Christian Faith Requires the Acceptance of Creationism

[mark kennedy]

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

 

[bibleblevr]

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.

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.

 

[LinuxUser]

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

good post

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

To reject God as Creator is to reject Christ as Savior and Lord. Putting a different suffix at the end changes nothing.

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.

Faith in God and in the events of salvation history must necessarily begin with a belief in God's role as Creator (Pope Benedict XVI)

284 The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin: is the universe governed by chance, blind fate, anonymous necessity, or by a transcendent, intelligent and good Being called "God"? (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 284)

289 Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. The inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language the truths of creation - its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation. (CCC 289)​

The Roman Catholic Church affirms God as Creator every Easter and at every baptism. All Christians worship Christ as Creator, those who don't are not worshiping God as the Scriptures and the glory of God in creation reveal Him.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

To reject God as Creator is to reject Christ as Savior and Lord. Putting a different suffix at the end changes nothing.

You know better than this. You know very well that each and every Theistic Evolutionist/Evolutionary Creationist on this board believes that God is our Creator and confesses belief in:

"...one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things seen and unseen."

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

-CryptoLutheran

 

[mark kennedy]

You know better than this.

I know nothing of the sort. To reject God as Creator is to reject Christ as Savior and Lord or don't you know your New Testament theology? God is proclaimed Creator throughout Scripture as the prologue and doxology of John, Hebrews and Romans to say nothing of Genesis.

You know very well that each and every Theistic Evolutionist/Evolutionary Creationist on this board believes that God is our Creator and confesses belief in:

"...one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things seen and unseen."

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

-CryptoLutheran

If they believe that God is 'maker of heaven and earth, then they believe in God as Creator. Like I said and you contradicted, To reject God as Creator is to reject Christ as Savior and Lord. Or was it the suffix you objected to?

BTW, did you have the same problem with this thread?

Christian Faith Requires the Acceptance of Evolution

But for the record, I insinuated nothing. That was a plain statement of fact that no Bible believing Christian can deny without rejecting the Gospel as it is proclaimed in John, Hebrews and Romans.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[metherion]

Actually, putting a different suffix at the end DOES change things.

The word Creator is not the same as the word Creationism, and does not denote the same ideas.

The word magnet and the word magnetism are not the same word. Putting a different suffix at the end completely changes it.

Hand and hands are not the same thing. The different suffix changes the meaning.

And, since to be on this board, we all have to accept that God is "maker of heaven and earth", then, in your words, we all believe that God is the creator, as confirmed by your statement

If they believe that God is 'maker of heaven and earth, then they believe in God as Creator

And since we all believe that God is Creator, nobody

rejects God as Creator is to reject Christ as Savior and Lord.
NOTE: The s in rejects was added by me to make it grammatically correct, as the suffix changes the word.

And since none of us reject Christ as Saviour and Lord, your entire point revolves around a suffix that matters a great deal because of just how much it changes the meaning of a word.

And since you have said that if we do accept God as maker of Heaven and earth, then we believe in God as Creator, but we do not believe in creationISM, the suffix obviously makes a large difference, despite your incorrect claim that it does not.

Your statement

Putting a different suffix at the end changes nothing

is flat out wrong, from grammatical angles, and others.

Metherion

 

[mark kennedy]

Actually, putting a different suffix at the end DOES change things.

The word Creator is not the same as the word Creationism, and does not denote the same ideas.

The word magnet and the word magnetism are not the same word. Putting a different suffix at the end completely changes it.

Hand and hands are not the same thing. The different suffix changes the meaning.

And, since to be on this board, we all have to accept that God is "maker of heaven and earth", then, in your words, we all believe that God is the creator, as confirmed by your statement

And since we all believe that God is Creator, nobody

So you agree with everything I said except you think I used in inappropriate suffix? What exactly do you agree or disagree with:

• 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 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)
• There is a reason that John's Gospel, the book of Romans and Hebrews all begin by exalting Christ as Creator.
• To reject God as Creator is to reject Christ as Savior and Lord.

And since none of us reject Christ as Saviour and Lord, your entire point revolves around a suffix that matters a great deal because of just how much it changes the meaning of a word.

Then define the word and tell us how the meaning is changed from essential doctrine to mindless ignorance with the addition of a three letter suffix.

And since you have said that if we do accept God as maker of Heaven and earth, then we believe in God as Creator, but we do not believe in creationISM, the suffix obviously makes a large difference, despite your incorrect claim that it does not.

You used unrelated examples but you never corrected me withour providing a clear definition of the meaning of the word 'creationism' and how it differs from worshiping Christ as Creator. Are you really suggesting that all the separates a creationist from an evolutionist is a three letter suffix?

Your statement

To reject God as Creator is to reject Christ as Savior and Lord. Putting a different suffix at the end changes nothing.

is flat out wrong, from grammatical angles, and others.

Metherion

You keep saying that but you still haven't said why, why don't evolutionists like to define their terms? What if I told you that belief in young earth creationism makes one a radical evolutionist? Wouldn't you want to know what I mean by the word 'evolutionist'?

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[philadiddle]

Mark,

Could you please name one TE on this board that you have talked to who rejects God as the creator?

 

[metherion]

So you agree with everything I said except you think I used in inappropriate suffix?

Nope, not quite, but the suffix is a big part of it.

What exactly do you agree or disagree with:
• 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

I disagree with this.
I believe the creation of the universe and all natural laws would qualify as a miracle, and that the individual arrival of everything, including the planet earth and life, proceeds from it. I believe that the Resurrection was its own separate miracle because it was its own event, and the arrival/creation (whichever you believe) of the new heavens and the new earth are their own miracle because it is their own event.

• 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)

Ezekiel 36:26, NIV:I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

2 Cor 5:17:Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come:[a] The old has gone, the new is here!
Gal 6:15
Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation.

Eph 4:24and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.
Maybe I don’t get the same thing quoting single verses as you seem to, but I don’t see how all of those are relevant. But to your point,
I do believe denying that God created the universe is denying the power of God.

In those verses, by the by, I see that if you deny God recreating you or making a new you, you are denying salvation, but nothing tying, oh, say, the creation of the earth to salvation.

• There is a reason that John's Gospel, the book of Romans and Hebrews all begin by exalting Christ as Creator.

Yes, I do believe there was a reason. I doubt I think it’s the same reason as you, but I do think there was a reason. And I do believe God did create everything.

• To reject God as Creator is to reject Christ as Savior and Lord.

Not directly. They are different roles of God. They would be outside the Nicene Creed, however, and denying a large part of what orthodox Christianity believes God has done.

Then define the word and tell us how the meaning is changed from essential doctrine to mindless ignorance with the addition of a three letter suffix.

Sure. But it's you who say it's mindless ignorance, not I. I'd call it more willful ignorance.
Creation (1): noun, event, the point at which God made the universe and what is in it.

creation (2): noun, thing, the universe as we know it.

CreationISM: noun, thing. One of a set of ideologies with at least 3 distinct subgroups, possibly more with which I am unfamiliar, and which are as follows:
1: Young Earth Creationists, who generally believe (but are not limited to) the following: a) the earth is 6-10 thousand years old, b) that the book of Genesis provides a literal history of the beginning of the world, including the being spoken into existence in its current state and the separate creation of man, c) that the biological theory of evolution and many other parts of science such as nuclear physics, geology, paleontology, archaeology, and others, are wrong, including but not limited to i)universal common descent, ii)radiometric dating, iii) the existence of civilizations older than 6-10 thousand years, d) almost universally believe that taking the beginning of Genesis (or several other parts of the Bible) in a non-literal fashion is, quite literally, accusing God of lying and actively disbelieving the Scriptures.

2: Old Earth Creations, who generally disbelieve universal common descent and several other parts of science also disbelieved by Young Earth Creationists. They, however, believe the earth is older than the Young Earth Creationists believe it to be, believing that at some point (which varies between groups, the position I am most familiar with is between the days) that large amounts of time have passed, generally bringing the age of the earth and sometimes the universe into line with the agreed scientific consensus... or at least much older than the Young Earth Creationists believe it to be.

3: Day-Age/Gap creationists, who, as I understand it, hold that each day was itself thousands of years or more. I am least familiar with this group.

All groups have the rejection of much of science, especially most of the biological theory of evolution, in common.

You see, all have in common the idea of HOW God created, that being the manner described in a literal reading of Genesis. But believing God created the universe in a different manner is STILL BELIEVING THAT GOD MADE THE UNIVERSE AND WHAT IS IN IT without believing in the same method as creationists as I have defined above. One of the main things that separates TEs who believe God is the Creator from creationists is the METHOD of creation. If I believe God created via the Big Bang, and you believe God created by speaking things into existence 6000 years ago, we still both believe God created.

And yes. I do believe what separates creationists from TEs is relevant to that 3 letter suffix. Hitler, an evil dictator, is four letters away from Hi, a short form of hello. Bass, a fish, is ZERO letters different from bass, a kind of guitar, and 1 letter different from ass, an old fashioned word for donkey, which itself is ZERO letters different from a**, a vulgar word for a rear end. The number of letters different between two words is no indication of how much they do or do not have in common.

You keep saying that but you still haven't said why, why don't evolutionists like to define their terms?

Oh, oh, I know this! It’s because originally the words didn't need redefining every time they were used, but the words keep getting twisted by people who wish to play GAMES with them!

What if I told you that belief in young earth creationism makes one a radical evolutionist? Wouldn't you want to know what I mean by the word 'evolutionist'?

No, I would be able to use my knowledge of the topic at hand, your viewpoint, and context to know you were meaning ‘evolutionist’ as ‘someone who at the very least believes in speciation’, which is DIFFERENT than your earlier usages because being a young earth creationist means you do not engage in:

denying God's ability to create

which is something you accuse ‘evolutionists’ of in your first post in THESE two sentences:

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.

, as well as various other things that are contradictory to several key points of Young Earth Creationism, and since Young Earth Creationists do not do this or several other things like accepting universal common descent that you accuse evolutionists of doing in other threads, yet obviously do not, you could not be an evolutionist in previous senses of the word you have used AND a Young Earth Creationist, so I would realize you are using ‘evolutionist’ in a different context between your ‘radical evolutionist’ usage and your previous usages without letting your audience know in any way that you are assigning a different and contradictory meaning to the same combination of letters you used previously.

Would you kindly provide your definition(s) of evolutionists now?

Have a nice day 

Oh, I will. Me and my girlfriend rented 3 movies from the red box, and between lab sicknesses and the holiday, I’m getting a four day weekend to enjoy! You have a good day as well.

Metherion

 

[Assyrian]

You used unrelated examples but you never corrected me withour providing a clear definition of the meaning of the word 'creationism' and how it differs from worshiping Christ as Creator. Are you really suggesting that all the separates a creationist from an evolutionist is a three letter suffix?

So there is no real difference between worshiping Christ and worshiping a Christian? It is just a three letter suffix after all. But it would be worshiping the creature rather than the creator. When you mix up Creation and creationism you are confusing the act of God with the views and opinions some Christians have about that act.

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:

So Genesis is not talking about literal natural light then?

 

[mark kennedy]

So there is no real difference between worshiping Christ and worshiping a Christian? It is just a three letter suffix after all. But it would be worshiping the creature rather than the creator. When you mix up Creation and creationism you are confusing the act of God with the views and opinions some Christians have about that act.

Yet another fallacious claim, why do you have to make this so easy? Creationism is really nothing more then a belief that the Scriptures mean what they say and clearly indicate God created the heavens, earth and man by divine fiat, not exclusively naturalistic processes. I'm not the one who wants to 'mix up' the terminology, you have been shameless in your distortion of the clear testimony of Scripture and the literal meaning of the words you distort and conflate.

So Genesis is not talking about literal natural light then?

Go and learn what this means.

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)​

 

[Assyrian]

Yet another fallacious claim, why do you have to make this so easy?

So the difference between creation and creationism is just a three letter suffix, but comparing this to the three letter difference between Christ and a Christian is fallacious?

Creationism is really nothing more then a belief that the Scriptures mean what they say and clearly indicate God created the heavens, earth and man by divine fiat, not exclusively naturalistic processes.

So creationism is a belief about creation not God's work of Creation itself. Isn't that what I said?

I'm not the one who wants to 'mix up' the terminology, you have been shameless in your distortion of the clear testimony of Scripture and the literal meaning of the words you distort and conflate.

If you confuse creationism with creation you are certainly mixing up terminology. You are confusing a belief that God is creator, with a particular set of views about this creation held by creationists.

So Genesis is not talking about literal natural light then?

Go and learn what this means.

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)​

I think we both understand what it means, what amazes me is that
you seem to think light is being used here literally.

 

[Mikecpking]

To reject God as Creator is to reject Christ as Savior and Lord. Putting a different suffix at the end changes nothing.

​

Today at Chester Zoo in England, we were holding Carnivorous plant exhibition in the grounds. One of my friends was dressed as Charles Darwin and apparently was 'jumped on' by a creationist and handed my friend a tract. He showed me and on the last page, it stated those who believe in evolution will be thrown into the lake of fire.

This tract originated from the USA.

Do you really think statements like that will win people for Christ? Where does it say in the bible people who believe in the lake of fire will get thrown in the lake of fire? Extra-biblical methinks.
​

 

[mark kennedy]

Today at Chester Zoo in England, we were holding Carnivorous plant exhibition in the grounds. One of my friends was dressed as Charles Darwin and apparently was 'jumped on' by a creationist and handed my friend a tract. He showed me and on the last page, it stated those who believe in evolution will be thrown into the lake of fire.

This tract originated from the USA.

Do you really think statements like that will win people for Christ? Where does it say in the bible people who believe in the lake of fire will get thrown in the lake of fire? Extra-biblical methinks.
[/INDENT]

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

 

[chris4243]

Ohhh, another "you're not a Christian unless you admit that the Bible is verifiably false" thread.

 

[philadiddle]

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, which TE that you have talked to thinks that Christ is not the creator? Please name one on this board, hopefully someone who is active and can defend themselves.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark, which TE that you have talked to thinks that Christ is not the creator? Please name one on this board, hopefully someone who is active and can defend themselves.

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.

 

[mark kennedy]

I sometimes wonder why they don't get dizzy arguing in circles

 

[mark kennedy]

Nope, not quite, but the suffix is a big part of it.

The root word is a bigger part.

I disagree with this.

Do tell.

I believe the creation of the universe and all natural laws would qualify as a miracle, and that the individual arrival of everything, including the planet earth and life, proceeds from it. I believe that the Resurrection was its own separate miracle because it was its own event, and the arrival/creation (whichever you believe) of the new heavens and the new earth are their own miracle because it is their own event.

The resurrection is a special manifestation of the same miracle, but it's a new creation, a new man, a new Adam. The Scriptures are clear that when you are born again you become a new creature in Christ. When you heard the Gospel you were united with Christ through baptism into death so that just as Christ was raised through the glory of the Father you to may walk in newness of life.

There is nothing controversial about this, they are all the same miracle, just different manifestations.

Ezekiel 36:26, NIV:I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

A prophetic and poetic description of the new birth, aka, new creation.

2 Cor 5:17:Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come:[a] The old has gone, the new is here!

Exactly!

Gal 6:15
Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation.

Again, 'new creation'.

Eph 4:24and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.

Again, 'created'

Maybe I don’t get the same thing quoting single verses as you seem to, but I don’t see how all of those are relevant. But to your point, I do believe denying that God created the universe is denying the power of God.

Yea, about that, I have no idea what part of 'new creation' has escaped you.

In those verses, by the by, I see that if you deny God recreating you or making a new you, you are denying salvation, but nothing tying, oh, say, the creation of the earth to salvation.

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

Yes, I do believe there was a reason. I doubt I think it’s the same reason as you, but I do think there was a reason. And I do believe God did create everything.

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.

Not directly. They are different roles of God. They would be outside the Nicene Creed, however, and denying a large part of what orthodox Christianity believes God has done.


Sure. But it's you who say it's mindless ignorance, not I. I'd call it more willful ignorance.

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

Creation (1): noun, event, the point at which God made the universe and what is in it.

creation (2): noun, thing, the universe as we know it.

CreationISM: noun, thing. One of a set of ideologies with at least 3 distinct subgroups, possibly more with which I am unfamiliar, and which are as follows:
1: Young Earth Creationists, who generally believe (but are not limited to) the following: a) the earth is 6-10 thousand years old, b) that the book of Genesis provides a literal history of the beginning of the world, including the being spoken into existence in its current state and the separate creation of man, c) that the biological theory of evolution and many other parts of science such as nuclear physics, geology, paleontology, archaeology, and others, are wrong, including but not limited to i)universal common descent, ii)radiometric dating, iii) the existence of civilizations older than 6-10 thousand years, d) almost universally believe that taking the beginning of Genesis (or several other parts of the Bible) in a non-literal fashion is, quite literally, accusing God of lying and actively disbelieving the Scriptures.

2: Old Earth Creations, who generally disbelieve universal common descent and several other parts of science also disbelieved by Young Earth Creationists. They, however, believe the earth is older than the Young Earth Creationists believe it to be, believing that at some point (which varies between groups, the position I am most familiar with is between the days) that large amounts of time have passed, generally bringing the age of the earth and sometimes the universe into line with the agreed scientific consensus... or at least much older than the Young Earth Creationists believe it to be.

3: Day-Age/Gap creationists, who, as I understand it, hold that each day was itself thousands of years or more. I am least familiar with this group.

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

All groups have the rejection of much of science, especially most of the biological theory of evolution, in common.

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?

You see, all have in common the idea of HOW God created, that being the manner described in a literal reading of Genesis.

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

But believing God created the universe in a different manner is STILL BELIEVING THAT GOD MADE THE UNIVERSE AND WHAT IS IN IT without believing in the same method as creationists as I have defined above. One of the main things that separates TEs who believe God is the Creator from creationists is the METHOD of creation. If I believe God created via the Big Bang, and you believe God created by speaking things into existence 6000 years ago, we still both believe God created.

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.

And yes. I do believe what separates creationists from TEs is relevant to that 3 letter suffix. Hitler, an evil dictator, is four letters away from Hi, a short form of hello. Bass, a fish, is ZERO letters different from bass, a kind of guitar, and 1 letter different from ass, an old fashioned word for donkey, which itself is ZERO letters different from a**, a vulgar word for a rear end. The number of letters different between two words is no indication of how much they do or do not have in common.

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

Oh, oh, I know this! It’s because originally the words didn't need redefining every time they were used, but the words keep getting twisted by people who wish to play GAMES with them!

Finally, something we agree on.

No, I would be able to use my knowledge of the topic at hand, your viewpoint, and context to know you were meaning ‘evolutionist’ as ‘someone who at the very least believes in speciation’, which is DIFFERENT than your earlier usages because being a young earth creationist means you do not engage in:

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.

, as well as various other things that are contradictory to several key points of Young Earth Creationism, and since Young Earth Creationists do not do this or several other things like accepting universal common descent that you accuse evolutionists of doing in other threads, yet obviously do not,

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.

you could not be an evolutionist in previous senses of the word you have used AND a Young Earth Creationist, so I would realize you are using ‘evolutionist’ in a different context between your ‘radical evolutionist’ usage and your previous usages without letting your audience know in any way that you are assigning a different and contradictory meaning to the same combination of letters you used previously.

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.

Would you kindly provide your definition(s) of evolutionists now?

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

Oh, I will. Me and my girlfriend rented 3 movies from the red box, and between lab sicknesses and the holiday, I’m getting a four day weekend to enjoy! You have a good day as well.

Good for you, have a wonderful time.

Metherion

Grace and peace,
Mark