Is Theistic Evolution Heresy?

[Martyrs44]

Something does not have to be literal to be accurate, and so it is fallacious to say that Genesis has to be literal to be accurate.

That is the fatal flaw of the entire Young Earth argument. Half the Bible practically flaunts it's poetic justice, beauty, metaphors, and parables. Literalism is a fabrication, not a guideline.

I challenged you to give the name/names of what you think the 'true' author of Genesis and you failed to do that. Your position is completely baseless.

This argument is over with.

The only 'fatal flaw' is yoru attitude towards the plainly written account of Genesis concerning the six day creation. There is no other truth in the matter.

 

[Martyrs44]

He doesn't need to know his name to know that.

This is such a lie. The whole Christian world in the first century believed in the six-day creation along with the Jews.They all believed that Moses was the author of Genesis and in fact the entire penteteuch. It is only unbelieving, liberal scholarship that has compromised with Darwinian dogma that denies such things.

I will say it one last time: When Jesus spoke of 'Moses and the prophets' He was talking about (1) the first five books of the Bible and (2) all that was written from Joshua through Malachi. To this, Christians and Jews have always agreed.......except those who have compromised with the evils of Darwinian philosophy.

Liberal, Darwinian infested theology is a cancer to the Christian world and some day the Lord Jesus Christ is going to judge it and eliminate it from the consideration as it regards His word.

 

[Trogool]

This is such a lie. The whole Christian world in the first century believed in the six-day creation along with the Jews.They all believed that Moses was the author of Genesis and in fact the entire penteteuch. It is only unbelieving, liberal scholarship that has compromised with Darwinian dogma that denies such things.

I will say it one last time: When Jesus spoke of 'Moses and the prophets' He was talking about (1) the first five books of the Bible and (2) all that was written from Joshua through Malachi. To this, Christians and Jews have always agreed.......except those who have compromised with the evils of Darwinian philosophy.

Liberal, Darwinian infested theology is a cancer to the Christian world and some day the Lord Jesus Christ is going to judge it and eliminate it from the consideration as it regards His word.

You believe in heliocentrism, bodily humors and a flat earth, don't you?

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[SilenceInMotion]

I challenged you to give the name/names of what you think the 'true' author of Genesis and you failed to do that. Your position is completely baseless.

Notice that none of the book are called 'the book of Moses'. Nowhere does it say "so I, (Moses), did (x)". It is plain as day that it was not written by Moses, they are accredited to Moses because he was the one who originally taught such things. The author was taught, and the author testified. In fact, there was probably more then one author; much like how the New Testament was written and consolidated in a team effort, so to was probably the Pentateuch.
Your challenge is impossible because nobody knows who wrote the Pentateuch. That does not mean you are right. In fact you are laughably wrong. I guess it's something to expect of YEC's who can even venture the self-evident.

This argument is over with.

Indeed it is. Denial is no way to go through life, so you should stop arguing.

The only 'fatal flaw' is yoru attitude towards the plainly written account of Genesis concerning the six day creation. There is no other truth in the matter.

Take Revelations literally. Oh wait, that's not literal at all, is it? You say it isn't because it's utterly absurd to do so. So, why do it to Genesis? It is utterly absurd to do so.

 

[super animator]

This is such a lie. The whole Christian world in the first century believed in the six-day creation along with the Jews.They all believed that Moses was the author of Genesis and in fact the entire penteteuch.

They also believe in sun revolving around the earth and flat earth etc.

I will say it one last time: When Jesus spoke of 'Moses and the prophets' He was talking about (1) the first five books of the Bible and (2) all that was written from Joshua through Malachi.

You keep saying this, it does not make it true.

To this, Christians and Jews have always agreed.......except those who have compromised with the evils of Darwinian philosophy.

We're not "TrueChristian(TM)" now, because of the so called "Darwinian philosophy" (which Darwin was never a philosopher to begin with) now? It this how you discuss with bother and sisters in Christ?

Liberal, Darwinian infested theology is a cancer to the Christian world and some day the Lord Jesus Christ is going to judge it and eliminate it from the consideration as it regards His word.

Reality have a liberal bias.

 

[Martyrs44]

Notice that none of the book are called 'the book of Moses'. Nowhere does it say "so I, (Moses), did (x)". It is plain as day that it was not written by Moses, they are accredited to Moses because he was the one who originally taught such things. The author was taught, and the author testified. In fact, there was probably more then one author; much like how the New Testament was written and consolidated in a team effort, so to was probably the Pentateuch.
Your challenge is impossible because nobody knows who wrote the Pentateuch. That does not mean you are right. In fact you are laughably wrong. I guess it's something to expect of YEC's who can even venture the self-evident.

Indeed it is. Denial is no way to go through life, so you should stop arguing.

Take Revelations literally. Oh wait, that's not literal at all, is it? You say it isn't because it's utterly absurd to do so. So, why do it to Genesis? It is utterly absurd to do so.

No, I am not laughably wrong, my critical counterpart. I gave you both HISTORY and SCRIPTURE and you have rejected both. Bye.

 

[Martyrs44]

Notice that none of the book are called 'the book of Moses'. Nowhere does it say "so I, (Moses), did (x)". It is plain as day that it was not written by Moses, they are accredited to Moses because he was the one who originally taught such things. The author was taught, and the author testified. In fact, there was probably more then one author; much like how the New Testament was written and consolidated in a team effort, so to was probably the Pentateuch.
Your challenge is impossible because nobody knows who wrote the Pentateuch. That does not mean you are right. In fact you are laughably wrong. I guess it's something to expect of YEC's who can even venture the self-evident.

Indeed it is. Denial is no way to go through life, so you should stop arguing.

Take Revelations literally. Oh wait, that's not literal at all, is it? You say it isn't because it's utterly absurd to do so. So, why do it to Genesis? It is utterly absurd to do so.

Baloney. Try to explain your unbelief in the six-day creation as taught by Moses in Genesis AND in the rest of the pentateuch when you stand before God Almighty. Your petty little denials won't work then.

 

[Trogool]

Baloney. Try to explain your unbelief in the six-day creation as taught by Moses in Genesis AND in the rest of the pentateuch when you stand before God Almighty. Your petty little denials won't work then.

I guess when you can't manage to argue a position rationally, falling back on "Well, you'll still be burning in HELL!" kinda works...

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[jlmagee]

Well, at least you believe that much. Why would you believe the Lord about the fact that He is the Creator but not what He says about His six-day creation?

It is not where the evidence leads. I would like to be YEC; you do not understand how hard I have tried. God is not deceptive.

And the TE would be in error. 'A nice devotional framework'? Nope. It was the ten commandments of God for His people. His Law. Your reply on this is a shocking statement to any clear minded believer who knows better.

I did not say that the ten commandments were a framework. The seven day week as God laid out in Genesis.

Can we agree that God could have created everything within 6 seconds? Why then in 6 days? So, He could give man a guideline for a work week and Sabbath? AND, so he could give His children, with no copy of Genesis, a realization of His sovereignty over everything? Devotional framework.

But the TE's don't know what they are doing. They have caved in to a teaching that is not found in scripture. Why would God give us the clear-cut account of His creation in six days, confirm it in the ten commandments, and verify it's historical reality in the many dozen passages which speak of Adam, Eve, the fall, the flood, etc. only to have all of that uprooted and changed by Charles Darwin in 1859? Are you trying to suggest that the entire Christian world DID NOT know of the truth about creation until after 1859? That is ridiculous.

Philo taught that Genesis was pure allegory. I do not agree, however, his position suggests that it is not a modern debate. I would suggest that we, YEC, TE, OEC, or any other view, religious or secular. of origins, do not know the truth in 2012.

From a pragmatic stanpoint, in personal evangelism I no longer have to deal with Genesis but from a prophetical viewoint. Now I actually get to talk about what and why Jesus was crucified and not try to explain fossils and ancient civilizations. YEC evangelism is only effective on those who were churched and left with some form of YEC belief already.

None of that shallow argumentation will help you escape the fact that when the chronologies (i.e. Genesis 5,10, I Chronicles, etc.) are considered and the ages are calculated together one cannot derive much more than a 6,000 yr age for the earth. THAT is bottom line and not what skeptical scientists with their nebulous dating methods tell us.

In personal evangelism, I use evidence from many disciplines to demonstrate the reliability of God's Word. If I ignored their other input, it would be intellectually and theologically dishonest. The people mentioned in the genealogies do help us understand where people groups came from and where they settled.

Secondly, you did not give a date nor time frame as to when the fall of man actually occured. Why? But if the scriptural time frame is wrong then when did man fall in sin and how long has death existed in our world? Did death come through Adam's sin as Romans 5:12 tells us or did it precede Adam by millions of years?

I stated that there is evidence of God imputing an enlightened soul around 60,000 years ago. Man fell probably within a few hours. (When I was a YEC, I stated that the fal was probably witin a week.)

No one said the scriptural timeframe is wrng. Your understanding of the time frame may be in error; mine may be. They both probably are. The Bible is inerrant in the original autographs. Physical death entered into the world, at least, when the first time something ate something else, possibly before (PreCambrian Age).

Spiritual death entered when Adam and Eve Disobeyed God's command.

Nonetheless, you are in error in this matter because the scriptures are not obscure nor ambiguous about our origins. There is no teaching of theistic evolution in God's Word...not even a hint. There is not even a suggestion of anyone who lived in Bible times that believed such a thing. So you are without excuse.

The Bible is not a science book. The ancients had limited understanding of cosmology, biology, and other sciences of which we now have a better, less limited, understanding. God did not correct their understanding or enlighten them. God was concerned about their souls, not their science. (Still is.)

Nor will you find a common ancestor that breached the gap between a 46 chromosome organism as connected to a 48 chromosome organism. If you disagree then you are invited to try and find such a creature.

Not only so but no scientist on earth can genetically cross humans with any kind of ape of any classification. So not only is the picture I posted above quite impossible (and funny!) but there is no variation of such a result possible. Again, if you disagree then forward the genetic evidence that it is possible.

Nobody claims this. We are all transitional forms.

[QUOTE]So you believe the anthropologists and paleontologists over God's Word. What should have the highest priority in your mind takes a back seat to neo-Darwinian scholarship. I get you. But then tell us...why did God even bother giving us the ages of the antediluvians and the patriarchs and in fact the whole tribe of Israel...to begin with?[/QUOTE]

God would not deceive us by the geological record. The record of human life on this earth is very compelling against YEC.

Yes, but you aren't. Not on this issue. You haven't produced a single passage of scripture supporting your theistic evolution position...nor can you.

I never claimed inerrancy nor infallibility. My only claim is that it is a position that fits within the historical orthodoxy of God's church.

What makes you think I am interested in the Nicene Creed? It is scripture to which you are at variance.

It does not matter what you or I are "interested in". It is the litmus test for orthodoxy on this forum and for much of the Christian community. So, if a person is wrong in their understanding of ANY portion of scripture, he is a heretic?

Good for you. So who persuaded you to not believe what God has plainly told us about the six day creation and substitute the truth for a non-scientific theory.

I reject your premise in bold and it is really (mis)leading. I have not rejected the Truth, the Way, or the Light.

When Ken Ham said that I had to use my YEC glasses to force things to fit the position. Until Ham I was YEC. He pretty much did it. Listening to my YEC professors on Genesis especially, but throughout the Bible, I realized some issues were not as clear cut as I thought. Then, I listened to W.L. Craig, N.T. Wright, the Intelligent Design guys at the Discovery Institute and and others. I began to understand that other views could exist in the orthodox community.

I am an ex-theistic evolutionist. I taught science for 26 yrs. I was persuaded by both scripture and the available scientific facts that evolution is a false theory.

I respect the fact that you have investigated the evidence and come to your conclusion. I have done the same. I am fully convinced that God created everything and that His Word is true. God's revelation through His written Word, His Son, and the natural record left behind do not contradict each other.

I do not fully reject your point of view. I have respect for many YEC's and their discussion. (Ham and Hovind are absurd.) At what level do you teach science?

TE is not heresy.

 

[super animator]

Baloney. Try to explain your unbelief in the six-day creation as taught by Moses in Genesis AND in the rest of the pentateuch when you stand before God Almighty. Your petty little denials won't work then.

Appeal to consequences

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Baloney. Try to explain your unbelief in the six-day creation as taught by Moses in Genesis AND in the rest of the pentateuch when you stand before God Almighty. Your petty little denials won't work then.

Oh yes, I can see it now: "How dare you interpret Genesis 1 in the way that I set up all of reality to seem like and not literally!"

God is not the author of confusion, and that does not just mean in scripture. If everything in all reality is older then 6000 years, then a literal interpretation of Scripture does not change that.
You want to talk about me standing in front of God Almighty, but you should be worried about your idolatry of scripture. You put a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 over God's own Creation for crying out loud, and you want to sit here and issue threats to people who actually decide the human brain has uses.

 

[mark kennedy]

Appeal to consequences

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

 

[mark kennedy]

Oh yes, I can see it now: "How dare you interpret Genesis 1 in the way that I set up all of reality to seem like and not literally!"

Ambiguity does not lead one to sound doctrine.

God is not the author of confusion, and that does not just mean in scripture. If everything in all reality is older then 6000 years, then a literal interpretation of Scripture does not change that.

Two things here, of course God who fills all eternity past, present and future has a history of more then 6.000 years. Life on this planet might not and insisting that such a belief is unreasonable is nothing more the skepticism that has it's source in atheism not the Scriptures.

Secondly, the literal interpretation is always preferred. Not because I want it to be true but because that's one of the rules of exposition. It's meant to avoid, in a disciplined fashion, inferences the author never intended.

That's why these alternative 'interpretations', falsely so called, have very little to do with Genesis 1. Genesis itself has always been and always be understood as an historical narrative. You don't get to categorically reject the clear meaning of Scripture because God acting in time and space is a hard concept for you. First you have to look at what it says, especially in the larger context of the other chapters of the book.

Not a hint that the book was written as myth or metaphor and yet you would have us believe it is. Why?

You want to talk about me standing in front of God Almighty, but you should be worried about your idolatry of scripture. You put a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 over God's own Creation for crying out loud, and you want to sit here and issue threats to people who actually decide the human brain has uses.[/QUOTE]

 

[GrizzlyMonKeH]

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 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?

Do you honestly believe it impossible for God to have used evolution as a tool?

The Bible says that Christ holds all things together (Col. 1:17). Would you then hold that the law of gravitation is also untrue?

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Two things here, of course God who fills all eternity past, present and future has a history of more then 6.000 years. Life on this planet might not and insisting that such a belief is unreasonable is nothing more the skepticism that has it's source in atheism not the Scriptures.

Evolution is not supported by it's own theory, but also every other science. It is the product of rigorous science over the past century, and not one thing has led to being contrary to it. Everything attempt to the contrary, has failed. Scientific theory is not called fact, but it's only on the basis of extreme philosophies which state you can't be 'sure' of anything. So it's really a matter of whether or not one wants to accept it. Gravity is just a theory, but I don't see you jumping off any buildings.

Secondly, the literal interpretation is always preferred.

The literal interpretation is preferred when there is nothing else to go on. In other words, it's not really preferred at all, it's just accepted until something says otherwise.
In which case, science says otherwise, and science is not a global conspiracy. Science is the gift God gave us. The only time science is bad is when one questions the origins of the universe, because that is the work of God.
That should be all that matters, but YEC's push some absurdly close-minded notion of Genesis because, well, I have absolutely no idea except maybe that they just like to be adversarial to human intelligence.

Not a hint that the book was written as myth or metaphor and yet you would have us believe it is. Why?

God created light on the first day, but did not create the sun, moon, and stars until days later.
You cannot reconcile this with a literal interpretation. What is being relayed is the Big Bang- light came before the sun and stars.

If the Earth is formless and void, how did it have water on it? The 'waters' are the universe, and the Earth was created from the material of the universe. You see, it was formless- everything was still cooling from the Bang and had not pulled together.

You see much more truth with theistic evolution then you ever will with YECism. It is wishful and false, and should not even exist in this era let alone be posited.

 

[mark kennedy]

Do you honestly believe it impossible for God to have used evolution as a tool?

Of course God created the molecular mechanisms responsible for adaptive evolution. Evolution as you are using it is far to vague to be a substantive, much less scientific. If by evolution you mean God did not create life on this planet as described by Moses then then yes, 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.

The Bible says that Christ holds all things together (Col. 1:17). Would you then hold that the law of gravitation is also untrue?

Christ holds all things together because Christ created the heavens and the earth. The same power that produced creation, sustains it. When we are talking about laws of science like gravity or the laws of segregation and separation (Mendelian genetics) we are talking about natural phenomenon.

Not one Creationist believes there is no such thing as gravity or meiosis. Your using a fallacy called equivocation where you equate a belief in the Bible as contrary to science, it's simple rhetoric, not sound reasoning.

Now if you want to explore where science and Scripture overlap or conflict I would enjoy such a discussion. If on the other hand your just going to be throwing out these pedantic one liners I think the conversation is going to bog down early and often.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[super animator]

Actually it's an appeal to doctrine,

No, it's pretty much "Agree with everything I say or your get it what's coming to you"
No TE here is calming that god isn't the creator.

 

[mark kennedy]

Evolution is not supported by it's own theory, but also every other science. It is the product of rigorous science over the past century, and not one thing has led to being contrary to it. Everything attempt to the contrary, has failed. Scientific theory is not called fact, but it's only on the basis of extreme philosophies which state you can't be 'sure' of anything. So it's really a matter of whether or not one wants to accept it. Gravity is just a theory, but I don't see you jumping off any buildings.

First of all, evolution is, among other things, a theory. This nebulous 'scientific theory' you are wandering aimlessly over is actually scientific methodology. Over the last century and a half God has been systematically and categorically rejected as the cause of anything. No theory that invokes God as cause is even considered and there are no alternatives to Darwinian naturalistic assumptions.

Not only that you are pursuing this equivocation fallacy while I'm expounding Christian profession, sound doctrine, Biblical exposition, scientific methodology and evolutionary biology. If you keep arguing in circles I will start refuting these fallacious arguments in circles. It's up to you.

The literal interpretation is preferred when there is nothing else to go on. In other words, it's not really preferred at all, it's just accepted until something says otherwise.

Your not talking about an interpretation, your actually talking about a series of events. So it's (the clear testimony of Scripture) is accepted until something (secular skepticism, falsely called science) replaces it.

You have yet to discuss what it is being replaced with or even what's being replace in the first place. See the problem with ambiguity?

In which case, science says otherwise, and science is not a global conspiracy. Science is the gift God gave us. The only time science is bad is when one questions the origins of the universe, because that is the work of God.

Define science! As many times as evolutionists have pontificated to be about what 'science' says I have yet to get a single, substantive discussion of what it's not. Because it's not a substitute for faith.

That should be all that matters, but YEC's push some absurdly close-minded notion of Genesis because, well, I have absolutely no idea except maybe that they just like to be adversarial to human intelligence.

What is absurd is that a professing Christian would have no idea why Creationists push creationism. The reason is that it's Christian doctrine and to reject creationism is to reject the Nicene Creed, the clear testimony of Scripture and the promise of the Gospel. Want to qualify that a little? Because I have very little patience for this kind of rhetoric.

So before you spout of with how absurd my views are before hearing them I suggest you go back and read the Nicene Creed again.

God created light on the first day, but did not create the sun, moon, and stars until days later.
You cannot reconcile this with a literal interpretation. What is being relayed is the Big Bang- light came before the sun and stars.

Ok, yes you can reconcile this with minimal effort. It's a literary feature, the entire narrative is from the surface of the earth. The sun moon and stars were not created Ex nihilo after Genesis 1:1. What God is creating is the sun, moon and stars appearing in the sky in sequential order. That is strictly from the face of the earth and the language has far more precision in this regards then you will ever realize.

If the Earth is formless and void, how did it have water on it? The 'waters' are the universe, and the Earth was created from the material of the universe. You see, it was formless- everything was still cooling from the Bang and had not pulled together.

The combination of water, darkness and clouds are what makes the primordial earth formless and void. What it didn't have was life, which is the whole point of the narrative. By the way, you do not need Genesis 1 to know that God created the heavens and the earth, God already did that. The Scriptures are testimony, which according to every rule of evidence I'm acquainted with, constitutes a basis for a valid hypothesis and a unified theory.

That's why it's categorically rejected by atheists, they want it dismissed before it's even considered. You are being influenced by secular forces you equate with natural science which is not only absurd, it's asinine. Even if I'm exaggerating the full weight of the argument the fact remains obvious that your argument is neither scientific nor substantive, it's fallacious.

You see much more truth with theistic evolution then you ever will with YECism. It is wishful and false, and should not even exist in this era let alone be posited.

All I have seen in the years I have explored the subject matter with theistic evolutionists is skepticism. All they do is criticize creationism even though, not one of them makes the slightest attempt to qualify their criticism doctrinally. That would be self defeating since creationism is a foundational doctrine.

I'm not a theistic evolutionist because I can't believe the Bible if I do. I toyed with the idea and even took it seriously for a while. The fact is that TOE (theory of evolution) makes claims regarding natural history that span all history going all the way back to the Big Bang. What this does is categorically reject essential doctrine. That is not why I'm not a theistic evolutionist, I don't believe we evolved from apes because there is neither the time nor the means for our brains to have tripled in size, over night, about 2 mya.

It would not prove difficult for me to rethink my theology and make myself some kind of a theistic evolutionist, I could do it on a coffee break. There is no special revelation required, no special scientific acumen, certainly no enhanced enlightenment. All theistic evolution does is reject creationism in circles and the reasons are secular not Scriptural.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, it's pretty much "Agree with everything I say or your get it what's coming to you"
No TE here is calming that god isn't the creator.

So you openly admit that you are a creationist. But of course you do, you have to abandon your Christian profession if you don't. I have not the slightest interest in making you agree with me. What you must agree with is the Nicene Creed, the clear testimony of Scripture regarding Creation and make the profession all Christians must make in order to be Christians.

But yea, your right. You have to agree with me on Creationism as doctrine or you are not a Christian. There are not a lot of rules about posting to a Christians only section but at a minimum you must believe the Nicene Creed. A Creed that starts right off with a confession of God as Creator. Now once you get over the taste of that we can discuss sound doctrine as a standard by which heresy is condemned.

 

[Keachian]

So you openly admit that you are a creationist. But of course you do, you have to abandon your Christian profession if you don't. I have not the slightest interest in making you agree with me. What you must agree with is the Nicene Creed, the clear testimony of Scripture regarding Creation and make the profession all Christians must make in order to be Christians.

But yea, your right. You have to agree with me on Creationism as doctrine or you are not a Christian. There are not a lot of rules about posting to a Christians only section but at a minimum you must believe the Nicene Creed. A Creed that starts right off with a confession of God as Creator. Now once you get over the taste of that we can discuss sound doctrine as a standard by which heresy is condemned.

Theistic Evolution, or Evolutionary Creationism is a form of Creationism.

If you disagree then please define what you mean by Creationism, it's all very good and well you making these claims but quite frankly you're playing word games all the time Mark and it is about time that you come clean and define your terms.