Creation, science, and the Nicene creed

[TLK Valentine]

No God or spiritual, then. OK.

By your definition, most certainly not.

They wrote the truth and what happened. The strange invented points they 'really' had in mind are the haven of cranks and fanatics, and deniers.

Oh, you were there? How wonderful!

God chose the foolish actually to confound the wise...or those that think they are wise.

And where do you fit into that, dad?

Since it causes suffering in their victims, they may like it. Who do you think inspired a lot of that crap?

You're the one claiming inside knowledge; you tell me.

Science can't predict quakes. I wouldn't brag about what they know. The trick is to predict exactly when, not just where.

A trick the holy men can't do, either.

Science an tell you where, why, but not (precisely) when; religion is 0 for 3.

Besides your little theory does not hold water. In the end there is to be a worldwide quake, so forget just on faultlines.

You're making up future events as if they already happened... is this how you usually claim victory?

 

[dad]

I'd have to agree with most of that except the evidence, you are entitled to your own opinion but we not your own evidence. They are doing some kind of a full court press that is obviously one sided, hopefully it will run it's course. Science is a a pretty meticulous methodology but when it comes to analyzing evidence as an end product there are a lot of limitations and history is one of them. What is very interesting to me is skepticism toward the New Testament would seem to have been abandoned. I think they have retreated into what they believe is the last strong hold for naturalistic reasoning, that is a mistake. Darwinism has gotten into everything from the eugenics of Oliver Wendel Holmes, to the social Darwinism of the Scopes monkey trial to the mutation plus selection mantra of modern Darwinians. I know their history, I know their philosophy and I know what they appeal to as history and Genetics has never been user friendly for Darwinians.

The culture wars are over, I've seen the debate wane and recede for a couple of years. It used to be vigorously intellectual and deeply scientific, rich in philosophical inference and ripe with insight. Now it's hard to find anyone who is informed on the issues, you get a lot of pedantic corrections but introducing crucial source material is generally a waste of time, it's simply ignored. Fossils have always been a tough topic to get going and after years of looking into it I found out why, the fossil evidence has been so misrepresented all you really have to do is present the evidence and the argument writes itself. In comparative genomics you can't get a discussion started on the indels, there is no explanation for how they got their so evolutionists wont touch them with a ten foot poll. Brain related genes was the biggest one so far, I found an article that described 60 brand new de novo (brand new) genes related to brain functions that would have had to happen. No one even took an interest.

This has never been about science, it comes down to supposition. The Nicene Creed makes it clear the God as Creator is foundational and links it inextricably to the Incarnation, another fact that is never addressed.

Stay focused and don't let them drag you down into mud slinging contests. It's been a rule of thumb for me for a long time now, when they focus on nothing but personal remarks it's because they have nothing else left. I could make a stronger argument for Darwinian evolution then anyone I've encountered for years, straight from the evidence. I could easily rearrange some of my theology to accommodate a naturalistic worldview with the exception of crucial miracles during redemptive history and with regards to divine revelation, backing it up with sound expositions of Scripture and scientific literature. What is truly puzzling is that I have so seldom encountered this when engaging with others of an opposing view point.

More then anything else I'm fascinated by the way they abandon the epistemology they pretend to defend. Very curious, very curious indeed.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Maybe some figure 'heck if the pope abandoned belief and embraced evilution, I guess it is cool now....our denomination now accepts unbelief, and it is unchristian to say anything bad about any other christian denomination'

As for the evidence thing, what I mean is that none of the evidences we all have prove that nature in the future or past is the same as now. So, no, they have o evidence. The evidence is something I have as much as they do.

 

[dad]

The answer, of course, is both.

Only if we call God a liar when He says He created Adam from the dust of the earth. The so called naturalistic view is that Adam (well they probably feel there was no real Adam) came via the birth canal, and not that he was actually created and formed by God. Same thing with Eve. I wonder how they explain that away, that man was here before woman!?

 

[dad]

By your definition, most certainly not.

My definition is Jesus.

You're the one claiming inside knowledge; you tell me.

The bible may seem like inside knowledge to you.

Science an tell you where, why, but not (precisely) when;

They tell stories. So you admit science is all goofed out on their timing. That is s start.

You're making up future events as if they already happened..

They are so certain, they might as well already have happened. Since John was taken to see the future events unfold, one assumes that God is not bound by time like you are anyhow.

 

[TLK Valentine]

They are so certain, they might as well already have happened.

In your opinion.

Since John was taken to see the future events unfold, one assumes that God is not bound by time like you are anyhow.

Oh, you were there? How wonderful!

 

[dad]

In your opinion.

No. Demonstrated proven fact of history. Bible prophecy rules.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No. Demonstrated proven fact of history. Bible prophecy rules.

again, in your opinion.

An opinion shared by many, to be sure, but an opinion nonetheless.

 

[KWCrazy]

Perhaps with man there is a continuum from godly to godless, and as long as you don't fall too far down that continuum you can still call yourself a Christian. My concern is not whether we call ourselves Christians. I wonder if God would call us Christians.

For example, Christ taught that the Scriptures were the breathed word of God; that Adam, eve, Lot, Noah and Jonah were real people and that the events depicted in the Bible actually happened. To many Christians today he would be called a Young Earth Creationist, a Fundie or a Bible literalist. So how do we deny what Christ taught as fact and call ourselves Christian?

I've always been a very analytical person. I like the physical sciences and have always been fascinated by things discovered. However, while science can tell us amazing things about the world around us, the method of our origination is unprovable through science. Further, what you have an immutable truth it supersedes speculation. The immutable truth is that God, not natural law, is Lord of the universe. God's will supersedes any and all natural laws. If He wants to set back the sun He does so. If he wants to cease the rotation of the earth for an entire day he does so without consequence. If He said that He created the universe in six days then that is exactly what happened; not because science can prove it but because God said it.

As I've stated before, Genesis provides foundational doctrine. If sin and death did NOT come into the world by one man, how could salvation come to the world through one man? If death was not the consequence of original sin, then how are the wages of sin death and why do we need a savior? If God did not destroy the world with water, how do we know he's going to destroy it later as prophesied? If there is no consequence to sin, then why are we considered lost in the world without Jesus?

I contend that the only way one can believe in the Bible and evolution is to understand neither. edit

 

[TLK Valentine]

Perhaps with man there is a continuum from godly to godless, and as long as you don't fall too far down that continuum you can still call yourself a Christian. My concern is not whether we call ourselves Christians. I wonder if God would call us Christians.

I've been told (but the people who told me could've been very much mistaken) that the only requirement to be a Christian was to believe that you are a sinner and that Jesus Christ died for your sins -- the rest are details.

Jesus himself certainly made it all pretty simple... it was those who came later who added all the hoops to jump through.

For example, Christ taught that the Scriptures were the breathed word of God; that Adam, eve, Lot, Noah and Jonah were real people and that the events depicted in the Bible actually happened. To many Christians today he would be called a Young Earth Creationist, a Fundie or a Bible literalist. So how do we deny what Christ taught as fact and call ourselves Christian?

By deemphasizing the things he may or may not have believed, and used as a means to teach, and focusing on those things he explicitly told you to do and believe... it doesn't get much simpler than John 13:34-35:

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

Assuming that Jesus is God, and assuming that God stands by His words (both pretty much givens for a Christian, I would imagine), how much more do you really need to convince God that you're with Him?

I've always been a very analytical person. I like the physical sciences and have always been fascinated by things discovered. However, while science can tell us amazing things about the world around us, the method of our origination is unprovable through science.

You mean unprovEN, not unprovABLE. Things aren't impossible just because we haven't done them yet.

Further, what you have an immutable truth it supersedes speculation. The immutable truth is that God, not natural law, is Lord of the universe.

Nobody denies that -- even Atheists who don't believe God exists will concede that IF He did, He'd pretty much run the show.

God's will supersedes any and all natural laws. If He wants to set back the sun He does so. If he wants to cease the rotation of the earth for an entire day he does so without consequence. If He said that He created the universe in six days then that is exactly what happened; not because science can prove it but because God said it.

If HE wants it... not because YOU want it.
If HE said it... not because YOU said it.

See the difference? It's similar to the differences between believing in a miracle, assuming a miracle, and demanding a miracle.

As I've stated before, Genesis provides foundational doctrine.

"Doctrine" is one of those things that religions are always concerned with... How important is it to God?

 

[mark kennedy]

Maybe some figure 'heck if the pope abandoned belief and embraced evilution, I guess it is cool now....our denomination now accepts unbelief, and it is unchristian to say anything bad about any other christian denomination'

As for the evidence thing, what I mean is that none of the evidences we all have prove that nature in the future or past is the same as now. So, no, they have o evidence. The evidence is something I have as much as they do.

The Pope did no such thing:

"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)​

Pope Benedict XVI is directly connecting the creation with the resurrection, there is a very good reason for that.

Faith in God and in the events of salvation history must necessarily begin with a belief in God's role as Creator, says Benedict XVI
​

They would have to abandon the doctrine of original sin:

1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offense of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offense of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema. (The Council of Trent. The Fifth Session)
​

The encyclical Humani Generis of Pius XII was written in 1950 "concerning some false opinions threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic Doctrine". While the encyclical makes it clear that there is no problem to Catholics to hold opinions of conjecture regarding evolutionary scenarios there was one point of doctrine that they are in no way, at liberty to hold. He first of all advises moderation. While the origin of the body of Adam can be the subject of conjecture it is in no way completely certain.

Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question. (Humani Generis 36)​

What the encyclical really says is that Catholics are at liberty to speculate about evolutionary scenarios. This is in no way shape or form a ringing endorsement of evolution as natural history. What was outright condemned as heresy is the belief that Adam and Eve represented a certain number of first parents. This is called polygenism.

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own. (Humani Generis 37)​

There is a reason that Rome must affirm the historicity of Adam and original sin. I almost converted to Catholicism of this, the prevalence of permissiveness and unbelief in the Protestant churches is at epidemic proportions. I couldn't get past devotions to the Virgin Mary but honestly as compared to a wholesale exclusively naturalistic worldview I'd say on balance it's not so bad.

If someone could show me the equivalent from the Protestant churches that affirms the doctrine of creation in no uncertain terms I would reconsider. However, given the prevalence of Liberal Theology running throughout the Protestant churches to include Modernism and Emerging Theology my feeling is Catholicism might be the last visage of traditional Christian theism left in the world. I haven't made up my mind but I'm losing patience with secular philosophy being passed off as Christian profession.

Martin Luther's journey led him to stand against the Catholic Church, being captive to the Word of God, demanding that he must be convinced from the Scriptures. My journey may take me in another direction for the same reason, I cannot abide a Theology that abandons the traditional theism of Christian faith in favor of a secular philosophy that is ingrained with naturalistic assumptions. At least Rome has a solid footing on the foundational doctrines of the faith.

God help me, the abandonment of essential doctrine may well have left me no other choice. I don't know what motives may drive others but as for me I will not abide an abandonment of traditional Christian theism.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[TLK Valentine]

I Corinthians 13:1-3 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

Even Paul, who often got bogged down with "doctrine," can get it right.

 

[dad]

again, in your opinion.

An opinion shared by many, to be sure, but an opinion nonetheless.

Bible prophesy is not opinion.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Bible prophesy is not opinion.

No, it's a belief.

To be specific, that the Bible makes prophecies is a fact, but how many of those prophecies actually came true (as opposed to reinterpreted or written in after the fact) is a matter of opinion.

 

[dad]

The Pope did no such thing:

Maybe the thousands of news articles are wrong? like this one I googled..

"
The theories of evolution and the Big Bang are real and God is not “a magician with a magic wand”, Pope Francis has declared.

Speaking at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pope made comments which experts said put an end to the “pseudo theories” of creationism and intelligent design that some argue were encouraged by his predecessor, Benedict XVI."

Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not 'a magician with a magic wand'

"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)​

Pope Benedict XVI is directly connecting the creation with the resurrection, there is a very good reason for that.

He isn't pope any more though. Besides when those type talk of creation, heaven knows what else other than a real creation one week by Jesus, that they have in mind. Some mouth the word creation, while envisioning some evolution sort of scenario, where man evolved.

​

They would have to abandon the doctrine of original sin:

1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offense of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offense of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema. (The Council of Trent. The Fifth Session)​

[/QUOTE]

So if Francis says what the news article quotes, what does that make him?

​

The encyclical Humani Generis of Pius XII was written in 1950 "concerning some false opinions threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic Doctrine". While the encyclical makes it clear that there is no problem to Catholics to hold opinions of conjecture regarding evolutionary scenarios there was one point of doctrine that they are in no way, at liberty to hold. He first of all advises moderation. While the origin of the body of Adam can be the subject of conjecture it is in no way completely certain.

I think the body of Adam was certainly created.

​

What the encyclical really says is that Catholics are at liberty to speculate about evolutionary scenarios. This is in no way shape or form a ringing endorsement of evolution as natural history.

Since Jesus formed Adam from the dust of the earth, speculating He didn't seems to be a bad thing.

What was outright condemned as heresy is the belief that Adam and Eve represented a certain number of first parents. This is called polygenism.

Well, the Catholics may condemn that, as well they should, but I have heard other 'believers. espouse such nonsense.

​

There is a reason that Rome must affirm the historicity of Adam and original sin. I almost converted to Catholicism of this, the prevalence of permissiveness and unbelief in the Protestant churches is at epidemic proportions. I couldn't get past devotions to the Virgin Mary but honestly as compared to a wholesale exclusively naturalistic worldview I'd say on balance it's not so bad.

I like their pro life stand. I was born a Catholic actually. I am not sure what evolution theory they claim is now OK though, that allows a real Adam. Maybe some Catholic can tell us what evolution theory allows Adam and Eve?

If someone could show me the equivalent from the Protestant churches that affirms the doctrine of creation in no uncertain terms I would reconsider.

I look to the bible rather than denominations for truth.

However, given the prevalence of Liberal Theology running throughout the Protestant churches to include Modernism and Emerging Theology my feeling is Catholicism might be the last visage of traditional Christian theism left in the world. I haven't made up my mind but I'm losing patience with secular philosophy being passed off as Christian profession.

Not really sure what all that means, but I guess we all need to find what best turns our crank.

Martin Luther's journey led him to stand against the Catholic Church, being captive to the Word of God, demanding that he must be convinced from the Scriptures. My journey may take me in another direction for the same reason, I cannot abide a Theology that abandons the traditional theism of Christian faith in favor of a secular philosophy that is ingrained with naturalistic assumptions. At least Rome has a solid footing on the foundational doctrines of the faith.

If a denomination abandons faith and the bible, they can, as Avi was wont to say...take a hike.

God help me, the abandonment of essential doctrine may well have left me no other choice. I don't know what motives may drive others but as for me I will not abide an abandonment of traditional Christian theism.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Since I never really did the church thing, I don't really know what you are talking about. It does seem to me that apostasy is the name of the game in modern religion, to a great degree though. As for the religion I was born with, they never showed me the bible. Almost like many of us Catholics were basically in heathen darkness. I always wished they would let the poor priests marry naturally also. Perhaps there would have been less child abuse in that outfit. Looking at the politics of the pope de jour, I also cringe.

 

[mark kennedy]

Maybe the thousands of news articles are wrong? like this one I googled..

The theories of evolution and the Big Bang are real and God is not “a magician with a magic wand”, Pope Francis has declared.

No it's not a magic wand, that doesn't mean God didn't create the universe. I believe in the Big Bang, God spoke and BANG there it was.

Speaking at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pope made comments which experts said put an end to the “pseudo theories” of creationism and intelligent design that some argue were encouraged by his predecessor, Benedict XVI."

Yea I don't like pseudo theories either, especially the Darwinian stone age ape men, aka theory of evolution myth. Really startling to like this Pope.

Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not 'a magician with a magic wand'

He's not using a magic wand, for us to do what God does is magical but for God parting the Red Sea, raising the dead or creating a new heaven's and a new earth it's perfectly natural.

He isn't pope any more though. Besides when those type talk of creation, heaven knows what else other than a real creation one week by Jesus, that they have in mind. Some mouth the word creation, while envisioning some evolution sort of scenario, where man evolved.

I hadn't been a Christian more then a few years when I realised my Pastor didn't believe the Bible, things like the Incarnation and the Trinity. More recently I was in Bible on tract to graduate by summer, one of my fall classes was Acts. After two four hour lectures questioning that Luke wrote Acts he starts in on apparent contraditions, each in two hour blocks. At the end if that trimester I left and I didn't even take the final in that class. During the culture wars when it was really at a fervor pitch, two of my Christian Apologetics hero's, William Lane Craig and R.C. Sproul, grining from ear to ear dismissing creation with childish disdain. Sproul calls Adam the federal head if humanity, whatever that means.

Several generation staunch believer building on a legacy the founded universities and nations, now the great grand children mock that faith with reckless abandon. At least Rome can't deny tradition, Protestants anymore don't have to actually believe anything.

​

They would have to abandon the doctrine of original sin:

1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offense of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offense of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema. (The Council of Trent. The Fifth Session)​

So if Francis says what the news article quotes, what does that make him?

An empty suit, let me know when he writes an encyclical.

I think the body of Adam was certainly created.

So did Jesus Moses and Paul.

Since Jesus formed Adam from the dust of the earth, speculating He didn't seems to be a bad thing.

Well, the Catholics may condemn that, as well they should, but I have heard other 'believers. espouse such nonsense.

​

I like their pro life stand. I was born a Catholic actually. I am not sure what evolution theory they claim is now OK though, that allows a real Adam. Maybe some Catholic can tell us what evolution theory allows Adam and Eve?

I look to the bible rather than denominations for truth.

Not really sure what all that means, but I guess we all need to find what best turns our crank.

If a denomination abandons faith and the bible, they can, as Avi was wont to say...take a hike.

Since I never really did the church thing, I don't really know what you are talking about. It does seem to me that apostasy is the name of the game in modern religion, to a great degree though. As for the religion I was born with, they never showed me the bible. Almost like many of us Catholics were basically in heathen darkness. I always wished they would let the poor priests marry naturally also. Perhaps there would have been less child abuse in that outfit. Looking at the politics of the pope de jour, I also cringe.

Well a Catholic already told us what Catholics believe, Pope Benedict. I think the church is going to seed and I think I'd rather endure a boring liturgy then an army of mama's boys who are scholars because mommy told them it's God's will. The truth is they don't have to believe anything and by and large they don't. At least Rome has a standard for faith. As many times as I've been on AIG, ICR, Talk Origins and even here I have never seen an actual exposition. These theistic evolutionists I've been sparing with for twelve years now, I've only seen one who read source material outside these boards.

When the church starts reforming this time I don't think it will be political Protestantism or emotionally charged revivalism. I think it will ne a return to traditional Christian theism and the apostolic witness. And I expect to see this in my lifetime.

 

[Speedwell]

At least Rome can't deny tradition, Protestants anymore don't have to actually believe anything.

That's what happens when you abandon Tradition. Sola Scriptura is a slippery slope.

​

These theistic evolutionists I've been sparing with for twelve years now, I've only seen one who read source material outside these boards.

I'm not sure I don't resent that. Many others here will as well. You want to start a battle of the reading lists?

When the church starts reforming this time I don't think it will be political Protestantism or emotionally charged revivalism. I think it will ne a return to traditional Christian theism and the apostolic witness. And I expect to see this in my lifetime.

You don't have to wait. Just leave the Protestant faith. Many lapsed YECs wind up in the Orthodox churches and are very happy there.

 

[dad]

No it's not a magic wand, that doesn't mean God didn't create the universe. I believe in the Big Bang, God spoke and BANG there it was.

We can disagree on that, because the stars and sun were part of creation week.

I hadn't been a Christian more then a few years when I realised my Pastor didn't believe the Bible, things like the Incarnation and the Trinity. More recently I was in Bible on tract to graduate by summer, one of my fall classes was Acts. After two four hour lectures questioning that Luke wrote Acts he starts in on apparent contraditions, each in two hour blocks. At the end if that trimester I left and I didn't even take the final in that class. During the culture wars when it was really at a fervor pitch, two of my Christian Apologetics hero's, William Lane Craig and R.C. Sproul, grining from ear to ear dismissing creation with childish disdain. Sproul calls Adam the federal head if humanity, whatever that means.

It means the guy didn't know what he was talking about.

Several generation staunch believer building on a legacy the founded universities and nations, now the great grand children mock that faith with reckless abandon. At least Rome can't deny tradition, Protestants anymore don't have to actually believe anything.

Right, I pity those who feel a need to be in a denomination.

​

So did Jesus Moses and Paul.

Not a mod I just talked to.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/tg-creation-being-censored.7986524/#post-70713754

Well a Catholic already told us what Catholics believe, Pope Benedict. I think the church is going to seed and I think I'd rather endure a boring liturgy then an army of mama's boys who are scholars because mommy told them it's God's will. The truth is they don't have to believe anything and by and large they don't. At least Rome has a standard for faith. As many times as I've been on AIG, ICR, Talk Origins and even here I have never seen an actual exposition. These theistic evolutionists I've been sparing with for twelve years now, I've only seen one who read source material outside these boards.

Time to face the fact they couldn't care less.

When the church starts reforming this time I don't think it will be political Protestantism or emotionally charged revivalism. I think it will ne a return to traditional Christian theism and the apostolic witness. And I expect to see this in my lifetime.

Maybe. Or maybe the church is believers and we don't need a denomination or outfit.

 

[mark kennedy]

We can disagree on that, because the stars and sun were part of creation week.

So the heavens and the earth is created without the sun, moon and stars? That never was a sound exposition and it never will be.

It means the guy didn't know what he was talking about.

I don't think Catholics do as much work in doctrine as they do political and social issues.

Right, I pity those who feel a need to be in a denomination.

Just trying to find a community of believers that doesn't breed heresy like pet dragons.

​

Not a mod I just talked to.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/tg-creation-being-censored.7986524/#post-70713754

I can't access that but I can imagine. Like I said when I was moderating it always came down to behavior, your opinions and positions had almost nothing to do with it. I don't know what their thinking but their not going to get more lucid, substantive discussion from it. I actually enjoy good satire but disparaging taking a stand on sound doctrine is just not healthy. I used to avoid Biblical and theological discussions like the plague because I felt the contention and divisive nature of these discussions were drowning out the creationist voices. Looks like I'm simply going to have to reserve those discussions for posters who are serious about doing actual expositions. I won't hold my breath waiting for that one.

Time to face the fact they couldn't care less.

The issues with Rome are ecclesiastical authority translating into political power. The Church has never fared well in political areas, our struggle is a spiritual one. I just so enjoy the ability of some Catholics to speak to subtle and delicate issues from a traditional perspective.

Maybe. Or maybe the church is believers and we don't need a denomination or outfit.

Rome is far more then a denomination and I don't see the Protestant churches recovering from their disdain for the miraculous. Some great Bible study has resulted from the rise of Calvinist and Wesleyan schools of thought. With some reservations I don't think I will ever be able to get over the great fondness I have for the Westminster confession or the great work the Cambridge people have done on the King James Bible. I cannot abandon our traditions or even our profoundly Jewish legacy entirely, nor do I intend to try.

The Orthodox traditions are a little too prone to a mystical approach to spirituality and I think the tradition of the synods are a little dubious for my taste. I thought this over the last couple of years and I think Protestantism has gotten too secular in it's orientation. Bottom line Rome has never abandoned the Apostolic tradition of Christian theism because they can't, even if the Jesuit priest that now leads Rome has some obvious leftist and modernist baggage. I just see more hope for reform within the Catholic church then outside it these days, I'd be less then honest if I didn't admit I am still nursing some qualms about that.

You don't seem like a troller and I've never really seen you actually flame someone. I sincerely hope you manage to ride the present moderation policy out because I think your input in such a debate driven forum is a positive one overall.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[dad]

So the earth is created without the sun, moon and stars, never was a sound exposition never will be.

New Jerusalem doesn't need the sun light is that sound?

Just trying to find a community of believers that doesn't breed heresy like pet dragons.

All the best.

​

Rome is far more then a denomination and I don't see the Protestant churches recovering from their disdain for the miraculous. Some great Bible study has resulted from the rise of Calvinist and Wesleyan schools of thought. With some reservations I don't think I will ever be able to get over the great fondness I have for the Westminster confession or the great work the Cambridge people have done on the King James Bible. I cannot abandon our traditions or even our profoundly Jewish legacy entirely, nor do I intend to try.

There are no real good guys when we paint it as Catholic or Protestant. I paint it as believer in Jesus and the bible or not.

You don't seem like a troller and I've never really seen you actually flame someone. I sincerely hope you manage to ride the present moderation policy out because I think your input in such a debate driven forum is a positive one overall.

The issue is whether the creed they use allows one to claim that there was no real creation of Adam and etc. I think the creed says God created all things. One cannot have Adam be a spawn of monkeys and be a creation of God, from which Eve was created the same day. To quote a mod..


"It says God created the heavens and earth. It doesn't say how or in what timeframe. Many Christians believe he used evolution."

 

[mark kennedy]

New Jerusalem doesn't need the sun light is that sound?

Of course it is if your talking about God being their light.

All the best.

Thank you kindly

​

There are no real good guys when we paint it as Catholic or Protestant. I paint it as believer in Jesus and the bible or not.

Nothing wrong with that.

The issue is whether the creed they use allows one to claim that there was no real creation of Adam and etc. I think the creed says God created all things. One cannot have Adam be a spawn of monkeys and be a creation of God, from which Eve was created the same day. To quote a mod..


"It says God created the heavens and earth. It doesn't say how or in what timeframe. Many Christians believe he used evolution."

That mod is wrong, not for what they believe but letting it get in the way of moderation. Genesis 1 could not be more clear with regards to the days of creation. Adam and Eve were created day six and it's repeated three times in a parallelism indicating this is at the heart of the emphasis. Many Christians believe God created Adam and Eve and Genesis uses a very important word for that indicating they were created miraculously.

God creating using exclusively naturalistic means is a contradiction in terms. It does say what the time frame was, it was on the sixth day and it didn't take all day to do it. Genesis one isn't an allegory, there is no figurative language and rationalizing historical narrative in the Pentateuch is no more helpful then it would be in the Gospels or Acts. I'm not taking the creation account figuratively in Genesis because I don't take it figuratively as a promise of the gospel. Genesis is clear, you either believe it or you don't.

Grace and peace,
Mark