Is Theistic Evolution Heresy?

[mark kennedy]

I’m going to show this to you point by point. The first point is that because I don’t agree with you about creation, your claim is that I do not believe in creation, at all.

No it's not, you guys do this almost constantly. My point is that if your a Christian your a Creationist.

No. I if I said that, you would either accuse me of lying because of your explicit denial of secondary causes in post #76, and then claim I would still disagree with you and am still not a Christian... OR you would be a hypocrite and tell me “Oh, okay, that’s fine then” and completely ignore what you said back in post #76.

So you simply take the ad hominem to the next level. but of course you did. That is what an antithetical view is designed to do. You didn't like something about post #76 and while you have no hesitation quoting me, not once have you made the slightest reference to the Nicene Creed. Let's take another look:

Actually it's an appeal to doctrine, the same doctrine that has defined the Christian faith for 2,000 years. Believing in God as Creator is not optional for a Christian, so anyone who rejects God as Creator is a Christian in name only. You must believe God is and a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him, you must confess God as Creator as a prerequisite of even hearing the Gospel, much less believing it.

Darwinism is opposed to creation, there can be no mistaking that. Evolution on the other hand is simply observed, never assumed, it must be observed or directly demonstrated. What I have come to believe about Darwinism is that either you make the a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes all the way back to the Big Bang or you are assumed to be ignorant or worse.

You have called me a liar and a hypocrite and I have yet to make a single personal remark about you or what you may or may not believe. The truth is that there was no provocation for you fiery personal remarks. It could be that your problem is not with me:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
Nicene Creed​

What you need to come to terms with is the Nicene Creed and the obvious conflict Christian theism creates for unbelievers. Attacking me doesn't change anything. That was in post #76 as well but you didn't want to talk about that, you wanted to talk about what a liar and a hypocrite I am. I think you tactics are diversionary and I won't stop reminding you that you must be a Creationist or you are not a Christian.

Notice that a confession of the deity of Christ is sandwiched in between to confessions of God as Creator. Christ is affirmed as Creator as well.

I struggled for years with the deity of Christ, especially when I started reading Apologetics. The only way to come to terms with this kind of foundational conviction is prayer and study.

It might seem fun to come on here and mock Christians for being Creationists but it's essential Christianity.

Yea, the whole final judgment thing with wailing and nashing of teeth, unbearable pain and eternal separation from God is an argument from consequences. That is also essential doctrine, the immanence of final judgment.

Final judgment and the reality of Hell are not up for grabs either, we are about as deep in foundational Christian theism as it gets. If you have a problem with these doctrines then the problem is you because these doctrines are not subject to revision.

What I find very curious is that theistic evolutionists never show the slightest interest in doctrine. Instead they come on here and continually argue relentlessly against the first three stanzas of the Nicene Creed while insisting their Christian profession never be questioned.

Where's the profession I wonder?

Bottom line! Where is the profession? Why is it always about being as harsh and critical as you can be. The focus is always a personal attack and I'm not talking about you, you all do it. Nothing, absolutely nothing about doctrine, the Scriptures and certainly you are not going to discuss miracles. Instead all you want to do is read me my pedigree.

Don't get me wrong, I'm just itemizing you fallacies. I told you if you keep arguing from flawed logic and dodging doctrinal issues you would be seeing this again and here it is, again.




Remember, I specifically stated that I believe God created back in the first post. It just isn’t good enough for Mark Kennedy Style affirmations, because

I believe it's impossible for the God of Scripture to have used evolution (a naturally occurring phenomenon) when Moses clearly says God 'created' the heavens, earth and life on this planet.

That's right! That's exactly right, creation was a miracle, the incarnation, the resurrection and the new birth are all miracles. Clearly, what Moses is describing in Creation week is supernatural. It's not hard to understand, you either believe it or you don't.

You have SPECIFICALLY stated that God could NOT have used evolution to create, so if I believe He did, I DISAGREE WITH YOU. If I believe God created using any naturally occuring phenomenon, I do not believe God created, according to Mark Kennedy.

If creation has a natural explanation then it's not creation. They are two very different phenomenons and I don't like dulling the edge on that distinction.

No, you are attempting to strip me of my faith by perverting “Believing God created everything” to “Accepting MK’s specific, twisted definition of creation that excludes secondary causes as per post #76”. I don’t accept the 2nd, so you claim I disbelieve the first. Remember, I said that I believe God created, BUT THAT ISN”T GOOD ENOUGH.

So now I'm a liar, a hypocrite and I twist the meaning of Scripture. See what I mean about ad hominem, it would not be so bad if it wasn't the heart of the emphasis. Try to take this seriously because I assure you there are consequences for what you are doing. I do not define the language of the Scriptures, I simply study them. There are three words for Creation in Genesis 1 and not one of them are synonymous with naturalistic phenomenon. If it were, it would not be Creation is the Biblical sense of the word and no matter how much you don't like it, it's the truth.

No, you said I had to agree with you on Creationism as a doctrine in post #79. I disagree with you on Creationism. I believe God created, but I don’t believe God created in the same way you do, so according to you, I am not a Christian. I know that believing God is Creator is important and affirmed in the Nicene Creed. I do NOT accept the claim you make that the belief in God as Creator is ONLY valid is God did not act through secondary causes, as you said in post #76.

There is nothing in the Old Testament or the New Testament where you can infer 'secondary causes'. God as Creator is not 'important', it's essential. You must be a Creationist to be a Christian and you know it.

Then, of course, there is:

where you again change it from ‘a belief God created’ to ‘creation done according to the specific, literalistic view of Genesis that MK holds’.

I don't know who you are talking to here so I'll mind my own business about it.

And always, there is the final saying of

No it's not, it's an antithetical view of Creationism.

By that I mean Darwinism and you know it. I didn't define Darwinism as natural law over miraculous interpolation, Darwin did.

by which you declare it impossible to be a theistic evolutionist (also known as an evolutionary creationist) and also belong to the specific definition of Creationism you arbitrarily require and insert.

Nonsense, I never said anything of the sort. I have said that you must be a Creationist in to be a Christian, creation is always a miracle and it's the same miracle as the incarnation and the new birth. If you have a problem with that then you problem isn't with me.

So you are attempting to strip me of my Christianity because it doesn’t agree with your twisted definitions. Your claim is that I do not believe in the creation because I don’t agree with your definitions.

Still begging the question of proof on that one I see. I have no interest in 'stripping' you of your faith. I want you to stand up for it. I didn't twist creation, now if I went around changing what words mean that might be a valid criticism but I'm not the one doing that.

Who cares what I think Creation means, what does Moses mean by the words he uses because he didn't mean Darwinian evolution.

And by the way, I never tried to

I just included it as another secondary cause I believe God used in His creation, just like the Big Bang, accretion, evolution, et cetera.

That's not how it works, when God creates it's a miracle. When you became a new creature in Christ did He use a secondary, exclusively naturalistic cause because it's the same miracle.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Now, the 2nd point is that:
A) You say being born again and creation are the same miracle.
I did not contest this.

Because you can't.

B) Being born again is necessary for salvation.
I did not contest this.

Because you can't

C) Because you say I deny creation, and creation is the same miracle as being born again, then it follows you say I must disbelieve the ability of God to make people be born again.

Except for creation and regeneration being the same thing I never said anything of the sort, you the one who keeps saying it.

And don’t address anything I said. I did not say “The Gospel does not require us to be born again”, I did not say “The Gospel is ambiguous about being born again”. I said because creation and being born again are the same, and you say I deny one, you must ALSO say I deny the other, because they are one in the same.

I never made the personal attack you are pretending. I said that creation and regeneration are the same miracle which is something else you can't deny.

Here I am saying is your claim that I don’t believe in creation ALSO is a claim that I don’t believe in being born again, whether you realize it or not.

Your tossing my words around like tennis shoes in a tumble dryer. You can take it anyway you like, creation and regeneration are the same miracle. The rest is all you, I never said anything of the sort.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

My NEXT point is that IF I don’t believe in being born again (which is your claim), and given the uncontested point that being born again is necessary for salvation, then you are saying I MUST also believe Jesus is not Savior.

I never said that, you did.

After all, with no born-again-ness, there is no salvation, and if there is no salvation, Jesus is not Savior. Easy, breezy, follows completely from the previous points. So your claim is now that if we don’t agree with you on creation, Jesus is not Savior. Whether you realize it or not.

What you are running into here is the transcendent nature of the Creation account, there is a reason the Bible begins and ends with it.

Last up is explicitly how that damns me to hell according to at least two denominations, including my own.

I don't belong to any denomination, I'm an ecclesiastical mutt. Rome does not condemn someone for having some believes about evolution, but they do draw the line of certain points of doctrine. The only anathema I have found is this one:

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)​

I chose first the United Methodist Church’s definition:
By disagreeing with you on creation, your claim is that I have denounced Jesus as Savior. I have previously confessed Jesus, so now I have willfully (because I typed this of my own free will), publicly (the internet is public), and explicitly (because I have not been ambiguous about my disagreement with you) rejected Jesus as Savior (your claim).

Strawman arguments bore me to tears so I'm going to skip ahead.

4. Mark has made the claim that anyone who disagrees with him on creationism is not Christian.

No, I said you must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian and you admitted you can't deny it.

7. Creation and being born again are the same miracle.

Because they are, btw, Rome affirms this very thing every Easter and at every baptism.

16. Therefore, from 15-16, Mark has claimed I am going to Hell.

Nonsense! I've seen some strange and unusual strawman arguments but that's the first time I've seen someone beat themselves up.

 

[Keachian]

Mark could you reply to my last post?

 

[Nilla]

Mod Hat On

Just a little rule reminder:
Flaming and Harassment

● Do not state or imply that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian.




Mod Hat Off​

 

[mark kennedy]

progmonk,

Sorry I missed your post. If you hadn't said something it would have been buried.

That's your opinion which you haven't substantiated.

But I have substantiated it, the preface to On the Origin of Species couldn't be any clearer:

in 1815, in the Introduction to his (Lamarck) "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.​

On the Origin of Species is best described as one long argument against creation. That has been the allure from Darwinism's inception.

Creavit Deus ex nihilo

Contra Mundum

Does that include time and space? Surely it does otherwise you have something apart from God that is uncreated.

Not sure what your asking here.

If the Incarnation is ex nihilo then fundamentally you run across a problem in my mind, Jesus was not like us, he was not both fully a part of humanity and God, instead he would just be God, that is unless you want to figure that all babies are created ex nihilo.

Procreation is never ex nihilo, they are antithetical in their meanings.

While there are some flaws in your definition if you could tell me what those terms were I might be able to agree with you.

I think I've been clear.

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

Where is the part of the definition that excludes God as Creator a priori?

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.

Those are two definitions from Wikipedia and I would agree with them, in terms of how I mesh these two ideas with my theology which is probably what you are after I would go with this.

The conversation will invariably follow a set pattern. Evolution, the creationist will be told, has proven creationism false, which is patently absurd. Evolution, as a natural phenomenon, starts after creation is complete. A better word for it might be adaptation because it better describes the process by which living systems change over time.

It's important to note that the physical basis for inherited traits (called the elementum by Mendel) is genetic. Darwin imagined living systems were fluid, brewing and mixing while being driven by elemental principles of cost and benefit. This is simply not the case, the adaptive evolution of living systems have an intricate series of mechanisms the facilitate this process.

Science is the study of God's creation, in the heart of the believer it brings him low showing him the greatness and power of God and the smallness of man (Ps 8) God is ever present in his creation as all things were created by him and for him, nothing exists apart from him (Col 1:16-17, Heb 1:3) therefore God is an untestable explanation. However because God is consistent(Mal 3:6) and not the god of confusion (1 Co 14:33) we can study his creation and get understandable and repeatable results.

What you are describing was virtually unknown to 'science' prior to the Scientific Revolution and this was what crystalized the opposition:

Science as you are describing it did not exist prior to experimentum crucis. With the publication of Principia it was the definition.

Following on from that evolution is the most probable explanation for the way in which God has diversified living organisms through his sovereign order, of course I don't rule out six-day creation, however I have not yet had anyone explain it to me in a way that doesn't make God out to be either inconsistent or the god of confusion.

The key phrase here is 'diversified living organisms'. God is the primary first cause and the message of Genesis 1 is clearly that God is the author of life at it's very inception. Pagan cultures believed that before life, before even the gods were created, there were the pagan elementals giving rise to them. Elaborate mythologies emerged from this cultural enigma just as they have in our time.

The scenario evolution describes in dogmatic terms is exactly what you are arguing against, order out of chaos, directed by natural laws. The Christian faith does no such thing, the world view of Creationism says God was there at the very beginning ordering the universe and the chaos that followed sin entering the scenario is the reason for the chaos, not creation.

Evolution has not one meaning but two, that's why I insist on a definition. The scientific definition is not opposed to creationism, as a matter of fact, reason itself dictates God as cause of life. Nothing else makes any sense.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[SilenceInMotion]

But I have substantiated it, the preface to On the Origin of Species couldn't be any clearer:

in 1815, in the Introduction to his (Lamarck) "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.​

On the Origin of Species is best described as one long argument against creation. That has been the allure from Darwinism's inception.

The creation of the universe was inevitable because it was due to God's grace alone. Because He is good, it came to be that there would be reality, and life thereof. Because the universe was created involuntarily by grace, so to is evolution. Evolution is not just specific to life, but the whole of the universe since the Big Bang. A Catholic theologian came up with the Big Bang precisely because it fits into Scripture.

This is the Catholic defense against atheist notions. Creationists need to face science and learn to deal with it appropriately rather then being in a perpetual state of denial. Of course someone who doesn't believe in God is going to lay it all out to chance, but that is just opinion, it is not scientific or truth. That is not grounds to disband human intelligence altogether, which is pretty much what you have to do in positing YECism. If God is not the author of confusion, then we should be able to discern reality accordingly, not be forever lost in this impossible Young Earth business. Go get a PhD in biology, physics, etc. and put together a model of a Young Earth. You would see that it can't be reconciled, and why there aren't hardly any of them around trying to do posit such.

 

[metherion]

No it's not, you guys do this almost constantly. My point is that if your a Christian your a Creationist.

No. From post 79, your point if we are Christians, we agree with YOU SPECIFICALLY on creationism.

So you simply take the ad hominem to the next level. but of course you did. That is what an antithetical view is designed to do.

Nope. I didn’t ad hominem at all. I supported what I said with your exact words.

You didn't like something about post #76 and while you have no hesitation quoting me, not once have you made the slightest reference to the Nicene Creed.

Wrong.
Post # 100:

I know that believing God is Creator is important and affirmed in the Nicene Creed.

Post #86:

As a matter of fact, you have set yourself up as the supreme arbiter on earth, capable of telling who is and who is not saved by inventing extra parts to a definition not in the Nicene Creed. I see nothing about ‘ex nihilio’ in the Nicene Creed. I see nothing about ‘if it didn’t happen the exact, literal way Moses recorded, you don’t believe’ in the Nicene Creed. I don’t see anything about ‘believing God made everything doesn’t mean you believe God is the Creator, only believing EXACTLY THIS can mean ‘creator’’ in the Nicene Creed.

And of course, in post #86, I quoted the entire thing for you, in Latin, so you could find things like ‘ex nihilio’ in it for me, all those little things you personally add to creationism.

Darwinism is opposed to creation, there can be no mistaking that.

Really? Which definition? The actual one, or the a priori one you pulled out of nowhere for no reason other than to confuse everything?

You have called me a liar and a hypocrite and I have yet to make a single personal remark about you or what you may or may not believe.

Nope. I stated IF I said certain things, THEN your response would either do one or the other. That was a hypothetical with conditions. You have not actually done either of them.

The truth is that there was no provocation for you fiery personal remarks. It could be that your problem is not with me:

Nice try. My problem IS with your statements setting yourself up as infallible arbiter of who is and is not Christian. I have explained it. You just refuse to see what your own words mean so you can stay high and mighty.

What you need to come to terms with is the Nicene Creed and the obvious conflict Christian theism creates for unbelievers.

Except YOU are the only one declaring anyone here is an unbeliever, and you are not making belief predicated on belief in the Nicene Creed, but rather on an easily and constantly equivocated definition of Creationism. I will back that up and show exactly where you have been equivocating the whole time, if anyone in the thread asks.

Attacking me doesn't change anything. That was in post #76 as well but you didn't want to talk about that, you wanted to talk about what a liar and a hypocrite I am. I think you tactics are diversionary and I won't stop reminding you that you must be a Creationist or you are not a Christian.

You have tried to damn me. Furthermore, you have also said I have to AGREE WITH YOU about creationism or not be a Christian. I disagree with you about it. Therefore, it doesn’t matter if I believe God created, I have to believe EXACTLY LIKE YOU about God creating, of I am not a Christian. YOUR WORDS.

I struggled for years with the deity of Christ, especially when I started reading Apologetics. The only way to come to terms with this kind of foundational conviction is prayer and study.

Nothing I’ve ever denied.

Bottom line! Where is the profession? Why is it always about being as harsh and critical as you can be. The focus is always a personal attack and I'm not talking about you, you all do it. Nothing, absolutely nothing about doctrine, the Scriptures and certainly you are not going to discuss miracles. Instead all you want to do is read me my pedigree.

My profession of belief in God as Creator was earlier. BUT IT ISN”T GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU AS LONG AS I AM A TE. YOU EXPLICITLY SAID THAT. YOU are the one who made it about OUR ‘pedigrees’ of belief in creationism, which is a word you have been equivocating on, and have thrown the lot of us out of Christ and straight into hell because of it.




Remember, I specifically stated that I believe God created back in the first post. It just isn’t good enough for Mark Kennedy Style affirmations, because

Originally Posted by Mark Kennedy
I believe it's impossible for the God of Scripture to have used evolution (a naturally occurring phenomenon) when Moses clearly says God 'created' the heavens, earth and life on this planet.

That's right! That's exactly right, creation was a miracle, the incarnation, the resurrection and the new birth are all miracles. Clearly, what Moses is describing in Creation week is supernatural. It's not hard to understand, you either believe it or you don't.

EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING! We have to agree with YOU that God COULD NOT have EVER used ANY secondary causes... OR WE DON”T BELIEVE AT ALL.

If creation has a natural explanation then it's not creation. They are two very different phenomenons and I don't like dulling the edge on that distinction.

I completely disagree. God is perfectly capable of using anything He wants for anything He wants and it is still miraculous because He did it. The plagues of Egypt are still miracles, despite the NATURAL ones of locusts, frogs, boils, et cetera. Wind from God is what drove quail to the Israelites in Numbers 11, a natural thing, but still a miracle. Dying from crucifixion seems to be a normal, non-supernatural consequence, but that doesn’t make Christ’s death any less miraculous. See, this is the NOT AGREEING WITH YOU part. ‘Natural explanation’ does not mean ‘explanation excluding God’, because God is present in, sustaining, and guiding every natural event according to His will.

So now I'm a liar, a hypocrite and I twist the meaning of Scripture.

No, you twist the definition of the root word create, and the words that have it, such as creationism, and Creation and Creator. I did not say you twist Scripture.


[qoute]
There is nothing in the Old Testament or the New Testament where you can infer 'secondary causes'.
[/quote]
Except how much God bends nature to His will, and how God is the master of nature, and all that. Forgive me if I trust the Catechesis of the Roman Catholic Church over some guy on the internet who has tried to cast me out of the fold of Christianity and into Hell.

God as Creator is not 'important', it's essential.

I have agreed to this, and confessed it, just not in a manner good enough for you.

You must be a Creationist to be a Christian and you know it.

I must believe God is Creator, yes. But YOU added the EXTRA CONDITION of AGREEING WITH YOUR PERSONAL VIEW AND DEFINITIONS, which I REJECT OUTRIGHT.

No it's not, it's an antithetical view of Creationism.

By that I mean Darwinism and you know it. I didn't define Darwinism as natural law over miraculous interpolation, Darwin did.

I know you were referring to Theistic Evolution. I used that quote to cement just how adamant you were that no TE could ever agree with you on creation, and thus how you were casting us all out.

YOU DEFINE DARWINISM THAT WAY. You pulled it out of nowhere. It never meant that before you pulled it out of thin air. If you mean ‘a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes’, JUST SAY IT INSTEAD OF CO-OPTING A PREVIOUS WORD WITH A DIFFERENT DEFINITION! Your reference to what Darwin wrote in the preface to Origin of Species is when the preference towards methodological naturalism was starting to creep into science.

Nonsense, I never said anything of the sort. I have said that you must be a Creationist in to be a Christian, creation is always a miracle and it's the same miracle as the incarnation and the new birth. If you have a problem with that then you problem isn't with me.

You have said everything of the sort. You keep denying it, but the words are right there in post #79: We not only have to believe God is Creator, WE HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU PERSONALLY AND SINCE WE DO NOT YOU HAVE TRIED TO CAST US OUT OF THE BODY OF CHRIST.

Still begging the question of proof on that one I see.

I’ve quoted the proof to you in your own words. Are you disowning them?

Because you can't.

Gotta have your little ‘yeah, talk down to him!’ moment, huh?

Except for creation and regeneration being the same thing I never said anything of the sort, you the one who keeps saying it.

Nope. You said that if I didn’t agree with you on Creationism, I’m not a Christian. You ALSO said that I’m not a Christian if I don’t believe in creationism. THEREFORE IF I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU ON CREATIONISM I DO NOT BELIEVE IT. Simple logic, taken from what you said.

I never made the personal attack you are pretending. I said that creation and regeneration are the same miracle which is something else you can't deny.

Yes, you DID make that attack. You say I disbelieve one. Since the two are one, I, by definition, MUST DISBELIEVE BOTH. There are no if, ands, or buts about it. IF YOU HAVE CLAIMED I DISBELIEVE CREATION, YOU HAVE ALSO CLAIMED I DISBELIEVE BEING BORN AGAIN, BECAUSE THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME. You CANNOT accuse me of disbelieving in one WITHOUT disbelieving in the other. You have accused me of disbelief in one, SO YOU ALSO accused me of disbelief in the other at the same time.

Let’s try another tactic. Four and 4 are the same thing. If you say I disagree with belief 4, you cannot say I agree with belief four, because they are the same thing. So, creation and being born again are the same miracle. If you say I disbelieve creation, you cannot say I don’t disbelieve in being born again.

I never said that, you did.

Nope. You made that claim, you just don’t realize it. Which is why I am explaining it to you.

Strawman arguments bore me to tears so I'm going to skip ahead.

It’s not a strawman claim, it’s the application of logic and doctrine to your claims. WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES FOR WANTONLY SETTING YOURSELF UP AS SUPREME ARBITER OF WHO IS AND WHO IS NOT CHRISTIAN?

4. Mark has made the claim that anyone who disagrees with him on creationism is not Christian.

No, I said you must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian and you admitted you can't deny it.

BULL.
Post #79:

You have to agree with me on Creationism as doctrine or you are not a Christian.

WE HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU, MARK KENNEDY, ON CREATIONISM AS DOCTRINE, OR WE ARE NOT CHRISTIANS. WE HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU OR WE ARE NOT CHRISTIANS. RIGHT THERE. RIGHT. THERE.
You see, agreeing with you on it as doctrine has two points: If we don’t agree with what you say it is, we disagree with you on it as doctrine, and if we disagree with it being doctrine, we disagree with you on it as doctrine. We both agree God needs to be acknowledged as Creator. I vehemently disagree with you on what it is, and the beliefs you are trying to impose upon me.
Nope, pretty sure you claimed EXACTLY WHAT I SAID YOU DID. Anyone who does not agree with you on creation isn’t Christian. Your words. Even if you deny them, they’re right there for everyone to see.




16. Therefore, from 15-16, Mark has claimed I am going to Hell.

Nonsense! I've seen some strange and unusual strawman arguments but that's the first time I've seen someone beat themselves up.

Really? Tell me where my logic is wrong. The only point you’ve brought up is denying you’ve said words that I can quote you on and point out exactly where they come from.


Metherion

 

[mark kennedy]

I didn’t ad hominem at all. I supported what I said with your exact words.

Your focus has been on me the entire exchange, almost exclusively, classic ad hominem.

Really? Which definition? The actual one, or the a priori one you pulled out of nowhere for no reason other than to confuse everything?

I have continually made reference to the definition of Darwinism based on the clear statements of Darwin in the preface to On the Origin of Species and the way Darwinism is argued by theistic evolutionists like yourself. I have used the same definition for years and you simply personalize everything to dodge the obvious implications.

Creation itself is an a priori conviction, like the other convictions required to come to faith in Christ.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. (Romans 1:18-23)​

Nope. I stated IF I said certain things, THEN your response would either do one or the other. That was a hypothetical with conditions. You have not actually done either of them.

I'm not the one using words like 'liar' and 'hypocrite'. Making personal inferences about me won't help you one iota.

Nice try. My problem IS with your statements setting yourself up as infallible arbiter of who is and is not Christian.

It's an old academic tactic, it's called primary source documentation. If I tell you, you must be a Creationist in order to be saved it's just me telling you what I think you must believe. I'm telling you based on the canon of Scripture and the doctrines and dogmas of your own religious profession.

Except YOU are the only one declaring anyone here is an unbeliever, and you are not making belief predicated on belief in the Nicene Creed, but rather on an easily and constantly equivocated definition of Creationism. I will back that up and show exactly where you have been equivocating the whole time, if anyone in the thread asks.

I did nothing of the sort, I have continually reminded you that the Nicene Creed starts off with a confession of God as Creator. To worship Christ as Savior and Lord is to worship Him as Creator. You can't get around that no matter how hard you try.

Your trying to make this about me, it's not, it's about sound doctrine and how attacking a doctrine as vital as Creationism is spiritual and intellectual poison. The Nicene Creed, by the way, has a strong resemblance to the New Testament witness, much more so the it does to Genesis 1. That's what you guys don't get, Creationism is a New Testament doctrine.

You have tried to damn me. Furthermore, you have also said I have to AGREE WITH YOU about creationism or not be a Christian. I disagree with you about it. Therefore, it doesn’t matter if I believe God created, I have to believe EXACTLY LIKE YOU about God creating, of I am not a Christian. YOUR WORDS.

I want to laugh but I probably better not. You have no idea who you are talking to do you? My religious convictions are such that I cannot possibly know your secret motives, I can't even plumb my own. I don't even ask the question, let alone indict another professing believer.

I'm doing exactly what I have always done, taking my stand on the Gospel. Unless or until you come to terms with the vital role of Creationism in the Christian faith you will be confounded by Darwinism that intends to make faith and science mutually exclusive.

I didn't do this to you, Darwinism sold you a lemon, I never told you to buy it. Don't blame me when it breaks down and leaves you stranded.

Nothing I’ve ever denied.

Because you can't.

My profession of belief in God as Creator was earlier. BUT IT ISN”T GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU AS LONG AS I AM A TE. YOU EXPLICITLY SAID THAT. YOU are the one who made it about OUR ‘pedigrees’ of belief in creationism, which is a word you have been equivocating on, and have thrown the lot of us out of Christ and straight into hell because of it.


You can be a theistic evolutionist all you like, there was a time I was entertaining the idea, still do sometimes. Because I'm an evangelical I would have to reconcile what TOE holds with the clear testimony of Scripture. That, by the way, is not a difficult process. I'm not a Theistic Evolutionist because I'm afraid it will damn me to hell. I'm not a Theistic Evolutionist because TOE failed the burden of proof with regards to the evolution of the human brain from that of apes.

This isn't about what Theistic Evolutionists believe regarding natural history. This is about how they treat Christians and you guys are continually leveling and endless barrage of personal attacks. Attacking Creationism undermines foundational Christian theism, Darwinians know this but apparently you have been slow catching on.

I'm reminding you that you are a Christian which is by definition Creationist. That's not my personal opinion, that's the clear testimony of Scripture and the Nicene Creed regarding it's foundational place in Christian theism.

EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING! We have to agree with YOU that God COULD NOT have EVER used ANY secondary causes... OR WE DON”T BELIEVE AT ALL.

It's called the primary first cause, aka Primary Mover. The problem with Darwinism is that it assumes exclusively naturalistic causes all the way back to the Big Bang. Just as Creation is transcendent in Christian theism naturalistic assumptions are transcendent in Darwinism.

I'm not telling you what to believe, when you tell me your Catholic I already know because I know what the RCC teaches. Do you?

I completely disagree. God is perfectly capable of using anything He wants for anything He wants and it is still miraculous because He did it. The plagues of Egypt are still miracles, despite the NATURAL ones of locusts, frogs, boils, et cetera. Wind from God is what drove quail to the Israelites in Numbers 11, a natural thing, but still a miracle. Dying from crucifixion seems to be a normal, non-supernatural consequence, but that doesn’t make Christ’s death any less miraculous. See, this is the NOT AGREEING WITH YOU part. ‘Natural explanation’ does not mean ‘explanation excluding God’, because God is present in, sustaining, and guiding every natural event according to His will.

That's much better, I see your finally calming down.

No, you twist the definition of the root word create, and the words that have it, such as creationism, and Creation and Creator. I did not say you twist Scripture.

'Create' comes down to the definition of three Hebrew words and perhaps as few as one from the New Testament. That's it!

Except how much God bends nature to His will, and how God is the master of nature, and all that. Forgive me if I trust the Catechesis of the Roman Catholic Church over some guy on the internet who has tried to cast me out of the fold of Christianity and into Hell.

So you like Catechisms huh?

Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. The inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language the truths of creation - its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation. (CCC 289)​

Stop it, I'm not the enemy.

I must believe God is Creator, yes. But YOU added the EXTRA CONDITION of AGREEING WITH YOUR PERSONAL VIEW AND DEFINITIONS, which I REJECT OUTRIGHT.

But my definition is the Nicene Creed and the testimony of Scripture, always have, always will. Your argument is imploding and it's about time.

I know you were referring to Theistic Evolution. I used that quote to cement just how adamant you were that no TE could ever agree with you on creation, and thus how you were casting us all out.

I disagree with Christians who think baptism does anything to forgive a persons sins, that doesn't mean I don't think they are forgiven. There are probably a fair number of professing Christian in the world who believe they can be Christians and deny Creationism venomously. They may well be Christians but they have a very superficial view of what it means to be a Christian. We embrace a profoundly supernatural faith, miracles cannot be dismissed from the Creation to the Incarnation. That's not my personal opinion, that's the Christian profession expressed in the Nicene Creed.

 

[metherion]

Your argument is imploding and it's about time.

No. You have't addressed any of it. All you've done is deny claims you have made and words you have said, violated the rules about calling others not-Christians, equivocated about definitions, and avoided the logical conclusions of your words.

Good-bye, Mark.

Metherion

 

[mark kennedy]

The creation of the universe was inevitable because it was due to God's grace alone. Because He is good, it came to be that there would be reality, and life thereof. Because the universe was created involuntarily by grace, so to is evolution. Evolution is not just specific to life, but the whole of the universe since the Big Bang. A Catholic theologian came up with the Big Bang precisely because it fits into Scripture.

Do you have that theologians name? I would be interested in exploring his work a little. I just want to make one thing clear here, I realize that God as a part of his gracious providence gave His creation the means to adapt and evolve, I have no reason to deny it. I have no problem with you if you are convinced that TOE has met the burden of proof, if that's the case, go in peace I have no problem with you.

I simply don't and the real problem here is how Theistic Evolution has been set against Creation. The intellectual and academic forces that compel Christians to do this are not benign with regards to faith nor science. I want to be clear on this point, my intention is to remind Theistic Evolutionists that when they are through with Creationists you are next.

This is the Catholic defense against atheist notions. Creationists need to face science and learn to deal with it appropriately rather then being in a perpetual state of denial. Of course someone who doesn't believe in God is going to lay it all out to chance, but that is just opinion, it is not scientific or truth. That is not grounds to disband human intelligence altogether, which is pretty much what you have to do in positing YECism. If God is not the author of confusion, then we should be able to discern reality accordingly, not be forever lost in this impossible Young Earth business. Go get a PhD in biology, physics, etc. and put together a model of a Young Earth. You would see that it can't be reconciled, and why there aren't hardly any of them around trying to do posit such.

First of all the age of the earth is irrelevant. More importantly I don't need a PHD to see the essential role of naturalistic assumptions in Darwinism. Universal Common Descent has nothing to do with Mendelian genetics except as an after thought. I do not need a young earth model and I don't approve of natural theology.

I simply affirm, as all Christians do, that God is the author of life by divine fiat. You cannot escape this foundational doctrine of the faith, you must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian. The irony of the whole thing is that if I did get a PHD and propose a model it would have to be based on an accelerated evolutionary scenario that would have scarred Darwin to death.

How long ago was the Flood, how many living creatures inside, how many exist today as descendants? The only difference between Creationists and Darwinians are the taxonomic scope and the timeline. The problems of evolutionary biology are the same.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Do you have that theologians name? I would be interested in exploring his work a little. I just want to make one thing clear here, I realize that God as a part of his gracious providence gave His creation the means to adapt and evolve, I have no reason to deny it. I have no problem with you if you are convinced that TOE has met the burden of proof, if that's the case, go in peace I have no problem with you.

Father Lemaitre
or
Monsignor Georges Lemaitre

 

[mark kennedy]

No. You have't addressed any of it. All you've done is deny claims you have made and words you have said, violated the rules about calling others not-Christians, equivocated about definitions, and avoided the logical conclusions of your words.

Good-bye, Mark.

Metherion

I have done nothing of the sort and I have made an exhaustive defense of my original statement. What logical conclusions you draw from my words are your business, like I said, don't blame me if Darwinism breaks down and leaves you stranded.

I fully realize the implications of my words and I have never said you were going to hell. I wouldn't do that, not because of the rules on here but as a matter of conviction. The rules, since you bring them up, are very clear about what it means to be a Christian. You must affirm the confessions of the Nicene Creed. According to the Nicene Creed you must be a Creationist.

I'm not the one who made evolutionary biology mutually exclusive with Christian theism, Darwinians did. Which leaves me to wonder why you are never critical of them.

Good-bye Metherion.

Mark

 

[Keachian]

progmonk,

Sorry I missed your post. If you hadn't said something it would have been buried.

It's ok

But I have substantiated it, the preface to On the Origin of Species couldn't be any clearer:

in 1815, in the Introduction to his (Lamarck) "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.​

On the Origin of Species is best described as one long argument against creation. That has been the allure from Darwinism's inception.

That still operates under the assumption that God only works by miraculous interposition, this is incorrect, God works all things.

Contra Mundum

Because God creating from nothing is not against the world?

Not sure what your asking here.

Your definition seems to exclude space and time from those things which are created.

Procreation is never ex nihilo, they are antithetical in their meanings.

From the link you posted above it doesn't appear to me that the Incarnation is a miracle ex nihilo;

He took to Himself a body, a human body even as our own. Nor did He will merely to become embodied or merely to appear; had that been so, He could have revealed His divine majesty in some other and better way. No, He took our body, and not only so, but He took it directly from a spotless, stainless virgin, without the agency of human father—a pure body, untainted by intercourse with man. He, the Mighty One, the Artificer of all, Himself prepared this body in the virgin as a temple for Himself, and took it for His very own, as the instrument through which He was known and in which He dwelt. Thus, taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered His body to death instead of all, and offered it to the Father.​

I think I've been clear.

So the three Biblical terms are original Creation, the Incarnation and the Rebirth of the Believer?

Where is the part of the definition that excludes God as Creator a priori?

You were expecting one?

The conversation will invariably follow a set pattern. Evolution, the creationist will be told, has proven creationism false, which is patently absurd. Evolution, as a natural phenomenon, starts after creation is complete. A better word for it might be adaptation because it better describes the process by which living systems change over time.

I'd disagree and say that evolution is a part of the process in which God sovereignly created.

It's important to note that the physical basis for inherited traits (called the elementum by Mendel) is genetic. Darwin imagined living systems were fluid, brewing and mixing while being driven by elemental principles of cost and benefit. This is simply not the case, the adaptive evolution of living systems have an intricate series of mechanisms the facilitate this process.

It would be helpful in discussions about evolution to discuss it from a modern perspective, in this case evolutionary theory relies more on Mendel than Darwin.

What you are describing was virtually unknown to 'science' prior to the Scientific Revolution and this was what crystalized the opposition:

Science as you are describing it did not exist prior to experimentum crucis. With the publication of Principia it was the definition.

That doesn't really matter, the study of God and the study of God's creation has one reaction in the believer.

The key phrase here is 'diversified living organisms'. God is the primary first cause and the message of Genesis 1 is clearly that God is the author of life at it's very inception. Pagan cultures believed that before life, before even the gods were created, there were the pagan elementals giving rise to them. Elaborate mythologies emerged from this cultural enigma just as they have in our time.

I'm not sure this has anything to do with what I said.

The scenario evolution describes in dogmatic terms is exactly what you are arguing against, order out of chaos, directed by natural laws. The Christian faith does no such thing, the world view of Creationism says God was there at the very beginning ordering the universe and the chaos that followed sin entering the scenario is the reason for the chaos, not creation.

From my understanding all mythos including the Genesis 1 creation account has the idea of order coming out of Chaos. I do agree with you that chaos reentered the world through the sins of man.

Evolution has not one meaning but two, that's why I insist on a definition. The scientific definition is not opposed to creationism, as a matter of fact, reason itself dictates God as cause of life. Nothing else makes any sense.

Yep, all things were created by him and for him, nothing is apart from him.

 

[mark kennedy]

Father Lemaitre
or
Monsignor Georges Lemaitre

Thank you, gotta love those Jesuits.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

That still operates under the assumption that God only works by miraculous interposition, this is incorrect, God works all things.

The original creation, in Incarnation, new birth and the new creation at the end of the age are exclusively by miraculous interposition. I don't know how to make it any more emphatic.

Because God creating from nothing is not against the world?

Have you read Contra Mundum?

Your definition seems to exclude space and time from those things which are created.

You lost me.

From the link you posted above it doesn't appear to me that the Incarnation is a miracle ex nihilo;

He took to Himself a body, a human body even as our own. Nor did He will merely to become embodied or merely to appear; had that been so, He could have revealed His divine majesty in some other and better way. No, He took our body, and not only so, but He took it directly from a spotless, stainless virgin, without the agency of human father—a pure body, untainted by intercourse with man. He, the Mighty One, the Artificer of all, Himself prepared this body in the virgin as a temple for Himself, and took it for His very own, as the instrument through which He was known and in which He dwelt. Thus, taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered His body to death instead of all, and offered it to the Father.​

Not all of Creation is ex nihilo, as a matter of fact, only three events were. Is that what your driving at?

So the three Biblical terms are original Creation, the Incarnation and the Rebirth of the Believer?

I was referring to the creation account in Genesis 1, three words are used for Creation.

You were expecting one?

I know it exists, you just can't get Darwinians to admit it.

I'd disagree and say that evolution is a part of the process in which God sovereignly created.

If that does it for you fine but, God's direct intervention and divine providence are two different things.

It would be helpful in discussions about evolution to discuss it from a modern perspective, in this case evolutionary theory relies more on Mendel than Darwin.

That's because Mendelian genetics is the science of evolutionary biology, Darwinism just got blended in.

That doesn't really matter, the study of God and the study of God's creation has one reaction in the believer.

I have no reason to disagree with that.

From my understanding all mythos including the Genesis 1 creation account has the idea of order coming out of Chaos. I do agree with you that chaos reentered the world through the sins of man.

Actually Genesis 1 describes darkness and something called 'the deep' I think it's a picture of a dark lifeless world covered in thick clouds and water. I would describe it as life from a dead womb. The ancient mythos had elementals giving rise to life and even the gods, the elementals were always the first cause. That is distinctively different from the Creation account where God gives rise to the very elementals.

Yep, all things were created by him and for him, nothing is apart from him.

Amen

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Ok guys, I'm really going to need a break. I have to start a project and it's going to be monopolizing my time for the next couple of days. I enjoyed the discussion and hope to return to it soon but I must leave off it for a while.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Metal Minister]

Your definition seems to exclude space and time from those things which are created.

Perhaps you're driving at:

In the beginning(time) God created the heavens(space) and the earth(matter).

I may be wrong, so pardon the interruption if I am.

 

[Metal Minister]

Ok guys, I'm really going to need a break. I have to start a project and it's going to be monopolizing my time for the next couple of days. I enjoyed the discussion and hope to return to it soon but I must leave off it for a while.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Take care Mark! Good luck!

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Take care Mark! Good luck!

Yeah, he needs it., because he's arguing that up is down and left is right.

 

[Metal Minister]

Yeah, he needs it., because he's arguing that up is down and left is right.

You'll have to explain. I am basically blind posting.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

You'll have to explain. I am basically blind posting.

Arguing that man has only been around for 6000 years is delusional after being granted the vigorous science that says otherwise. The Sumerians alone exceed 6000 years, and there have been findings of an ancient race predating 12000 BC with Flood lore. It just gets to a point where you have to question the very foundation of YECism. Posit an old Earth if you must- the facts are inarguable- you cannot deny that mankind is ancient.