unfortunate new twist on this old controversy, neo-Darwinists recently have sought to portray our new pope, Benedict XVI, as a satisfied evolutionist. They have quoted a sentence about common ancestry from a 2004 document of the International Theological Commission, pointed out that Benedict was at the time head of the commission, and concluded that the Catholic Church has no problem with the notion of "evolution" as used by mainstream biologists &#8212; that is, synonymous with neo-Darwinism.

The commission's document, however, reaffirms the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of design in nature. Commenting on the widespread abuse of John Paul's 1996 letter on evolution, the commission cautions that "the letter cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe."

Furthermore, according to the commission, "An unguided evolutionary process &#8212; one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence &#8212; simply cannot exist."

Indeed, in the homily at his installation just a few weeks ago, Benedict proclaimed: "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary." >

 

[Willtor]

Willful ignorance Wiltor, I have demonstrated many times that theories and conjecture with regards to evolution are permissible. Pope Benedict espouses a view that can only be described as Intelligent Design.

In his homily at the Easter Vigil, held tonight in St. Peter's Basilica, the Pope asked, "Is it really important to speak also of creation during the Easter Vigil? Could we not begin with the events in which God calls man, forms a people for himself and creates his history with men upon the earth?"

"The answer has to be no," he stated. "To omit the creation would be to misunderstand the very history of God with men, to diminish it, to lose sight of its true order of greatness."

"The sweep of history established by God reaches back to the origins, back to creation," the Pontiff explained. "Our profession of faith begins with the words: 'We believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.' If we omit the beginning of the Credo, the whole history of salvation becomes too limited and too small." (Faith in God Begins With Creation, Says Pope GLOBAL ZENIT NEWS Rome's Zenit News)​

Creation, according to Pope Benedict, is foundation to the Christian faith.

I suppose he is a proponent of Intelligent Design in the same sense that any of us TEs are:

'"I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called 'creationism' and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: Those who believe in the creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God," the pope said.'
(source)

But, of course, this is the view of creation that you rail against whenever any of us espouse it.

 

[sfs]

All Theistic Evolutionists argue zealously against God as Creator,

Total nonsense. When have I ever argued against God as Creator, Mark? I argue that your beliefs about creation are codswallop, not that God is not the creator of everything, seen and unseen.

that is the central focus of every thread. I have no reason to reconsider my stance, standing on the Gospel is not a popularity contest, it's a matter of conviction.

Standing on the Gospel and lying your head off about other Christians hardly represents the kind of conviction you should be striving for.

 

[mark kennedy]

Total nonsense. When have I ever argued against God as Creator, Mark? I argue that your beliefs about creation are codswallop, not that God is not the creator of everything, seen and unseen.

The only reason we have these conversations is because Creationists have the audacity to believe the Bible as written. What am I supposed to think Steve? Theistic Evolutionists rail constantly and as scathingly as possible for that reason.

Standing on the Gospel and lying your head off about other Christians hardly represents the kind of conviction you should be striving for.

I can see how you might think I misrepresented Theistic Evolutionists at large but you have some nerve calling me a liar. It means very little to me if some people don't consider me a Christian, I know what I believe and who I have believed in so it matters little if you tell me I'm not a Christian because I believe the Bible.

The Gospel is simple enough, you hear the Gospel, believe and you receive the Holy Spirit of promise. The Holy Spirit witnesses to your spirit that you are 'In Christ' and adopted heir, along with Christ, of God. If you are a Christian you should have that confidence, not needing my endorsement.

I have never slandered Theistic Evolutionists and the truth is I don't tell the half of it. To worship Christ as Savior and Lord is to worship Christ as Creator, to reject Christ as Creator is to reject the Gospel. Now that is all I really said and the Theistic Evolutionists zombie mob me with the standard ad hominem attacks and you join right in the chorus. The only explanation for this is you don't like being reminded that the only thing that distinguishes a theistic evolutionist from a creationists is a belief in God as Creator. More specifically the only thing that marks a Biblical Creationist is that he believe that God created Adam. You may not like being reminded of it but that doesn't give you the right to get indignant when your called on it.

That's the only doctrinal issue and should be the only difference. But there is something fundamentally wrong here, some deeper doctrinal difference or there wouldn't be so much deeply divisive energy being marshaled by Theistic Evolutionists who invariably march in force.

I did not come against theistic evolutionists like an angry mob, they invariably come against me in this way. Why? because I believe the Bible as it is written and worship Christ as Creator as well as Savior and Lord. That has lead me to believe that Theistic Evolution is either a fundamental misunderstanding of the Gospel or rejection of it. Not because the Gospel is contrary or mutually exclusive with the theory of evolution but because of the divisive and contentious nature of theistic evolutionist arguments.

Even you Steve, instead of coming in here as a peacemaker you join right in the chorus of derision. You can't reject every creationist you encounter and creationism at large and then act indignant when I conclude you reject God as Creator.

And frankly, it disgusts me that professing Christians spend so much of their time doing little more then insulting other Christians for simply believing the Bible as written. You don't get to eat your cake and then have it, it just doesn't work that way.

 

[mark kennedy]

I suppose he is a proponent of Intelligent Design in the same sense that any of us TEs are:

'"I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called 'creationism' and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: Those who believe in the creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God," the pope said.'
(source)

But, of course, this is the view of creation that you rail against whenever any of us espouse it.

I do not rail against theistic evolutionists, they invariably join together like a mob and heap as much derision on me as possible. This isn't just me, any Creationist that dare pop their head up is immediately a target and you all join in.

Whens that last time a Creationist posted on here and was not immediately insulted? You completely ignored the post you quoted and accused me of doing what all theistic evolutionists come on here to do, rail against a particular view of creation.

It is theistic evolution that 'presented creationism and evolution as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives'. Don't pretend now it's the creationist who turned this into a grudge match when all theistic evolutionists come on here to do is insult creationists.

Repent of your divisive and contentious spirit and perhaps God will bless you with a clearing understanding of the Gospel. One that includes worshiping Christ as Creator.

 

[philadiddle]

To worship Christ as Savior and Lord is to worship Christ as Creator. To reject Christ as Creator is to reject the Gospel. That's my stance and I have no intention of reconsidering it.

I agree with that, as do my TE friends here. And we all believe that Christ is the creator. Do you understand that?

 

[Mr Dave]

All Theistic Evolutionists argue zealously against God as Creator, that is the central focus of every thread.

Not at all true. TE's argue zealously that God is a creator God (as been repeated ad nauseum in this thread alone). They argue zealously against the views of those who accept a YEC or OEC etc... view point.

I have no reason to reconsider my stance, standing on the Gospel is not a popularity contest, it's a matter of conviction.

Is not the Gospel (Good News) about the salvation that comes through Jesus' detah and resurrection. If I've missed something please explain why you're equating the Gospel with how one understands how the variety of life on this planet came to be.

To worship Christ as Savior and Lord is to worship Christ as Creator. To reject Christ as Creator is to reject the Gospel. That's my stance and I have no intention of reconsidering it.

To worship Christ as Saviour and Lord is to do just that. As has been said, no TE rejects the view that God is a creator God. Nor do we reject the view that "in Christ all things in heaven and on earth were created" (Col. 1:16). No-one is rejecting the creative nature of God, nor is any TE rejecting the Gospel.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

That might be true for your understanding of Christianity. Other people get by just fine without creationism and still have faith in Christ.

 

[sfs]

The only reason we have these conversations is because Creationists have the audacity to believe the Bible as written. What am I supposed to think Steve? Theistic Evolutionists rail constantly and as scathingly as possible for that reason.

I don't care what you think; I care about what you wrote. You publicly accused me of arguing zealously against God as creator. I want you to back up that accusation with some evidence, or withdraw it. Now.

I can see how you might think I misrepresented Theistic Evolutionists at large but you have some nerve calling me a liar. It means very little to me if some people don't consider me a Christian, I know what I believe and who I have believed in so it matters little if you tell me I'm not a Christian because I believe the Bible.

I called you a liar because you lied about me. I believe that God is the creator of everything, and you keep telling the world that I deny that (and even zealously attack it). Stop lying about me.

The Gospel is simple enough, you hear the Gospel, believe and you receive the Holy Spirit of promise. The Holy Spirit witnesses to your spirit that you are 'In Christ' and adopted heir, along with Christ, of God. If you are a Christian you should have that confidence, not needing my endorsement.

I agree with that. So?

I have never slandered Theistic Evolutionists and the truth is I don't tell the half of it. To worship Christ as Savior and Lord is to worship Christ as Creator, to reject Christ as Creator is to reject the Gospel. Now that is all I really said

No, you also said that theistic evolutionists do reject God as creator(*). You keep repeating that claim, but are unable to provide even as single theistic evolutionist who actually does so.

(*) Your theology is wonky here, by the way. In orthodox Christianity, Christ is the one through whom creation was made, while God the Father is identified as creator.

The only explanation for this is you don't like being reminded that the only thing that distinguishes a theistic evolutionist from a creationists is a belief in God as Creator. More specifically the only thing that marks a Biblical Creationist is that he believe that God created Adam. You may not like being reminded of it but that doesn't give you the right to get indignant when your called on it.

Is it possible that you really think the two statements "God created everything" and "God created a literal Adam" are identical? You can't possibly think that, Mark. I believe one and don't believe the other.

Even you Steve, instead of coming in here as a peacemaker you join right in the chorus of derision. You can't reject every creationist you encounter and creationism at large and then act indignant when I conclude you reject God as Creator.

On the contrary, I can very much do that. I reject creationism at large and the creationist beliefs of every creationist I encounter, because I think creationism is false. (This doesn't mean I reject creationists -- I work with creationists, pray with them, teach Sunday School with them, learn from them, share Thanksgiving dinner with them, all the time.) I also accept God as creator. Creationism isn't the belief that God is the creator; it's a belief that God is creator and created in specific ways, ways that exclude evolution. If you believe that God is creator but created in different ways, you're rejecting creationism, but not the creator.

And frankly, it disgusts me that professing Christians spend so much of their time doing little more then insulting other Christians for simply believing the Bible as written. You don't get to eat your cake and then have it, it just doesn't work that way.

When have I ever insulted a Christian for believing the Bible? When have I insulted a Christian for being a creationist? I oppose creationists publicly when they say false things about science (and you've said a lot of false things about science), and I oppose them when they suggest that their understanding of the Bible is mandatory for all Christians, and I oppose you when you tell other Christians that they don't believe in a creator God because they don't agree with how you think God created.

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't care what you think; I care about what you wrote. You publicly accused me of arguing zealously against God as creator. I want you to back up that accusation with some evidence, or withdraw it. Now.

The evidence is ample and obvious, the only thing that distinguishes a creationist from an evolutionist is a belief that God created by divine fiat rather then exclusively naturalistic means, as described in Genesis. The only real statement I made I have repeated throughout the thread, 'to worship Christ as Savior and Lord is to worship Him as Creator, to reject Christ as Creator is to reject the Gospel'. In response the theistic evolutionists on here started calling me a liar, yourself included, if anyone should withdraw their accusations you should.

If you believe what I said then there is nothing to argue about, if you don't then what are you being so indignant about? Theistic evolutionists do one thing and one thing only, they attack creationists for believing the Bible as written. I have accused you of nothing, your the one who wanted to make this personal by calling me a liar. So tell me what you think I lied about or withdraw the accusation or do you have the same double standard for insults as you do for homology arguments?

I called you a liar because you lied about me. I believe that God is the creator of everything, and you keep telling the world that I deny that (and even zealously attack it). Stop lying about me.

I accused you of nothing, my issue is with the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic causes and you know this. I never made a single personal remark about you until you called me a liar. If you worship Christ as Creator then the indictment does not apply to you and if you believe that Christ is Creator then why so much animosity toward Creationists?

I agree with that. So?

Then there should be no problem.

No, you also said that theistic evolutionists do reject God as creator(*). You keep repeating that claim, but are unable to provide even as single theistic evolutionist who actually does so.

They argue continuously against creationist views that can only be distinguished from theistic evolutionists by believing the Genesis account as written. If there is any place where the theistic evolutionist affirms the role of God in the creation of man, life or the heavens and the earth as described in Scripture I have yet to see it. In fact you all argue furiously against this and never fail to make it personal.

Either you profess a faith in the God as Creator or you don't, if you rail against Creationists continuously then I am left to conclude that you don't. If you do then feel free to defend your views as you see fit my spare me the indignation, I'm not impressed.

(*) Your theology is wonky here, by the way. In orthodox Christianity, Christ is the one through whom creation was made, while God the Father is identified as creator.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (John 1:1-5)​

Everything was made by Him, through Him and for Him. The members of the Trinity work in unison both in the original creation and in salvation. There is nothing 'wonky' about it, splitting semantical hairs is a diversion and an error mining ploy, nothing more.

Is it possible that you really think the two statements "God created everything" and "God created a literal Adam" are identical? You can't possibly think that, Mark. I believe one and don't believe the other.

Thus the difference between a Creationist and a Biblical Creationist if there was ever a difference to being with.

On the contrary, I can very much do that. I reject creationism at large and the creationist beliefs of every creationist I encounter, because I think creationism is false. (This doesn't mean I reject creationists -- I work with creationists, pray with them, teach Sunday School with them, learn from them, share Thanksgiving dinner with them, all the time.) I also accept God as creator. Creationism isn't the belief that God is the creator; it's a belief that God is creator and created in specific ways, ways that exclude evolution. If you believe that God is creator but created in different ways, you're rejecting creationism, but not the creator.

First of all Creationism does not reject evolution, that's absurd. Yes, Creationists believe God created in very specific ways, described in detail in the Genesis account and affirmed in no uncertain terms in the New Testament witness. This is not how theistic evolutionists approach the subject, they immediately and constantly attack Creationists for simply affirming the historical narratives of Genesis as they are written, in accordance with their original intent and the totality of the New Testament witness. These are not mild disagreements, theistic evolutionists come against creationists with a mob mentality, invariably resorting to personal attacks on credibility, intellectual integrity and basic morality.

If you don't like how I react then don't start off calling me a liar. All I said was that to worship Christ as Savior and Lord you must worship Christ Creator. It was theistic evolutionists who tried to make this mutually exclusive with the theory of evolution, not me. Why don't you get indignant with them?

When have I ever insulted a Christian for believing the Bible? When have I insulted a Christian for being a creationist? I oppose creationists publicly when they say false things about science (and you've said a lot of false things about science), and I oppose them when they suggest that their understanding of the Bible is mandatory for all Christians, and I oppose you when you tell other Christians that they don't believe in a creator God because they don't agree with how you think God created.

I oppose theistic evolution because it does nothing more then attack creationists for believing the Bible as written. Come on Steve, I don't want to fight with you, I know your a Christian. You have been generous with you time and it's been a great privilege learning from you. If our only differences are the method by which God created then there would be no need for the highly inflammatory way theistic evolutionists go after creationists. However, they invariably do and you walk right in the middle of exactly that. Instead of being the peacemaker you joined the chorus.

My issue is with Darwinism and it is mutually exclusive with Biblical theism and identical to atheistic materialism. If you are convinced that Darwinism has made it's case that we are the product of billions of years of continuous evolution, go in peace, I have no quarrel with you. I, on the other hand, remain skeptical of evolution and reserve the right to remain unconvinced. Theistic evolutionists see this as provocation and never fail to make it personal.

Accepting human evolution from that of apes is not only a rejection of the Pauline doctrine of original sin, it's a myth of human ancestry. When the New Testament writers mention Adam they speak of him as the first man and the reason why all of us are under the curse of sin and death. Paul tells us that 'by one man sin entered the world' and 'by one man's offense death reigned'. (Rom 5:12-19). Paul ties Adam directly to the need for justification and grace in his exposition of the Gospel in his letter to the Romans. Luke lists Adam in his genealogy calling him 'son of God' indicating he had no human parents but rather was created (Luke 3:23-28). My concern is simply this, the myth of human lineage linked to ape ancestry contradicts the clear testimony of Scripture and essential doctrine, specifically justification by faith. Paul is clear that all have sinned in Adam and that is the reason that we cannot keep the Mosaic law.

Charles Darwin in the preface to ‘On the Origin of Species’ credits Jean-Baptiste Lamarck with being the first man to propose that:

‘the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species...being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.’​

This is what I have come to recognize as an a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic explanations for the lineage of all living things. For years I focused exclusively on the Scientific literature regarding Chimpanzee and Human common ancestry and found that the human brain had neither the time nor the means to have evolved from that of apes.

If this were over a minor difference of opinion with regards to God's method of creation the discussion would not turn into relentless personal attacks on creationists. If you don't like the content and character of the posts you are reading then why don't you correct the theistic evolutionists who dragged it down to this level?

Grace and peace,
Mark