Is belief in the creation story a salvation issue?

[mark kennedy]

Catholics haven't b3lieved in literal creationistm since Augustine

"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
​

The doctrine of creation is as literal as any of the events of salvation:

dangers warned of in Humani Generis, specifically:

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)

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 (HG 36)
​

Rome has been very clear on it's position regarding creation.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Archivist]

"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
​

The doctrine of creation is as literal as any of the events of salvation:

dangers warned of in Humani Generis, specifically:

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)

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 (HG 36)
​

Rome has been very clear on it's position regarding creation.

Yes, Rome has been clear on its position Pope Benedict XVI called creation and evolution “complementary realities” in that they are different, but they go together. In 2014 Pope Francis issued a statement that said that "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation."

 

[Speedwell]

"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
​

The doctrine of creation is as literal as any of the events of salvation:

dangers warned of in Humani Generis, specifically:

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)

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 (HG 36)
​

Rome has been very clear on it's position regarding creation.

Have a nice day
Mark

And I agree with it. But do you really think that Pope Benedict was talking about the Bible doctrine of some Protestant novelty sect?

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes, Rome has been clear on its position Pope Benedict XVI called creation and evolution “complementary realities” in that they are different, but they go together. In 2014 Pope Francis issued a statement that said that "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation."

Of course evolution isn't inconsistent with creation, we are talking about the point of origin. After that evolution follows, evolution is a living theory. When you equivocate evolution with naturalistic assumptions you demean and demoralize the scientific orientation of evolutionary biology. Darwinism and evolution are two different things, most of the real controversy clears up when you learn to discern between the two.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Speedwell]

Of course evolution isn't inconsistent with creation, we are talking about the point of origin. After that evolution follows, evolution is a living theory. When you equivocate evolution with naturalistic assumptions you demean and demoralize the scientific orientation of evolutionary biology. Darwinism and evolution are two different things, most of the real controversy clears up when you learn to discern between the two.

Have a nice day
Mark

Tell that to some of your Creationist colleagues here, who insist that there is no difference between the two.

 

[mark kennedy]

And I agree with it. But do you really think that Pope Benedict was talking about the Bible doctrine of some Protestant novelty sect?

It's not some novelty sect, the doctrine of creation is inextricably linked to the incarnation and the resurrection:

Yes, we believe in God, the Creator of heaven and earth. And we celebrate the God who was made man, who suffered, died, was buried and rose again.​

“We celebrate the definitive victory of the Creator and of his creation. We celebrate this day as the origin and the goal of our existence. We celebrate it because now, thanks to the risen Lord, it is definitively established that reason is stronger than unreason, truth stronger than lies, love stronger than death.” (Faith in God Begins With Creation, Says Pope)
​

There is a reason creation is essential doctrine.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Speedwell]

It's not some novelty sect, the doctrine of creation is inextricably linked to the incarnation and the resurrection:

Yes, we believe in God, the Creator of heaven and earth. And we celebrate the God who was made man, who suffered, died, was buried and rose again.​

“We celebrate the definitive victory of the Creator and of his creation. We celebrate this day as the origin and the goal of our existence. We celebrate it because now, thanks to the risen Lord, it is definitively established that reason is stronger than unreason, truth stronger than lies, love stronger than death.” (Faith in God Begins With Creation, Says Pope)
​

There is a reason creation is essential doctrine.

Have a nice day
Mark

Do you really think that Pope Benedict believes that the Bible is the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration? You must not know much about Catholic doctrine. Heck, not even all Protestants believe it.

 

[JoeP222w]

People spend a great deal of time debating the creation of the Earth and the creatures upon it. Some say the Genesis account is literal--God did it in six 24 hour days, Adam was the first man, Eve was the first woman. Others say that God used evolution to create man. Many fall somewhere between these two positions. Sometimes discussion here gets fairly heated.

My question: Does it really matter? Is this an issue that will determine one's salvation? If not, why do we spend so much time debating it? Why do some people seem determined to convert others to their view?

If one rejects any part of the Bible, then no part of it is trustworthy. If one denies the inherently sinful nature and the headship of Adam, then one will not understand the cross of Jesus Christ, and believe in a lie that they are "good", and thus see no need for the Savior Jesus Christ.

Genesis is foundational truth of the Christian faith. If one rejects Genesis, one is standing on thin air, rather than the bedrock of truth. Genesis provides no support of Evolution.

 

[Papias]

Do you (mark) really think that Pope Benedict believes that the Bible is the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration? You must not know much about Catholic doctrine. Heck, not even all Protestants believe it.

Speedwell, mark routinely denies the clear support for evolution we get from the Catholic church, despite the many clear ways the RCC and the Vatican affirms the reality of evolution. Here is a list, but I've listed this for mark at least 4 times, and he ignores it every time, only to repeat his denial of the acceptance of evolution by the RCC later - as he just did, again, here.

Evolution is strongly supported by the Catholic church. Some ways include:

1. Clear statements from the last three Popes (Francis, Benedict, JPII) in support of Evolution over Creationism.
2. Humani Generis, an official papal encyclical by Pope Pious XII which allows evolution.
3. Interpretation of Humani Generis by Pope John Paul II, just in case anyone was unclear that Humani Generis allows for evolution.
4. The fact that evolution is openly taught by Catholic teachers to Catholic students in Catholic Universities and Schools. With our hundreds of Catholic schools, this means that if someone learns evolution anywhere in the world, they are more likely to have learned it from the Catholic church than from anyone else.
5. Confirmation of open support of evolution by the Vatican in a commissioned report chaired by Pope Emeritus Benedict, saying evolution is "virtually certain", (link below).
6. Many of the most outspoken evolution supporters are Catholic, such as Ken Miller, Dr. Ayayla, etc.

Note that the list includes at least three popes, an official encyclical, a Vatican commission report, and the actions of thousands of Catholic officials doing their jobs, right now.

That's why Pope Benedict called evolution "virtually certain":

While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution. Fromhttp://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/p80.htm​

In Christ-

Papias

 

[rjs330]

Tell that to some of your Creationist colleagues here, who insist that there is no difference between the two.

You really have it wrong here. Us creationists absolutely believe that there is evolution. We call adaptation. Creatures try to adapt and change as necessary to,survive. This evolution can take place biologically as well as purposeful change. This is part of Gods creative process to allow creatures to continue to survive when dynamics change around them. We creationists have no issue with that. What we take issue is that we do NOT subscribe to the theory that all things evolved from a common ancestor. We adhere to the scripture which states that each kind was uniquely created spontaneously by God. That birds have always been birds. Lizards have always been and always be lizards and man has always been man and All,Ialways be man. We were never ever anything else but what we are. Spontaneously created by God out of the dust of the earth,and that God breathed into us and we became a,living soul. We are not not ever have been related,to any other creature which has ever existed in this planet.

So you have been mistaken when you believe we don't believe that creatures can adapt and change or in other words evolve due to circumstances by,nature. But they never have and never will evolve into anything other that what they were originally created to be whether that be a bird or ant or spider or lizard.

 

[Archivist]

If one rejects any part of the Bible, then no part of it is trustworthy. If one denies the inherently sinful nature and the headship of Adam, then one will not understand the cross of Jesus Christ, and believe in a lie that they are "good", and thus see no need for the Savior Jesus Christ.

Genesis is foundational truth of the Christian faith. If one rejects Genesis, one is standing on thin air, rather than the bedrock of truth. Genesis provides no support of Evolution.

Tell me then, do you believe that bats are birds? Do you believe that Communion bread and wine are actually Christ's body and blood?

BTW, if a literal understanding of Genesis is required for salvation, why is it not mentioned in the Creeds?

 

[Speedwell]

Tell me then, do you believe that bats are birds? Do you believe that Communion bread and wine are actually Christ's body and blood?

BTW, if a literal understanding of Genesis is required for salvation, why is it not mentioned in the Creeds?

There are Fundamentalists who denounce the Creeds as "error-ridden and satanic" for that very reason.

 

[Archivist]

There are Fundamentalists who denounce the Creeds as "error-ridden and satanic" for that very reason.

True. The Creeds are simple statements of faith. To denounce them as error-ridden is just wrong. Of course many of those are the same ones who maintain that the bread of Holy Communion is nothing more than a symbol of the body of Christ--despite the clear words that Jesus spoke--while maintaining that believing the Genesis account of creation is somehow mandatory for salvation.

 

[JoeP222w]

Tell me then, do you believe that bats are birds?

Different classification systems of animals from present day to the time of authorship of the Bible. The Bible defines the Bible, not anachronistic reading.

Do you believe that Communion bread and wine are actually Christ's body and blood?

No, and the Bible does not claim that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ. That is a false doctrine of the Roman Catholic church. Context matters.

BTW, if a literal understanding of Genesis is required for salvation, why is it not mentioned in the Creeds?

The Creeds are not the sole infallible authority for the Christian. The Bible is the sole infallible authority for the Christian. The Creeds are not scripture.

 

[JoeP222w]

True. The Creeds are simple statements of faith. To denounce them as error-ridden is just wrong. Of course many of those are the same ones who maintain that the bread of Holy Communion is nothing more than a symbol of the body of Christ--despite the clear words that Jesus spoke--while maintaining that believing the Genesis account of creation is somehow mandatory for salvation.

So are you saying that the Creeds are infallible? Then you are adding to scripture, because no one in the early church, that I know of, accepted the Creeds as part of the Cannon of Scripture. If I am wrong, please show evidence.

The Bible uses more than 40 different types of literary genre. Including: Literal, prose, historical, poetic, hyperbole, irony, metaphor, law, Psalms, Prophecy, similie, et. al.

If one denies the Genesis account, they have no foundation for truth.

Jesus never said at the last supper that the bread and wine are actually His body and blood. They are representative symbols, as noted when He said, "Do this in remembrance of me". And the fact that the Disciples did not actually cannibalize Jesus on the spot.

 

[mark kennedy]

Do you really think that Pope Benedict believes that the Bible is the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration? You must not know much about Catholic doctrine. Heck, not even all Protestants believe it.

The perspective of Rome is for Rome to determine, I do know that a figurative creation makes as much sense as a figurative incarnation.

 

[mark kennedy]

Tell me then, do you believe that bats are birds? Do you believe that Communion bread and wine are actually Christ's body and blood?

BTW, if a literal understanding of Genesis is required for salvation, why is it not mentioned in the Creeds?

The Nicene Creed dedicates the first three stanzas to creation. It never occured to anyone that creation is fictional poetry. There has been talk from time to time about whether or not literal days are necessary.

By the way, belief that the bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Christ has been pretty common down thru church history.

 

[Speedwell]

The perspective of Rome is for Rome to determine...

If you don't know, then why are you using a Catholic, a Pope, to support what is essentially a Fundamentalist Protestant Bible doctrine?

 

[mark kennedy]

If you don't know, then why are you using a Catholic, a Pope, to support what is essentially a Fundamentalist Protestant Bible doctrine?

No the Catholic affirms the doctrine of creation unequivocally. What you are thinking about is a brand of natural theology called creationism, it's a blend of science and theology. Creation is a doctrine creationism is a movement.

 

[Speedwell]

No the Catholic affirms the doctrine of creation unequivocally. What you are thinking about is a brand of natural theology called creationism, it's a blend of science and theology. Creation is a doctrine creationism is a movement.

OK, I get it. I am used to the convention of using small "c" creationism for the idea that God created the universe, and big "C" Creationism for the YEC version.