Denominations

[chad kincham]

Greetings.

There may be better reasons for choosing a church than their stance on evolution. Plus, you cannot be sure that evolution is true or not. If the Bible clearly states that God created everything after its own kind, and then you disagree, does that mean you think the Bible is wrong? If so, what other things in the Bible will you dismiss?

Regarding six days of creation, Genesis 1::1-31, God created everything after its own kind. So many different variations of canines, with the ability to adapt to their situations, but all from the same kind. The same with all creatures.

A book I found helpful on this subject is:

"The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and its Scientific Implications" by John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris.

Another good book to consider is:

"in six days" by John F. Ashton PhD

Blessings

The Genesis Flood is excellent.

 

[trophy33]

For those of you who are theistic evolutionists, what denomination are you? I was raised Catholic but long story short, it didn’t stick. I joined the Lutheran LCMS two or so years ago but they don’t accept evolution and while I thought I didn’t believe in macro evolution, either, now I’m not so sure. Maybe I’d be happier in a more theologically liberal church. But I really like the people I’ve met.
Suggestions would be helpful.

None, I have given up trying to identify with some specific name. I am simply a Christian.

 

[Kettriken]

For those of you who are theistic evolutionists, what denomination are you? I was raised Catholic but long story short, it didn’t stick. I joined the Lutheran LCMS two or so years ago but they don’t accept evolution and while I thought I didn’t believe in macro evolution, either, now I’m not so sure. Maybe I’d be happier in a more theologically liberal church. But I really like the people I’ve met.
Suggestions would be helpful.

If you really like the fellowship you've found, it may be worth continuing there.

You may also want to search out Mennonite churches in your area. Some are dedicatedly YEC, while others hold scripture moderated views of modern science. Anabaptists in general have a fairly traditional foundation, so even the more "modern" are aware and usually accommodating of more traditional views.

 

[lsume]

MIT? Probably over my head. Unless he has the ability to talk to us regular folk.

It’s possible that some of it might require further study but the basic premise that the author arrived at was very simple on the time front. He found that the first day would be like 3 billion years on our clock. The second day would be like 2 billion years on today’s clock. Those are not the precise findings he found but hopefully you get the idea. Right after the Big Bang before huge masses had broken into smaller masses with lower velocities, time was very different. I hope this helps.

 

[dms1972]

In the churches I have been in one i went to for about 8 years (Baptist) and went to housegroups belonging to it -I cannot recall the debate about evolution coming up much. Even through my childhood I hardly remember it coming up - I may have missed those discussions if they occured but the focus of the leadership didn't seem to be on that. I recall one evening service but it seemed to be about the new atheism as much as anything. I would not say this was a typical Baptist church (and I am refering to the UK not American Southern Baptists) so i think you'll find some variations within most denominations really - and within most congregations perhaps.

I'd suggest you could try one or two of the presbyerian denoms.

In the debate about creationism, evolution and Intelligent design it really is the question of the organising principle and mechanism (in evolution) that seems to be the point of most debate - I still think Orthogenesis (evolution directed in specific pathways due to restrictions in the direction of variation) has something to be said for it.

 

[Jaxxi]

For those of you who are theistic evolutionists, what denomination are you? I was raised Catholic but long story short, it didn’t stick. I joined the Lutheran LCMS two or so years ago but they don’t accept evolution and while I thought I didn’t believe in macro evolution, either, now I’m not so sure. Maybe I’d be happier in a more theologically liberal church. But I really like the people I’ve met.
Suggestions would be helpful.

I am a non- denominational, born again holy roller! I love Jesus with every part of my being and I feel like either you believe in the gospel, or you don't. Either you trust in Jesus Christ as your Savior of you don't. Either you believe the Bible or you don't. And you are either ready to die right now for Jesus, or you aren't.

 

[dms1972]

I am a non- denominational, born again holy roller! I love Jesus with every part of my being and I feel like either you believe in the gospel, or you don't. Either you trust in Jesus Christ as your Savior of you don't. Either you believe the Bible or you don't. And you are either ready to die right now for Jesus, or you aren't.

To be honest I think it is fair and honest for people to ask some questions in their search that is provided they want to move forward and are seriously seeking answers.

 

[Albion]

I am a non- denominational, born again holy roller! I love Jesus with every part of my being and I feel like either you believe in the gospel, or you don't. Either you trust in Jesus Christ as your Savior of you don't. Either you believe the Bible or you don't. And you are either ready to die right now for Jesus, or you aren't.

However, people who fit that description to a "tee," hold widely different beliefs from other Christians who also fit the description as people who love Jesus, believe Him to be the Savior, and trust the Bible to be the infallible word of God.

 

[fhansen]

And the RCC itself changed its mind on Evolution, just as it did with Abortion, Divorce and Remarriage, Papal Infallibility, Women serving in the liturgy, and Purgatory.

Hmm, the word “changed” should at least be qualified here. The church was always against abortion and continues to be a main voice opposing it while many denominations may not even have an officially stated position on it. The change was to become even stronger in that opposition by recognizing, due to science’s understanding of conception, that personhood cannot be disassociated at some arbitrary point from fertilization. So personhood can only be assigned at the moment of conception, not later as was previously held.

As to divorce, the position is the same. While one can argue that the annulment process can be abused the truth is that many do not receive annulments. The proposed change by Francis regarding reception of the Eucharist for divorced and remarried Catholics stems from a desire to show more leniency/mercy towards the people involved but the teachings remain:

2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another's husband to herself.178

2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.

2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.179

As to evolution, it isn’t a particularly relevant subject as it doesn’t involve a matter of faith or morals, which is why the church never spoke from an authoritative, infallible capacity on it. IOW, there are no Catholic dogmas regarding evolution. However, it was controversial since common consensus had assumed that God created all species individually and that, depending on the era and the commentator, the proper reading of Scripture meant a literal six-day creation period. But the main concern, to this day, is that the ancestry of all humans be traceable to a single set of parents so that the concept of original sin remains intact.

Women will never be priests, while women serving in the liturgy involves a matter of practice, just as celibacy does, neither being a declared dogmatic article of faith.

As to papal infallibility and purgatory the teachings remain the same, and will be the same centuries from now if the Lord delays. Infallibility only means that no error will enter official church teachings-doctrine and dogma regarding faith and morals-not that a pope or bishop may not speak out of turn or awkwardly on one subject or another.

 

[Albion]

Hmm, the word “changed” should at least be qualified here. The church was always against abortion

Not entirely.

As to divorce, the position is the same.

Only in theory. Whereas remarriage in the church was rare, today in the American church there are tens of thousands of quickie annulments granted on just the petitioner's say-so, followed by a remarriage.

While one can argue that the annulment process can be abused the truth is that many do not receive annulments.

If "many" do not, there are still many which are, meaning that the standards and religious teaching has indeed been "changed."

As to evolution, it isn’t a particularly relevant subject as it doesn’t involve a matter of faith or morals, which is why the church never spoke from an authoritative, infallible capacity on it.

It is a matter of faith.

Women will never be priests, while serving in the liturgy involves a matter of practice, just as celibacy is, neither being a declared dogmatic article of faith.

Then the Papacy, which considered it to be a matter of doctrine until only recently, should not have taken the stance it did and should not have then changed it.

As to papal infallibility and purgatory the teachings remain the same, and will be the same centuries from now if the Lord delays.

Neither of those is the same as they were only a few generations ago.

 

[Albion]

Hmm, the word “changed” should at least be qualified here. The church was always against abortion and continues to be a main voice opposing it while many denominations may not even have an officially stated position on it.

Well, the church WAS NOT always against abortion but actually approved of it. Then it was changed to the current standard.

As to divorce, the position is the same.

The theoretical stance is the same but the practice has been reversed. The statistics don't lie. How anyone could defend such a policy in any church is amazing.

As to papal infallibility and purgatory the teachings remain the same,

No, they don't. And that is easily proven. The official belief for the preceding 500 or so years was that even those who are saved have committed many venial sins for which it never occurred to them to feel remorse, so they must be punished in Purgatory for these. The language said the person must satisfy (in Purgatory) to the last farthing his debt of temporal punishment.

Today's position, as verbalized by the Pope himself, many clergy, and the Catechism, is that Purgatory is a transitional place of readjustment for the soul prior to reaching heaven. Comparisons to washing or "purifying" in a non-punitive way are the usual.

 

[fhansen]

If "many" do not, there are still many which are, meaning that the standards and religious teaching has indeed been "changed."

No, abused means abused, not that the teaching has changed.

It is a matter of faith.

Well, according to you maybe, but aside from the fact that no dogma has declared it to be an article of faith, infallibility by definition only extends to those matters of faith and morals pertaining to man's salvation.

Then the Papacy, which considered it to be a matter of doctrine until only recently, should not have taken the stance it did and should not have then changed it.

Ya, coulda shoulda. The truth of the matter is that he hasn't change church teaching. And that's exactly what the doctrine of infallibility is said to ensure.

Neither of those is the same as they were only a few generations ago.

The dogma on papal infallibility as stated by Vat I is simply a formal pronouncement of what the Catholic church believed and practiced historically. I haven't seen where the doctrine of purgatory has changed, unless maybe to emphasize the purification purpose of it better. A popular conception of purgatory from centuries back involved fire, which arguably has some Scriptural basis but was never included in any of the formal definitions at the three councils I know of which addressed purgatory.

 

[Mountainmike]

Catholics are free to believe in evolution but I found the Mass so boring I could never pay attention.

I’m not seeking to challenge your decision or view

Sorry. I’m Just wondering what you mean: “ believe in evolution” Do you mean abiogenesis, how the first cell came to exist? As random accident from a chemical soup. Or do you mean evolution as a postulated unguided development to man? I don’t propose to respond, just understand?

ps I think your view of mass shows that different things resonate with different people, what some find in joyful singing, others find in silent meditation, or the wonder of a miracle heaven comes to earth in the mass.

 

[fhansen]

The theoretical stance is the same but the practice has been reversed. The statistics don't lie. How anyone could defend such a policy in any church is amazing.

I don't know of anyone who defends practices that are out of line with Catholic teachings unless they prefer to practice non-Catholicism.

Well, the church WAS NOT always against abortion but actually approved of it. Then it was changed to the current standard.

The only reason that abortion was considered to be possibly allowable centered totally around the timing of personhood or "ensoulment". When it was held that personhood did not occur until sometime after conception, then naturally abortion was considered to be less of an issue before that event while still frowned upon, the church in any case always opposing abortion when it was thought that a human person's life was involved. When the Church understood that no such time could be designated as defining when ensoulment takes place then the logical timing could only be conception.

No, they don't. And that is easily proven. The official belief for the preceding 500 or so years was that even those who are saved have committed many venial sins for which it never occurred to them to feel remorse, so they must be punished in Purgatory for these. The language said the person must satisfy (in Purgatory) to the last farthing his debt of temporal punishment.

Here are the current teachings of the Church, still consistent with the previous conciliar declarations dating first from the 1200's:

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607
As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608

1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."609 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.610 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:
Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.611

 

[Mountainmike]

Albion.

I know you like knocking RCC but please stick to facts.

As @fhansen says : the Catholic church has always been against abortion. Tge first century christian document didache speaks out clearly on it , and numerous fathers since.

I quote the didache:
“thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born”

Tradition - the faith handed down by and from the first Christians speaks. The earliest Christians used to rescue dumped babies from outside city walls.

Nothing has changed since.

Please Speak for Anglicans. I’d be interested to know. As you saw last week , I had no idea that Anglicans had absolution like catholics. I was in the Anglican Church. It didn’t seem to know what it believed.

You do not know Catholicism well enough to speak about it, or for it,

happy Easter.

Well, the church WAS NOT always against abortion but actually approved of it. Then it was changed to the current standard.


The theoretical stance is the same but the practice has been reversed. The statistics don't lie. How anyone could defend such a policy in any church is amazing.


No, they don't. And that is easily proven. The official belief for the preceding 500 or so years was that even those who are saved have committed many venial sins for which it never occurred to them to feel remorse, so they must be punished in Purgatory for these. The language said the person must satisfy (in Purgatory) to the last farthing his debt of temporal punishment.

Today's position, as verbalized by the Pope himself, many clergy, and the Catechism, is that Purgatory is a transitional place of readjustment for the soul prior to reaching heaven. Comparisons to washing or "purifying" in a non-punitive way are the usual.

Well, the church WAS NOT always against abortion but actually approved of it. Then it was changed to the current standard.


The theoretical stance is the same but the practice has been reversed. The statistics don't lie. How anyone could defend such a policy in any church is amazing.


No, they don't. And that is easily proven. The official belief for the preceding 500 or so years was that even those who are saved have committed many venial sins for which it never occurred to them to feel remorse, so they must be punished in Purgatory for these. The language said the person must satisfy (in Purgatory) to the last farthing his debt of temporal punishment.

Today's position, as verbalized by the Pope himself, many clergy, and the Catechism, is that Purgatory is a transitional place of readjustment for the soul prior to reaching heaven. Comparisons to washing or "purifying" in a non-punitive way are the usual.

 

[FaithT]

That's a bit unfair don't you think, the Catholic church is not without controversy, and has had a few splits and divisions of it's own over the centuries...just say'n.

I also think that the Catholic Church has evolved over the centuries. What we see now is not what was when Jesus walked the earth.

 

[FaithT]

Not entirely.


Only in theory. Whereas remarriage in the church was rare, today in the American church there are tens of thousands of quickie annulments granted on just the petitioner's say-so, followed by a remarriage.


If "many" do not, there are still many which are, meaning that the standards and religious teaching has indeed been "changed."


It is a matter of faith.



Then the Papacy, which considered it to be a matter of doctrine until only recently, should not have taken the stance it did and should not have then changed it.


Neither of those is the same as they were only a few generations ago.

I’m unsure of my feelings about purgatory, but against abortion. Though that’s easy for me to say because I’m older now and have had a hysterectomy. Not really sure how I feel about celibacy in the priesthood but am leaning against it these days.

 

[FaithT]

I’m not seeking to challenge your decision or view

Sorry. I’m Just wondering what you mean: “ believe in evolution” Do you mean abiogenesis, how the first cell came to exist? As random accident from a chemical soup. Or do you mean evolution as a postulated unguided development to man? I don’t propose to respond, just understand?

ps I think your view of mass shows that different things resonate with different people, what some find in joyful singing, others find in silent meditation, or the wonder of a miracle heaven comes to earth in the mass.

I was talking about posts on this forum, talking about human ear bones having been evolved from reptile jaw bones and whatever else they were talking about. Stuff like that.

 

[Albion]

No, abused means abused, not that the teaching has changed.

Nonsense. The church's clergy administer these policies which have been handed down to them by higher-ups and there are established rules that they follow.

 

[Jaxxi]

To be honest I think it is fair and honest for people to ask some questions in their search that is provided they want to move forward and are seriously seeking answers.

What do you mean by that? What questions should not be asked? Is there anything off limits? How many answers does one need? When it comes down to it at the end of the day isn't there but merely one answer? Jesus Christ Himself.