Christian faith requires the acceptance of God as creator

[crawfish]

I fully believe that any creation theology that requires something beyond that is guilty of "adding to" the scriptures.

 

[philadiddle]

I fully believe that any creation theology that requires something beyond that is guilty of "adding to" the scriptures.

I think you have the wrong focus here. It seems you are trying to condemn some views as "wrong". What's important is that all christians believe that God made everything no matter how He did it.

Maybe we can all just accept that fact that every Christian on this board accept that God made everything, and instead of fighting about it we can focus on what we have in common for a minute while we hold hands in a circle and sing "Jesus loves me".

 

[mark kennedy]

I fully believe that any creation theology that requires something beyond that is guilty of "adding to" the scriptures.

I wholeheartedly agree with the title of the thread, an important improvement over the one I started my thread with. However, the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means is a rejection of God as Creator in every way that has any meaning whatsoever.

So close crawfish but you couldn't do it without throwing in an inflammatory insinuation could you crawfish? You never do and that is the whole problem with theistic evolution, you want to flatly reject the clear testimony of Scripture then accuse creationists of 'adding to the Scriptures'. If you eat your cake don't get mad at me because you no longer have it.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

I think you have the wrong focus here. It seems you are trying to condemn some views as "wrong". What's important is that all christians believe that God made everything no matter how He did it.

Maybe we can all just accept that fact that every Christian on this board accept that God made everything, and instead of fighting about it we can focus on what we have in common for a minute while we hold hands in a circle and sing "Jesus loves me".

You know, I honestly thought you were putting us on when you claimed to have taken a kinder and gentler stance on the issues. But you have remained consistent and carry the same message to creationist as well as the theistic evolutionists. I'm very impressed, your in my prayers brother, may God bless you and keep you and cause his face to shine on you.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[crawfish]

I think you have the wrong focus here. It seems you are trying to condemn some views as "wrong".

Huh?

What's important is that all christians believe that God made everything no matter how He did it.

That is exactly what I'm saying. The only "wrong" that is done through creation theology is to turn a particular belief into required dogma. Acceptance (or rejection) of evolution is unimportant spiritually; acceptance of any particular method of creation is also unimportant.

 

[crawfish]

I wholeheartedly agree with the title of the thread, an important improvement over the one I started my thread with. However, the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means is a rejection of God as Creator in every way that has any meaning whatsoever.

So close crawfish but you couldn't do it without throwing in an inflammatory insinuation could you crawfish? You never do and that is the whole problem with theistic evolution, you want to flatly reject the clear testimony of Scripture then accuse creationists of 'adding to the Scriptures'. If you eat your cake don't get mad at me because you no longer have it.

Have a nice day
Mark

Just as you CAN "eat your cake and have it too", you can accept common descent and still accept the theological thrust of the creation story.

Mark, you are as inflammatory as anybody on the other side. It's not my purpose to put anybody down; I want to point out the common ground between us all that is not at all evident in the two threads below that this one is commentary of. You are every bit as guilty of that as anybody else.

I long for the day when evolution becomes a "doesn't matter" issue. Atheists will sullenly shut up, and Christians can finally move on to the issues that matter.

 

[philadiddle]

acceptance of any particular method of creation is also unimportant.

In the OP you said that some requirements that some people hold "add to the scriptures" which implies that you think it is wrong for them to do so. While you say that the acceptance of a particular method of creation is unimportant you made it clear in the OP that rejection of some views of creation is important, which puts a huge emphasis on what is wrong about peoples theology instead of what we agree on. I know that it is the requirement of a certain view that you have a problem with, more than the view itself, but after the last few threads that this is a spin-off of, it would probably be more productive to hammer out what we have in common. While the title seemed to imply that you were going to do that, you instead put the emphasis on how some views "add to scripture", meaning they are wrong and blasphemous.

 

[Papias]

in the other thread, mark wrote:

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.

Yet, in his kind response to philadiddle in post #4 above, he seems to be agreeing with philadiddle's post, which is expresses the exact opposite view. I'd like to think that mark has turned over a new leaf, as suggested by his post #4. I can hope, right?

Papias

P.S. I'd also like to point out that I agree with crawfish wrt the title of this thread - that one can be a Chrstian regardless of origin of life stance. In my related thread, one may notice that the OP was only opening a discussion on an article by someone else, and that I later (post #20 on that thread) clarified my own view to include both YECs and TEs as Christians.

That's quite different from starting a thread with an OP stating that my own view was exclusive like that, and then repeating that exclusive view in the thread.

 

[Willtor]

I wholeheartedly agree with the title of the thread, an important improvement over the one I started my thread with. However, the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means is a rejection of God as Creator in every way that has any meaning whatsoever.

I agree, mostly. Not allowing God as the First Cause (in a Thomistic sense) allows for a deism where God is not active within creation, but I'd argue that this is at least heterodox. "Invited or uninvited..." etc.

It's the same, of course, with the strong nuclear force, the weather, or whatever else.

 

[mark kennedy]

Just as you CAN "eat your cake and have it too", you can accept common descent and still accept the theological thrust of the creation story.

Not without qualification you can't (BTW I know how to qualify it), there are serious theological issues at stake that can't be dismissed carelessly. The thrust of the Creation 'account' is the historicity of the events described and reducing it to myth and metaphor is a dangerous trend in modern academics among unbelievers.

I have no real issue with common descent, it's the axiom of naturalistic assumptions that are a categorical rejection of God as primary cause. When you argue endlessly against creationism it's proof positive that you have some very serious issues with God as Creator. If it were not so the tone would be far more gracious. Instead TEs hunt creationists like rabid dogs, I see the differences being far more serious then a difference of opinion on minor points.

Mark, you are as inflammatory as anybody on the other side. It's not my purpose to put anybody down; I want to point out the common ground between us all that is not at all evident in the two threads below that this one is commentary of. You are every bit as guilty of that as anybody else.

I know that and I don't apologize for taking a stand against what I consider to be egregious attacks on fundamental doctrine. The truth is I don't tell the half of it and when given the opportunity I happily fellowship with TEs and offer terms of compromise.

I long for the day when evolution becomes a "doesn't matter" issue. Atheists will sullenly shut up, and Christians can finally move on to the issues that matter.

Seriously, it does matter. I don't care what atheists think because their thinking has been poisoned by their Adamic nature. The fact is we are all in the same boat before Christ and understanding the Gospel requires a miracle that is on the same level as the original creation, the resurrection and the new creation at the end of the age.

Whether atheistic materialist or a mild and moderate TE these issues matter. If you wanted to silence atheists you could simply defend you beliefs rather then attacking fundamentalist beliefs.

Don't you get it, between Creationists, Intelligent Design proponents and Theistic Evolutionists we represent a huge majority. Atheistic materialists realize this and offer credibility in exchange for TEs who attack Creationists. It's probably because they secretly fear Christian scholarship which is why they won't touch the New Testament with a ten foot pole.

 

[mark kennedy]

in the other thread, mark wrote:


Yet, in his kind response to philadiddle in post #4 above, he seems to be agreeing with philadiddle's post, which is expresses the exact opposite view. I'd like to think that mark has turned over a new leaf, as suggested by his post #4. I can hope, right?

Philadiddle has demonstrated that he is serious about having civil conversations, I'm sincerely impressed. My convictions remain unchanged with regards to Darwinian naturalistic assumptions. The fact is that he is not arguing against God as Creator and the difference is evident and obvious, to me at least.

Papias

P.S. I'd also like to point out that I agree with crawfish wrt the title of this thread - that one can be a Chrstian regardless of origin of life stance. In my related thread, one may notice that the OP was only opening a discussion on an article by someone else, and that I later (post #20 on that thread) clarified my own view to include both YECs and TEs as Christians.

That's quite different from starting a thread with an OP stating that my own view was exclusive like that, and then repeating that exclusive view in the thread.

I start a scathing thread with a title that says if you don't accept evolution your not a Christian. I contrasted it with creationism but as this one rightly indicates, you may believe in evolution or creationism but what Christians have in common the must believe in God as Creator. That's the point I was making, you need to wise up Papias, I'm not the enemy.

 

[cubinity]

Is it within the scope of Christian faith to accept God is a creator, or does He have to be accepted as the creator of something in particular?

 

[philadiddle]

I have no real issue with common descent, it's the axiom of naturalistic assumptions that are a categorical rejection of God as primary cause.

If God created EVERYTHING, all the matter, all the laws that govern them, all the rules of math and logic in this universe, everything, then isn't looking at what happens naturally looking at God's handiwork? How can He not be the primary cause if He made everything?

 

[philadiddle]

Is it within the scope of Christian faith to accept God is a creator, or does He have to be accepted as the creator of something in particular?

Very good question!!

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:

That's the point I was making, you need to wise up Papias, I'm not the enemy.

mark, I never see you as the enemy. I'm sorry if that came across.

fact is that he is not arguing against God as Creator and the difference is evident and obvious, to me at least.

That's obvious to me too. Is it not obvious to you that I'm not arguing against God as Creator? In both my and philaddil's support for theistic evolution, we both see God as creator. Isn't that a central part of the origins view of theistic evolution supporters? Isn't that worlds different from atheistic evolution, which we all disagree with?

you may believe in evolution or creationism but what Christians have in common the must believe in God as Creator. That's the point I was making

And that's a point I agree with you on. It's great to see that we agree there. I'm sorry if my choice of title for that thread (which was simply the title of the article, not my choice) confused my position.

Papias

 

[Greg1234]

I fully believe that any creation theology that requires something beyond that is guilty of "adding to" the scriptures.

We see Creationism and it's in scripture. It's not really much of an "addition."

 

[Greg1234]

That's obvious to me too. Is it not obvious to you that I'm not arguing against God as Creator? In both my and philaddil's support for theistic evolution, we both see God as creator. Isn't that a central part of the origins view of theistic evolution supporters? Isn't that worlds different from atheistic evolution, which we all disagree with?

Yet we see Creationism in the literal, the interpretation, and the data. Materialists promote the random formation of man regardless of the literal, the interpretation, or the physical data. You promote materialism's random formation of man regardless of the literal the interpretation and the physical data. How is this any less than a Christian being used (in a stunning display of gamesmanship by materialists) to distribute materialism?

 

[Papias]

Greg wrote:

You promote materialism's random formation of man regardless of the literal the interpretation and the physical data.

Simply false. I do not support any materialistic, random formation, but rather the purposeful creation of humans by God, using evolution.

If you are going to constructively have a discussion, understanding the other point of view is a first and neccessary step. Being that you've refused to understand this of all of us TEs for a long time over dozens of posts here on CF, I find it harder and harder to avoid concluding that you don't actually want to have a constructive discussion.

How is this any less than a Christian being used (in a stunning display of gamesmanship by materialists) to distribute materialism?

It is no more that than your acceptance of the gravitational theory, atomic theory, and germ theory are examples of a Christian being used to distribute materialism.

I see a much larger God, active in all of nature, while you cling to a shrinking God, who hides in the gaps and becomes less real as we understand more. With so many Christians saying that this shrinking God is the Christian God, it's not a surprise that Chistians are leaving Christianity in droves.

I might observe that a Christian touting the shrinking God, as you do, may be nothing less than a Christian being used (in a stunning display of gamesmanship by atheists) to promote atheism.

Papias

 

[Greg1234]

Greg wrote:



Simply false. I do not support any materialistic, random formation, but rather the purposeful creation of humans by God, using evolution.

You may be granted your poetic twist. The fact remains though that there is no reason to attribute the random formation of man to God since no experiment necessitates such.

In this data and age, it is fitter to urge a materialist to accept the creation of man by God in order to supplement the nature of his reality, rather than theists being enticed to accept materialism for no other reason than your preference for materialistic doctrine.

It is better that you help materialists to digress from taking materialistic doctrine literally, rather than enticing theists to pick up materialistic faith.

 

[Papias]

Greg wrote:

It is better that you help materialists to digress from taking materialistic doctrine literally,

Do you seriously think that I don't do that?

rather than enticing theists to pick up materialistic faith.

I don't. I help them find a realistic, and Godly, faith in Jesus.

Papias