Joe again tries to convince everyone that evolution and God's truth are incompatible

My understanding of special creation is that it teaches that God created humans out of dust (or out of nothing), and thus humanity has no genetic relationship with any other species. If you think it should be defined differently, Joe, please let me know.

I have searched through all the creeds of the Church I could get my hands to see just how foundational this doctrine really is. Below are the results of my search. Columns are year, creed/confession, and whether it contains special creation (yes/no).

150 - Irenaeus Rule - NO 325 - Nicene Creed - NO 385 - Constantinopolitan Creed - NO 451 - Chalcedonian Creed - NO 500 - Athanasian Creed - NO 529 - Canons of the Council of Orange - NO 542 - Apostles Creed - NO 675 - Council of Toledo - NO 1215 - Fourth Lateran Council - YES 1517 - Luther's 95 Theses - NO 1530 - Augsburg Confession - NO 1536 - Geneva Confession - NO 1561 - Belgic Confession - YES 1563 - Heidelberg Confession - NO 1563 - Tridentine Confession - NO 1618 - Canons of Dordt - NO

My conclusion is that the support for special creation as a foundational doctrine is quite thin. The overwhelming majority of the confessions and creeds of the Church do not hold the doctrine of special creation to be foundational.

Grace and peace,
Chris Falter

5 Likes

[content edited by moderator] But upon examination of each of the “creeds” you list, [edit] your claim that the “overwhelming majority of the confessions and creeds of the Church do not hold the docrtrine of special creation to be foundational” is charitably exposed as unwarranted and practically exposed as downright false. Many of the listed “creeds” are completely silent on any doctrine of creation, nor were they written for that purpose. To put forward just a few examples, the Geneva conventions deal with protocols of war, and the 95 theses primarily focus on the ugly Catholic practice of the selling of indulgences. Others in you list deal with doctrines such as election, salvation, the "trinity,’ and the nature of Jesus. But whether they address creation or not, none of them, as far as I can tell, reject special creation as foundational. [edit] And while none of them uses the specific term, special creation does indeed emerge as the reasonable and straightforward reading from the listed creeds that do address creation. Indeed, I would argue that Artcle 2 of the Belgic confession and Q and A 26 of the Heidleberg affirm the foundational nature of special Creation. If your list would have been faithfully dedicated to an objectve study concerning special creation as a foundational doctirne of Scriptures, you might well have included references such as the traditional Catholic doctrine of creation and any of a number of systematic theologies.

But all of this is really beside the point. My claim is that special creation is a foundational doctrine of Scripture, not a foundational doctrine of man. Your creeds are all the product of men. Here’s what I mean when I say that special creation is a foundational doctrine of Scripture:

“Have you never read that He Who made them, at the beginning, made them male and female” (1)
Matthew 19:4

“He Created them male and female and belssed them and called them mankind in the day they were created”
Genesis 5:2

“For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man Created for the woman, but woman for the man”
1 Corinthians 11: 8,9

“For Adam was formed first, then Eve”
1Timothy 2:13

“For You Created my inmost being. You knit me together in my mother’s womb”
Psalm 139: 13

These verses (and countless others) are worded in such a way as to preclude any mode other than special creation. The objective truth seeker might also wish to do an exhaustive concordance study on the words “formed,” “created,” and “made.”

In any case, my hermeneutic is, and always will be to let Scripture interpret Scripture, always seeking the revelation of the Holy Spirit. Special creation is the clear Biblical message.

'In vain they worship me, teaching as commandments the doctrines of men"
Matthew 15:9

I really hope (against hope) that you and anyone else reading this will think seriously about these things. Speaking as a brother, I need to warn you that the end of this age is fast approaching. Very soon this world will be very different. I strongly urge you to examine yourself, turn to Him with all your heart, forsake the world, and prepare yourself to suffer and die for His sake. I am consumed more and more with these pursuits and I pray that you will be also. His judgement is at hand, and as 1 Peter 4:17 says, judgement begins at the house of God. He is grieved and angry with many Christians (how do I know this? He told me). We must all be about the business of sanctifying ourselves.

I came here to bring a message that souls are being lost because of the doctine of naturalistic evolution and to encourage my brothers and sisters to (at the very least) embrace the strong evidence for the necessity of a Creator of life. To promote the grand claims of evolution while at the same time denying, ignoring, or ridiculing the strong evidence from life for a Creator is a twofold position that wlll always lead some believers away from belief (“offenses may come but woe to those through whom they come”). My message has been met by outrage, ridicule and denial. God has appointed me a watchman and only He knows whether my efforts here have been faithful or whether they may have borne any fruit, but in the spirit of Titus 3:10, it is long past time for me to depart for other fields. There are many fields ripe for the harvest.

I will pray for those of you who have taken the time to interact with me as well as any who might have read and considered the many exchanges that have taken place. I will also be happy to respond to PMs going forward, but this post marks the end of my participation in these forums.
Grace and peace,
Joe

(1) note the phrase, “at the beginning.” The inclusion of this phrase makes no sense at all in an evolutioary framework. The only reason for its inclusion is to emphasize special creation.

1 Like

@deliberateresult Parts of your post above were edited out because they inappropriately spoke to other people’s thoughts and beliefs or were unnecessarily derisive.

I just had a thought. The testimony of a Risen Christ has worked well for over 2000 years to bring the lost to Christ. Isn’t that all we really need?

BTW, I have yet to see any evidence that requires a Creator even while I believe such a Creator is exists.

2 Likes

Joe has collected a hit parade of interesting texts. What fascinates me is that I once posted a very similar list and used it to assess Paul’s lack of perspective. While here, on the other side of coin, Joe lists some of the same words to “prove” Paul’s perspective.

That is quite the conundrum.

Hi Joe,

I appreciate your desire to be faithful to our Lord and to His teaching; it is a desire that I share. The goal of my prayers, indeed of my life, is that I may be found in Him, the One who fulfilled God’s law through His obedience even to death on the cross, and that I may share in the power of His resurrection frim the dead, which renews all of creation.

Although this next point is clearly less important… You seem to have confused the Geneva Confession of 1536 with the 1864 Geneva Convention.

Most of the listed creeds specifically address the doctrine of creation. But only a small portion (two) can be construed as supporting special creation.

Moreover, the creeds did not simply address contemporary debates. The big argument at Nicea was whether Christ was truly of one nature with God, but the confession that the Council published covers far, far more than that. Most of the creeds endeavored to formulate all the essentials of Christian faith in a simple format. The creeds were recited by those being baptized as their affirmation of orthodox faith, and they were recited at worship services for the same reason. The creeds were far bigger than the latest theological controversy.

It is interesting that you cite this verse as support for a doctrine of human creation that is incompatible with “purely natural” biology. Reflect on the verse for a moment, Joe: does it rule out biological explanations? Do you believe that God created you directly in your mother’s womb in a fashion that is incompatible with biological explanations (i.e., sex)? Did King David think that biological explanations were ruled out by this verse? I doubt it; his desperate attempt to get Uriah to sleep with his wife Bathsheba demonstrates how well David understood the birds and the bees.

The hermeneutical approach that you apply to Psalm 139 (assuming that you feel it is not in conflict with biological explanations) is the same approach that I apply to the other verses that speak of God creating humanity. This is how we can interpret Scripture by Scripture. Psalm 139 affirms that both biological and faith explanations can and should be applied to the birth of a child; the child is God’s creation, even as it is also true that the child is the union of a sperm and an ovum.

In the same way, humanity is God’s creation, even as it is also true that humanity is the product of evolution and a species in the primate family.

Peace,
Chris Falter

3 Likes

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.