Is Theistic Evolution Heresy?

[mark kennedy]

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

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

Ex nihilo nihil fit, "Out of nothing comes nothing". Creation is God acting in time and space to produce something that could not exist apart from an exercise of God's sovereign power in and over the universe. It is an event oriented phenomenon and a distinctive expression of God's perfect will doing what only God can do. It includes but is not limited to the Incarnation and New Birth as creation ex nihilo events.

In the book of Genesis there is not one but three terms used of creation. What you will find is that they all fit my little definition and are all categorically rejected by the secular philosophy you want us to call 'evolution' and 'science'.

Since your such a stickler for definitions, maybe you would like to share your definition for 'science' or maybe 'evolution'.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[SilenceInMotion]

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.

Science is simply human intelligence. It is not some mechanism of the Devil or a contrary to God. No theory invokes God because the point is moot. If you add two to two, it is four, not 'Goddidit'.

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.

As far as I've seen, you have offered nothing except multiple claims that you have done things which you have not- such as what you have just said.

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?

I'm sure ambiguity is a problem to you, since ambiguity requires critical thinking. I'm trying to pull my punches here, but-

well actually, I'm not. It's aggravating debating with a person who refuses to look upon reason.

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.

The same people who swear by a young Earth are the same people who put "faith beat facts" and whatnot on their roadside church signs.
I'm pretty sure God is in Heaven with a major facepalm.

YECism is not a universal Christian doctrine, and theistic evolution is a creation theology. I don't know why you keep laboring under some idea that theistic evolution discounts that God is the Creator. Perhaps you are missing the word 'theistic' which comes before 'evolution'? I don't know, YEC's look at only what they want to see, so I can't really sack that possibility.

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.

Read it; see nothing about interpreting Scripture. Have you read it? I should be the one asking you, because the Creed has nothing to do with this.

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.

God said let their be light on the 1st day, and then the stars are produced and sequenced. This is the product of the Big Bang, and I can reinforce that simply by stating that THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE spawns from a center and forms stars to this day by the same exact mechanism.

You may as well be saying your car runs on magic after I just saw you put gas in the thing.

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.

I don't agree with that, but what do you know- primordial soup- guess what theory posits that? Time and time again, you run smack into science while denying it all the same.

 

[Keachian]

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

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

Ex nihilo nihil fit, "Out of nothing comes nothing".

Creavit Deus ex nihilo

Creation is God acting in time and space to produce something that could not exist apart from an exercise of God's sovereign power in and over the universe.

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

It is an event oriented phenomenon and a distinctive expression of God's perfect will doing what only God can do. It includes but is not limited to the Incarnation and New Birth as creation ex nihilo events.

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.

In the book of Genesis there is not one but three terms used of creation. What you will find is that they all fit my little definition and are all categorically rejected by the secular philosophy you want us to call 'evolution' and 'science'.

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.

Since your such a stickler for definitions, maybe you would like to share your definition for 'science' or maybe 'evolution'.

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

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.

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.

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.

Have a nice day
Mark

You too.

 

[Martyrs44]

There's no indication it's supposed to be literal. That is a bald assertion by you and wherever you heard it from. Just because one gets in education doesn't mean they get to magically change the contexts of ancient writings. One can bet that whatever source you got that claim was from a staunch creationist.

The Church simply told everyone to not take it literal during the time Darwin made evolutionary discoveries, and that was it. No incident, no loss of Christendom. Nothing. There's little point in laboring under a delusion.
And it was fine. And then a century later, YEC's start popping up in the Protestant realm, doing what they do best and being overly fanatical.

They probably took at as literal because they had no idea of anything else. These people thought the Earth was flat for crying out loud. Unless you posit that, then why even use them as a reference?

To you other readers; this individual is so far off the mark (note: the Greek word for sin is 'hamartia' and means 'missing the mark) and his deceptions are glaringly obvious.

Example:he said, "There's no indication it's supposed to be literal". Such a statement is a bald-faced lie: How? Here's how...

"and Enoch also, the seventh from Adam" in Jude 14. It just so happens that Enoch was mentioned in Jesus family tree in Luke 3 where we find 77 names in that lineage. The point here being that unless that lineage is true then it is not legal and Jesus Christ has no right as heir to the throne of David. That was Jewish civil law as based on scripture. That means therefore that the lineage must be real/historical/literal or else the family lineage is null and void.

Secondly; Adam is mentioned in the chronology of Israel in I Chronicles...

1Ch 1:1 ¶ Adam, Sheth, Enosh..." along with Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael, the progenitor of the Arabs. So if one takes the position that Adam, Seth, and Enosh were fictional characters and the deeds they are recorded as doing were not real/historical/literal then the Chronicles are likewise a myth and actually worthless to us.

Thirdly, Noah, Job, and Daniel are all mentioned in the same verses by Ezekiel who was contemporary with Daniel during the captivity in Babylon...another literal/historical event in scripture.

"Though Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but deliver their own souls by their righteousness." Ezekiel 14:20. So how could Daniel be regarded as a historical character who did what is recorded of him and yet Noah was not a real character in history? No way is the TE position correct on this issue.

Furthermore, how can one discern between the literal history of Israel as recorded by the prophets and priests (like Ezekiel) and the narrative of Genesis 1 thru 11? At what point does the storybook/non-literal rendition end and the literal/historical part of the Bible begin. The TE's make arbirtrary, nebulous claims about this but the truth is they don't know.

Silence in Motion said, "The Church simply told everyone to not take it literal during the time Darwin made evolutionary discoveries, and that was it."

Maybe his church but not mine. He pretends that the six-day creation belief is novel and that it is some sort of modern invention by fanatics. Good grief, it's as if he never read Martin Luther, Calvin, Matthew Henry, nor Adam Clarke...all six day creationists and they said so. I will quote each of them if pressed to do so.

But here is a sampling:
Quote: "Of the 24 Church Fathers that I examined, 14 clearly accepted the literal days of Creation; 9 did not mention their thoughts on this subject, and only one held to a clearly figurative belief, which he imbued from the Jewish liberal philosopher, Philo, who had, in turn, been greatly influenced by the pagan Greeks."

These modern TE's have also been influenced by pagans...of the neo-Darwinian variety.

Lactantius, an early church father was just one of many who wrote confirming the literal six-day creation:

"...as is contained in the book of Moses, which he wrote about its creation, and which is called Genesis. God produced that entire mass for the adornment of His majesty in six days…. In the beginning God made the light, and divided it in the exact measure of twelve hours by day and by night….” ECG: Creation and the Church Fathers

There is a lot more for any of you honest minded readers who would like to see it. Send me a PM and just ask and I will be glad to forward you proof that the TE's here are lying about the matter. The belief in six-day creationism was not even in question either in the Bible nor among our first recorded writing of the faithful brethren. Theistic evolution on the other had was not even under consideration.

Silence in Motion said, "They probably took at(sic) as literal because they had no idea of anything else.'

Oh, yes, of course! Moses, Abraham, Joshua, and Isaiah were all ignorant bumpkins and didn't know any better...not being as smart and perceptive as Silence in Motion. I guess the Holy Spirit failed them...and everyone else until that genius Charles Darwin came along to make the matter clear to us all. So God told Darwin what He wouldn't tell Moses, Abraham, Elijah, Joshua, Isaiah, and Jeremiah?

Then Silence in Motion said, "These people thought the Earth was flat for crying out loud."

Let him quote them. Any of them.

Quote: "As early as the 3rd century BC, men knew that the earth was round. This was based on scientific observations made by Eratosthenes. He observed the length of shadow cast in Alexandria (Egypt) and that no shadow was cast near Aswan (Egypt) on the summer solstice. He calculated the size of the earth to within one percent." Source: Where Did the Idea of a Flat Earth Originate?

Quote: "By Aristotle's time, many people believed that the world was round." and..."Aristotle mentions in his writings that some thinkers of his time hold that the Earth is flat, while others believe it to be spherical. He himself argues firmly that the Earth is a sphere. After Aristotle's time, nearly all Western writers claim that the Earth is a sphere."
Source: General Astronomy/The Early Origins of Astronomy - Wikibooks, open books for an open world

The truth is that none of the TE's posting here know what they are talking about on this matter. They have been thoroughly Orwellianized by worthless Darwinian dogma and they cannot be reasoned with in any productive way. They refuse to take God at His Word as it is revealed in the most plain spoken understanding...and yet they take the neo-Darwinian interpretations of science literally...as fact.

 

[mark kennedy]

Science is simply human intelligence. It is not some mechanism of the Devil or a contrary to God. No theory invokes God because the point is moot. If you add two to two, it is four, not 'Goddidit'.

First of Goddidn'tdoit isn't science either. More importantly God is involved in Creation, at the beginning, at the resurrection, when you got saved and at the end of the age when God will do it all again. God is never moot, you can call it science but I regard that attitude as belligerence.

'Science', is a word that simply means 'knowledge'. It actually belongs to a specialized field of philosophy called 'epistemology'. Science, since the rise of the inductive methodology has been focused on natural phenomenon exclusively. You'll get no argument from me on that but that doesn't mean God is moot. It means that scientists are incompetent with regards to God's work in creation just as they are with regards to redemption.

As far as I've seen, you have offered nothing except multiple claims that you have done things which you have not- such as what you have just said.

When I'm being read an indictment I expect the act of ignorance to be included in the charge, or it can be dismissed as rhetoric.

I'm sure ambiguity is a problem to you, since ambiguity requires critical thinking. I'm trying to pull my punches here, but-

Well, you've been throwing some haymakers around but the good news is you keep missing. Ambiguity, is not an expression of conviction it's a dodge when it comes to essential doctrine. Now you can take a number of things as you like, whether or not the 24 hour days of Genesis are 24 hours, whether or not Adam had a navel, whether or not Hovinid is sane. Got no problem with that but creation is a fact with regards to Christian conviction.

I just find it rather odd that Christians want to spend so much time and energy arguing against a foundational Christian conviction. I know why you do it, I just don't know how you think insulting people for believing the Bible as written is productive.

well actually, I'm not. It's aggravating debating with a person who refuses to look upon reason.

See! Another indictment without an offense. I can tell you this, for a theistic evolutionist to preach the Nicene Creed to be would be a cause for celebration for me, not a source of frustration. I don't know what you consider a reasonable response to a point of view that gets agitated when I preach doctrine and discuss it no further.

I have what I consider sound reasons why I do not reject a literal understanding of Genesis. The same reason the I read the Gospels and the Revelation quite literally.

The same people who swear by a young Earth are the same people who put "faith beat facts" and whatnot on their roadside church signs.

The age of the earth is irrelevant, never been an issue and never will be. That roadside sign should read faith transcends facts because that's more the idea. Faith does beat facts, just like a theory trumps a simple fact. Not because it negates the facts but because it unifies them. Faith in God as Creator isn't opposed to fact, it's the living proof of Creation in it's most personal and permanent form. When you heard the Gospel, received the Holy Spirit and rose to walk in a manner worthy of your calling it was a miracle. The same miracle that happened 6,000 years ago at creation and 2,000 years ago at the cross.

Refute that my skeptical friend.

I'm pretty sure God is in Heaven with a major facepalm.

I don't get it but ok...

YECism is not a universal Christian doctrine, and theistic evolution is a creation theology. I don't know why you keep laboring under some idea that theistic evolution discounts that God is the Creator. Perhaps you are missing the word 'theistic' which comes before 'evolution'? I don't know, YEC's look at only what they want to see, so I can't really sack that possibility.

You could argue that they are supporting a preconceived notion, I'll buy that. But you don't seem to appreciate what is being beaten up here. The Creation is transcendent, it happens throughout redemptive history, redemption is the power of creation applied.

God is not absent from YEC, this just plain silly and smells a bit like desperation. I'm a YEC not because of what I wanted to see, it's just one of those things in Biblical Christianity that is unavoidable. I didn't invent the controversy, I just chose to side with Christian doctrine rather then secular skepticism.

Read it; see nothing about interpreting Scripture. Have you read it? I should be the one asking you, because the Creed has nothing to do with this.

Read it? I quoted it twice, pointing out that it's clearly creationism. So Creation has nothing to do with it and God is moot. Wow! you sold me, that is much more 'reasonable' then simply believing the clear testimony of Scripture.

Newsflash brother! You don't get to interpret away things in the Bible away that you don't like. The Nicene Creed is explicit with regards to Creation, it is inextricably linked to essential, foundational doctrine.

God said let their be light on the 1st day, and then the stars are produced and sequenced. This is the product of the Big Bang, and I can reinforce that simply by stating that THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE spawns from a center and forms stars to this day by the same exact mechanism.

You may as well be saying your car runs on magic after I just saw you put gas in the thing.

I honestly have no idea what your point is here or why you buried the statement in formatting brackets. The universe does not 'spawn' from it's center, it was created by God and it's fascinating that you argue so relentlessly against that fact.

I don't agree with that, but what do you know- primordial soup- guess what theory posits that? Time and time again, you run smack into science while denying it all the same.

I'm not denying science because I worship God as Creator. As far as evidence of creation, the clear testimony of Scripture carries a lot more weight with me then you disapproval.

I'm sure you think this has been dramatic but the fact is that your having trouble driving your points home. The reason has nothing to do with science, it's because the philosophy you are defending is fallacious. It's not just me, Darwinism has been getting shot down by science since it's inception.

Now I get some of it, I mean, of course the naturalistic explanation for a phenomenon is preferred. That does not mean God cannot be the cause of life. You might think it's some kind of superstition and in some cases it might be. For me, it's the Gospel plain and simple and oh, BTW, I have never argued against Mendelian genetics. I'm not opposed to science, genetics has been the primary catalyst for my interest in creationism from the beginning.

The 'reason' I don't make the a priori assumption of universal common descent is because 'evolution' (Darwinian evolution) begs the question of cause on it's hands and knees.

While your not listening to the Nicene Creed regarding these matters perhaps you would care to ignore these confessions of faith:

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs. (Hebrews 1:1-4)

This isn't about when or even how creation happened, this about if. Now until theistic evolutionists are making it clear, where they stand, they can expect creationists to be diametrically opposed to a philosophy that is overtly hostile to Creation as an actual event. The ambiguity and incessant criticisms are not symptomatic, they would appear to be the whole point.

Of course Creationists look on this philosophy with suspicion, especially given that theistic evolutionists do little more then insult them for a conviction that is foundational to their faith.

Have a nice day,
Mark

 

[metherion]

You see, this is why making up your own definitions is a terrible idea.

So, question: Do we also have Darwinian astrophysics? What about Darwinian biochemistry? Or is it just Darwinian evolution? If “Darwinian evolution” deals with a priori assumptions, how on earth can it be compared to and contrasted with Lamarckian evolution?

Since, you know, Darwinian already had a perfectly acceptable and widespread definition, namely ‘Having to do with Darwin’ before you come along with your own definition. I am reminded of an excerpt from Through the Looking Glass:

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

As you define ‘creation’,

Creation is God acting in time and space to produce something that could not exist apart from an exercise of God's sovereign power in and over the universe. It is an event oriented phenomenon and a distinctive expression of God's perfect will doing what only God can do. It includes but is not limited to the Incarnation and New Birth as creation ex nihilo events.

You mention nothing about it being done exactly according to the literal words of Genesis, nor do you disqualify God creating the universe which could then undergo things like The Big Bang and abiogenesis as not being part of creation. Yet, you keep referring ‘creation’ as disqualifying God creating the universe in any other way. I believe God made the heavens and the earth from nothing. I believe He did so by creating time and space as we know it, creating all the natural laws just so things would turn out as He wished them to, making the Big Bang, and so on. I believe He did so in a way consistent with what all the physical evidence discovered about the universe shows. God creating time, space, all the laws of nature, and the Big Bang from nothing does not violate your definition, yet you claim all who do not believe as you do to be vehemently opposed to creation to the point of (post #79)

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

You also say in post #85

Now until theistic evolutionists are making it clear, where they stand, they can expect creationists to be diametrically opposed to a philosophy that is overtly hostile to Creation as an actual event.

Back in post #76, you said

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.

I believe God created the heavens and the earth. I believe He did so by creating time and space as we know it, creating all the natural laws just so things would turn out as He wished them to, making the Big Bang, and so on. God creating time, space, all the laws of nature, and the Big Bang from nothing does not violate your definition, yet you claim all who do not believe as you do to be vehemently opposed to creation to the point of (post #79)

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

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.

Yet, here you are saying all TEs reject the Nicene Creed because you, Mark Kennedy, say ‘create’ and all words that use ‘create’ as a base have to mean one specific thing, and you can tell who is and who is not a Christian on earth based on your absolute knowledge of this one thing. I’m sorry, I must have missed the part where instead of standing before God on judgement day, I stand before Mark Kennedy and his dictionary on earth. I refuse to believe God will cast me out because I disagree with Mark Kennedy’s definitions about how God did certain things. I refuse to accept or believe that your own personal determination of what you think ‘creation’ ought to mean defines whether or not I am a Christian, or whether or not I believe the Nicene Creed, and whether or not I should post in this subsection of the forum. I refuse to believe you are so infallibly correct on this idea that it is a reliable barometer on whether or not God will grant saving grace to a person. I reject your prideful assertion that you know the state of my faith, the state of my relationship with God, and your claim that whether or not I even have a relationship with God is based on AGREEING WITH YOU. And I find it HIGHLY DISTURBING that you think it is acceptable to claim that.

Go ahead and find me any reference to ex nihilio in this:

Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae,visibilium omnium et invisibilium.
Et in unum Dominum Iesum Christum, Filium Dei unigenitum, et ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula. Deum de Deo, Lumen de Lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero, genitum non factum, consubstantialem Patri; per quem omnia facta sunt.
Qui propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem descendit de caelis. Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine, et homo factus est.
Crucifixus etiam pro nobis sub Pontio Pilato, passus et sepultus est, et resurrexit tertia die, secundum Scripturas, et ascendit in caelum, sedet ad dexteram Patris.
Et iterum venturus est cum gloria, iudicare vivos et mortuos, cuius regni non erit finis.
Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui ex Patre Filioque procedit.
Qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur: qui locutus est per prophetas.
Et unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam.
Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum. Et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum, et vitam venturi saeculi. Amen.

I say God created. I say God is Creator. I say it didn’t happen according to the definition of creation you keep trying to thrust upon everyone here. I say that your definition of ‘creation’ can go to the Hell you are so happy to cast us TEs into by branding us non-believers because of it, and there it can burn, instead of us.

No, that’s not an overreaction. That is exactly what you said and that is exactly what you have done: claimed a very large portion of past, present, and future Christendom is there falsely and will spend eternity in the fiery pit simply because they don’t agree with you, personally, and your personal opinion about the method and timetable of creation. Heck, why should God come back to judge the living and the dead, you’ve already done it!

By the way, if the testimony of Scripture were so ‘clear’, then wouldn’t the testimony of the universe God created go along with it? I brought this up last time when I talked about the Roman Catholic Church and the miracles at Lourdes. Science could not say ‘God made the world as it was 6000 years ago, plus or minus a little bit’. Science could say ‘the world came into existence only 6000 years ago, and no known natural process can explain it... BUT WE ARE STILL LOOKING YOU GUYS.’

If it were so ‘clear’, why is this whole discussion still going on?

In addition, you’ll have to forgive me for not seeing all of your conditions or specific definitions in either
Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText
or
Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText
The two sections of the Catechism of the Catholic Church dealing with both ‘Creator’ and ‘of Heaven and Earth’.

You might also want to look at Catechism 390:

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265

I was excited that you had come back, I had thought maybe we could continue to have something closer to constructive dialogue. I actually had a whole bunch of stuff typed up here, when I came across post #79, and I did a double take. And then I deleted it all and wrote this, because it’s no longer worth talking about.

Your words speak for themselves:

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.

When you head into the entire discussion this time saying ‘If you don’t agree with me personally about how and when the earth and humanity were made, you aren’t believing in the Nicene Creed and aren’t a Christian. You probably shouldn’t even be posting in this Christians-only section. Now just learn how to deal with that and once you’re done agreeing with me or coping with your future damnation, come discuss just how wrong you are/were with me’ six posts in, it’s not worth it at all. There’s nothing to be gained from this.

And I BET, I just BET, that I’m going to wind up with a whole lot more reports for ‘personal attacks’, or be met with cries of AD HOMINEM, or something that you are going to get for your single-handed declaration that everyone who doesn’t subscribe to your specifically defined form of creationism is not a Christian. But, then again, why should the fact that you have already attempted to damn my eternal soul matter? After all, Mark has just labelled me as one of the nameless voices wailing and gnashing my teeth. But, you know, as long as you’re certain you get to decide that this issue is worthy of damnation, and you get to be the one who decides who goes to Hell it must all be alright.



Metherion

 

[mark kennedy]

You see, this is why making up your own definitions is a terrible idea.

With evolution it's essential.

So, question: Do we also have Darwinian astrophysics? What about Darwinian biochemistry? Or is it just Darwinian evolution? If “Darwinian evolution” deals with a priori assumptions, how on earth can it be compared to and contrasted with Lamarckian evolution?

You do know that this has nothing to do with astrophysics or biochemistry right? This is about naturalistic assumptions and I think you realize that by now.

Since, you know, Darwinian already had a perfectly acceptable and widespread definition, namely ‘Having to do with Darwin’ before you come along with your own definition. I am reminded of an excerpt from Through the Looking Glass:

It usually takes you a couple of posts to get warmed up but I'll wait, it's usually worth it.

As you define ‘creation’,

You mention nothing about it being done exactly according to the literal words of Genesis, nor do you disqualify God creating the universe which could then undergo things like The Big Bang and abiogenesis as not being part of creation.

For a guy who is obviously meticulous you get strangely random when discussing origins. Neither the Big Bang nor abiogenesis have anything to do with evolution. But, since you brought it up abiogenesis cuts God out of even the most distant involvement in life emerging on this planet. The Big Bang happened in a burst as far as I can tell, just as Genesis 1 states in the opening verse.

Yet, you keep referring ‘creation’ as disqualifying God creating the universe in any other way. I believe God made the heavens and the earth from nothing. I believe He did so by creating time and space as we know it, creating all the natural laws just so things would turn out as He wished them to, making the Big Bang, and so on. I believe He did so in a way consistent with what all the physical evidence discovered about the universe shows. God creating time, space, all the laws of nature, and the Big Bang from nothing does not violate your definition, yet you claim all who do not believe as you do to be vehemently opposed to creation to the point of (post #79)

You are vehemently opposed to creationism, vehemently opposing creationism is all Theistic Evolutionists do on here. What puzzles me is how Christians prosecute fellow believers while agreeing in concert with academics who despise theistic reason in all it's forms.

I like to remind professing Christians that they must be Creationists. I like to point out that the animosity toward Creationism is not a Christian activity, it's an attack on a faith you have invested you hope of eternal life in.

Why can't you just admit it, you must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian? Why is it all theistic evolutionists want to talk about is how wrong Creationists are?

I don't need a definition for creation, it's a self evident fact that gives light to everyone who comes into the world. Darwinism isn't a problem either, Charles Darwin defined it in the Preface of On the Origin of Species.

How do you think Charles Darwin defined Darwinism, decades before it was called the Modern Synthesis?

I believe God created the heavens and the earth. I believe He did so by creating time and space as we know it, creating all the natural laws just so things would turn out as He wished them to, making the Big Bang, and so on. God creating time, space, all the laws of nature, and the Big Bang from nothing does not violate your definition, yet you claim all who do not believe as you do to be vehemently opposed to creation to the point of (post #79)

So if you believe in Creationism why do you spend so much time trashing it?

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.

I have done nothing of the sort, I have reminded you that you don't get to re-interpret anything that embarrasses you academically. All I really did was quote the Nicene Creed, I never told you what you should believe. I told you what all Christians believe and always have. Not one substantive argument to the contrary and an immediate abandonment to ad hominem fallacy tells me my point hit home.

Yet, here you are saying all TEs reject the Nicene Creed because you, Mark Kennedy, say ‘create’ and all words that use ‘create’ as a base have to mean one specific thing, and you can tell who is and who is not a Christian on earth based on your absolute knowledge of this one thing. I’m sorry, I must have missed the part where instead of standing before God on judgement day, I stand before Mark Kennedy and his dictionary on earth. I refuse to believe God will cast me out because I disagree with Mark Kennedy’s definitions about how God did certain things. I refuse to accept or believe that your own personal determination of what you think ‘creation’ ought to mean defines whether or not I am a Christian, or whether or not I believe the Nicene Creed, and whether or not I should post in this subsection of the forum. I refuse to believe you are so infallibly correct on this idea that it is a reliable barometer on whether or not God will grant saving grace to a person. I reject your prideful assertion that you know the state of my faith, the state of my relationship with God, and your claim that whether or not I even have a relationship with God is based on AGREEING WITH YOU. And I find it HIGHLY DISTURBING that you think it is acceptable to claim that.

I have three words for that, Ad hominem fallacy and everyone of you do it. I find it HIGHLY DISTURBING that theistic evolutionists think it acceptable to continually attack the foundational belief of the Christian faith. There is a reason the first verse of the Bible and the first three stanzas of the Nicene Creed start off with Creation.

It's called Christian Apologetics, of course I think it's acceptable to take a stand of the faith I defend. What is puzzling is that professing Christians could spend so much time on here trying to convince people that Creationism is foolish when it's not only essential doctrine, it's essential Christian theism.

I say God created. I say God is Creator. I say it didn’t happen according to the definition of creation you keep trying to thrust upon everyone here. I say that your definition of ‘creation’ can go to the Hell you are so happy to cast us TEs into by branding us non-believers because of it, and there it can burn, instead of us.

I never said you were an unbeliever, I said you must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian. Now, instead of agreeing with one another on that point of doctrine you just keep leveling these personal indictments. The thing is, when you admit that you believe in creation you have a real hard time justifying a scathing indictment against someone for simply believing the clear teaching of Scripture and the confessions of the Nicene Creed.

No, that’s not an overreaction. That is exactly what you said and that is exactly what you have done: claimed a very large portion of past, present, and future Christendom is there falsely and will spend eternity in the fiery pit simply because they don’t agree with you, personally, and your personal opinion about the method and timetable of creation. Heck, why should God come back to judge the living and the dead, you’ve already done it!

I affirmed two essential doctrines, creation and final judgment. I'm am barred by conviction to so much as ask the question of whether or not your going to heaven or hell. Not even in my heart. I don't know who you think your talking to but I am nothing like that strawman you are beating the stuffings out of.

By the way, if the testimony of Scripture were so ‘clear’, then wouldn’t the testimony of the universe God created go along with it? I brought this up last time when I talked about the Roman Catholic Church and the miracles at Lourdes. Science could not say ‘God made the world as it was 6000 years ago, plus or minus a little bit’. Science could say ‘the world came into existence only 6000 years ago, and no known natural process can explain it... BUT WE ARE STILL LOOKING YOU GUYS.’

It says that God created the heavens and earth, not when. Creation week started some time subsequent, perhaps even billions of years later. There is nothing in the text saying the planet was created 6,000 years ago. You keep bringing up issues I have never given a second thought. Now honestly, I'm a young earth creationist by default and these scathing attacks are not persuasive, they betray a lack of confidence. It actually fascinates me that you guys immediately start grasping at fallacious straws and have no patience or the slightest interest in Origins Theology as a doctrinal issue.

If it were so ‘clear’, why is this whole discussion still going on?

Because Creationism is still a foundational Christian belief. You can dismiss Creationism as psuedo-science but you'll never be able to stand against it doctrinally, there is far too much Christian scholarship affirming that Creationism is essential Christian theism.

I was excited that you had come back, I had thought maybe we could continue to have something closer to constructive dialogue. I actually had a whole bunch of stuff typed up here, when I came across post #79, and I did a double take. And then I deleted it all and wrote this, because it’s no longer worth talking about.

That's disappointing.

Your words speak for themselves:

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.

Indeed they do. What I would expect is a simple dismissal, it would require no great energy or effort. Just simply say, 'Of course I'm a Creationist in the sense of the Nicene Creed and Genesis 1', that's all I would have to do.

Creationism is a Christian doctrine, theistic evolution is opposed to Creationism but theistic evolutionists insist they are not opposed to Christian doctrine. When you do that as consistently has you guys do I think you should expect someone to insist you qualify your beliefs. I know for someone to challenge me on something so basic would a pleasure, not a source of frustration.

When you head into the entire discussion this time saying ‘If you don’t agree with me personally about how and when the earth and humanity were made, you aren’t believing in the Nicene Creed and aren’t a Christian. You probably shouldn’t even be posting in this Christians-only section. Now just learn how to deal with that and once you’re done agreeing with me or coping with your future damnation, come discuss just how wrong you are/were with me’ six posts in, it’s not worth it at all. There’s nothing to be gained from this.

You must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian, you've already admitted that you are, so whats the problem?

And I BET, I just BET, that I’m going to wind up with a whole lot more reports for ‘personal attacks’, or be met with cries of AD HOMINEM,

Wow! How did you know I was going to shoot holes in your fallacies. You know, if you didn't make it so easy I would stop doing it.

or something that you are going to get for your single-handed declaration that everyone who doesn’t subscribe to your specifically defined form of creationism is not a Christian.

My particular form of creationism is Genesis 1 and the Nicene Creed. I have said nothing else. I decide what a Christian profession is based on the Gospel and the clear testimony of Scripture. Not on how old the earth may or may not be.

But, then again, why should the fact that you have already attempted to damn my eternal soul matter?

I did nothing of the sort, I know you have a flare for the dramatic, you all do but seriously...

You must be a Creationist in order to be Christian. I never attempted to send you to perdition, I would be insulted if I could take that statement seriously.

After all, Mark has just labelled me as one of the nameless voices wailing and gnashing my teeth. But, you know, as long as you’re certain you get to decide that this issue is worthy of damnation, and you get to be the one who decides who goes to Hell it must all be alright.



Metherion

I know who your talking about when you say 'Mark' even though I never said any such thing about you. What I don't know is who you think you are talking to when you trail off into one of these monologues.

But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: "DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, 'WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN?' (that is, to bring Christ down), (Romans 10:6)​

I have trusted Christ for my salvation as well as yours, the one who makes the promise is faithful, that's all I need to know. I do not so much as ask the question, let alone pretend to decide who goes on to perdition, I have no way of knowing your secret motives. I would never pretend to tell you your going to heaven, it's meaningless anyway unless you hear it from the Holy Spirit. What I have said is that unless you believe in Creationism as defined doctrinally you cannot be a Christian. I just don't understand why your reaction isn't, yea so?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Martyrs44]

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.

It most certainly is! The evidence is not only world-wide it is overwhelming. The cataclysmic conditions of the Noahic deluge is really the only answer to the billions of fossils found by geologists and the trillions still yet unearthed.

There are many such fossils beds where thousands of animals of all types (some now extinct) seemingly migrated to the same high elevation in different places all over the earth and were killed together at the same time. Did all those organisms just arbitrarily decide to migrate to the same locations and die at the same time............OR.........were they animals that were seeking higher ground to get away from rising flood waters and were subsequently crushed/fossilized instantly by falling volcanic ash? Genesis 7 gives us good reason to believe the latter since the former makes no sense.

Also, how about this:

A couple of dinosaurs that were instantly fossilized in the act of mortal combat as they were discovered in the middle of the Gobi desert. One thing for certain: it was a great catclysm that caused this for they certainly did not stand there for millions of years waiting to be covered over inch-by-inch as per the slow and gradual 'evolutionary' process.

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

The point was and is: that work week is not a six thousand, six million, nor a six billion year week. Nor was the Sabbath day a seven thousand year, seven million year, nor a seven billion year Sabbath.

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.

God did it the way He said He did it.

The seven day week we were given is as old as written human history. You cannot escape that fact. Here's why:

Quote: "The origin of the seven-day week is the religious significance that was placed on the seventh day by ancient cultures, including the Babylonian and Jewish civilizations. Jews celebrated every seventh day, within a continuous cycle of seven-day weeks, as a holy day of rest from their work, in remembrance of the creation week. Similarly, the Babylonians celebrated the seventh day of each seven-day week as a holy day, but adjusted the number of days of the final week in their month so that their monthly calendar would always commence on the new moon. This may further be reflected in the contemporary and traditional Zoroastrian calendars that relates to the first, seventh and so on days of the month as pertaining to Ahura Mazda (God).[citation needed] Historically, a number of other cultural groups, such as Christians and Muslims, have continued to regularly hold religious events on a specific day within each seven-day week." (from Wikipedia)

So the literal seven day week was observed and utilized by even the most ancient of pagans.

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.

I gave you the history of the beliefs of our forefathers and you diss the matter without a reason.

Forget Philo. Where were the theistic evolutionists in the 1st of 2nd century? Search in vain, friend. You will be hard-pressed to find one because the faithful believers all accepted the literal six-day creation account by Moses in Genesis.

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.

Then why take Jesus literally on anything? Why believe He performed miracles, healed the sick, or even raised the dead? Since you and those like you arbitrarily changed the history of Genesis as a 'storybook tale' (i.e. like Aesops Fables?) then why believe anything that Jesus did and said was literal? The fact is that Jesus told us that the Genesis account was real and literal (Mark 10:6, for example), and so did every single writer of the N.T. who mentioned Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, & Noah. Not one of them regarded the account of those people and their deeds as ANYTHING LESS THAN HISTORICAL than what Moses did, or Joshua, or Elisha, or Jonah.

But because neo-Darwinian thought has poisoned your mind about the matter for you don't believe ANY of the N.T. writers about the literal/historical nature of Genesis concerning the six-day creation.

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.

But you lie to them when you ignore(?) dismiss(?) or explain away(?) the accuracy of the ages and/or time frames that are given by Genesis. How tragic.

So I ask you; was Adam's father an ape? What was the cause of death in the world before Adam's fall in sin? Name it.

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, there isn't. You just swallowed the lie.

This chart represents the accelerated decay rates of the zircons found in rocks revealing that helium decay at a far faster rate than the uranium contents and gave us the stunning age of approx. 6,000 yrs. The fact that there is still C14 found in coal from all over the world makes that claim that much more substantive. At present known rates of C14 decay there shouldn't be any. The problem is that you and those of your persuasion are listening to the wrong voices...voices that are critical of scripture and the time frame God has clearly given us.

No one said the scriptural timeframe is wrng.

Stop. Your whole position is that the evidence from nature gives us a far different frame of reference as to the age of the earth than do the chronologies of scripture add up to. So don't give me that nonsense.

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).

My understanding? The time frame of scripture is objective....do you know what that means?

Use any calculator to ascertain the time frame as given in the ages found in Genesis and any other chronology and see if one is justified in believing that God's Word allows for much more than a 6,000 yr time frame. Bishop Ussher was closer to the truth than are modern neo-Darwinians. He will get the last laugh.

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

Both. Spiritual death is the cause of physical death...but it was spiritual death first.

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.)

No one said it is. But what it says touching on science or history is accurate and we can trust it because it came from God Himself. Darwinism did not.

Nobody claims this. We are all transitional forms.

No, we are created in the image of God and we did not evolve from any lower form of life. Since you differ then offer genetic evidence that 48 chromosome apes can genetically be crossed with 46 chromosome human beings. Name the common ancestor and then demonstrate biologically that such a change took place. Actually, humans share the same number of chromosomes with tobacco. We are we not therefore twin brothers with tobacco rather than a common ancestor with apes?

You quoted me saying: "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?"

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

You are the one deceived...by believing the interpretations of the geologic time frame as taught by skeptics who have no respect for God's Word. I gave you evidence from above that reveals the approx. 6,000 yr time frame of creation. There is much more but you choose not to believe it.

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.

Really? Where is your historical evidence for that? The fact is I gave you good evidence that our early Christian forefathers believed exactly what Moses told us in Genesis and you dismissed it as if it means nothing.

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?

The litmus test is what God says about it. I am sorry you have chosen to believe the theistic evolution lie. I once held that position myself but I came to realize with a careful reading of scripture and weighing all the facts that TE was worthless as a science and unbiblical in it's tenents.

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

What you have rejected is what the Word of the Lord says about His creation as far as the time frame that it allows...by any honest calculation.

When Ken Ham said that I had to use my YEC glasses to force things to fit the position.

Ken Ham was right and you were wrong. He had good reasons for what he said and I am with him all the way on this matter. There really isn't any excuse to compromise what is clearly written in scripture with any sort of worldly philosophy.

Until Ham I was YEC.

You should have stayed that way.

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.

Then toss out anything you concluded as it compromises with evolution or long time frames because that is contrary to both biblical and scientific truth. you will know that when we are come before the judgment seat of Christ.

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?

The fact that you would compare those two men in the same breath tells us that you don't know what it going on in the creationist world. I am a retired H.S. science teacher with 26 yrs experience & I taught general science, including biology, astronomy, & physics.

TE is not heresy.

Oh, yes it is and God is not pleased with it. Furthermore, He is going to erase Darwinism from the earth during the millenial kingdom. In fact, at best, it will be the laughing stock of the whole world.

 

[metherion]

So if you believe in Creationism why do you spend so much time trashing it?

No, you see, according to you I DON”T believe in creationism. You see, you specifically said if I don’t agree with you about creationism I am not a Christian.

Post #79:

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

At the top of the page, in post 81, you stated (with regards to theistic evolution to which I hold)

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

You also said in post # 76:

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.

You see, Mark, you specifically say that it is impossible for God to have created using naturally occurring secondary causes like abiogenesis and evolution INSTEAD OF “Moses clearly says God ‘created’”. So, you have specifically said that

I believe He did so by creating time and space as we know it, creating all the natural laws just so things would turn out as He wished them to, making the Big Bang, and so on. I believe He did so in a way consistent with what all the physical evidence discovered about the universe shows.

is impossible for the God of Scripture. Which mean I disagree with you about Creationism, because I believe it happened in a way you have explicitly deemed impossible. Which means you have decided I don’t follow the Nicene Creed, you have decided I am not a creationist (according to whichever definition), you have declared me a non-Christian, which means I am a non believer. It can't hurt that I hold a view "antithetical to creationism".

After all if I tried to say

Just simply say, 'Of course I'm a Creationist in the sense of the Nicene Creed and Genesis 1', that's all I would have to do.

then you would just point out ‘Nope, you’ve already said you think it happened in a way I have explicitly said is clearly contradicted by what Moses wrote, so you’re not because you don’t agree with me. Also, you hold a view antithetical to creationism, so you still actually don't believe it, and you are a liar’.

After all, when you say

My particular form of creationism is Genesis 1 and the Nicene Creed. I have said nothing else

you are telling an outright untruth, because of what you said in post 76 explicitly forbidding natural secondary causes for the creation of heavens, earth, and life.

I never attempted to send you to perdition, I would be insulted if I could take that statement seriously.

Hm. You see, if you specifically have stated in post 76 that how I believe God created it something you find impossible to be creationism, and if I don’t agree with you on creationism I am not a Christian, and are using that to attempt to strip my Christianity from me, what else am I supposed to believe you are doing?

You have explicitly rejected how I said God created as a valid way of believing God is Creator, which labels me not just a non-Christian non-believer, but an ACTIVE DENIER.

And remember, being reborn is the same miracle as creation, right? So not only am I an active denier of God as Creator, and an active denier of the Nicene Creed, according to you I am also an active denier of being born again, as the Bible says we must be.

And since being born again is necessary for salvation, and I actively deny the ability to be born again, because (according to you) I actively deny creation, I actively deny Jesus as Savior.

Since I typed that of my free will, on a public internet forum, and explicitly typed out what I meant, I should be glad I'm not a Methodist, because according to John Wesley I just did the unforgivable blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. All because I don't agree with you about creation. (that the penalty of eternal separation from God with no hope of return applies in scripture only in two cases—either, as in Hebrews 6 and 10, to persons who willfully, publically and explicitly reject Jesus as Savior after having confessed him, or, as in the gospels, to those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit by declaring that the works of Jesus were the works of the Evil one. source )

And, since I'm a Roman Catholic, I am now suffering from impenitence, the specific purpose of not repenting of a sin (the sin of blasphemy, which I have committed by denying God's ability to make people born again), which is (according to St. Thomas Aquinas) one of the 6 ways of committing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. And since I believe what I believe, I will STAY blaspheming against the Holy Spirit until I both change my mind about it AND go to confession. If I just go to confession without changing what I believe to what you believe, I only make the sin worse.

THAT is why my reaction isn’t... “Yeah, so?” Although I fully expect some sort of backpedalling from that slope you just pushed me down.

And that is why I said there is no more point in continuing with what I was originally going to discuss.

Metherion

 

[super animator]

you will know that when we are come before the judgment seat of Christ.

Oh, yes it is and God is not pleased with it. Furthermore, He is going to erase Darwinism from the earth during the millenial kingdom.

Can you be civilized about this and not resort to threats and appeal to punishments? Is that hard to ask?

 

[Martyrs44]

Can you be civilized about this and not resort to threats and appeal to punishments? Is that hard to ask?

Can you be honest for a change and admit you have no scriptural nor scientific argument in your position on theistic evolution?

THAT........is the question at hand here.

Review the biblical and scientific statements I made above along with that of my creationist brethren who hold a similar position. Only dishonesty would diss the facts as they were clearly given.

P.S. I am an ex-theistic evolutionist. I will never return to the lies that are inherent in that belief system.

 

[super animator]

THAT........is the question at hand here.

Review the biblical and scientific statements I made above along with that of my creationist brethren who hold a similar position. Only dishonesty would diss the facts as they were clearly given.

P.S. I am an ex-theistic evolutionist. I will never return to the lies that are inherent in that belief system.

So I'm going to take that as a no then.
P.S. I am an ex-YEC.

 

[Martyrs44]

So I'm going to take that as a no then.
P.S. I am an ex-YEC.

It doesn't matter how you take it.

"I am an ex-YEC" Translate: "I no longer believe what the Creator says about His own creation."

Give a single verse of scripture that even hints that God used evolution rather than in the six days Moses told us about. Ex. 20:11.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, you see, according to you I DON”T believe in creationism. You see, you specifically said if I don’t agree with you about creationism I am not a Christian.

Not with me personally, with the Nicene Creed and the explicit testimony of Scripture. You must be a Creationist or your not a Christian, just as you must be a Trinitarian. What is interesting about you complaint is that you don't argue anything to the contrary you just immediately make it about me rather then doctrine. That's a dodge.

Post #79:

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

That's right, the Nicene Creed is a standard, I think you know that.

At the top of the page, in post 81, you stated (with regards to theistic evolution to which I hold)

You also said in post # 76:

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 truth is that the naturalistic assumptions that span all history are completely contrary to Christian theism. As a point of doctrine, creationism tops the Nicene Creed for a reason, certain things about God have to be understood or the Gospel will never make any sense to you.

We profess a profoundly supernatural faith. There is no way of reducing our doctrine to naturalistic phenomenon whether is the original creation or the incarnation of Christ. The language of Genesis one is absolutely explicit with regards to the Creation being an event oriented historical narrative and the Creation being God acting in time and space doing what nothing in the natural world ever could.

You see, Mark, you specifically say that it is impossible for God to have created using naturally occurring secondary causes like abiogenesis and evolution INSTEAD OF “Moses clearly says God ‘created’”. So, you have specifically said that

Specifically and repeatedly which is consistent with Christian theology and sound doctrine. Not sure what you are complaining about here.

is impossible for the God of Scripture. Which mean I disagree with you about Creationism, because I believe it happened in a way you have explicitly deemed impossible. Which means you have decided I don’t follow the Nicene Creed, you have decided I am not a creationist (according to whichever definition), you have declared me a non-Christian, which means I am a non believer. It can't hurt that I hold a view "antithetical to creationism".

You don't get to redefine the Nicene Creed by substituting abiogenesis for creation, it doesn't work that way. Creation in Genesis is described in absolute terms, not subject to the rationalization of someone who has a hard time believing it.

Abiogenesis isn't even a part of evolution, it's pure, undiluted speculation. You are free to believe anything you like but you can't make creation in the Nicene Creed sense synonymous with abiogenesis, it's completely and utterly absurd. Miracles are not negotiable here, the Creation of Genesis and the Nicene Creed are emphatic, at a minimum you must believe in the Creation and Incarnation. There is no naturalistic explanation that can be substituted for either and I still don't have a clue what you are complaining about.

then you would just point out ‘Nope, you’ve already said you think it happened in a way I have explicitly said is clearly contradicted by what Moses wrote, so you’re not because you don’t agree with me. Also, you hold a view antithetical to creationism, so you still actually don't believe it, and you are a liar’.

Abiogenesis is antithetical to Creationism, that much is clear. Don't know what you think I'm lying about but you can't reduce creation to naturalistic explanations and believe the foundational Christian doctrines of the Nicene Creed. I didn't make them antithetical, it's just an obvious fact.

After all, when you say

My particular form of creationism is Genesis 1 and the Nicene Creed. I have said nothing else

you are telling an outright untruth, because of what you said in post 76 explicitly forbidding natural secondary causes for the creation of heavens, earth, and life.

No, you are resorting to this fallacious line of reasoning early and often. You must make this a personal indictment which is the Achilles heal of evolution. All you ever had to say is that TOE is perfectly consistent with Christian theology and affirm the power of God being exercised in Creation and in your life as a believer. Instead you want to complain that creation can't be reduced to exclusively naturalistic causes making as many scathing remarks as you can muster.

You need not quote me, what I have been saying since I started posting to the thread will be repeated every time the subject comes up. You must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian and Creation is by it's very definition supernatural, utterly antithetical to the Darwinian naturalistic assumptions of universal common descent.

What is most telling here is that not only are you not offering a substantive retort you have resorted to fallacious reasoning as your main argument. It's not because you are ignorant or uneducated. The problem is that you put too much weight on Darwinian logic, it creaked, snapped and dumped you on the cold hard ground. That's not my fault, Darwinism has been doing that to people since Darwin.

Hm. You see, if you specifically have stated in post 76 that how I believe God created it something you find impossible to be creationism, and if I don’t agree with you on creationism I am not a Christian, and are using that to attempt to strip my Christianity from me, what else am I supposed to believe you are doing?

I'm not trying to strip you of your faith, I'm reminding you of it. You must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian. I didn't set that standard, John, Hebrews, Genesis and the Nicene Creed did,

You have explicitly rejected how I said God created as a valid way of believing God is Creator, which labels me not just a non-Christian non-believer, but an ACTIVE DENIER.

I said you must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian, just as the Scriptures and Christian doctrine has determined throughout the centuries. I never once pointed a finger at you as said you were not a Christian. I simply said that if you are then your a Creationist, you made no substantive argument to the contrary because you can't.

And remember, being reborn is the same miracle as creation, right? So not only am I an active denier of God as Creator, and an active denier of the Nicene Creed, according to you I am also an active denier of being born again, as the Bible says we must be.

You must be born again, I didn't say the Jesus Christ did. the New Birth is a new creation, nothing in the New Testament is ambiguous are complicated on this. Again, you complain that I said it and make no substantive argument to the contrary. Not because you wouldn't love to but because there is none.

And since being born again is necessary for salvation, and I actively deny the ability to be born again, because (according to you) I actively deny creation, I actively deny Jesus as Savior.

I said you must be a creationist in order to be a Christian and you do. I said that being born again is the same thing as original creation because it is. What you personally believe is between you and the God who made you, I'm telling you what the doctrine of the church regarding the creation always has been and always will be. What that means to you on a personal level is your personal business.

Since I typed that of my free will, on a public internet forum, and explicitly typed out what I meant, I should be glad I'm not a Methodist, because according to John Wesley I just did the unforgivable blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. All because I don't agree with you about creation. (that the penalty of eternal separation from God with no hope of return applies in scripture only in two cases—either, as in Hebrews 6 and 10, to persons who willfully, publically and explicitly reject Jesus as Savior after having confessed him, or, as in the gospels, to those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit by declaring that the works of Jesus were the works of the Evil one. source )

I have no idea what your driving at here and I'm not sure you do either.

And, since I'm a Roman Catholic, I am now suffering from impenitence, the specific purpose of not repenting of a sin (the sin of blasphemy, which I have committed by denying God's ability to make people born again), which is (according to St. Thomas Aquinas) one of the 6 ways of committing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. And since I believe what I believe, I will STAY blaspheming against the Holy Spirit until I both change my mind about it AND go to confession. If I just go to confession without changing what I believe to what you believe, I only make the sin worse.

If you a Catholic then you must believe in Creation and the Nicene Creed. You must believe that Adam and Eve are the first parents of humanity and the origin of sin in the human condition. I didn't write RCC dogma but it's explicitly clear on these points of doctrine and no Catholic theologian would dare deny it.

THAT is why my reaction isn’t... “Yeah, so?” Although I fully expect some sort of backpedalling from that slope you just pushed me down.

I actually think you reaction should be to reconcile the Nicene Creed and TOE. I know if I were convinced of the entirety of natural history being exclusively naturalistic I could with minimal effort. It would require two things, one you embrace the supernatural dimension of creation and faith without reservation. Two you would have to synthesis Moses and Darwin which is not as hard as you are making it.

After that you can just say 'yea so' without any problems what so ever.

And that is why I said there is no more point in continuing with what I was originally going to discuss.

Metherion

Ok, thanks for the exchange.

 

[Metal Minister]

It doesn't matter how you take it.

"I am an ex-YEC" Translate: "I no longer believe what the Creator says about His own creation."

Give a single verse of scripture that even hints that God used evolution rather than in the six days Moses told us about. Ex. 20:11.

I smell 2Peter 3:8 coming!

 

[Martyrs44]

I smell 2Peter 3:8 coming!

Amen. Come quickly, Lord Jesus!

 

[Martyrs44]

My brother Mark Kennedy says: "You must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian."

I agree with him with but this exception: I was a theistic evolutionist as a young man...until, that is, God showed me the light by a careful study of scripture. Once the bottom line of Genesis was made plain then TE was eliminated from my thinking. I assume that there have been many others like I was and I always look for them.

By the way, Mark: good job.

 

[super animator]

It doesn't matter how you take it.

"I am an ex-YEC" Translate: "I no longer believe what the Creator says about His own creation."

Lovely strawman you got there.

Give a single verse of scripture that even hints that God used evolution rather than in the six days Moses told us about. Ex. 20:11.

The bible is not a science-text book.

 

[Martyrs44]

super animator; "Lovely strawman you got there".

Actually quite accurate.

The bible is not a science-text book.

I already answered this above but like your brethren in unbelief you don't take heed to details you don't like.

 

[metherion]

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.

All you ever had to say is that TOE is perfectly consistent with Christian theology and affirm the power of God being exercised in Creation and in your life as a believer. Instead you want to complain that creation can't be reduced to exclusively naturalistic causes making as many scathing remarks as you can muster.
...
Two you would have to synthesis Moses and Darwin which is not as hard as you are making it.

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.

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.

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.

I'm not trying to strip you of your faith, I'm reminding you of it. You must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian. I didn't set that standard, John, Hebrews, Genesis and the Nicene Creed did,

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.

I said you must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian, just as the Scriptures and Christian doctrine has determined throughout the centuries. I never once pointed a finger at you as said you were not a Christian. I simply said that if you are then your a Creationist, you made no substantive argument to the contrary because you can't.

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.

Then, of course, there is:

the Creation of Genesis and the Nicene Creed are emphatic,

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

And always, there is the final saying of

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

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.

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.

And by the way, I never tried to

redefine the Nicene Creed by substituting abiogenesis for creation

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

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

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

You go off on a tangent here

You must be born again, I didn't say the Jesus Christ did. the New Birth is a new creation, nothing in the New Testament is ambiguous are complicated on this. Again, you complain that I said it and make no substantive argument to the contrary. Not because you wouldn't love to but because there is none.

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 contested

I said that being born again is the same thing as original creation because it is.

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.

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

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.

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.


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

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

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).

Thus, your claim about not agreeing with you on creation inflicts me with the penalty of eternal separation from God with no hope of return.

Second, I chose Roman Catholicism, since that is what I am:
By your claim that I deny Jesus as Savior, I am blaspheming. By not changing my mind, I am being impenitent. Impenitence is one of the 6 ways to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, according to St. Thomas Aquinas. I also cannot be forgiven a sin I am not first repentant of, so until I come around to your personal view of creation, I have the eternal sin on my soul and WILL go to hell when I die.

Congratulations, you have claimed that unless I agree with you about your specific views on creation, I AM DAMNED AND WILL GO TO HELL.

No ambiguity, no false representations of any of your claims. Only you condemning all TEs to hell in no uncertain terms. It sickens me that you would make this claim AT ALL, that you make it so lightly you don't even realize you made this claim, and that you denied even making it.

Easy flowchart:
1. I believe God created, but I believe He created using secondary sources like evolution. Thus, I am a theistic evolutionist.
2. I disagree with Mark Kennedy on how God did creation, and the definitions and requirements of Creationism.
3. Mark has made the claim that all TEs disbelieve creationism, by holding a position antithetical to it, and more.
4. Mark has made the claim that anyone who disagrees with him on creationism is not Christian.
5. Therefore, Mark claims I am not Christian (from 2 and 4).
6. Therefore, Mark has also made the claim that I disbelieve creation (from 1 and 3).
7. Creation and being born again are the same miracle.
8. Therefore, Mark has made the claim that I disbelieve in being born again (from 6 and 7).
9. Being born again is necessary for salvation.
10. With no being born again, there is no salvation.
11. With no salvation, there is no Savior.
12. With no Savior, Jesus is not Savior.
13. From 8-12, Mark has made the claim that I disbelieve in Jesus as Savior.
14. According to the United Methodist Church, and the Roman Catholic Church, and others I am sure, if Mark's claim is correct, that I will go to Hell.
15. Presumably, Mark would not make claims he did not believe to be true.
16. Therefore, from 15-16, Mark has claimed I am going to Hell.

Metherion