Mediate Creation

[Guest]

Fresno Joe - And Why Is He (A Sly Hungry Wolf) Your Friend

 

....their Christian worldview did change....

 

 

Well Hallelujah~!

 

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. John 5:24

 

God Is Good

 

Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts. Jeremiah 15:16

 

Beloved, Thanks For The Good News

 

He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth. Luke 11:23

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh357 - All you seem to be able to give is the typical, liberal, vague responses.

 

My last response was - "We agree that mediate creation is biblical at one level, and I'm suggesting that "Let the land produce..." is also mediate creation, though at another level.  Mediate refers to an "intermediary agent", at one level to "matter"/dust/earth as material, but as implied with the various "Let the land/water produce/bring forth..." at another level by process.  Again, the bible does not say Let there be living creatures.  There is nothing that negates either scripture or that God is the creator of all. 

 

Further, we do not disconnect God from the natural processes we see all around us today.  I do not see how God instituting the “laws of nature” at creation in any way diminishes either Him or His creation.  Your problem is with the term evolution ...so let’s discard that and use God ordained processes."

 

If you are unable to address the points I've made based solely on God's word then so be it, but I have no intention of playing your diversion games.  Actually, it is often true that those that indulge in ad hominem criticism ought to be aware that the same can be applied to them though perhaps in a different direction.

Calling your responses liberal and vague is not an ad hominem.  It is an accurate assessment of the nature of how you have evaded any real explanation how Evolution is "biblical." 

 

You keep making vague references to "processes" that you really don't seem will or perhaps are unable to define beyond referencing mediate creation.   What exactly do these "processes" look like to you?   How long did it take  from the point where God commands the land or water to be filled with life and the fulfillment of those commands?

[Tolken]

Shiloh357 - You keep making vague references to "processes" that you really don't seem will or perhaps are unable to define beyond referencing mediate creation.   What exactly do these "processes" look like to you?

 

First, I would suggest that the biblical record of creation could be termed as "vague", wouldn't you agree? Sufficient for God’s purposes but lacking in specific detail.  So protesting my responses as such when they are simply in line with scripture is rather pointless.  I have clearly outlined why I believe Genesis allows for processes, and illustrated one aspect, that of human birth. I have shown mediate creation at one level, at the same time the wording of the commands certainly imply continued agency, thus processes. You seem unable or unwilling to address the implication of the commands which follow logically from what is mediate/agency.

 

What do processes look like...seriously? One will note in the current news cycle the plight of bees, which is one further example of processes – pollination.  Perhaps you should just check any elementary science book to read on how God’s ordained processes sustain life.  Yes, back to dynamic and static...

 

Quote - How long did it take from the point where God commands the land or water to be filled with life and the fulfillment of those commands? 

 

The Bible doesn’t say, does it? This is exactly why Command/Fiat days best represent the creation text.

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh357 - You keep making vague references to "processes" that you really don't seem will or perhaps are unable to define beyond referencing mediate creation.   What exactly do these "processes" look like to you?

 

First, I would suggest that the biblical record of creation could be termed as "vague", wouldn't you agree? Sufficient for God’s purposes but lacking in specific detail.  So protesting my responses as such when they are simply in line with scripture is rather pointless.  I have clearly outlined why I believe Genesis allows for processes, and illustrated one aspect, that of human birth. I have shown mediate creation at one level, at the same time the wording of the commands certainly imply continued agency, thus processes. You seem unable or unwilling to address the implication of the commands which follow logically from what is mediate/agency.

 

What do processes look like...seriously? One will note in the current news cycle the plight of bees, which is one further example of processes – pollination.  Perhaps you should just check any elementary science book to read on how God’s ordained processes sustain life.  Yes, back to dynamic and static...

 

Quote - How long did it take from the point where God commands the land or water to be filled with life and the fulfillment of those commands? 

 

The Bible doesn’t say, does it? This is exactly why Command/Fiat days best represent the creation text.

Let me put it this way.   God says "let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind..."   What I am asking is, what does that process look like to you?   Does it look like God simply created animals from the dirt, or does it look more like evolution to you? 

[kwikphilly]

Blessings to Everyone!!!!

     If I may,I would like to ask a rather simple question,for Token or anyone really ,who feels the need to expound or elaborate on the 6 day Creation as it is Written & God inspired.Please don't take it the wrong way,there is no malice in my intention,no disrespect for anyone and I do not imply that anyone has less Faith in God than anyone else.I am just curious about what is so important to feel the need to prove that there is more to the story that what there is,to the point of argument?Why is it not good enough to accept that God made everything completed?

     When I read these type of threads it just makes me wonder......"How would this enrich anyone's life?"Why can't a scientist just give all Glory & credit to their Creator in that everything that is, was made in completion by Him in those 6 days?There is no denying that science is a great contribution to mankind but why must there be a 'science' to the beginning?I noticed the reference Token made to the pollination of a bee & called it a process,all well & good but God made the bee,a complete & perfect little creature that was clearly designed to populate flowers......perhaps I am just not understanding the point of the debate?

     I can only see evolution implied ,call it what you may but that is all I get out of the conversation ......in those six days it is Written that God already made the great sea creatures,every living thing that moves,with which the waters abounded,every winged bird,cattle,fish,creeping things & beasts & that's just the creatures........We also see that every tree,plant,fruit ,herb & grass was made........so where is there a 'process' .......everything that was made was designed to sustain the other(is that the process spoken of?)

     It is really a simple question that I would love a simple answer,what does anyone think is "left out" of the Creation account we are given.......it just seems so simple to me that it was the greatest event of all time(aside from Jesus Resurrection from the dead)& the marvelous works of the Great I Am and nothing else to it?Yes God "said".....isn't that a good enough explanation?

                                                                                                                                                                   With love-in Christ,Kwik

[Tolken]

Shiloh357 - Let me put it this way.   God says "let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind..."   What I am asking is, what does that process look like to you?   Does it look like God simply created animals from the dirt, or does it look more like evolution to you?

 

It would look like a process that one could attempt to define with qualifications, as I've noted before, an evolving process but exactly how we aren't told.  As I see nothing in scripture, as an example 1:24,  that implies immediate creation it is reasonable to infer a process. I see no reason not to infer that the sustaining processes (pollination, food chain, mutualism, gestation, etc.) were ordained at the beginning.

 

As to the processes directly involved with life, again the bible is somewhat silent. We do know that human/animal life is ultimately a process...from birth to death.  At the very least one has no foundational support for dogmatic assertions as to the "how" of God's creation nor the "how" as to bringing life to be.

[Tolken]

Kwikphilly - I am just curious about what is so important to feel the need to prove that there is more to the story that what there is,to the point of argument?Why is it not good enough to accept that God made everything completed?

 

First, 1 Peter 3:15, 2 Cor. 10:5, Phil. 1:7 sets our directive yet what are the obstacles that impede our arriving at that point where the gospel can be defended?  We can hardly proclaim the gospel with effectiveness until we understand the “obstacles” that at the outset have rendered a person’s ears, mind, and heart deaf.  There is a considerable difference between one who has accepted the invitation of Christ, and consequently what they believe and accept, and one who resists the invitation for various reasons.

 

We live in a post Christian world, the blame for this, by many accounts, falls squarely on the Church and so Christians in general.

Consider this: 

“For reasons I only dimly understand, American Christendom made a horrible anti-intellectual turn sometime in the early 1900s. It abandoned the universities it had founded in previous centuries. It rejected theater, dance, and music as immoral. It stopped painting. It stopped writing. It actually stopped reading. One Christian revivalist boasted that he knew no more about theology than a pig knows about French.”

Eric Jacobson – Breakpoint

 

Or this:  “We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the while collective thought of the nation or of the world to be controlled by ideas which, by the resistless force of logic, prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion.”

J Gresham Machen

 

Or this:  When Harry Blamires wrote his classic on The Christian Mind in the mid 1950’s he began the book saying  -  'There is no longer a Christian Mind'. Then he went on …'unfortunately the Christian mind has succumbed to the secular drift with a degree of weakness and nervelessness unmatched in human history…'

 

I’ve encountered many people whose view of Christianity centers on:

“Christian Television offers the world a perversion of what it means to be a true disciple of Jesus Christ. TBN, a global network, serves up a regular diet of heresy and error through people such as Jessie Duplantis, Creflo Dollar, Benny Hinn, Kim Clement and others. Televangelism is alive and well on the airwaves proclaiming a false gospel of health & wealth. Peter Popoff, Don Steward, R.W. Schamback, Marilyn Hickey and Robert Tilton (to name just a few) are still broadcasting on a regular basis and raking in millions of dollars a month to support their lavish lifestyles.”

 

“One has to ask because evangelical Calvinists such as Asa Gray managed to be pro-Darwin and pro-Christian well over a century ago. Natural selection was one of the ways that God worked, Gray and many other Victorian Christians argued powerfully, to large audiences on both sides of the Atlantic. The Oxford chaplain and Christian Darwinist Aubrey L. Moore added in his bestselling Science and the Faith (1889), "panic fear of new theories," such as Darwin's, was not just "unreasonable" but also, by his lights, anti-intellectual. So why did an almost unshakeable hatred of Darwinism take hold in this country, in particular, to such a degree that to dispute its basis would have one drummed out of countless congregations?” Christopher Lane, Ph.D

 

“The sad thing is that, at the core of the messages and platforms of groups like the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and the Creation Research Society, the scientific controversy and the theological controversy over evolution are one and the same.  For people like Ken Ham and John Morris, these are inextricably linked.  You cannot be a Christian and accept evolution.  For them, any movement toward the evolution camp is headed  down the slippery slope.  This is the tragedy of young earth creationism.” 

James Pithcus

 

Please understand that this is not a call to “water down”, abrogate, or in any way deny the fundamental truths of the Faith or Bible.  In a sense as in 1 Cor. 9:19-  we need to understand as I noted above what are the stumbling blocks to belief.  Certainly I’m not suggesting that ...oh if you believe in abortion, or homosexual marriage, etc. that is OK but I am suggesting that a reasoned answer to these and other “hurdles” are a necessary starting point.

 

Ultimately what we don’t need is a entrenched dogma where none necessarily exists. I view YEC in this regard, as can be attested to by simply looking up Former YEC in a search engine. Some issues are peripheral, (OEC, YEC, etc., immediate or mediate creation, effusion or immersion, charismatic or cessationist, etc., yet some peripheral of these especially as related to science and faith are huge hurdles.  We should think hard as there exist principles not open to debate, and those that one can and should be open to.

 

I certainly respect the belief one has in YEC but when it is used as a weapon of Orthodoxy it has a deleterious impact on both Christians and non-believers alike.

[kwikphilly]

BlessingsToken......

     I have no idea what all the references to all these folks various quotes on various topics have to do with what I thought to be a very simple question ,but hey,sometimes it is difficult to convey ones thoughts to others when typing?I am not sure if you are pro-evolution,anti-televangelists or just searching for different views?I do thank you for your effort but I just don't really understand what point you are trying to get across.................Of course there is a difference between those who accept Christs invitation & those who do not but again,I fail to see what that has to do with accepting the fact that our Creator created everything in completion & to Him be the Glory?

      I cannot agree that abortion or homosexual marriages are "hurdles" or "stumbling blocks" to belief........what they are are simply reservations that one is not willing to forsake in order that they may surrender "self" & submit to our Lord with full commitment ...................and once again,what does this have to do with accepting what is Written in Genesis 1&2 as true & complete ,it has nothing to do with faith in Jesus as even the Jews prove this to be true......

    Just remember that all the Google searches ,Creation Research Societies & Theology professors in the world cannot reveal Gods Timeless Truth as can the Holy Spirit ..............have a God Blessed day,giving Praise & Thanksgiving tho our Lord & Savior,Christ Jesus!

                                                                                                                                                                    With love-in Christ,Kwik

[Tolken]

Kwikphilly - I am just curious about what is so important to feel the need to prove that there is more to the story that what there is,to the point of argument?

 

This is what I attempted to answer. I'm not trying to prove anything other then that there are valid interpretations of creation, other than YEC. The quotes reflect the thoughts of apologists, theologians, etc. as to some of the reasons why we live in a post Christian world.  Christianity is often negatively viewed, sometimes justifiably, in an ever skeptical, science based, self possessed, over indulgent, pluralistic, etc. society for just some of the reasons within the quotes I offered.

 

Quote - Of course there is a difference between those who accept Christs invitation & those who do not but again,I fail to see what that has to do with accepting the fact that our Creator created everything in completion & to Him be the Glory?

 

How does one accept that God as the creator if they don't accept God or a god to begin with...that was the point. Ultimately it does not matter to me personally and to my beliefs but it does matter to myriad other people.  When engaged with an Atheist, agnostic, etc. that to me is often the starting point.

 

As many apologists suggest we are separate from the world but must be engaged in the world, Christianity allowed Academia to become the pawn of a secular and materialistic worldview. Why is Genesis 1 important?  Because it is the foundation of everything both theologically and as to one's worldview...either God is the Creator or man is the measure of all things.

 

I should have pointed to Homosexual marriage, abortion, feminism,among others as hurdles on the premise that Christianity to many is simply an narrow based anachronistic belief with little support.  And the point of my reference to searches was that you will find many testimonies with regards to misconceptions concerning Christian beliefs which leaves such faith empty.

 

There is an interesting topic... Why do we live in a post Christian world or US?

[jerryR34]

Blessings to Everyone!!!!

     If I may,I would like to ask a rather simple question,for Token or anyone really ,who feels the need to expound or elaborate on the 6 day Creation as it is Written & God inspired.Please don't take it the wrong way,there is no malice in my intention,no disrespect for anyone and I do not imply that anyone has less Faith in God than anyone else.I am just curious about what is so important to feel the need to prove that there is more to the story that what there is,to the point of argument?Why is it not good enough to accept that God made everything completed?

     When I read these type of threads it just makes me wonder......"How would this enrich anyone's life?"Why can't a scientist just give all Glory & credit to their Creator in that everything that is, was made in completion by Him in those 6 days?There is no denying that science is a great contribution to mankind but why must there be a 'science' to the beginning?I noticed the reference Token made to the pollination of a bee & called it a process,all well & good but God made the bee,a complete & perfect little creature that was clearly designed to populate flowers......perhaps I am just not understanding the point of the debate?

     I can only see evolution implied ,call it what you may but that is all I get out of the conversation ......in those six days it is Written that God already made the great sea creatures,every living thing that moves,with which the waters abounded,every winged bird,cattle,fish,creeping things & beasts & that's just the creatures........We also see that every tree,plant,fruit ,herb & grass was made........so where is there a 'process' .......everything that was made was designed to sustain the other(is that the process spoken of?)

     It is really a simple question that I would love a simple answer,what does anyone think is "left out" of the Creation account we are given.......it just seems so simple to me that it was the greatest event of all time(aside from Jesus Resurrection from the dead)& the marvelous works of the Great I Am and nothing else to it?Yes God "said".....isn't that a good enough explanation?

                                                                                                                                                                   With love-in Christ,Kwik

Hi Kwik - what would be better to you - a person who trys to reconcile science and the Bible and believe in Christ or someone who throws out the Bible because it does not agree with science?