Question for Catholics

[PaladinValer]

No, Ebia is correct.

We Anglicans are Catholic in every proper sense of the word. Presbyterians are not. Furthermore and regardless, non-Anglicans/Old Catholics are not supposed to be giving their own personal doctrinal views. They can fellowship, ask questions, and discuss light topics, but nothing more.

 

[ebia]

I have to concur with HIStand. I've read his comment several times and I still can't identify what he should not be saying. You did specifically say he should not be promoting "that view" so it doesn't look like you mean he should not be posting anything because he's not an Anglican.

I guess the operative word was "you" rather than "that view" and I could have expressed it more clearly.

 

[HereIStand]

No, Ebia is correct.

We Anglicans are Catholic in every proper sense of the word. Presbyterians are not. Furthermore and regardless, non-Anglicans/Old Catholics are not supposed to be giving their own personal doctrinal views. They can fellowship, ask questions, and discuss light topics, but nothing more.

It is not merely my personal doctrinal view. What I posted is in harmony with basic Christian beliefs about the Creator and creation held by all Christians -- Anglican, Catholic, Presbyterian, or otherwise.

 

[VolRaider]

No, Ebia is correct.

We Anglicans are Catholic in every proper sense of the word. Presbyterians are not. Furthermore and regardless, non-Anglicans/Old Catholics are not supposed to be giving their own personal doctrinal views. They can fellowship, ask questions, and discuss light topics, but nothing more.

What about United Methodists?

Regardless of what we are permitted to say on this subject, I will remain mum about it. It does not affect in any way my faith in Christ. But I love reading all the points of view.

 

[MichaelNZ]

I think holding to a 6 day creation belief is important for affirming our faith that we are created in the image of the Trinity. It becomes more problematic to affirm that if Adam and Eve are seen as metaphorical instead of as literal historical beings.

I'm Anglican, and I second that statement.

Theistic evolution is not compatible with Scripture. Evolution teaches that random mutations and natural selection (survival of the fittest) led to the gradual development of man from "lower beings" (the so-called non-existent "common ancestor" of men and apes). For the fittest to survive, the rest of the species must die. Now we have a problem.

We read in the Bible "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:21-22)

All of creation was affected by Adam's sin:

"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." (Romans 8:18-22)

When God created everything at the end of the sixth day, He proclaimed it good (Genesis 1:31). Creatures were not subject to corruption before the Fall, and the whole creation was good.

Therefore, the Bible makes it clear that there was no death before Adam sinned. Did man bring death into the world, as the Bible teaches, or did death bring man into the world, as evolution teaches? They are polar opposites - it is not possible to reconcile them.

Evolution is not science, and it's sad that a lot of Christians try to adapt Scripture to fit with this pseudoscientific, atheistic teaching. We must reject evolution and proclaim the truth of Creation!

 

[ebia]

I'm Anglican, and I second that statement.

Theistic evolution is not compatible with Scripture. Evolution teaches that random mutations and natural selection (survival of the fittest) led to the gradual development of man from "lower beings" (the so-called non-existent "common ancestor" of men and apes). For the fittest to survive, the rest of the species must die. Now we have a problem.

We read in the Bible "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:21-22)

All of creation was affected by Adam's sin:

"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." (Romans 8:18-22)

When God created everything at the end of the sixth day, He proclaimed it good (Genesis 1:31). Creatures were not subject to corruption before the Fall, and the whole creation was good.

Therefore, the Bible makes it clear that there was no death before Adam sinned. Did man bring death into the world, as the Bible teaches, or did death bring man into the world, as evolution teaches? They are polar opposites - it is not possible to reconcile them.

Evolution is not science, and it's sad that a lot of Christians try to adapt Scripture to fit with this pseudoscientific, atheistic teaching. We must reject evolution and proclaim the truth of Creation!

The vast majority of Anglican scholars, leaders and theologians do accept TE. Another significant proportion consider an admissable opinion.

TE is not about trying to fit scripture to science, but about allowing scripture to answer the questions it was written to answer instead of forcing it to answer questions from millennia later.

 

[HereIStand]

I'm Anglican, and I second that statement.

Theistic evolution is not compatible with Scripture. Evolution teaches that random mutations and natural selection (survival of the fittest) led to the gradual development of man from "lower beings" (the so-called non-existent "common ancestor" of men and apes). For the fittest to survive, the rest of the species must die. Now we have a problem.

We read in the Bible "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:21-22)

All of creation was affected by Adam's sin:

"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." (Romans 8:18-22)

When God created everything at the end of the sixth day, He proclaimed it good (Genesis 1:31). Creatures were not subject to corruption before the Fall, and the whole creation was good.

Therefore, the Bible makes it clear that there was no death before Adam sinned. Did man bring death into the world, as the Bible teaches, or did death bring man into the world, as evolution teaches? They are polar opposites - it is not possible to reconcile them.

Evolution is not science, and it's sad that a lot of Christians try to adapt Scripture to fit with this pseudoscientific, atheistic teaching. We must reject evolution and proclaim the truth of Creation!

Great post! God bless.

 

[PaladinValer]

What about United Methodists?

They aren't Anglicans or Old Catholics.

My personal opinions on people themselves or their opinions or beliefs have nothing to do with it.

 

[Tatian]

Paladin, if you read the link, particularly the portion of creationism and the U.S. section, you wn'till see that the majority of Protestants are creationists. I didn't, however, use the description "anti-science". I have not said anything about them being against Newtons laws of motion or a heliocentric solar system

 

[PaladinValer]

Paladin, if you read the link, particularly the portion of creationism and the U.S. section, you wn'till see that the majority of Protestants are creationists.

1. I don't see it; quote and directly me where by subject title and location.
2. Now you are changing your story about Protestants, suggesting Protestants in the US only. That isn't what you initially said.

I didn't, however, use the description "anti-science".

1. See above.
2. I quote your opening few sentences: "I was wondering about the Catholic Churches view on science as compared to most Protestants. It seems Protestants to a greater extent see a struggle between their faith and mainstreem science. However, it seems to me that the Catholic church doesn't seem to wrestle with it so much."

Sounds like "anti-science" is implicit.

I have not said anything about them being against Newtons laws of motion or a heliocentric solar system

Implicitly, you did.

 

[Tatian]

I just gave this thread one more read through and am a little surprised. Some here would prefer HereIStand not to post topics that are other-than-Anglican if they aren't, I guess, light topics? I suppose some of you would prefer that they only be questions about your Anglican faith that aren't a challenge of some sort?

I don't mean to post loaded questions, so if Paladin or Ebia wouldn't mind, make a statement about who you feel is allowed to post here and what type of topics by non-Anglicans you would welcome and which type you wouldn't.

 

[Tatian]

The U.S. contain the majority of the worlds Protestants, but yes, I should have been clearer. I did have in mind US protestantism. Forgive me, sometimes us Americans forget we aren't the only people in the world, =)

 

[ebia]

I just gave this thread one more read through and am a little surprised. Some here would prefer HereIStand not to post topics that are other-than-Anglican if they aren't, I guess, light topics? I suppose some of you would prefer that they only be questions about your Anglican faith that aren't a challenge of some sort?

I don't mean to post loaded questions, so if Paladin or Ebia wouldn't mind, make a statement about who you feel is allowed to post here and what type of topics by non-Anglicans you would welcome and which type you wouldn't.

Members can discuss anything they like. Non-members are restricted to "fellowship".

Genuine questions are usually welcome.

 

[PaladinValer]

The U.S. contain the majority of the worlds Protestants, but yes, I should have been clearer.

NO IT DOESN'T!

I did have in mind US protestantism. Forgive me, sometimes us Americans forget we aren't the only people in the world, =)

See the above.

 

[VolRaider]

Members can discuss anything they like. Non-members are restricted to "fellowship".

Genuine questions are usually welcome.

One more question:

I'm currently in the UMC, but have been Anglican most of my life. I was Episcopalian at berth and am at least three generations back in Anglicanism. Am I still restricted to fellowship?

 

[ebia]

One more question:

I'm currently in the UMC, but have been Anglican most of my life. I was Episcopalian at berth and am at least three generations back in Anglicanism. Am I still restricted to fellowship?

Have a look at the specifics for this forum.

 

[Albion]

The U.S. contain the majority of the worlds Protestants

That clearly is not true. Not even close. Maybe you mean more Protestants than any other nation.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

One more question:

I'm currently in the UMC, but have been Anglican most of my life. I was Episcopalian at berth and am at least three generations back in Anglicanism. Am I still restricted to fellowship?

Personally I count Methodists as almost-Anglicans anyway. John Wesley considered himself one. Starting a new denomination wasn't his idea.

 

[Cjwinnit]

Personally I count Methodists as almost-Anglicans anyway. John Wesley considered himself one. Starting a new denomination wasn't his idea.

Agreed.

Methodists here should get a visitor's pass and a hug

 

[MKJ]

Well, I have no problem with visitors discussing actual theology here - especially when their perspective is one that could actually be found within Anglicanism. As far as I'm concerned visitors should keep in mind that the discussion is in terms, generally, of an Anglican perceptive, but I like comparing my view to others and having a good discussion. It's a good thing I think, as an Anglican, to engage other perspectives and see where we might be challenged.

I certainly didn't think anyone came near to crossing the line in this thread, or "promoting" some sort of un-Anglican POV - despite the fact that I didn't agree with the controversial statements. People need to chill out.

As far as the question: I tend to favour theistic evolution for a variety of reasons. I would not say though, that I read Genesis as a metaphor - metaphors are by nature imperfect, and always fail, and I don't see Genesis like that at all. I think of it more in terms of the way Aristotle talks about the difference between poetry and history. Both give us truths about life, the universe, and everything. But in history we have to read thousands of pages or observe hundreds of years to see that patterns and draw them out. In poetry, we can see the greatest truths communicated with the greatest precision in a much shorter and more powerful form.

Of course, in the case of human history and literature, our access to history is imperfect, including the poets access. And poets may get the wrong end of the stick, or inject their personal biases.

In the case of the poetry that God writes to communicate with us, there are no such barriers. His knowledge of history and all things is complete, and his execution is perfect, and his inclination is only to truth.