Is belief in the creation story a salvation issue?

[Archivist]

What you are calling ID is just another name for Natural Theology, Paley's watch maker analogy of the stone and the watch is identical to Behe's irreducible complexity.

Calling them. a Nazi from is inflammatory slander and betray a gross ignorance of the specifics. The Discovery Institute has a small office in Seatle with a small staff. A couple of years ago they quietly acquired a small liberal arts college. While you make these baseless infamatory remarks they make progress.

I know nothing about the Discivery Ibstitute, but I know that the decision by the school board to teach ID as science at Dover cost the district a ton of money in court costs. Of course, that was all paid by the taxpayers.

 

[Speedwell]

What you are calling ID is just another name for Natural Theology, Paley's watch maker analogy of the stone and the watch is identical to Behe's irreducible complexity.

Calling them. a Nazi front is inflammatory slander and betrays a gross ignorance of the specifics. I've never seen anyone recover from the onset of ad hominem fallacies, you finally crashed and burned. The Discovery Institute has a small office in Seatle with a small staff. A couple of years ago they quietly acquired a small liberal arts college. While you make these baseless infamatory remarks they make progress.

How much of Dembski's math can you follow? In any case, Fascist is not the same as Nazi, and they're not "baseless infamatory remarks." The Discovery Institute is proud of its stance, has embraced people like J. R. Rushdooney and Francis Schaeffer, and openly taken money and direction from the Council for National Policy.

 

[Speedwell]

But all of that is way off topic, which was whether belief in a literal Genesis necessary for salvation. In the meantime, to all posters:
I'm an Anglican, not an Episcopalian. I belong to a denomination which split from the Episcopal Church some years ago over the issue of the ordination of women and is a conservative "high church" outfit. I was educated through an undergraduate degree by Roman Catholic institutions, including the religious instruction which they gave.
I hope you all won't take this wrong, but with that background I can't help finding YECism anything but inexpressibly weird. I will try to be more understanding as we proceed, but I will continue to find it difficult to tolerate accusations of atheism or hostility to the Bible.

 

[mark kennedy]

How much of Dembski's math can you follow? In any case, Fascist is not the same as Nazi, and they're not "baseless infamatory remarks." The Discovery Institute is proud of its stance, has embraced people like J. R. Rushdooney and Francis Schaeffer, and openly taking money and direction from the Council for National Policy.

Francis Shaffer he is simply a well educated evangelical, that isn't exactly radical and I have no idea who that guy is or that organization are but your facts are either flimsy or false anyway. I personally don't have much use for the Shannon information theory and I found both Darwin's Black Box and The Signiture of the Cell in the biology section of the bookstore. Your arguments are rambling and increasing emphasising inflammatory remarks. Saying it's not So doesn't change that.

 

[Speedwell]

Francis Shaffer isn't exactly radical and I have no idea who that guy or that organization are but your facts are either flimsy or false anyway. I personally don't have much use for the Shannon information theory and I found both Darwin's Black Box and The Signiture of the Cell in the biology section of the bookstore. Your arguments are rambling and increasing emphasising inflammatory remarks. Saying it's not So doesn't change that.

I don't really care whether you think my facts flimsy or false, but there is one place I draw the line on that, and that is, what I believe. You may not dictate to me what the contents of my beliefs are. I don't care how many other non-YEC Christians or theistic evolutionists you know or what they believe. You are discussing this with me, here. If I say I believe thus-and-so then that is what I believe, and that is the end of the matter. If you continue to impute some other belief to me because it suits your rhetorical agenda, then expect to be called on it.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I hope you all won't take this wrong, but with that background I can't help finding YECism anything but inexpressibly weird. I will try to be more understanding as we proceed, but I will continue to find it difficult to tolerate accusations of atheism or hostility to the Bible.

This is very weird. You admit learning from institutions that have been known and proven to be totally hostile to the Bible for centuries, and that have approved of outright extermination of millions of bible believing Christians around the world in many centuries,
then
you, YOU??? find it difficult ....... . how can you find it difficult?

 

[Speedwell]

This is very weird. You admit learning from institutions that have been known and proven to be totally hostile to the Bible for centuries, and that have approved of outright extermination of millions of bible believing Christians around the world in many centuries,
then
you, YOU??? find it difficult ....... . how can you find it difficult?

I suppose you are talking about the Roman Catholic church, of which I am not a member. But tell me, where and when did this all take place? The extermination of millions of Fundamentalist Protestants is a big deal. I certainly am aware of the inquisition, the crusades and other iniquities of the church, but the church has grown relatively benign in recent years, and as Fundamentalist Protestantism is a recent phenomenon mostly to be found in the United States, I can't imagine that Catholics killing millions of Fundies here would have escaped notice or even met with the approval of any US Catholics.

As far as being hostile to the Bible, what form did that hostility take?

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't really care whether you think my facts flimsy or false, but there is one place I draw the line on that, and that is, what I believe. You may not dictate to me what the contents of my beliefs are. I don't care how many other non-YEC Christians or theistic evolutionists you know or what they believe. You are discussing this with me, here. If I say I believe thus-and-so then that is what I believe, and that is the end of the matter. If you continue to impute some other belief to me because it suits your rhetorical agenda, then expect to be called on it.

Yea that would be you feigning moral indignation, it's about as genuine as a three dollar bill. I told you you wouldn't recover and now your ranting in every post about nothing to nobody. In a forum set aside for Origins Theology you have not discussed anything about theology or origins the subject of your post is always creationists and the content is invariably derisive and inflammatory. I don't know What you believe because you will discuss neither salvation nor faith. I think the hostility to essential doctrine is telling and the utter silence regarding doctrine is deafening. The reason is obvious as James said, can you get bitter and sweet water from the same well?

 

[Archivist]

Everyone, BACK ON TOPIC!

Thank you!

 

[mark kennedy]

I suppose you are talking about the Roman Catholic church, of which I am not a member. But tell me, where and when did this all take place? The extermination of millions of Fundamentalist Protestants is a big deal. I certainly am aware of the inquisition, the crusades and other iniquities of the church, but the church has grown relatively benign in recent years, and as Fundamentalist Protestantism is a recent phenomenon mostly to be found in the United States, I can't imagine that Catholics killing millions of Fundies here would have escaped notice or even met with the approval of any US Catholics.

You managed to miss my point and you seem oblivious to the Thirty Years war and the Civil war in England. Based on the protestant control of parliament forced William and Mary, who were Catholic, to sign the eight charters that would grow into the United States

As far as being hostile to the Bible, what form did that hostility take?

Not the Bible, creationists. Bible study doesn't seem to interest you much.

 

[Speedwell]

Yea that would be you feigning moral indignation, it's about as genuine as a three dollar bill. I told you you wouldn't recover and now your ranting in every post about nothing to nobody. In a forum set aside for Origins Theology you have not discussed anything about theology or origins the subject of your post is always creationists and the content is invariably derisive and inflammatory. I don't know What you believe because you will discuss neither salvation nor faith. I think the hostility to essential doctrine is telling and the utter silence regarding doctrine is deafening. The reason is obvious as James said, can you get bitter and sweet water from the same well?

LOL! I certainly have no monopoly on hostile invective. Turn the other cheek? Neither of us is doing very well with that.

As far as what I believe, I have declared to you personally, in this thread, my wholehearted acceptance of the Nicene Creed. I belong to a worldwide communion with a well established and widely known body of doctrine, so my position on faith and salvation is easily accessible to you--in fact it should be known to you already in a general way, along with that of other major branches of Christianity, since you seem to like to argue doctrine with us. I have attempted to answer every question put to me here. What more do you want?

 

[Speedwell]

Everyone, BACK ON TOPIC!

Thank you!

I am getting the general impression from the replies (and I hope I am not reading too much into them)
that while it is not necessary to believe in a literal Genesis per se, there is is considerable doubt that it is possible to believe the things one does need to believe without it.

 

[mark kennedy]

LOL! I certainly have no monopoly on hostile invective. Turn the other cheek? Neither of us is doing very well with that.

Indeed, there is a reason I keep pushing the point of ad hominem fallacies are bad logic. These debates get entirely too contentious and it's unnecessary. When you are willing to establish commonality the differences, while important, become important talking points. You just have to focus on what those are instead of making it personal.

As far as what I believe, I have declared to you personally, in this thread, my wholehearted acceptance of the Nicene Creed. I belong to a worldwide communion with a well established and widely known body of doctrine, so my position on faith and salvation is easily accessible to you--in fact it should be known to you already in a general way, along with that of other major branches of Christianity, since you seem to like to argue doctrine with us.

I'm well aware of what you believe as a Catholic, I know because I have debated Catholics on the topic a number of times including one very interesting formal debate. I'm not arguing that you don't believe in creation, I'm reminding you that you must.

For example, from the formal debate:

"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
​

Rome has warned that compromise with modernism is dangerous and we are talking about historicity here and how it relates to salvation:

Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church's vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual. By means of this new exegesis of the Old Testament... By this method, they say, all difficulties vanish, difficulties which hinder only those who adhere to the literal meaning of the Scriptures. (Humani Generis 23)​

Does the Roman Catholic Church Condemn Theistic Evolution?

I have attempted to answer every question put to me here. What more do you want?

I've been through this enough times to know if I allow you to continue to castigate creationism that's all you will want to discuss. What I want to do is to elevate the discussion and focus more on the nature of salvation and the link to the historicity of Scripture. Let's tone down the personal remarks like calling ID proponents Fascist and try to get a handle on what the specifics are here.

I really was trying to warn you that your line of argumentation was fallacious because it's been my experience that practicing Catholics are better then that. Papias, my opponent in that formal debate did a nice job defending his views from a Catholic perspective so I know it's doable. Let's just try to raise the level of civility and I know from personal experience you will improve your arguments greatly while gaining far more from the discussion.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

I am getting the general impression from the replies (and I hope I am not reading too much into them)
that while it is not necessary to believe in a literal Genesis per se, there is is considerable doubt that it is possible to believe the things one does need to believe without it.

There is always the possibility of an exposition of Genesis 2, if you really wanted to talk about the garden of Eden. Then maybe introduce the so called higher criticism, that is the premise the thread is actually based on, whether it's stated or not. That would certainly be more interesting then shooting down fallacious rhetoric like fish in a barrel.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Everyone, BACK ON TOPIC!

Thank you!

Perhaps you would like to restate it? I mean for the sake of clarity.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm well aware of what you believe as a Catholic, I know because I have debated Catholics on the topic a number of times including one very interesting formal debate. I'm not arguing that you don't believe in creation, I'm reminding you that you must.

For example, from the formal debate:

"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​

I am not a Catholic and so care little for the authority of the Pope, but I certainly agree with those two statements, as I imagine all Christians would.
​

I've been through this enough times to know if I allow you to continue to castigate creationism that's all you will want to discuss. What I want to do is to elevate the discussion and focus more on the nature of salvation and the link to the historicity of Scripture. Let's tone down the personal remarks like calling ID proponents Fascist and try to get a handle on what the specifics are here.

I really was trying to warn you that your line of argumentation was fallacious because it's been my experience that practicing Catholics are better then that. Papias, my opponent in that formal debate did a nice job defending his views from a Catholic perspective so I know it's doable. Let's just try to raise the level of civility and I know from personal experience you will improve your arguments greatly while gaining far more from the discussion.

In fact I haven't castigated Creationism (note the capital letter. I have found it helpful to use it to distinguish between creationism, the belief that God created the universe and its contents, and Creationism, the belief that it happened in six days 6000 years ago.) Because in fact I don't understand it well enough. That's why I'm here. What I have been castigating (and I apologize if I have been too harsh about this) are what seemed to me lame and shallow apologetics used to defend it instead of real explanations. I really would like to know why you believe stuff that seems so strange to me.

But I am beginning to have an idea which maybe you could help me to shape up. The Pope's mention of the 'sweep of history' brought it to mind. It occurs to me that you may see the purpose of the Bible to be to provide us with an accurate and complete history of the world from the beginning to the end, and denying the historicity (even though not the divine inspiration) of any part of it betrays that revelation and deprives us of the means to fully understand the Gospel and our salvation. What do you think?

 

[Speedwell]

There is always the possibility of an exposition of Genesis 2, if you really wanted to talk about the garden of Eden. Then maybe introduce the so called higher criticism, that is the premise the thread is actually based on, whether it's stated or not. That would certainly be more interesting then shooting down fallacious rhetoric like fish in a barrel.

I don't think it would work. We differ too much on the nature of the underlying Hebrew and I trust your sources as little as you trust mine.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Perhaps you would like to restate it? I mean for the sake of clarity.

Make up you mind. (you can't have both)(from the way this thread went from the start)

 

[mark kennedy]

Make up you mind. (you can't have both)(from the way this thread went from the start)

I've never changed my mind but if the topic is going to get back on track there is a need to clarify the issues. My position has never wavered, what exactly do you think I'm indecisive about?

 

[mark kennedy]

I am not a Catholic and so care little for the authority of the Pope, but I certainly agree with those two statements, as I imagine all Christians would.​

My bad, I appear to have been mistaken.

In fact I haven't castigated Creationism (note the capital letter. I have found it helpful to use it to distinguish between creationism, the belief that God created the universe and its contents, and Creationism, the belief that it happened in six days 6000 years ago.) Because in fact I don't understand it well enough. That's why I'm here. What I have been castigating (and I apologize if I have been too harsh about this) are what seemed to me lame and shallow apologetics used to defend it instead of real explanations. I really would like to know why you believe stuff that seems so strange to me.

Well that's perfectly reasonable, I can work with that. Creationism is a reaction to Darwinism and has a lot of connection to a system the church has dabbled in for centuries, better described as Natural Theology. There are actually two issues involved, if you can get that under control this isn't as complicated as it seems. There are the theological issues which really comes down to Biblical exposition and the doctrine of creation. There is another whole area of interest that involves the scientific evidence which is a little hard to digest since it is a large body of work.

Clarification is crucial, just take a little time and figure at where you are at with this.

But I am beginning to have an idea which maybe you could help me to shape up. The Pope's mention of the 'sweep of history' brought it to mind. It occurs to me that you may see the purpose of the Bible to be to provide us with an accurate and complete history of the world from the beginning to the end, and denying the historicity (even though not the divine inspiration) of any part of it betrays that revelation and deprives us of the means to fully understand the Gospel and our salvation. What do you think?

Bear in mind the texts under question are ancient which doesn't mean the histories are untrue. God has been involved with us from the beginning and what we are getting from the Old Testament is a revelation of God's involvement at the beginning and leading up to the nation of Israel and ultimately to the coming of the Messiah. My personal journey didn't start with the Old Testament, I struggled with the incarnation for some time. When I finally wrapped my mind around that the doctrine of creation and the whole creation vs. evolution seemed like child's play in comparison.

Let this sink in a little and I'm not trying to impose this on you in any way. What if the true history of life in general and mankind in particular has been laid out for us and the world just rejected it out of unbelief?

The historical content of Scripture isn't up for grabs, the author of a given narrative gets to tell the story. We have to seriously consider how the historicity of Scripture correlates with the promise of the Gospel. For instance, God has promised us through the Gospel in Christ a new heavens and a new earth, if we don't believe he did it the first time what does that do to our confidence in that promise?

I don't think it would work. We differ too much on the nature of the underlying Hebrew and I trust your sources as little as you trust mine.

Try me, I'm serious about this. I use a resource called Blue Letter Bible which includes Lexicons, dictionaries and a pretty respectable concordance. There are ways back to the original for the layman, even the novice. It is not without its challenges but it can be done. Give it a shot, we might both learn something.

Grace and peace,
Mark