"The Fundamentals" on Creation

[Iosias]

The Early Narratives of Genesis

The Doctrinal Value of the First Chapters of Genesis

Science and Christian Faith

The Decadence of Darwinism

 

[crawfish]

If I was a mod, I'd merge all your threads together.

(Hint? )

 

[archaeologist]

my question is: what is your point behind posting all these links?

it is very annoying tohave someone post a buynchof links and say nothing as to their opinion on the thread they are starting.

 

[PaladinValer]

If I was a mod, I'd merge all your threads together.

(Hint? )

Oh he does it in STR to the great annoyance of many too

 

[shernren]

I don't know about you, but I'm going to embargo all his threads by not posting on them until he actually has some specific issue to discuss instead of throwing random links to wadloads of material from a different era.

 

[archaeologist]

don't you mean 'boycott'? 'embargo' refers to an official order and since you are not a mod, that would be hard to do.

 

[Mallon]

archaeologist is the only person I know who is more anal about word usage than evolutionary creationists!

 

[shernren]

Yes, but "embargo" as a word sounds cooler.

 

[mark kennedy]

The Early Narratives of Genesis

Not unlike a dozen or so Commentaries, dictionaries and theological resources I have accumulated. There is no doubt in my mind that the Genesis account was written as historical narratives and considered factual by the New Testament writers. Essential doctrine is tied to these accounts being reliable as history.

The Doctrinal Value of the First Chapters of Genesis

One of the marks of liberal theology and Theistic Evolution is the ambiguity of their use of the word God. As doctrine God's divine attributes and eternal nature has to be clearly spelled out in no uncertain terms. Typically theologians have done this but in the modernist lexicon the meaning is buried in convoluted semantics.

(1) The Unity of God; in contradiction to all the polytheisms and dualisms of ancient and modern pagan philosophy.

(2) The Personality of God; in contradiction to that pantheism whether materialistic or idealistic, which recognizes God's immanence in the world, but denies His transcendence. For in all its multitudinous developments, pantheism has this peculiarity, that it denies the personality of God, and excludes from the realm of life the need of a Mediator, a Sin-Bearer, and a personal Saviour.

(3) The Omnipotence of God; in contradiction, not only to those debasing conceptions of the anthropomorphic deities of the ancient world, but to all those man-made idols which the millions of heathenism today adore. God made these stars and suns, which man in his infatuation fain would worship. Thus in contradiction to all human conceptions and human evolutions, there stands forth no mere deistic abstraction, but the one, true, living and only God. He is named by the name Elohim, the name of Divine Majesty, the Adorable One, our Creator and Governor; the same God who in a few verses later is revealed as Jehovah-Elohim, Jehovah being the Covenant name, the God of revelation and grace, the Ever-Existent Lord, the God and Father of us all. (Green, "Unity of Genesis," pp. 31,32; "Fausset's Bib. Ency.," p. 258.)​

A good basic discussion of Genesis as a doctrinal issue, not unlike the Calvanist views I have become accustomed to.

Science and Christian Faith

This one came very close to identifying the conflict, personally I think it comes down to epistemology (theory of knowledge). We don't really explore how things reproduce with the same tools we have to understand God's work in the world. I don't mean to be critical it's just that I didn't feel the essay went far enough.

The Decadence of Darwinism

I really didn't like this last one but the last person I would ask about Darwinism would be a Creationist and vise versa. They are just never fair with one another and this really comes down to one issue. Darwin was the first to simply assume universal common descent. The academic and scientific world fell in love with the concept and went so far as to define science in terms of it.

My only problem is that for me Darwinism is opposed to real science. It is irrelevant to Christian theism since it is based on a rejection of it. Darwinians are masters of illusion, blending the real world sciences with this modern myth of universal common descent.

Still and all, an interesting collection of essays that I enjoyed reading and intend to add to my collection.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Dannager]

Fundamentalist = True Christian, Creationism = True Science, America = True Democracy.

Next up, mark tells us that Apple = True Banana.

 

[mark kennedy]

Fundamentalist = True Christian, Creationism = True Science, America = True Democracy.

Next up, mark tells us that Apple = True Banana.

First of all I don't appreciate having my posts addressed in the third person. Secondly, you could not even put together a coherent sentence in that word salad. Is that what your education has produced in your thinking, you can now express your views in pedantic, mock satire without any reference to anything substantive or anyone in particular?

I noticed in the last thread you derailed you had no interest in Democracy in America while you pontificated as to the true meaning of democracy. Now you are ignoring both Genesis and Darwinism in a thread started on that very topic. Heck, you don't even have the good manners to write in actual sentences.

What are the fundamentals of your faith, I mean other then a mock satire spewed at creationists.

 

[Dannager]

First of all I don't appreciate having my posts addressed in the third person.

I'm not here for your appreciation, mark.

Secondly, you could not even put together a coherent sentence in that word salad.

I wasn't trying to. Oh no, my sentence structure is purposefully incorrect. Whatever will I do?

Is that what your education has produced in your thinking, you can now express your views in pedantic, mock satire without any reference to anything substantive or anyone in particular?

Hmmm, I referenced you, and I referenced your claim.

So are you saying that you're no one in particular and that your claim isn't substantive?

I noticed in the last thread you derailed

You mean you derailed.

you had no interest in Democracy in America while you pontificated as to the true meaning of democracy.

Gosh, could you quote for me the part where I said I have no interest in democracy in America, mark?

Don't lie, please. It's happening over and over and over.

Now you are ignoring both Genesis and Darwinism in a thread started on that very topic.

I addressed a post in this thread.

Heck, you don't even have the good manners to write in actual sentences.

Again, not here for your pleasure. And really, that's not much of a complaint. The stretching you're willing to do as a defensive retaliatory move is amazing.

 

[Iosias]

Not unlike a dozen or so Commentaries, dictionaries and theological resources I have accumulated. There is no doubt in my mind that the Genesis account was written as historical narratives and considered factual by the New Testament writers. Essential doctrine is tied to these accounts being reliable as history.



One of the marks of liberal theology and Theistic Evolution is the ambiguity of their use of the word God. As doctrine God's divine attributes and eternal nature has to be clearly spelled out in no uncertain terms. Typically theologians have done this but in the modernist lexicon the meaning is buried in convoluted semantics.

(1) The Unity of God; in contradiction to all the polytheisms and dualisms of ancient and modern pagan philosophy.​

(2) The Personality of God; in contradiction to that pantheism whether materialistic or idealistic, which recognizes God's immanence in the world, but denies His transcendence. For in all its multitudinous developments, pantheism has this peculiarity, that it denies the personality of God, and excludes from the realm of life the need of a Mediator, a Sin-Bearer, and a personal Saviour.​

(3) The Omnipotence of God; in contradiction, not only to those debasing conceptions of the anthropomorphic deities of the ancient world, but to all those man-made idols which the millions of heathenism today adore. God made these stars and suns, which man in his infatuation fain would worship. Thus in contradiction to all human conceptions and human evolutions, there stands forth no mere deistic abstraction, but the one, true, living and only God. He is named by the name Elohim, the name of Divine Majesty, the Adorable One, our Creator and Governor; the same God who in a few verses later is revealed as Jehovah-Elohim, Jehovah being the Covenant name, the God of revelation and grace, the Ever-Existent Lord, the God and Father of us all. (Green, "Unity of Genesis," pp. 31,32; "Fausset's Bib. Ency.," p. 258.)​

A good basic discussion of Genesis as a doctrinal issue, not unlike the Calvanist views I have become accustomed to.



This one came very close to identifying the conflict, personally I think it comes down to epistemology (theory of knowledge). We don't really explore how things reproduce with the same tools we have to understand God's work in the world. I don't mean to be critical it's just that I didn't feel the essay went far enough.



I really didn't like this last one but the last person I would ask about Darwinism would be a Creationist and vise versa. They are just never fair with one another and this really comes down to one issue. Darwin was the first to simply assume universal common descent. The academic and scientific world fell in love with the concept and went so far as to define science in terms of it.

My only problem is that for me Darwinism is opposed to real science. It is irrelevant to Christian theism since it is based on a rejection of it. Darwinians are masters of illusion, blending the real world sciences with this modern myth of universal common descent.

Still and all, an interesting collection of essays that I enjoyed reading and intend to add to my collection.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Generally my view also

 

[theFijian]

One of the marks of liberal theology and Theistic Evolution

Strange why one would equivocate the two as there are many TEs who are conservative in their theology.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm not here for your appreciation, mark.

There are consequences to petty rudeness Dannager, what exactly are you here for?

I wasn't trying to. Oh no, my sentence structure is purposefully incorrect. Whatever will I do?

More foolishness.

Hmmm, I referenced you, and I referenced your claim.

You referenced nothing, you are talking in circles.

So are you saying that you're no one in particular and that your claim isn't substantive?

No, you said nothing to no one and now you want to twist it into something even more convoluted. Do you ever do anything but hurl insults and derail threads?

You mean you derailed.

You derailed that thread just like you are determined to derail this one.

Gosh, could you quote for me the part where I said I have no interest in democracy in America, mark?

I didn't say democracy in America, I said, 'Democracy in America'.

Don't lie, please. It's happening over and over and over.

That's called trolling, if you are going to act like a troll I'm going to start talking to you like one.

I addressed a post in this thread.

You addressed nothing to no one.

Again, not here for your pleasure. And really, that's not much of a complaint. The stretching you're willing to do as a defensive retaliatory move is amazing.

What are the fundamentals of your faith because all I ever see you do is flame creationists. If you want to troll a forum why don't you go somewhere it is appreciated?

I ask again, what are the fundamentals of your faith, assuming it's not just ridiculing the fundamentals of Christian theism.

 

[mark kennedy]

Strange why one would equivocate the two as there are many TEs who are conservative in their theology.

Theistic Evolution makes the same error as Liberal Theology, there is no definition for God. When one does appear it is so ambiguous it evaporates under close scrutiny.

I don't know what you mean by conservative but if you mean traditional Christian views I would disagree. Theistic Evolution is a modernist interpretation of science and religion.

 

[theFijian]

I don't know what you mean by conservative but if you mean traditional Christian views I would disagree. Theistic Evolution is a modernist interpretation of science and religion

By 'conservative' I mean biblical, reformed and evangelical. As a TE I hold to the same soteriology and christology as most other believers in my church.

 

[mark kennedy]

By 'conservative' I mean biblical, reformed and evangelical. As a TE I hold to the same soteriology and christology as most other believers in my church.

That's fine, but when it comes to Creationism as a point of doctrine TOE can be a very divisive element. When you get into theology one of the first things that you encounter is a need for clear definitions. Terms like God, faith, revelation, sin, redemption...etc. When you get stuck on the most important term in the Christian lexicon, God, then there is a fundamental problem.

When the average churchman encounters a systematic theology the reaction can be to dismiss it.

Theologian: How do you define God.
Churchman: Why would I do that, God is God.
Theologian: Can you identify God's divine attributes?
Churchman: Why, don't you know what they are?
Theologian: Of course I know what they are, I'm asking you to identify them.
Churchman: Everyone knows what they are, it's common sense.

The fact is that most people never encounter a genuine need for a systematic theology. If on the other hand you encounter someone who is using the same word with a very different meaning a systematic theology is the only way of identify it.

As long as you affirm Christ as the incarnate, eternal Son of God who died for our sins and was raised for our justification you are in all respects a traditional Christian. However, if there is some lingering antisupernatural philosophy weaved into your theology you would be rightfully characterized as a modernist.

Liberal Theologians have laid claim to being theistic and Christian. When closely examining their beliefs they have rejected essential doctrines of God's eternal power and ignored anything remotely supernatural in God's revelation. This view is neither conservative nor Biblical, it is Liberal Theology in no uncertain terms and I see many of the same issues raised by Theistic Evolution. In fact, in many cases I see no discernible difference between Theistic Evolution and Liberal Theology.

 

[crawfish]

Liberal Theologians have laid claim to being theistic and Christian. When closely examining their beliefs they have rejected essential doctrines of God's eternal power and ignored anything remotely supernatural in God's revelation. This view is neither conservative nor Biblical, it is Liberal Theology in no uncertain terms and I see many of the same issues raised by Theistic Evolution. In fact, in many cases I see no discernible difference between Theistic Evolution and Liberal Theology.

Theistic evolution does not preclude one from taking a conservative view towards scripture. Most TE's do not reject the supernatural; they also do not reject God's ability to "poof" things into existence. We tend to take our bible verses quite seriously; even if we don't take everything traditionalists do literally, we still believe they are the literal words of God - inspired by Him and written for a purpose that we should follow. We do not water down the gospel or diminish (or eliminate) certain scriptures in favor of others.

In fact, I would argue that by not bogging down scripture with implications of science and history, we are actually CLOSER to the literal meaning of scripture than creationists.

 

[Dannager]

[Some things]

Really, mark, what is your problem? You've been in two threads now where you've said some very unsupportable things, and when called on them you pretend that your opponent is somehow out to get you or it trolling. That's not how one should handle himself. I don't know why you're so frightened of admitting that you might be wrong - you shouldn't be. It's not like any of us are perfect. But to dance around it because you don't want to recognize it is just wrong.