Heresy within Christianity

[Paul Christensen]

If you think you can't know anything you weren't there to observe, I'd have to say you were very wrong. Yes, it's very sure that the two last ancestors of all humans living today were not the real Adam and real Eve. As you know, even for a Biblical literalist, it would be Noah and his wife.

How can you know that when you, nor anyone else were there? You are saying that you are very sure that there was no Adam and Eve. What are you basing that on? The only substantive evidence according to "operation science" is that it has to be observed, and shown by scientific experimentation in a laboratory. If you are resorting to "historical science" you need to have enough evidence through archaeology, eye witness accounts, documents, etc., be sure of what you are asserting.

But I have in my hands a definite historical document that tells it as it all happened. The Bible in which God has spoken the absolute truth about the historical events surrounding Adam and Eve, and, later on, Noah and his family.

If you don't believe what God has written in the Bible, then you are calling Him a liar, because you are saying that people that He says were really there did not really exist.

I repeat what God said to Job: "Were you there?" if not, then who are you to darken counsel and say that God is wrong in what He says without any knowledge at all?

Are you exchanging the truth of what God has said, for what men, including atheists, who were not there, are saying? How do you reconcile that with your profession of Christian faith? If you don't believe what God has clearly said in Genesis 1-11, then how can you say you believe the rest of the Bible, including the salvation promises. You either believe all of what God has said or none of it. How can you have any assurance of salvation if you don't believe what God says?

 

[Paul Christensen]

Never heard of her. (Barbarian checks) Doesn't seem to have had any particularly outstanding research, honors, or academic achievements. She does seem to attribute bacterial pathogens to evolution "after the fall", but avoids calling it "evolution."
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/742c/4791f862d19e62a4f53f6b11ba26561686f0.pdf

I took the trouble of watching her whole presentation. She is highly qualified with a PhD in genetics. I think that you will find fault with any authority that I would suggest, because you don't want to believe what God is saying in Genesis 1. It seems that you would rather take the word of atheists, than the living God of the Bible. Doesn't bode well for the credibility of your profession of Christianity.

 

[marksman]

Or deliberately suppressed. Makes no difference. The heresies within the Catholic Church have a long tradition.

The noun heretic is mostly used in a religious context to talk about someone whose actions or beliefs act against the laws, rules, or beliefs of some specific religion...

With the Catholic Church you have a problem as in the first incidence the church itself is heretical. So if you disagree with it does that make you heretical? Can you be heretical with something that is heretical especially when the Catholic Church believes that every protestant is heretical?

Is the Anglican church the norm and the pentecostal church heretical?

Is the AOG the norm and the Baptist church heretical?

Is the Apostolic church the norm and Hillsong heretical?

Is the Bible the norm and the church of any description heretical?

Food for thought.

 

[DNB]

Maybe your reluctance to believe for certain that Adam and Eve really existed and that sin entered the world because of their disobedience, has come from non-Biblical teaching in your church. If your church teachers have taught evolution as a way that God created the world, then that teaching can corrupt a person's faith in the truth of the Bible. This type of teaching has caused many Millennial young people to desert the church. Their attitude in rejecting the church and their faith is that if their church teachers don't believe the Bible, why should they? The remarks from one prominent atheist who said that if Christians stop believing the literal truth of the Bible them it will be the death of Christianity within two generations. We see this happening with just 15% of the Millennial generation attending church - a big fall since the 1950s when 85% of young people were church members.

Hi Paul, no, on the contrary, like I said, i already told you & Aspen that I believe entirely in the Genesis account of creation, 200%.
My only contention lies in using it to establish bona-fide heresy.

This was my final statement, to my last post:
'Thus, I still think whether we came from 2 original humans or not, does not preclude the need for redemption and Christ's Lordship.
Now, as I said, I believe in the Genesis account of creation, as I explained by the New Testament's attestation to it. I'm just trying to establish a maxim for Christian heresy, that a doctrine must necessitate man's condemnation and Christ's Messiaship.'

 

[Yehren]

I took the trouble of watching her whole presentation. She is highly qualified with a PhD in genetics.

What she is not, is a prominent scientist. She doesn't seem to have any particular achievements in her field. What has she done?

I think that you will find fault with any authority that I would suggest

There are creationist scientists with considerable achievements to their names. This is not one of them. It seems you've accepted her as authority because you don't want to believe what God is saying in Genesis 1.

It seems that you would rather take the word of YE creationists, than the living God of the Bible. Doesn't bode well for the credibility of your profession of Christianity.

 

[Yehren]

How can you know that when you, nor anyone else were there?

Evidence. I had to learn about fire investigation once. Amazing what a good investigator can learn from a fire he wasn't there to see.

You are saying that you are very sure that there was no Adam and Eve.

If you're denying there was an actual Adam and Eve, then one of us is. Is that the real problem here? I'm pointing out that "mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-chromosome Adam" were not the Adam and Eve of the Bible. There were human descendants of the real Adam and Eve, long before the last common ancestors of today's humans.

What are you basing that on?

Genetic testing of many, many people, in laboratories all over the world.

The only substantive evidence according to "operation science" is that it has to be observed, and shown by scientific experimentation in a laboratory.

No, that's wrong. For example, ethology is a hobby of mine. Very little of what we know about animal behavior is done by experiments in a laboratory. It's done in the wild, by observation, not experiment, with few exceptions. Science isn't what you seem to think it is. Meteorology, astronomy, geology, and many other sciences depend on field observation, as well as scientific experimentation.

If you are resorting to "historical science"

What makes you think genetics is a "historical science?" Do you understand how geneticists find out things like a last common female ancestor? I don't think you do.

 

[Enoch111]

The noun heretic is mostly used in a religious context to talk about someone whose actions or beliefs act against the laws, rules, or beliefs of some specific religion...

In the Bible a heretic is one who causes division because his beliefs are contrary to Bible doctrine. Not "some specific religion".

The Catholic Church has a false gospel which contradicts the true Gospel. That is the primary heresy of the Catholic church.

Section 980 (Catechism of the Catholic Church)
"Penance has rightly been called by the holy Fathers "a laborious kind of baptism." This sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation for those who have fallen after Baptism, just as Baptism is necessary for salvation for those who have not yet been reborn."

This is not the Gospel but an invention of the Catholic Church.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Hi Paul, no, on the contrary, like I said, i already told you & Aspen that I believe entirely in the Genesis account of creation, 200%.
My only contention lies in using it to establish bona-fide heresy.

This was my final statement, to my last post:
'Thus, I still think whether we came from 2 original humans or not, does not preclude the need for redemption and Christ's Lordship.
Now, as I said, I believe in the Genesis account of creation, as I explained by the New Testament's attestation to it. I'm just trying to establish a maxim for Christian heresy, that a doctrine must necessitate man's condemnation and Christ's Messiahship.'

I guess I didn't quite understand what you were saying. To clarify this for myself, I thought of the Scripture: "For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear" (2 Timothy 4:3).
So, "doctrine" by itself may be too general a term to use to use as the basis for heresy. As we can see from the Scripture, there is a difference between "sound doctrine" and the type of teaching to suit man's own desires and what their itching ears want to hear. My view of "sound doctrine" is what we see clearly written in the Bible, including the literal Genesis 1. When evolutionists inside and outside of the church depart from the literal text of Genesis 1, they are departing from sound doctrine to teaching that suits their own desire to keep God out of their picture.

I believe that heresy comes from either adding to or taking away from what is literally written in the text of Scripture. Evolution reads its own additions into Scripture, or provides its own explanation apart from Scripture, therefore it is false teaching. It is sad that many church leaders teach it, corrupting the faith of many. This is the reason why 20-25 year olds either refuse to attend church or those brought up in the faith are departing from it. Their attitude is, "If the leaders don't believe the Bible, why should we?"

 

[Yehren]

Evolution reads its own additions into Scripture,

No. Scripture has nothing whatever to say about evolution or creationism. Not necessary. Evolution is completely indifferent to the way life began. Darwin himself just supposed that God created the first living things.

or provides its own explanation apart from Scripture

So does nuclear physics. Not everything that's true, is in Scripture.

therefore it is false teaching.

False teaching would be claiming that Scripture says something about how the diversity of living things came about.

YE creationism is an addition to scripture. It is sad that many church leaders teach it, corrupting the faith of many. This is the reason why 20-25 year olds either refuse to attend church or those brought up in the faith are departing from it. Their attitude is, "If the preachers add false ideas to the Bible, why should we believe anything they say?"

 

[DNB]

I guess I didn't quite understand what you were saying. To clarify this for myself, I thought of the Scripture: "For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear" (2 Timothy 4:3).
So, "doctrine" by itself may be too general a term to use to use as the basis for heresy. As we can see from the Scripture, there is a difference between "sound doctrine" and the type of teaching to suit man's own desires and what their itching ears want to hear. My view of "sound doctrine" is what we see clearly written in the Bible, including the literal Genesis 1. When evolutionists inside and outside of the church depart from the literal text of Genesis 1, they are departing from sound doctrine to teaching that suits their own desire to keep God out of their picture.

I believe that heresy comes from either adding to or taking away from what is literally written in the text of Scripture. Evolution reads its own additions into Scripture, or provides its own explanation apart from Scripture, therefore it is false teaching. It is sad that many church leaders teach it, corrupting the faith of many. This is the reason why 20-25 year olds either refuse to attend church or those brought up in the faith are departing from it. Their attitude is, "If the leaders don't believe the Bibl red sacrificerequie, why should we?"

That's true, what is being taught today in major universities is an entire corruption of the Word. Talking snake, Noah's Ark, burning bush, the virgin birth, raising of the dead, Christ's required sacrifice, ... are all put into question due to the miraculous nature of these phenomenon. But, I've always said, let the dead bury the dead, i.e. let the unspritual bicker about unspiritual matters. That is, if the logistics confound you, because you are unaware of God's supremacy and transcendence, then all you will comprehend is the physical aspect of these events. Whereas, the veracity and credibility of their historicity, is derived from the purpose and significance behind them, I believe.

 

[Paul Christensen]

What she is not, is a prominent scientist. She doesn't seem to have any particular achievements in her field. What has she done?


There are creationist scientists with considerable achievements to their names. This is not one of them. It seems you've accepted her as authority because you don't want to believe what God is saying in Genesis 1.

It seems that you would rather take the word of YE creationists, than the living God of the Bible. Doesn't bode well for the credibility of your profession of Christianity.

I could provide a whole room full of PhD geneticists, and geologists to prove by scientific evidence of what I am saying, but you will find a way of discrediting each one. That is understandable, because you are adamant in your belief and no matter what evidence is produced, you will be blind to it.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Evidence. I had to learn about fire investigation once. Amazing what a good investigator can learn from a fire he wasn't there to see.



If you're denying there was an actual Adam and Eve, then one of us is. Is that the real problem here? I'm pointing out that "mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-chromosome Adam" were not the Adam and Eve of the Bible. There were human descendants of the real Adam and Eve, long before the last common ancestors of today's humans.



Genetic testing of many, many people, in laboratories all over the world.



No, that's wrong. For example, ethology is a hobby of mine. Very little of what we know about animal behavior is done by experiments in a laboratory. It's done in the wild, by observation, not experiment, with few exceptions. Science isn't what you seem to think it is. Meteorology, astronomy, geology, and many other sciences depend on field observation, as well as scientific experimentation.



What makes you think genetics is a "historical science?" Do you understand how geneticists find out things like a last common female ancestor? I don't think you do.

I don't know about all that. I just take the word of the Person who was there, and I just believe what He says. Unless you accept the literal text of the Bible that forms the basis of my world view, and I am not going to compromise it with the word of man, then we are not on the same page, and never will be. I hold to the Biblical world view and reject the atheistic world view.

 

[ScottA]

Heretical statements are simply anything said within the church that is not in accord with scripture, a very real problem.

But it is also a convenient word often wrongly taken up in doctrinal disputes, more of a way of making things personal that are not personal as an attempt at winning an argument that cannot be defended scripturally. For this reason, such claims cannot be assumed to be authoritative, perhaps the opposite.

 

[Yehren]

If you're denying there was an actual Adam and Eve, then one of us is. Is that the real problem here? I'm pointing out that "mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-chromosome Adam" were not the Adam and Eve of the Bible. There were human descendants of the real Adam and Eve, long before the last common ancestors of today's humans.

I don't know about all that.

I do. It has nothing to do with Scripture, but it's well-documented.

Unless you accept the literal text of the Bible that forms the basis of my world view, and I am not going to compromise it with the word of man

If you're a YE creationist, that's exactly what you're doing. I hold to the Biblical world view and reject the YE creationist world view.

 

[Yehren]

I could provide a whole room full of PhD geneticists, and geologists to prove by scientific evidence of what I am saying,

You're major problem is that science doesn't work by endorsements. It works by evidence. Show us some evidence for your ideas. I've linked to some evidence for the conclusions of scientists, to no avail. That is understandable, because you are adamant in your belief and no matter what evidence is produced, you will be blind to it.

In 1987 population geneticists first demonstrated the existence of such a ‘mitochondrial Eve'3. After analysing mtDNA from 147 people from around the world to chart their genetic relationships, they used a ‘molecular clock’, based on the number of DNA mutations that arise with each generation, to estimate Eve's age. This woman, the researchers concluded, probably lived in Africa around 200,000 years ago. The finding provided evidence for the theory that modern humans evolved in Africa before migrating to other continents.


Yet comparable studies later found that Adam, the common ancestor of the portion of the Y chromosome that passes from father to son, lived roughly 100,000 years ago. It’s possible that Adam and Eve lived aeons apart, and geneticists have come up with a number of explanations as to why.


Carlos Bustamante, a population geneticist at the Stanford University School of Medicine in California who led one of the latest studies, says that chance could explain the discrepancy between the ages of Adam and Eve. Polygamy could also help to explain the gap, he says. The calculation of when Adam or Eve lived depends on the number of breeding adults in a population, and polygamy reduces the number of males that pass on their Y chromosomes, thereby skewing the estimate.


Bustamante and his team sequenced the Y chromosomes of 69 males from around the world and uncovered about 9,000 previously unknown DNA sequence variations. They used these variations to create a more reliable molecular clock and found that Adam lived between 120,000 and 156,000 years ago. A comparable analysis of the same men's mtDNA sequences suggested that Eve lived between 99,000 and 148,000 years ago1. “This idea of a very recent common ancestor of all men is not that true,” Bustamante says.
Genetic Adam and Eve did not live too far apart in time

 

[Yehren]

That's true, what is being taught today in major universities is an entire corruption of the Word. Talking snake, Noah's Ark, burning bush, the virgin birth, raising of the dead, Christ's required sacrifice, ... are all put into question due to the miraculous nature of these phenomenon.

No. Science cannot consider the validity of miracles and does not claim to have that ability. It is limited by its very methodology to the physical universe.

 

[Yehren]

Heretical statements are simply anything said within the church that is not in accord with scripture, a very real problem.

But it is also a convenient word often wrongly taken up in doctrinal disputes, more of a way of making things personal that are not personal as an attempt at winning an argument that cannot be defended scripturally. For this reason, such claims cannot be assumed to be authoritative, perhaps the opposite.

This is very often true. We should be careful to limit the word to its proper meaning. A Catholic cannot correctly refer to a Protestant as a heretic; although the Protestant likely denies a number of orthodox positions within apostolic Christianity, he can be completely orthodox within Protestant Christianity. Works both ways.

 

[Paul Christensen]

That's true, what is being taught today in major universities is an entire corruption of the Word. Talking snake, Noah's Ark, burning bush, the virgin birth, raising of the dead, Christ's required sacrifice, ... are all put into question due to the miraculous nature of these phenomenon. But, I've always said, let the dead bury the dead, i.e. let the unspritual bicker about unspiritual matters. That is, if the logistics confound you, because you are unaware of God's supremacy and transcendence, then all you will comprehend is the physical aspect of these events. Whereas, the veracity and credibility of their historicity, is derived from the purpose and significance behind them, I believe.

The problem is that when the church itself follows the lead of the universities teaching liberalism and attacking the Bible, it is alienating the young people they are trying to attract. In my Presbyterian church when I was living in Auckland, the plea was "Why aren't we attracting the young people?" Well, my answer is that the church is not teaching young people how to answer the atheistic teaching that questions the Bible. The church should be teaching its young people apologetics, so they can have a Biblical answer to the corrupted, liberal teaching that they are exposed to when they go to high school and university.

The sad thing is that too many churches are teaching the same thing that the liberal universities and seminaries are teaching. It is no wonder that 20-25 year olds are departing from the churches in droves, even though they have Christian parents and were brought up through the churches' Sunday schools. What they have observed is that their church leaders are siding with atheistic teaching, and because they don't believe the Bible any more, why should they themselves bother. If the Bible is not the authority of their church, why continue? They might as well adopt the attitude that anything goes, and get out of it and just enjoy life.

 

[ScottA]

You're major problem is that science doesn't work by endorsements. It works by evidence. Show us some evidence for your ideas. I've linked to some evidence for the conclusions of scientists, to no avail. That is understandable, because you are adamant in your belief and no matter what evidence is produced, you will be blind to it.

In 1987 population geneticists first demonstrated the existence of such a ‘mitochondrial Eve'3. After analysing mtDNA from 147 people from around the world to chart their genetic relationships, they used a ‘molecular clock’, based on the number of DNA mutations that arise with each generation, to estimate Eve's age. This woman, the researchers concluded, probably lived in Africa around 200,000 years ago. The finding provided evidence for the theory that modern humans evolved in Africa before migrating to other continents.


Yet comparable studies later found that Adam, the common ancestor of the portion of the Y chromosome that passes from father to son, lived roughly 100,000 years ago. It’s possible that Adam and Eve lived aeons apart, and geneticists have come up with a number of explanations as to why.


Carlos Bustamante, a population geneticist at the Stanford University School of Medicine in California who led one of the latest studies, says that chance could explain the discrepancy between the ages of Adam and Eve. Polygamy could also help to explain the gap, he says. The calculation of when Adam or Eve lived depends on the number of breeding adults in a population, and polygamy reduces the number of males that pass on their Y chromosomes, thereby skewing the estimate.


Bustamante and his team sequenced the Y chromosomes of 69 males from around the world and uncovered about 9,000 previously unknown DNA sequence variations. They used these variations to create a more reliable molecular clock and found that Adam lived between 120,000 and 156,000 years ago. A comparable analysis of the same men's mtDNA sequences suggested that Eve lived between 99,000 and 148,000 years ago1. “This idea of a very recent common ancestor of all men is not that true,” Bustamante says.
Genetic Adam and Eve did not live too far apart in time

This is all very interesting...and I don't disagree. Nor do I disagree with the young earth beliefs. But both positions violate the greater context of God.

Thus, disagreement is ever ongoing.

For the most part, science violates the greater context of God by limiting evidence to things of this world. Which is not the violation of the common biblical interpretation, which is also limited and therefore out of context.

The greater context of God is not limited, but infinite; wherein worldly scientific evidence or even so called biblical evidence amounts to little more than the thoughts of men regarding both. Both lower context approaches do not reach the higher context level of God in order to have complete understanding. Neither is completely correct nor incorrect. On the contrary, all truth comes via the Holy Spirit. The good news here, is that all truth and a complete understanding on these and all matters, is promised.

But perhaps this is not the time, place, or topic of this thread.

 

[Paul Christensen]

No. Science cannot consider the validity of miracles and does not claim to have that ability. It is limited by its very methodology to the physical universe.

Here is a very interesting article which examines the origin of humanity based on genetics. It takes a bit of reading, but i think it gives a good picture of genuine genetic research, and its conclusions, and also the reasons why any genetic research that supports creationism over evolution is not widely published in official journals. This is because any scientific research has to be reviewed, evaluated by peers who dogmatically support evolution, and any research that does not agree with it is usually heavily redacted or rejected.
Genetics Confirms the Recent, Supernatural Creation of Adam and Eve