I had just sat down for a late lunch this Super Bowl Sunday after getting home from church. I happened to glance at the front page of the Houston Chronicle (which my wife gets for the coupons) after my wife informed me that there was a picture of the newly born giraffe at the local zoo (my daughter’s favorite place to go). Instead of joyfully musing about the new giraffe, I found myself stewing instead. So rather than preparing for some Super Bowl party, I’d thought I’d write about the article that got me a little riled up. Today’s feature article, on the very FRONT page, is an article dripping with worship for Charles Darwin, whose 200th birthday is February 12th. My first thought was how can the Chronicle print this nonsense on the front page and yet continue to exist as a newspaper especially in a city that has four churches listed in the Church Report’s, America’s 50 Most Influential (Protestant) Churches? Maybe every other Christian got it for the coupons too? As I read the article, it was clear that the heathen worship at the altar of Darwin and therefore, the placement of such veneration was appropriate in their estimation. Eric Berger, who wrote the article as well as an accompanying blog, wrote this: “I come to celebrate … Charles Darwin.” Now just to be fair, Berger later claims that “I didn’t mean to imply that I am here to “praise” Darwin in the sense that he’s worthy of worship as some sort of deity.” Berger provides an excuse that he wrote his blog at 6:30 AM. Nice try, Mr. Berger, but Scripture says “But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart.” I’m inclined to think that what came first to his mind most accurately reflected what was in his heart. Besides, his statement came only after he provided a link to the various Darwin celebration activities in the Houston area. (reference)
Berger’s article on the front page starts with the usual dismissal of Christian beliefs, “Still a flash point among fundamentalist Christians, the theory of evolution proposed by Charles Darwin 150 years ago has become an indispensable tool for biologists to comprehend the natural world.” We fundamentalist Christians are such ignoramuses! Berger then goes onto to detail the significance of the theory of evolution and the great scientific discoveries that he claims were the direct result of Darwin’s works. One of these great scientific achievements: “Evolutionary theory has definitely guided us, and now we as a medical community know to be much more careful about the use of antibiotics.” I don’t know about you, but I’m totally underwhelmed. I was totally expecting some miraculous find that revolutionized our society. I was thinking of somebody like Ernst Chain, the guy who actually pioneered the use of antibiotics. But I’m sure evolutionists will pay him no heed even if he was credited with “one of the greatest discoveries in medical science ever made” since he was ardently opposed to Darwinism. Or maybe I’m just a little biased because the other great achievements listed by Berger pale in comparison to the discoveries of Christian scientists such as Newton, Pasteur, Linnaeus, Faraday, Pascal, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, or Kepler. In fact, I’m pretty sure that Louis Pasteur would consider evolution to be a step backwards in scientific thought since it was his experiments that disproved spontaneous generation.
Ironically, one of the scientists that Berger lists in his top four, Sir Isaac Newton, was a Christian who said “I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.” Newton would undoubtedly object to modern evolutionary theory. And yet another irony, Berger lists Galileo. Everyone knows it was those ignorant fundamentalist Christians who suppressed scientific truth for the good of their religion. Facetiousness aside, very few know that Galileo’s heliocentrism was not new but that the Roman Catholic Church had adopted the views of Aristotle and made Aristotelian and Ptolemaic geocentricity church dogma. It was precisely because the Church compromised with “modern experts” that Galileo was persecuted. But then again, I doubt today’s scientists such as Berger would allow facts to get in the way of their idolatry. If the Jews couldn’t even wait a few days for Moses to come down from the mountain, it should be no surprise to me that the heathen will have need to create their own gods. “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, (Rom 1:18-22).
There you have it. Expect some fools near you to be bowing at the altar of Darwin this month.
P.S. It is no coincidence that this article is written on the heels of Reformed Mama’s. The despicable lie of evolution is intrinsically linked to the most heinous sin of our time. (Go here for further discussion on this point.)
{ 80 comments… read them below or add one }
Good thoughts…
and over and over again…you will hear “Darwinites” chanting the mantras of the “facts” of evolution not even recognizing the faith that it takes to prop this theory up…but when challenged…they deflect with ad hominems or similar.
Get ready for the comments!
Sir Aaron,
Thanks for the post! I appreciate your commentary. Thanks for the “sacrifice,” this is much more edifying than the Super Bowl! I agree with Robert, and I look forward to the development of the thread. All we need now is for some proponents of evolution theory to join in…
Truly great post Sir Aaron. If people do not believe that scientists (not all I understand) worship at the alter of Darwin they should see Ben Stein’s film “Expelled.” A really great film that exposes the “idol” mentality and protection that the scientific community as a whole gives to that ridiculous theory and dare I say religion.
Sir Aaron…how funny that you would post this…we are attending an “Answers for Darwin” seminar today! Ken Ham, from Answers in Genesis is out here in SoCal over at Calvary Costa Mesa. I will check in later with some highlights. We went to 3 sessions this morning and are headed back over for the last one and some Q&A.
Thanks! Talk soon…
Most Christians either accept evolution or they see it as a viable option to Creation. In other words, most professing Christians don’t REALLY believe the Genesis account of Creation, which is also why they DO accept all manner of the world’s philosophies (read: myths and fairytales) like psychology. Our headmaster says only SIX “Christian” colleges nationwide dogmatically teach Creation. ONLY SIX! The rest teach evolution and Creation as optional views. Is it any wonder that between the pulpits and the universities, our kids buy the lie of Satan, “Hath God said?” back in the Garden. This has a direct affect on how they understand the Fall, sin, God, man, and the authority of Scripture.
If anyone has any doubt as to the Cult of Science, you should watch the 2007 movie, “Expelled” narrated and put together by Ben Stein. In it you will see (as you already do if you keep up with this stuff in the news online), that the scientific community will NOT allow ANY deviation away from evolution. If you DARE question evolution publically as a teacher let alone a scientist, you are blacklisted and ridiculed. I kid you not. Its THAT bad and they are THAT afraid of Truth.
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Col 2:2 that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments.
Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
Col 3:1 If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth.
Denise,
I don’t see how a Christian could choose the side of evolutionists after looking at just a little bit of scientific evidence. But I guess if the Discovery Channel says its true then it must be so.
Hello,
The issue to think about is regarding essentials. If one denies the ex-nihilo creation of God in reference to Genesis vs. natural progressive evolution, would this be enough of an essential to consider them a non-Christian, or is this a non-essential?
Now of course, we are not talking about theistic evolution yet. Though it should be considered.
So if a Theistic Evolutionists claims Christianity, is this non-essential and thus they can still be a Christian?
If a person accepts the full view of evolution (not theistic evolution) and yet claims to be a Christian, is this person still a Christian and thus this is a non-essential.
I once discussed this with a college professor (my professor). The issue was in his mind perplexed since he never heard biology as a breaking point of orthodoxy vs. primary heresy.
I have not made a solid conclusion on this matter yet. Though I am leaning towards that notion that if evolution is replaced in toto for Genesis 1 (or 1-11), then that person by definition is not a Christian.
This has nothing to do per se about dating the earth old verses young. This I admit could be a non-essential.
Greg Koukel once said on his radio station that the earth is old because:
“It just looks old.”
though I would argue that those of an old earth view are somewhat idiotic and stupid (e.g. Huge Loss), I would still consider them my brother. Though perhaps, a spiritual “rain-man.”
So the issue is out there. If it’s worth discussion fine, if not that’s okay too.
1) Can a consistent evolutionists (Darwinian) still be a Christian?
2) Can a Theistic Evolutionists still be a Christian.
I’m thinking no, but what would be the arguments against such a notion?
I’d offer Darwin some candles on his birthday cake, but I have a feeling that he’s dealing with enough fire already.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
Jean:
I consider your questions to be important and worth discussion.
1) Can a consistent evolutionists (Darwinian) still be a Christian?
I don’t see how you could be a Christian and believe in evolution without considering yourself a theistic evolutionist. Doesn’t being a consistent evolutionist require you to believe that there is no God?
2) Can a Theistic Evolutionists still be a Christian.
I think this is a definite “yes.” I personally do not consider evolution or a literal belief to be an essential doctrine. I’m sure I’ll get a lot of disagreement here since some regulars believe that if you are a modern day arminian then you are not saved either. I consider theistic evolution to be a Christian heresy that can lead to a rejection of a primary non-essential, the inerrancy of Scripture.
I do consider the belief in a heresy or rejection of a non-essential to be a fruit, if you will. In and of itself, it doesn’t mean that a person is not a Christian. But reject enough non-essential doctrines and accept enough heresies and you have to begin to question a person’s acceptance of essential doctrine.
P.S. I also think old earth proponents are silly. I argue with them all the time. I often hear, why would God trick us by making the earth look old? Answer: He didn’t trick you. He told you what he did. I also use the example of a tree. If I planted a seed, a tree grew for several years, and then I cut it down would anybody argue that I couldn’t reliably date it by counting the rings? But if God tells me he created a tree could be then date the tree using the same methods? Of course not! The tree would appear to be several years old when it is not.
Go here for a interesting parable: http://bibchr.blogspot.com/
Look for February 4th: Science, the Bible, and Presuppositions: a parable
Since the concept of “Theistic Evolution” is not found in Scripture, I would consider it a violation of the authority of Scripture. Can those who add to Scripture be Christians?
Hey, overcommitad! Don’t see you around much.
As to your question, I feel like I already answered that. First, well meaning but mistaken Christians add to Scripture all the time. Complete prohibition of alcohol and tattoos comes to mind. That somebody approaches Genesis with their own presuppositions and comes away with a false interpretation doesn’t separate one from the body of Christ.
I agree that theistic evolution is dangerously close to questioning the inerrancy of Scripture. Theistic evolution is wrong and should be considered a heresy. Belief in theistic evolution may be indicative of a more severe spiritual condition or even of an unregenerate person. But belief in theistic evolution, all by itself, doesn’t mean that the person is not a Christian.
Hi Sir Aaron,
Some good thoughts coming for your direction. I’m not use to this so I had to slap myself. : )
You make a good point that consistent Evolution is atheism. However, the concept of atheism is an impossible concept to arrive to via a system of adherence due to the impossible concept behind the term.
Since atheism claims a knowledge about the infinite, we see invalidity since the arguments and premises they are are within the finite. And as you know, the finite can never lead to the infinite.
So, if we hypothetically give evolution as so for the sake of argument, it would be impossible (despite the claim) to lead to a claimed system that cannot exist.
While some evolutionists claim to address the infinite (Hugh Ross, Hawking) many claim (specifically biological evolution) within the finite. So I’m not sure what the consistent order would be.
Not to mention that an inconsistent “system” can never lead to a consistent system. But this was said by me as a point of illustration.
Though I tend to agree with you (for different issues I’m still working out) that full blown evolutionist would disqualify one from Christianity.
The Theistic Evolution I am also struggling with. It appears they are also non-Christian. I’m not one of those that believe Arminianism is a primary heresy (though it COULD be), but the theistic issue is something to think about.
Since knowledge is connected to something always, it would appear that a theistic evolutionist would also fragment other areas of Scripture in terms of their literal/literary intent.
So I suppose a “consistent” theistic evolutionist would be non-Christian while an inconsistent theistic evolutionist could POSSIBLY be a Christian.
Overcommittment’s remarks were from an argument of silence so they do not appear relevant. Also, many traditions are not in Scripture and those who adhere to them are not Christian (Christmas, Easter, Birthdays, etc).
But he does make a good point on authority. And it is this point in reference to primary doctrine in which I am forming some of my arguments.
Of course, I am still working out my arguments, but on the surface, this seems apparent.
Good thoughts though.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
A “theistic evolutionist” is nothing more than an evolutionist. Scripture is clear on this issue:
Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
Heb 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
To deny God’s clear proclaimation that He created the universe by the power of His word, is to deny His authority and His Word.
“Christians” who want to accept science over Scripture prove their unbelieve and mock Him. His Word stands all by itself and needs no philosophies and theories which take away from His Word and His glory.
Deny Creation by HIS word and power in six literal days, and one does indeed end up denying other crucial doctrine. Ask someone who claims evolution if they believe in a literal Adam and Eve, the Fall of Man, a literal Satan, original sin, total depravity, etc.
Jean:
“Though I tend to agree with you (for different issues I’m still working out) that full blown evolutionist would disqualify one from Christianity.”
I didn’t exactly say that. I just think if you believe in God and evolution that must by definition lump you into theistic evolution.
“Since knowledge is connected to something always, it would appear that a theistic evolutionist would also fragment other areas of Scripture in terms of their literal/literary intent.”
Agreed.
“So I suppose a “consistent” theistic evolutionist would be non-Christian while an inconsistent theistic evolutionist could POSSIBLY be a Christian.”
I think first you’d have to define what you mean by consistent and inconsistent theistic evolutionist. Then we’d know where we stand when talking about these views. But I don’t see how you could be a theistic evolutionist and a Christian without being inconsistent in one’s treatment of Scripture.
“But he does make a good point on authority. And it is this point in reference to primary doctrine in which I am forming some of my arguments.”
Are they challenging the authority of scripture or just our interpretation of it? I think you’ll find that they apply inconsistent interpretation of Scripture to fit their evolutionary presuppositions. But I don’t know that it means that by being a theistic evolutionist that they are by definition also challenging the authority of the Bible. I certainly agree that such a belief in evolution could be a symptom of, or lead to, the rejection of the authority and inerrancy of Scripture. I just don’t think that one necessitates the other in all circumstances.
Denise:
“Scripture is clear on this issue:”
Agreed. But good and well meaning Christians apply false hermeneutics to all kinds of passages to come up with false doctrine and false beliefs. I could make an entire thread of such ridiculous doctrines that come nowhere from Scripture or are created from fanciful interpretations of clear passages in Scripture. But believing in such fanciful interpretations doesn’t mean one is an unbeliever.
“Deny Creation by HIS word and power in six literal days, and one does indeed end up denying other crucial doctrine. Ask someone who claims evolution if they believe in a literal Adam and Eve, the Fall of Man, a literal Satan, original sin, total depravity, etc.”
It is interesting that you put total depravity in the mix with original sin and a literal Satan. Now I’m guessing you think everyone must be a Calvinist to be a Christian. But getting back to the main point, many theologians have already answered your objection. RCSproul and Francis Schaeffer both at one time believed in “old earth” timelines and interpretations of the days in Genesis as something other than 24 hour days. Now we do agree that many people who believe in theistic evolution also deny other important and crucial doctrines. But that doesn’t make it so for everyone. I agree with Jean…it’s difficult to believe in theistic evolution without being inconsistent in your beliefs. However, there are entire groups dedicated to theistic evolution that DON’T deny the other crucial doctrines that you mentioned. Theistic evolution is wrong and a heresy but it doesn’t make you by definition an unbeliever.
havent got to read the replies so direct me if they have been answered, i have heard many Christians talk about evolution in an adaptation light not that we came from apes.
what do you guys think about the evolution from adam and eve?
Travis,
You’d need to be more specific.
Obviously, if we take the creation account seriously, we’d have to accept that various “races” of man and species of animals developed from the originals. Do you call this evolution? I don’t. I wouldn’t even call it adaptation. If an ice age kills of all the brown wolves, does it mean that the white wolves adapted or evolved? Not in my opinion. Others might say it was survival of the fittest. Problem is that you can never go back to brown wolves again. You’ve reduced the genetic material and a species ability to adapt not increased it.
It’s a crude example, I know and I’m sure ICR has a better explanation.
Hello Sir Aaron,
Sir Aaron Said:
“I think first you’d have to define what you mean by consistent and inconsistent theistic evolutionist. Then we’d know where we stand when talking about these views. But I don’t see how you could be a theistic evolutionist and a Christian without being inconsistent in one’s treatment of Scripture.”
Excellent and fair request.
While is would I suppose be possible, for one to claim full blown evolution and yet claim Christianity, this would be either an ignorant notion of things or simply synchronism of paganism (e.g. Neo-Platonism) with Christian concepts.
The problem with defining consistent theistic evolution or full blown evolution is that the system in and of itself is inconsistent via logical argument. So when I define consistent in either one of these camps, it should be qualified that they are not consistently via ontological structure
Though by consistency in this sense, I would refer to the claims set out by the founder of the theory, and those who have come later to “compliment” the founders theory. Now of course, it would be impossible for one to live out this theory consistently and practically, but theoretically, it would be text book analysis of the “system” which is claimed.
Now of course, there are several “systems” or “schisms” of evolution. So which one shall we choose? (e.g. Neo-Darwinism). Not to mention the various theories before Darwin (e.g. Stoics, Cuvier, etc). Since Darwin is the messiah of the 21st notion to begin with, it would be the outline laid out by Darwin himself (and those who “complement” his theory).
And since Modern (verse Post-Modern) thinkers have based their “systems” of Darwin, it would be Darwin himself where we would turn.
In reference to authority verses, interpretation, I’m not sure you can divorce the two when it comes to a possible essential.
The way theistic evolutionist thinks, is that they look down, across or up (analogy from Morey’s Trinity book) first before they look at the Scripture. They allow the so called “evidence” to reveal to them reality, and then they must bend and twist Scripture to match the supposed “evidence” of knowledge which the obtained before looking at the text alone in and of itself first. They then are deducing the evidence so called from the Scripture.
Instead of starting with the Axiom of Revelation to allow for the possibility of the implications of knowledge to be the starting point towards the knowledge of things, they start with their own human reasoning and fallen judgments, in which Scripture must conform.
This is against Scripture since we are told NOT to lean on our own understanding (Proverbs 3:5-6) but on the understanding of God’s Word alone.
The problem is that this is not interpretation in the proper sense.. Since interpretation presupposes that the authority of Scripture alone shall be the guiding reference point towards nature and things.
So yes, technically speaking, though it is an issue of interpretation, it is also an issue of authority since it’s their authority of observation first and before the infinite wisdom and knowledge of Scripture.that BEGINS there so called interpretation.
At this point, we should attempt to define what we me by the essentials of Christianity. While this is worked out in my mind for the most part (taxonomically speaking) I would like to give various heresies major thought before actually classifying theim in one of the categories.
Of course the category of concern as Outter pointed out is authority.
However, even if a person chose this method (the Axiom of Revelation), and was not regenerate, they still would be outside of knowledge since they are hostile towards God and the spiritual (Romans 8:7, II Corinthians 2:14-16).
It should also be noted that many Christians reject the Axiom of Revelation yet I still deem them as Christians (e.g. Sproul, Hodge). Thus, the difficulty would be if the false method allowed one to error essentially, would this then be considered.
So while it is the method indeed that I am challenging, it is not solely the method. Since an argument must have the method lead to the conclusion, it is the whole of the argument in which primary heresy shall be considered.
Sproul and Hodge, while their process was absurd, their conclusions were not, and thus they are still brothers in Christ, simply less intelligent towards method.
And since authority is an essential of the faith (authority of the formal debate of the reformation while justification was the material debate), this is where my struggle lies.
While I agree with Morey that a Christian can still be a Christians and have pagan ideas in their head, I would disagree that this would be for ALL pagan things. There is a line drawn in the sand somewhere. I’m sure Morey would have to agree with this as well since it is somewhat obvious.
And while the pagan ideas against the authority of Scripture becomes a primary heresy vs. a secondary heresy, if this issue is not the dividing line, it’s extremely close.
There’s a lot to think about here and frankly, this topic is virtually never in the Body of Christ and in the realm of apologetics.
However, it should be.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
Denise~
Amen. Scripture IS clear! I don’t think it could be any clearer.
Sir Aaron,
I pick my spots… For me it boils down to this… Without the humanistic idea that the earth MUST be billions of years old brought to us by lab coat folks with amazing imaginations (and emnity with God), Christians reading their Bibles would believe instantly that our Lord created the world as we read in Genesis 1 in just six literal 24-hour days. Since there is no long ages described in the text no one would add the concept. The only reason it has been inserted or “translated” that way is because of “science”. Even then crazy gymnastics, head tilting and all manner of squinting must be done in order to mash long ages into understanding creation. How, for instance, do you fit the death, suffering, cancer, disease, etc. of evolution into what God called “good” in Gen 1:21 & 25 and “very good” in v.31? Evolution requires an unimaginable amount of death. To attribute the ghoulish and inefficient process of fish-to-fisherman evolution is absurd. The God of order that designed us cannot be the author of evolution. It is incompatible with His devine attributes of love, mercy, justice, etc.
Christians do not compromise Scripture to any authority including the scientific community. I don’t see how a Christian can know what evolution is and who the God of the Bible is and believe evolution, “Theistic” or otherwise.
John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
overcommited:
First, we don’t argue that evolution is ridiculous to believe most especially for a believer. We agree that evolution is absurd.
I think our debate comes down to this: Can a Christian believe in some form of evolution and still be a Christian? I think, based on what you have said so far, that your answer would be no. So if somebody came to you and said I’m a Christian and yet believed in an old earth, you’d have to consider the person a complete pagan based on this sole determination. I, on the other hand, take a different approach. I think it is possible for Christians to be ignorant or misled about certain doctrines without their salvation being compromised. I personally would evaluate their belief on this issue and then look to their beliefs on other issues as evidence of the fruits that indicate true conversion.
I’d also like to know if you are consistent on other issues in Scripture. For example, the Bible is clear that alcohol is a blessing. And yet, somehow many Christians have come to conclusion that alcohol is evil and even tasting it is a damnable sin. They come up with some ingenious rather modern interpretation of Scripture much like theistic evolutionists do with the creation account. Since Scripture is clear on the issue, then these alcohol prohibitionists are challenging the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. Would you then apply the same reasoning to this group too?
My point here is not to trivialize the danger and error of evolution. But Christians come with very established and rooted pagan ideas. While the Holy Spirit works in our hearts to convince us of the truth, it doesn’t happen immediately upon conversion. RC Sproul believed in theistic evolution or a form thereof, but now believes in a literal six day account of creation. Frankly, this is what I’d expect as a result of conversion and sanctification.
Jean:
We agree completely on this issue.
“So yes, technically speaking, though it is an issue of interpretation, it is also an issue of authority since it’s their authority of observation first and before the infinite wisdom and knowledge of Scripture.”
Yes, yes we agree! You and I see it as a problem of authority. We look at the world around us and we evaluate our conclusions through the lens of Scripture. Theistic evolutionists do the opposite. Is the latter wrong? Of course. But in and of itself, without considering any other factors, does this mean that one is not a Christian?
“And since authority is an essential of the faith (authority of the formal debate of the reformation while justification was the material debate), this is where my struggle lies. ”
You aren’t alone here. Obviously, you and I as well as others see this as an issue of authority. But there are others out there who would tell you that they agree that Scripture is inerrant and that the Bible is THE authority. They might also agree with you on all major Christian doctrines. I’ve seen many of the arguments…i.e. the verses are not historical but poetry, etc. Certainly erroneous, but does it mean you are unregenerate?
“And while the pagan ideas against the authority of Scripture becomes a primary heresy vs. a secondary heresy, if this issue is not the dividing line, it’s extremely close.
There’s a lot to think about here and frankly, this topic is virtually never in the Body of Christ and in the realm of apologetics.
However, it should be. ”
Agreed.
FYI, overcommitted. I forgot to address your point about death and God saying it was “good.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that Dr. Morey has stated that there were animals eating other animals outside the garden of Eden, meaning there was death. So…….
Not believing that God instantly created the universe by the power of His word as HE says He did (“Let there be light and there was light”), is not of faith: its sin. Its denying His authority. To go anywhere else to determine truth about Creation is to not believe The Master, or Scripture Alone. Its back to “Hath God said?”
Overcommitted, I totally agree. Such philosophies are condemned by God and are not of faith. Rather, its sitting in the seat of scoffers (Ps. 1:1-3).
God as Creator is SO foundational, that God opens Scripture with that declaration (Genesis 1). Its so foundational that Colossians begins with this very declaration of who Jesus is: first as Creator, hence His authority. So does Hebrews in chapter 1 and then about TRUE FAITH in Hebrews 11. Then we see it again in Revelation.
Being Creator shows He is Lord. If one is denied, so is the other.
As instantaneous as creation was at the beginning (Genesis 1:2), I dare say so is our spiritual birth. Are people willing to say God needed help in creation (which isn’t creating) the universe and it took millions of years, yet they believe regeneration is instantaneous?
OR
Do they also think regeneration is a process?
Either way there is a huge disconnect. The physical is NOTHING compared to the spiritual. It is the spiritul which is far more important (John 3 demonstrates this).
REAL faith, true faith, biblical faith as God describes, believes HE created this universe as HE said. Anything less is unbelief and sin.
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
Heb 11:2 For by it the people of old received their commendation.
Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
I hope you see how extreemly important Hebrews 11 is to this discussion. Btw, my caps is just for emphasis, since I can’t highlight any other way. I don’t want anyone to think I’m yelling! =) <—Calm, cool, collected.
Jean:
Primary Essentials
These cannot be denied and still be a Christian.
1) Jesus is both God and man (John 1:1,14; 8:24; Col. 2:9; 1 John 4:1-4).
2) Jesus rose from the dead physically (John 2:19-21; 1 Cor. 15:14).
3) Salvation is by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 3:1-2; 5:1-4).
4) The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus according to the scriptures (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Gal. 1:8-9).
5) There is only one God (Exodus 20:3; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8)
6.) Jesus is the only way to God the Father (John 14:6).
7.) Jesus will one day return physically to judge the living and the dead
Secondary Essentials
Not stated in scripture as essential, but are derivatively essential since they deal with accurately describing the true God.
1.) Trinity
2.) Mary was a virgin at inception and birth of Christ (incarnation)
Primary Non-Essentials
Can be denied and still be Christian. Yet, denial would bring into question a person’s regeneration since primary non-essentials should be accepted through the process of sanctification.
1.) Moral principles (Exodus 20:1-17)
2.) Marriage between one wife and one husband
4.) Inerrancy of Scripture
5.) Baptism (although not necessary for salvation) (Acts 10:44-48)
Secondary Non-Essentials
Any of them individually can be denied, or affirmed, and regeneration is not in question. However, if a significant number are denied, one must question them thorougly about their understanding of the essentials.
1.) TULIP
2) Communion every week, monthly, or quarterly, etc.
3.) Saturday or Sunday Worship.
4) Eschatology
5) charismatic gifts
6) Baptism for adults vs.infants.
7) type of music in church
8.) interpretation of the creation account in Genesis
Denise:
“Not believing that God instantly created the universe by the power of His word as HE says He did (”Let there be light and there was light”), is not of faith: its sin. Its denying His authority. To go anywhere else to determine truth about Creation is to not believe The Master, or Scripture Alone. Its back to “Hath God said?”
My argument is not that it is not wrong. And FYI, most people who claim to be believers and believe in some form of theistic evolution claim that they are not denying Scripture’s authority but interpreting it according to a specific hermenuetic.
Let me restate. I’m not stating that belief in any form of evolution is Biblical. I believe that Scripture is clear throughout that God created the universe through the power of His word and that it was created in 6 literal days. I believe theistic evolution is a heresy that needs to be strongly rebuked since it leads people astray and leads to many dangerous heresies that contradicts the essentials of the faith (or sometimes is the product thereof). However, IT IS my argument that there are believers who have duped and need to be corrected and guided to a correct understanding of Scripture. That they have been duped, deceived, or simply ignorant on this singular issue does not necessitate, by definition, that they are not saved.
See I think Hebrews 5:12 -14 is godo to look at:
12In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.
Is it not to be expected that believers will struggle with certain truths?
Where is Reformed Mama with her update on the AIG seminar she attended?
Sir Aaron,
In replying to Jean, you listed the following primary and secondary essentials for saving faith:
>>Primary Essentials
These cannot be denied and still be a Christian.
1) Jesus is both God and man (John 1:1,14; 8:24; Col. 2:9; 1 John 4:1-4).
2) Jesus rose from the dead physically (John 2:19-21; 1 Cor. 15:14).
3) Salvation is by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 3:1-2; 5:1-4).
4) The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus according to the scriptures (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Gal. 1:8-9).
5) There is only one God (Exodus 20:3; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8)
6.) Jesus is the only way to God the Father (John 14:6).
7.) Jesus will one day return physically to judge the living and the dead
Secondary Essentials
Not stated in scripture as essential, but are derivatively essential since they deal with accurately describing the true God.
1.) Trinity
2.) Mary was a virgin at inception and birth of Christ (incarnation)<<
Your essentials include more information than appears in many gospel tracts, yet less information than appears in the Athanasian Creed, which repeatedly pronounces condemnation upon everybody who doesn’t believe everything in the Creed.
What’s your opinion of the trusworthiness of today’s tracts and of the creed when it comes to telling people what constitutes saving faith?
Hey, I wanted to point folks to a very telling article with Darwin quotes while I remember, which I found interesting: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=darwin-speaks
Quote:
I had read my grandfather’s zoonomy earlier, and it had contained similar views. Nevertheless, it is quite probable that the fact that I was exposed at an early age to such views and heard them being praised made it easier for me to uphold the same ideas in a different form in my Origin of Species.
Despite all my powers of deluding myself, it became more and more difficult to find proof enough to satisfy me.
And that is how faithlessness stalked me and took hold over me slowly, till I became totally disbelieving.
Disbelief crept in on me so SLOWLY that I did not feel any discomfort, and since then, never have a doubted for even a single second the correctness of my conclusions. And I cannot really understand, either, how anyone might want to believe that Christianity were true, because if it were, then, in the plain terms of the text, it is said that people who do not believe would be punished for eternity, and that would include my father, my brother and almost all my best friends. And that is a terrible doctrine!
Unquote.
My thoughts:
1.) Darwin’s reading started to influence his thinking. WE MUST BE CAREFUL of what we read!
2.) His doubts started slowly. Doubting God’s Word is sin. It is unbelief. It is what Satan did with Eve, for in doubting God’s Word, one doubts the authority of God Himself.
3.) He says what I’ve been saying: there was not enough proof to satisfy him. I put it slightly differently: there is never enough evidence for a skeptic, nor enough Scripture for the scholar.
4.) He rejects God’s wrath because Hell would mean that his loved ones would be lost. This is denial of God as Creator and Sovereign King and Judge. Its a denial of total depravity of man. Its a denial of God’s holiness.
How many “Christians” don’t bother to read much less believe (have faith) in Genesis 1-3 and Hebrews 11? How long are they “saved” before they bother with Creation? We see the Gospel proclamation by Peter and Paul in Acts 4:24; Acts 14:15; Acts 17:24 include God as Sovereign Master and Creator of all things and therefore Judge of all people. I guess what I’m asking is, how long can a professing Christian own a Bible and sit in church and not deal with Creation as God has proclaimed?
Those who are truly saved will not believe in such lies like evolution (which is God-hating in its foundation and permiates throughout its notions and conclusions), for the Spirit of Truth and Scripture won’t lead them there….they will be corrected by Scripture and embrace Creation or they were not His (ie, unteachable to Him and His authority). Again I appeal to Hebrews 11 which determines TRUE faith which begins at the beginning.
“The case is mournful. Certain ministers are making infidels. Avowed atheists are not a tenth as dangerous as those preachers who scatter doubt and stab at faith….”–Spurgeon
Robert Shindler, publisher of the Sword and the Trowel said at http://www.spurgeon.org/s_and_t/dg02.htm :
Quote:
The first step astray is a want of adequate faith in the divine inspiration of the sacred Scriptures. All the while a man bows to the authority of God’s Word, he will not entertain any sentiment contrary to its teaching. “To the law and to the testimony,” is his appeal concerning every doctrine. He esteems that holy Book, concerning all things, to be right, and therefore he hates every false way. But let a man question, or entertain low views of the inspiration and authority of the Bible, and he is without chart to guide him, and without anchor to hold him…
But when, on the other hand, reason has been exalted above revelation, and made the exponent of revelation, all kinds of errors and mischiefs have been the result.
End quote.
Very interesting to think about.
I don’t want to sound argumentative here, but I recognized Slick’s Primary/Sceondary statements right away from CARM. Just as a note of caution of which you might be unaware:
Slick says that belief that Jesus Christ is the ONLY way, truth, and life, is a SECONDARY issue. Jesus says its a Primary issue in John 8:24;58. There is a penalty for not believing this: hell (he denies there is a penalty for not holding to these “Secondary Essentials”.)
Also in his “secondary issues” he lists the Trinune Godhead, annihilationism (this denies Hell and God’s justice), universalism (this denies Hell and God’s justice), the resurrection of Jesus Christ (found on his Misrepresentation page and originally on his testimony page which he later changed), and salvation by baptism all (works salvation) as SECONDARY and therefore one can still hold to any of these and still be a Christian.
The grid is here: http://www.carm.org/doctrine/grid.htm
Anyway, I just wanted you to be aware that this guy’s views are not consistant with Scripture and is a bad source for summation on Primary and Secondary issues.
Hi Sir Aaron and Frank,
The modern “gospel” tracts of today are worth the value a little above rotting garbage.
A little above, since there are truths within them, though the overall theme of the argument in these tracts are garbage.
Specifically, the 4 spiritual laws.
The issue of authority is without question an essential doctrine of the faith. This would include inerrancy and inspiration. If a person claims to be a Christian and denies the inspiration/inerrancy of Scripture, then by definition they are NOT a Christian.
Like that moron Chad that was here a while ago. Morey got it right when he said:
“if you deny the words of Christ, then you cannot affirm the words of Christ.”
Authority was the foundational #1 issue of the reformation. It was a dividing issue for the Reformer as it should be for us.
It appears, given time, if a saint shows no growth, which includes the understanding that Scripture is first verses are own thinking first, then you would have to wonder whether they are in the faith. This would include Sproul back with he was semi theistic or anything else.
Again, you have to wonder.
Hodge and Warfield held there view as a REACTION against liberalism verses a PROACTIVE analysis of Scripture to respond to the enemy. This was an extremely UnBiblical approach (though understandable) to begin with.
Thus the motive was difference for the Princeton Theologians.
Modern “theologians” have the motive of a more severe arrogance via the influence of post-modernistic thinking.
A perfect example of this would be Darwin himself. He was a minister AND an evolutionist. Now, I believe the evidence would be hard pressed that Darwin is trapped in a hot grill right now for eternity. Though it won’t be for only 23 minutes, but for eternity.
We need to look at the following:
1) Motive
2) Fruits of growth (in the maturity of doctrine and interpreation)
3) Process of Argument
4) Conclusion of Argument
So while a theistic evolutionist may be a Christian due to immaturity or from being a babe, if one remain as such for decades or even life, you have to wonder and most likely deduce that they are not among us (I John 2:19).
The concept of essential or primary doctrine is a good start, but more work needs to be done. I believe I have captured it via study, but it is a good mediation for Christians to think of on their own.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
Sir,
I was being very vague just because it is a foreign subject to me, I havent sat down and read the scripture and thought through the implacations of evolution or adaptaion.
The definitions of evolution and adaptaion that have been given by Christians apear to be this,
evolution, God mad the big bang, and we started with Adam and Eve, then there bone structure changed and evolved to what we see now, and adation being how we gain liter skin in winter areas or we adapt to thin air , BUT I never get a biblical answer so much, it seems to start with humanism, but I know we have seen a change in people over time, but I think there is a difference in people during the same area just as there are differences in people today.
Denise:
First, I borrowed some from Matt Slick. I wasn’t at home so I needed a basis. Normally, I’d look at a lot more material, but I actually agree with most of his doctrinal grid and I thought it made a good starting point.
Secondarily, you slightly misrepresent his position on the secondary essentials. I wont bother defending him, I’ll let people go there and check it out themselves.
Third, I’m very aware of your issues with Slick. I say this to you, a Christian sister, with utmost gentleness and respect. I believe you have acted in a manner both unbecoming and doctrinally unsound.
Frank:
“Your essentials include more information than appears in many gospel tracts, yet less information than appears in the Athanasian Creed, which repeatedly pronounces condemnation upon everybody who doesn’t believe everything in the Creed.”
“What’s your opinion of the trusworthiness of today’s tracts and of the creed when it comes to telling people what constitutes saving faith?”
I probably have included more items on my list than is actually an essential. I may have gone overboard. Obviously, the thief on the cross knew few of what we would call essentials today. Deciding the issue of “essentials” is a little tricky. This is because we expect that a Christian, if truly regenerate and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, to grow in a process we call sanctification. Can an adulterer be a Christian? When we evangelize, we don’t tell people..now in order to be saved you must accept that adultery is a sin. But if we saw a person who called themselves a Christian and yet was actively involved in a life of adultery, we’d certainly question their salvation. The evidence that someone is saves is that his life is being changed (Colossians 3:1-10). The key word is “being.” That implies that we continue to make progress in our understanding of Scripture but also that at the instant of conversion we will not know everything that, if we are truly Christians, will later be expected to learn and accept as truth.
As far as tracts are concerned, I have a few that I do hand out on occasion. They do have some use in my opinion, albeit limited.
Travis:
Theistic evolutionary theories run the gamut. I couldn’t even begin to explain all of them. But most of them start with what they believe to be scientific fact. Then they say, well obviously according to fact, the earth is billions of years old. Then they go back to Scripture with the presupposition that A.) The Bible is inerrant and (B) the earth is billions of years old (obviously not all theistic evolutionists believe in A). Therefore, if the Bible is inerrant and the earth is billions of years old, then the only conclusion left is that we are interpreting Genesis incorrectly. So then they come up with some interpretation that the original Hebrew word used for day could mean literal days or long periods of time. They also go onto to show that the account of Genesis was prose and not a technical historical account.
The problem is two-fold. First their “facts” aren’t facts but theory that were based on their own presuppositions which often turn out to be incorrect. The second problem is that they don’t read the Bible and ask what does it mean then apply it to the world around them but instead apply what they observe around them to the Bible.
Jean:
So while a theistic evolutionist may be a Christian due to immaturity or from being a babe, if one remain as such for decades or even life, you have to wonder and most likely deduce that they are not among us (I John 2:19).
We are in agreement here. Notice how you can’t be certain since you still qualify deduce with “most likely.”
The concept of essential or primary doctrine is a good start, but more work needs to be done. I believe I have captured it via study, but it is a good mediation for Christians to think of on their own.
Again, complete agreement. This is not as simple as some make it out to be.
Jean, Travis, and Frank:
Obviously, we all agree on certain fundamental truths. But as you can see, there is some disagreement on where to place those truths within the four squares of you absolutely must believe this to be saved. According to some here (Denise), I’d probably be considered unsaved because I disagree over where these fundamentals should be classified. One of my deepest fears is that if we (Christians) aren’t careful, we (Christians) could easily add doctrines that really are disputable.
You guys discuss this stuff to nicely, here, I provide this to get the blood boiling.
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/Christian_Clergy/ChrClergyLtr.htm
John
Sir Aaron:
I was debating a fellow in Crosswalk.com about this issue, he has every argument down pat, and hes full of quotes from preachers we all know and respect, attempting to come across as, “we need to get up to speed, the church has conceeded the issue”.
I fully reject this letter, evolution and I fully question any ministry leader that would endorse such a letter.
John
John:
Yes, this letter is disgusting. There are a lot of Presbyterian, Baptist, and Church of Christ Churches on that list which is surprising. My guess in this case, is that the list of churches is probably a bunch of modern churches that deny most of the fundamentals of the faith and of course, evolution is just the icing on the cake. But I could be wrong.
My problem with Christians trying to interpret Genesis like these Pastors have is that if you knew nothing of evolution, you’d never pick up the Bible and understand Genesis to mean anything other than a genuine account of what happened. Granted, there’s a lot left unmentioned, but you’d never read evolution into the matter unless you’ve been taught evolution first. My second objection is that the evidence for evolution is contradictory and slim to non-existent. I’ve been to the museum of natural science, etc. and the sheer number of conclusions and/or assumptions made on partial data is sickening.
I’m intereted in your debate. What exactly were you debating that he had all the arguments down pat?
‘Sir Aaron: I do have an oversimplification of the issue of believers ascribing to evolution.
“If you cannot believe the biblical account of the origin of man, how can you maintain a faith in the destiny of men since both are determined by unseen, unproven declarations of God?”
To claim Christ and hold to evolution will in the end, begin to deconstruct the claims of Christ. When your sin and the testimonies of God confront one another, which one will you determine is essential to your way of life?
Yes its a philosophical statement, but to me its a litmus test in time to come, a prophecy of a mans spiritual growth.
Right now the pregnant church of theistic evolution has not been able to see the fruit of the womb. But it will come, and it will reveal itself of what kind of spirit it is from.
John
Hi Sir Aaron:
http://forums.crosswalk.com/The_Clergy_Letter_Project/m_4145762/mpage_1/tm.htm#1
Please check here.
I post under “gloryandgrace”. Please allow me to excuse my poor debating skills and anathemas, I mean every word of it, but I am far from being able to convice men such as Ross Lang who was a proponent of evolution and the errancy of scripture. I am an inerrantist and we tangled on that issue as well.
John
“If you cannot believe the biblical account of the origin of man, how can you maintain a faith in the destiny of men since both are determined by unseen, unproven declarations of God?”
Or as you progress in sanctification, the Holy Spirit could reveal the truth to you and you could come to believe the truth that evolution is a lie.
In Scripture the belief in a certain view of creation is never part of the Gospel message. Even in Paul’s message in Acts 17 where creation is brought to bear upon the Athenians, Paul doesn’t say, “When you guys are ready to embrace a six day, ex nihilo view of creation, you can be saved.”
John:
There is no point in debating other issues if you can’t agree on the inerrancy of Scripture. If you can’t point to something as the final authority, then you can basically come up with any view you desire. How can you agree that the Bible says the earth was created in six literal days if you can’t agree that the Bible isn’t full of errors? Even if you win the argument that the Bible says something, the other person can claim the Bible is mistaken!
Most of the people I debate with regarding evolution are theistic evolutionists who agree that the Bible is inerrant. They just want to apply the same hermeneutics to Genesis that they do to Ecclesiastes.
Morey has a little section in his next book dealing with “theistic evolutionists.” I hope it’s ready soon, but I don’t want to rush it. I’d rather it have a nice binding instead of a cheap glued binding, and typesetting and font matters on a book of that size.
And I agree, Jean Cauvin dropped the Chalupa!
John:
I read some of the debate. I think the guy is a trouble maker. He says he’s on his way to a degree in biology, already has one in Divinity, works in a successful ministry, and yet still has time to memorize a Psalm, read a sermon, pray, etc. all before breakfast! If God would only grant me such powers!
In all seriousness, you need to check out both Answers in Genesis and The Institute of Creation Research. Use evidence there to challenge specific weaknesses in evolution. Billions of years say ye? Well, at the current rate of decay, the sun would be so big then that there wouldn’t have been room for the earth to even exist. The moon would be totally off its orbit. Cosmic dust would be a lot greater…etc. How did the valve in the Giraffe’s neck evolve so that the Giraffe’s heart didn’t blow off it’s head? What were the intermediary stages of the eyeball?
Your guy attacks from the angle that evolution is scientific fact that resulted in all of the 20th century advanced medical discoveries. As I stated in my OP, that is hardly true. Antibiotics were put into use by men that did not believe in evolution. I find the links between advances in medicine and evolution to be dubious at best since the most significant scientific discoveries in history were made by Christians. Then there’s the whole Galileo nonsense. The Catholic church wasn’t after Galileo because he violated scripture. Copernicus had already come to the conclusion that the earth revolved around the sun. The problem was that the Catholic Church mingled with Aristotle who said the sun revolved around the earth.
And then you must finally realize, that some people you can’t argue with. They will simply go off onto some other illogical tangent. As the Bible says, don’t throw pearls before swine.
And if you really want to frustrate somebody, learn to talk like Jean.
The book on natural theology?
I have Dr. Morey’s A Christion Philosphy of Sciene, but it’s been a while since I listened to it.
Sir Aaron: I agree, errors can be repented of. I am living proof of that.
I take a very dim view on maintaining such unbiblical views. When of course God intervenes and corrects a mans mind and heart, what great glory God gets from it and what praises he gathers to Himself.
I will not judge the mans salvation, nor any of the ministers on that letter, but I judge their doctrine as false, I judge their compromise as dangerous.
Deep down inside of me, I consider compromise with admixing evolution with Genesis as a betrayal of the testimony of scripture. A betrayal of fidelity to Christ.
John
Sir Aaron asked: “The book on natural theology?”
Yes. He uses a dialogue between him and a “theistic evolutionist” as an illustration of the humanistic principles that must be accepted prior to one ever reaching such conclusions as “theistic evolution.”
He proposes that the discussions with “theistic evolutionists” should begin with discussing hermeneutical principles or else each side will be arguing past each other. But check this out, I’m gonna leak a snippet from the book (ssshhh, don’t tell anyone!). From the dialogue in the book, after reaching an agreement on hermeneutics that context rules interpretation, Morey writes:
—-quote—-
My next point was his “Waterloo.”
The most important aspect of this debate is the history of numbers and mathematics. According to what you have written on the “days” of Genesis, your position is that Moses and the people of his day understood that the “days” of Genesis represented billions of years and not literal twenty four days? Yes? Ok. Then it is crucial to your position that the abstract mathematical concept of “billion” be present in the culture of the age in which Genesis was written. The evolutionist could see that I had just placed a hood over his head, a noose around his neck, and my hand was on the lever of the trapdoor under his feet. Of course, I pulled the lever and let him swing in the breeze. I have in front of me various histories of numbers and mathematics.9 The abstract concept of “billions” of years is a Western European idea of recent origin and was not known in biblical times. The authors of Scripture, such as Moses, knew only concrete numbers and the very idea of “millions” or “billions” of years or anything else for that matters was simply not possible in that time frame. What we call “Arabic numbers” (1,2,3, etc,) were unknown to the authors of the Bible. If you asked Abraham, “What does 2+2 equal?” he would not have a clue what you were talking about. The authors of the Bible used concrete items to correspond to things. For example, the number of stones in a bag corresponded to how many sheep were in their flock. The highest Hebrew word with numeric value was ten thousand. The ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, etc., did not have any abstract numbers either. 18 How were amounts of items recorded in Scripture? They wrote out the words that indicated the amounts in view. For example, they wrote out the three words “one hundred thousand” because “100,000” did not exist at that time. I submit that it was impossible for Moses and his readers, in their cultural context, to teach or even to understand the modern abstract mathematical concept of “billion” that is essential to your view.
The debate began to fall apart at that point, as he did not want to discuss the history of mathematics. Instead, he tried to change the subject to modern Western European interpretations of Genesis such as the framework theory.
I dismissed all modern interpretations as logically and hermeneutically irrelevant to the issue of what Moses and his readers understood the “days” of Creation meant. It was at this point that he made an astounding admission.
Ok. But what if I admitted that Moses and his readers understood the days of Creation to mean 24 hour days? It doesn’t matter. They were ignorant and were in error. They also believed that the world was flat and had four corners. Surely you don’t defend them on this issue, do you?
Now the truth finally came out. After claiming all along that he was a fellow born-again Christian and “Evangelical” theologian who believed in the full inspiration of the Bible, he revealed that he was actually an apostate liberal masquerading as an Evangelical!
In my reply, I pointed out that his response was a flat denial of the inerrancy of Scripture.
—-end—
Just a little teaser…
I’d post more but I don’t have Greek & Hebrew fonts.
John, it’s good to hear your testimony. And I believe, based on your last post, that we find ourselves in full agreement.
Stephen:
Hmm, I’ll have to do some research sometime into how other theistic evolutionists who maintain they believe in the inerrancy of Scripture deal with the problem that Morey brings up in his book. I do believe that RCSproul came to this crossroads too, which ultimately led to his changing his belief to be consistent with a literal six day creation. But I have to say that most people I have discussed this with, wouldn’t even begin to be able to answer this question. Ironically, in John’s debate linked above, the theistic evolutionary guy mentioned something about how when the Bible mentions one million people being killed that it just meant a lot. I also found it telling that the guy claimed to memorize a psalm everyday before breakfast and yet couldn’t give specific Scripture references…LOL.
I’m really most interested in finding the appropriate ways to teach Christians who have been deceived into this heresy (and I do believe this is possible) and less interested in debating liberals who are playing Christian.
John,
Yes, the Darwin Weekend Letter you linked is disgusting. Here’s something else to get the juices going:
http://www.ansa.it/site/notizie/awnplus/english/news/2009-02-10_110330525.html
The RCC plans to re-evaluate Darwin yet again. I’m not optimistic about the outcome.
In Christ,
Frank
Sir Aaron,
You wrote: “I probably have included more items on my list than is actually an essential. I may have gone overboard. Obviously, the thief on the cross knew few of what we would call essentials today. Deciding the issue of ‘essentials’ is a little tricky. This is because we expect that a Christian, if truly regenerate and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, to grow in a process we call sanctification. Can an adulterer be a Christian? When we evangelize, we don’t tell people..now in order to be saved you must accept that adultery is a sin. But if we saw a person who called themselves a Christian and yet was actively involved in a life of adultery, we’d certainly question their salvation. The evidence that someone is saves is that his life is being changed (Colossians 3:1-10). The key word is “being.” That implies that we continue to make progress in our understanding of Scripture but also that at the instant of conversion we will not know everything that, if we are truly Christians, will later be expected to learn and accept as truth.
“As far as tracts are concerned, I have a few that I do hand out on occasion. They do have some use in my opinion, albeit limited.”
Scripture says that sin is the transgression of the law and that the law was intended to function as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. When modern evangelism bypasses the law in order to go easy on listeners’ self-image, it’s hard for prospective converts to feel convicted enough to realize their need for salvation. Just as people who don’t feel sick won’t go to a doctor, people who don’t feel lost won’t come to the Savior.
As for adultery, no doubt it’s a sin many people have not committed, but few people haven’t committed adultery in their hearts by looking lustfully at someone. A good dose of the Ten Commandments and of the Sermon on the Mount could put people in the right frame of mind to respond to the Gospel.
By the way, I do agree with you about expecting new believers to grow spiritually upon being exposed to more and more of God’s word. Their obedience or rebellion can reveal much about the condition of their hearts.
In Christ,
Frank
”the author of Genesis was most certainly conditioned by the scientific truths and limits of his time and did not intend to explain what literally took place but rather focused on a theological question: what meaning does man have in the universe”
Code for the people in Moses’ time couldn’t possibly comprehend how God created the universe so God used generic terms to give an ultimate truth. This is a common theistic evolutionary argument.
Stephen: A couple questions. If Moses didn’t understand numbers, how were they able to understand how long 900 years or the age of any other long lived patriarch? You’d think that based on their average lifespan that they’d be much more able to relate to long periods of time than we can today.
What I am trying to determine is (a) if God had wanted to convey epochs or other long periods of time, would people in the OT been able to relate to such a concept? (B) how could God have been any more specific if He wanted to indicate 24 hour days?
With respect to A, if the OT people were incapable of understanding long periods of time then I think the evolution response is the quote I pulled above. I think a good argument rests in B in that I don’t think God could have been more specific. But I’d like your thoughts.
Aaron,
I don’t know what you think you might know, but before you start inferring certain things, what I said was in line with Scripture and correct.
I misrepresented nothing, which is why I posted the url. Here it is with the quotes:
http://www.carm.org/doctrine/essentials.htm :
Quote:
Secondary essentials are likewise necessary truths, but there is no self-declared penalty for their denial — yet they are still essential to the Christian faith. Again, by way of example, Jesus says that he is the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father but by him, (John 14:6). I call this a secondary essential because there’s no penalty associated with its denial. Nevertheless, it is a statement of absolute truth and is an essential Christian teaching that cannot be denied.
1. Jesus is the only way to salvation
A. “Jesus *said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me,’” (John 14:6)
i. Jesus declared that he was the only access to God the Father. To deny this is to deny what Jesus said.
2. Jesus’ virgin birth
“’Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,’ which translated means, ‘God with us,’” (Matt. 1:23).
Without the virgin birth, my we cannot substantiate the doctrine of the incarnation of Jesus being God in flesh. This would put at risk what Jesus said above in John 8:24, where he said, “I said, therefore, to you, that you will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I am, you will die in your sins.”
3. Doctrine of the Trinity
Matt. 28:19, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” (See also, Matt. 3:16-17; 1 Cor. 12:4-6; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6.)
http://www.carm.org/doctrine/grid.htm
Quote:
Primary Non-Essentials
(1 John 2:4) Can be denied and still be Christian. Yet, denial would bring into question a person’s regeneration since acceptance of these show the work of regeneration of the heart
1. Inerrancy of the Bible
2. Baptism is not necessary for salvation (Acts 10:44-48)
Secondary issues: http://www.carm.org/church/apostacy.htm
Secondary Essentials – (Nature of God) Cannot deny and be Christian.
1. God exists as a Trinity of persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (See Trinity)
2. Virgin Birth of Jesus – relates to incarnation of Christ as God and man
Unquote.
“Denial” isn’t the issue: unbelief is, as stated in John 8:24 and Romans 3. Moreover, unbelief in the God of Scripture means a person is rejecting God (Rom. 1) and earning Hell (Romans 3;Eph. 2; John 14:4).
It is contradictory to Scripture to state that a person who thinks salvation can come by way of baptism (which is works)or a person who denies Hell, is saved, as this is part of the Gospel message in its warning, if you will, as Jesus stated repeatedly. These strike at the heart of Christ Jesus as the Only way to the Father.
Also it is contrary to Scripture to place Jesus as the Only Way, Truth, and Life, as “secondary” as that was Jesus’ Primary teaching and stated the given penalty as not going to the Father unless one believes this about Him (“no one goes to the Father but by Me”…’Unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins”, see also John 10). Not going to the Father means going to Hell.
Frank:
You sound just like John Wesley “Before I can preach love, mercy and grace, I must preach sin, Law, and judgement.”
But you may have missed my point. I’m not saying that we bypass the law. Obviously, you cannot know you are sinful unless you know you have done something wrong. You can’t know you’ve done something wrong unless you have some rudimentary understanding of what right and wrong is, which is what the law provides. But we don’t, as we evangelize, explain each and every element of the law. We don’t demand that people know all of the law. We use the law to convince people of their need for a savior. Once we do that, then we explain who God is, and how Jesus is the sacrifice for our sins. If they believe this, we don’t then quiz them on their understanding of the law and Scripture, do we? No. We expect them to accept the fundamentals and that knowledge of everything else will come as they grow spiritually.
The real question is, what is the example for evangelism that is set before us in Scripture? What did the apostles in the NT say and do when evangelizing?
“As for adultery, no doubt it’s a sin many people have not committed, but few people haven’t committed adultery in their hearts by looking lustfully at someone.”
Again, you missed the point. We don’t expect believers to have a perfect knowledge of the law. So when we list what are the primary doctrines one must accept to be saved, we don’t list various laws that a person must accept as true. So if I were making a list of of primary beliefs, I wouldn’t list, for example, thou must agree that adultery is a sin. Yet, nonetheless, if I saw a person claiming to be a Christian and yet lived in active adultery, I’d question that person’s salvation. Right? Did I come to that conclusion because I think that specifically, knowledge and obedience to certain laws is a primary doctrine? We don’t judge a person soley on their stated acceptance of doctrine but rather the fruit we expect to be produced by true acceptance of doctrine.
“By the way, I do agree with you about expecting new believers to grow spiritually upon being exposed to more and more of God’s word. Their obedience or rebellion can reveal much about the condition of their hearts.”
Then you agree with me that a believer’s doctrine can be imperfect during their growth but that we expect the Holy Spirit to correct them during the process of sanctification. I personally believe that theistic evolution could fall into this area.
BTW, I’d be careful with the ten commandments since we don’t actively obey the 4th commandment.
This thread has gotten a little of the original point of my OP. So let me bring it back to focus.
Here’s an interesting article. http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/02/10/darwin-intelligent-design-and-freedom-of-discovery-on-evolutionists-holy-day.htm
One of my favorite lines that I’ll probably use myself:
“Finally, Darwinists have long-argued that our cells can’t be designed because they are full of functionless “junk DNA.” But in recent years, biologists have discovered that the vast majority of our DNA is performing vital cellular functions and isn’t “junk” at all. The wrong-headed conclusions of modern Darwinists have stifled scientific progress and slowed discovery of function for noncoding DNA”
Sir Aaron said: Stephen: A couple questions. If Moses didn’t understand numbers, how were they able to understand how long 900 years or the age of any other long lived patriarch? You’d think that based on their average lifespan that they’d be much more able to relate to long periods of time than we can today.
>>>>Sir Aaron, the proposition wasn’t that Moses didn’t understand numbers in general, but that the abstract mathematical concept of “billions of years” was not present whatsoever in Moses’ day. Morey is dealing with the theistic evolutionist (TE) that claims to submit to the authority, inerrancy, & inspiration of Scripture, and therefore is able to make arguments using evangelical hermeneutics (historico-grammatical method [HGM]). By establishing that the abstract concept “billions of years” is a Western European concept of recent origin, Morey is able to refute theistic evolutionary claims by charging the TE with anachronism & eisegesis and thus a violation of HGM. If these terms are new to anyone, look them up and learn them for they are extremely critical in theological and philosophical discussions.
Sir Aaron said: What I am trying to determine is (a) if God had wanted to convey epochs or other long periods of time, would people in the OT been able to relate to such a concept? (B) how could God have been any more specific if He wanted to indicate 24 hour days?…With respect to A, if the OT people were incapable of understanding long periods of time then I think the evolution response is the quote I pulled above. I think a good argument rests in B in that I don’t think God could have been more specific. But I’d like your thoughts.
>>>>What is being said is that “numbers” corresponded to concrete items of reality. Morey uses the example of stones in a bad corresponding to the number of actual sheep in a flock (e.g. 36 pebbles in a sack = 36 sheep in a flock and vice versa). The abstract mathematical concept used to prove [sic] the TE’s claims did not originate until much later in the future. It’s like trying to say that George Washington vouched for KFC since he mentions a chicken dinner in one of his diaries! We all know that KFC was a later invention that did not exist in Washington’s day. Same basic idea with billions of years. Moses couldn’t have had the concept of billions of years in his mind and therefore could not have meant it when composing Genesis. As for whether he could have been clearer, the “problem” over the interpretation does not exist according to HGM proponents (i.e. conservative evangelical Christians). Whenever the Hebrew “yom” is modified by a numeral, it always refers to a literal day and never anything else. To those that deny this, ask them to provide at least one place in Scripture where “yom” modified by a numeral refers to other than a literal day. They usually reply with the same verse, but the oh so satisfying refutation awaits them from the other side once they do. The pet prooftext they offer is Hosea 6:2.
P.S. This (Morey’s) is not my preferred method of argumentation although I find it to be compelling. My response to TE is based on a philosophic refutation and absolute destruction of empiricism. Rarely though, do they willingly enter into the realm of epistemological vulnerability. So my interaction is rather short. Just an FYI.
Hello,
Somebody asked about Morey’s philosophy of science. It should be noted that Morey is teaching the basics of the subject. Though I believe he forgot to define his terms (philosophy and science).
And he forgot to equate the reality via the concept/term towards the term “science.”
The issue is simple. If two different methods are claiming science as their process, then:
1) One is Right and One is Wrong.
2) Their both right.
3) Neither are right.
Now if they both claim the same relationship, means and way, then #2 is not an option.
Since the secular term for science is completely different in relationship, means, and way, then they both cannot be right.
The question is simple. If Christianity has it right via the concept/term towards the word science, then the secular notion does not.
And by definition, even though the secularists claim the term, they lose the concept since it is carried over to Christianity.
And thus, if Christianity has the term to claim that is correct, then the science so called by the secularists is NOT science by definition since the concept of the term is Christian.
Whoever owns the concept, wins the term.
So logically speaking, they are deceiving people of a term that does not belong to them.
And evolution is NOT science, but fantasy.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
I find it humorous when “theistic evolution” claims to “prove” the truth of Christianity or the reliability of the Bible. They have it backwards and are ignorant of which proves which! They do not know which provides the basis for proving the other, and thus they fail to prove anything at all.
Jean Cauvin, I agree with you. Morey’s lectures are a very basic intro to the subject. But he does define “science” from what I remember. He basically adopts Clarkian Operationalism, or a position very close. And in his survey of the history of philosophy (in the same lectures) and the “scientific” worldviews that trailed afterward, I believe he was pretty clear in stating that the ideas produced from various schools of philosophy throughout the ages always formed the worldview of the “scientists” and thereby established the presuppositions of the “scientists.”
Hi Stephen,
Perhaps you’re right on the definition. Though in his philosophy of science lectures I don’t believe he carries the logical “chain” of definition/concept lacking in substance for the secularists. Though the worldview series does touch on this, you’re right.
While he may touch on the definition, I don’t believe he discusses the concept of definition in relation to claim. The one who owns the concepts wins the term.
The term science is nothing more then a synonym for knowledge or epistemology. Though redefined.
In fact, knowledge within science isn’t even knowledge. It is probability. When you have probability of any proposition then logically you have the probability for both truth or false which is antithetical to knowledge (it’s a guess).
In reference to which claim (truth or false) is more “probable” cannot be discerned. For time is the X independent of the Y dependent of probability in which the probability of the affirmative or the negation changes towards its “lean” upon time.
So if a proposition is observed for a thousands years that S is probably so, who’s to say after 3000 years that S will be probably not? And after 3000 years not, who’s to say after 6000 years probability so again.
For one to know for certain, the X value of observance (assuming for the sake of argument that observance is even possible for knowledge) is most likely the lean of the position or negative, both the X and Y axle must both be infinite.
So the probability leads us to Skepticism (the logical conclusion of empiricism) since we can only discern in the finite. Even within the finite, we cannot observe all the time since we sleep. So it’s limited time to even observe within the finite.
Thus, the only possible one to know via the X and Y axle in relation to proposition S, is for the observer of the probability to be infinite. But if the observer does not know the outcome, then he is not infinite since he is “learning.”
And thus God does not use this method since this method CANNOT lead to knowledge.
And thus, all empirical (or “scientific claims), since the X and Y relationship is within finite time, is unknown via the probability of either the positive claim or negative claim of the given proposition of S.
With that being said, since theistic evolution is a fairly new doctrine, then the probability of the X and Y is completely probable for either direction. Shall we flip a coin or go by our feelings?
So yes, knowledge is not relativity, but rather absolute understanding (not to be confused with exhaustive understanding) justified by an infinite X and Y. But wait, God is both inside time and outside of time. So how can God know this way if he is outside of time.
As I already stated, this is not a method towards knowledge. Since God IS, then all infinite “experiences” have been achieved by Him in eternity and infinity.
So, given the claims within the claim itself (without critiquing it outside itself) we see a system full of contradictions and inconsistency. Thus, if it has no “chain” of logic or consistency, then the proposition of Theistic Evolution is not in the category of knowledge of logic, but rather absurdity.
Though Morey’s lectures on the Philosophy of Science was okay for an introduction, he could have tightened his points via the logical “chain” of the secularists.
But he can only do so much. I don’t fault him for anything, just a structural critique.
At least he carries it over as Stephen said in his lecture on worldviews.
Now if Morey uses any of my ideas or thought in his book he should thank me in his book. hough he’ll probably make fun of me and call me dumb-dumb. : )
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
Jean Cauvin,
You’re right. The lectures barely skim the surface in general and only occasionally go into some depth. But if I recall correctly, he states at the onset that the series is for Christians of average intellect, to give them the confidence to never be intimidated by people espousing “science” vs. the Bible, etc. Something like that.
Jean Cauvin said: “…knowledge within science isn’t even knowledge. It is probability. When you have probability of any proposition then logically you have the probability for both truth or false which is antithetical to knowledge (it’s a guess).”
This is dead on. Any proposition offered from within this framework is logically open to being untrue. No matter how high the claimed degree of probability is, since it is theoretically based on a quantitative amount of data observed within a finite quantity of time, as soon as the dependent data is absorbed into the increased independent factor of time, the degree of probability changes with(according to) its relativity to time (that is, unless the degree of probability continues to somehow increase at the exact pace time increases).
This results in something probably being true today but possibly being probably false tomorrow. It is antithetical to knowledge. According to knowledge, one can say something is true yesterday, today and forevermore (like the Bible does!).
Denise:
I’ve said as much as I am going to say here and I stand by it resolutely.
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Aaron
“…knowledge within science isn’t even knowledge. It is probability. When you have probability of any proposition then logically you have the probability for both truth or false which is antithetical to knowledge (it’s a guess).”
This is one of the reasons as a trained investigator, that I can’t stand modern science. It’s filled with conclusions based almost entirely on projections, mathematical models, and other statistical data. I think that statistics ought to be a required course in Universities. I know it is a difficult class that requires some tough prerequisites, but people’s eyes would be opened if they understood how easy it is to manipulate statistics and therefore models based on these statistics.
Now if Morey uses any of my ideas or thought in his book he should thank me in his book. hough he’ll probably make fun of me and call me dumb-dumb. : )
That would certainly make it more enjoyable for me!
Hi Stephen,
You Said:
“a quantitative amount of data observed within a finite quantity of time, as soon as the dependent data is absorbed into the increased independent factor of time, the degree of probability changes with(according to) its relativity to time (that is, unless the degree of probability continues to somehow increase at the exact pace time increases).”
However, the degree of time pacing exactly is a non-observable deed. Since time is outside of empiricism, it must be a-priori which completely defeats the notion completely.
And since the time cannot be observed for infinitely, then the a-priori assumption of uniformitarianism must be applied towards time philosophically speaking for them to even start their argument.
Before they even open their mouths, their thoughts of assumptions place them into absurdity. They seem sound due to the fact that they “rip off” the terms used in the actual system of knowing, that being Christianity.
This is common among the cults also. Any enemy of the gospel uses this tactic. It’s one of the oldest methods of deceit.
The very concepts of X and Y cannot be seen in nature. The proposition in and of itself also cannot be seen in nature. This is Rational. Which again defeats the entire system.
I suppose that is why Dr. William Lang Craig once told me personally that he calls himself a Christian empirical Rationalist.
I once took a class under Dr. Craig under the subject of space and time in relation to Molinism.
When I asked him how he discerns from the empirical and the Rational without breaking the law of contradiction, he told me he does this via “metaphysical intuition.”
Worship at the Altar of Darwin is nothing more then the worship at the Altar of self wrapped up in a pretty bow of Christian terminology.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
Now if I had the intelligence of Jean Cauvin and the ability to coherently swing the sword of theology like Stephen and had the ability to convey thought like Sir Aaron….yea Id kick some posteriors…but then Id be so prideful that I would no doubt catch on fire from hell before I ever got there.
John
LOL, John.
Good point about humility though.
Hi Aaron~
Regarding last Saturday’s seminar: I am always inspired and encouraged by Ken Ham and indeed the whole of his (by God’s grace) ministry. Such was the case this year as well!
To keep this from going too terribly long, three main points:
(1) AIG’s mantra: 1:1…Upholding the authority of the Bible from the very first verse! If you have never been to an AIG seminar:GO! They have some powerful, yet simple, graphics illustrating how we as Christians have given so much ground to the pagans by not standing on the Authority of Scripture, allowing them to shoot at our foundation, which is crumbling as you read this! One graphic that stood out to me was of 2 people with books on the table one labled, “Bible” and the other “Reason” followed by another that suggests the Bible must be put away for the sake of starting on “neutral” ground, only to see in the next frame the red painted box of neutrality that the Believer has stepped into (after giving up his Bible) is NOT middle ground, but actually on the Reason side! Better to see it…then me writing it here I think…but you get the idea! It is repeatedly taught that the Holy Spirit does the heart-changing, however we must do “the good works prepared for us before the foundation” and we must “be ready to give an answer” to anyone who asks.
(2) Dr. Menton gave an overview of Darwin’s life. Highlights include the fact that Darwin was surrounded by men of God, yet made his choice to walk in darkness, ultimately God’s plan I understand, still it struck me in some bizarre, encouraging way that godly men were in his life. He even considered going into the ministry at one point, later regretting the thought of such a thing. Darwin became a “Gentleman’s Companion”, to Capt. Robert Fitzroy of the Beagle. While on board he read Robert Lyell’s “Principles of Geology” which aided in his “conversion”. He began to think of himself as the “spiritual savior of geology…freeing us from the dispensation of Moses”! AIG is working on a movie project about Darwin’s life…can’t wait…should be awesome!
(3) Finally, I was reminded of Ken’s incredibly godly teaching regarding “race”. As we all know there is only one race…the human race. He added a new funny this year, he said there are actually 2 races: those who are racing towards God and those who are racing away…
I never tire of the, albeit simplistic, way the power point illustrations show how we have our different animals, for example dogs: from the wolf to the poodle (which Ham repeatedly disses) on up to how we came to be red and yellow, black and white…fascinating! Eye shape, stature, skin pigment are all discussed and explained. In the end we are ALL RELATED and we are but ONE race. What troubles the world, the flesh and the devil have brought us in this area! Darwin committed huge atrocities in regards to “race”, or what we would call ethnicities. Ken Ham urged us to drop the modern day use of the word “race” and educate those around us. He wrote a book entitled, “One Blood” on this subject.
I do have a problem with an article I read on AIG’s site. I think it may encourage a wordly solution to the problem of racisim…counting noses…instead of hearts being changed! Ken continues to find racisim alive and well in the deep south’s churches so I can understand his frustration but I’m not sure I agree with the offered solution?? Then again I speak as one from a diverse church, so maybe I don’t feel the pain! If we MUST COUNT, on our worship team alone we have: Filipino, White/Filipino, Black, Hispanic/White, Puerto Rican, Hispanic and White, this is representative of our church body and I must say it was not planned this way. Rather the uncompromised, expository preaching of God’s word brought us together!! Hmm..,
You can find the article in question by Charles Ware here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/dp/grace-relations
Too late, this IS long…in closing:
“So many people still want to live by Christian morality, but they can’t have Christian morality without Christianity. And they can’t have Christianity without the Bible. And they can’t have the Bible without the literal history of Genesis chapters 1-11, which provides the foundation of all biblical doctrine–plus Christian morality.”–Ken Ham
“He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.”–Jesus Christ (Matt 12:30)
God’s grace…
RM:
Thanks for the update. I think a documentary on Darwin’s life would be interesting. I know that he has contradicted himself in his writings and some of the groups like AIG use a specific quote where Darwin says he thinks there must be dissenting opinions (or something like that).
I do enjoy Ken Ham, although I confess that I sometimes think he draws extraordinary conclusions from some very vague passages in Scripture. I often wonder if we wouldn’t be better served by simply saying, “Scripture doesn’t tell us.”
A final note: I really like ICR. You homeschoolers should visit their museum in Santee. They also have a monthly magazine that is always filled with great articles.
Hello,
Last night, I attended a lecture by Dr. Edward Humes at a enormous University. The room was so packed, their were people sitting on the floor of a large ballroom.
Humes was part of the Dover trials in 2005. His entire 2 year lecture was a direct attack against Christianity (“literalism’ was his word).
His MAIN attacks however were against the Intelligent Design group. However, I would have to agree with him that the Intelligent Design group is false for the same reason his argument is false. They both use the same method to arrive at different conclusions.
I evidently was the only Christian in the huge room or else there were a bunch of little Tim Keller’s in the room since they were to much of a “pussy” to take this guy on.
During Q and A I called him a hypocrite since all areas of study are indicated as relative truths while biology implies to us that it is absolute. If my truth is my truth and your truth is your truth, why is this not carried over to secular biology. I called the University a hypocrite as well. Why can’t Creationism be my truth, and evolution be your truth, and we go on our merry day and provide both options in the school system.
As for my question, I addressed his presupposition of method via observation as a given. I discussed David Hume’s (no pun intended) consistency which led to Skepticism.
I ended my question with the brief detailed account of Kant’s refutation of Hume’s method of argument which is identical to secular evolutionists.
I asked him to please justify his method since it was destroyed by Kant.
His answer for me was:
“No”
The entire audience laughs. I then finish with the comment.
“If you can’t justify the means of your argument, then how can you justify the conclusions of your argument.”
With that, I was ignored. In front of thousands of people he completely ignored the very foundation of his argument which destroys it. And nobody else seemed to call him on it.
I am officially setting up an invitation to invite him to a debate at the same University. It will again by my pleasure to perform some Biblical Kung-Pow on his position.
This is another EXAMPLE of this dumb-ass’ since they are not about facts or truth. They are about a specific propaganda to attack Christianity.
I disappointed that there were no other Christians that stood up for truth.
Dr. Edward Humes is full of hot air and it was my sincere pleasure to pop it, in Jesus’ name.
Case in point, we need bolder and more knowledgeable Christians out there taking on the scum of pseudo-academic stench.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
Go Jean! Let us know if he actually agrees to debate with you.
And Jean, those who laughed wont be laughing on judgement day.
Hi Sir Aaron,
I don’t mind people laughing. It is a war that is not about truth from the enemies perspective, but about persuasion. And since men are logically evil and haters of God to begin with, the persuasion corresponds to the nature of the audience which was full of dead men’s bones.
If he agrees to a debate I’ll let you know. However, the mystery of my face will then be revealed for Reformed MaMa to adore : ).
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
“I don’t mind people laughing.”
That’s good because I find myself laughing at you most days too. :->
;p
:p
I just can’t seem to find any html emoticons that work properly
Hello,
Has anybody seen the debates with Hugh Ross and Kent Hoven? It is apparent that Kent Hoven surely loses the debate and has to go back to clarify points within the debate on his own editorial tapes.
John Ankerberg was extremely unfair in his “moderation.” It was disappointing to find out about Ankerberg’s hero being Hugh Ross himself. He was Walter’s friend for years and it appears that Johhny is slipping away into absurdity.
By the way, does John Ankerberg wear a wig/toupee?
Hugh Ross needs his butt kicked publically and formally. Danny Foulkner is also an astrophysicist, though he doesn’t seem to know how to debate.
We live in a pathetic generation of Christianity. It sometimes feels like the “dark ages” since very few if at all exist to fight the good fight intelligently.
Kent Hoven though indicates that in his mind, Hugh Ross has a different God then what he has. I’m not sure I would go this far since he seems to deny theistic evolution.
Not to mention that Kent Hoven is a KJV only and is somewhat of a dim-wit. At least somebody is doing something.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
Jean,
BTW… it is Kent Hovind.
Hi Glen,
Close enough. The guy’s a legalistic dwarf. Unless he has the evolution thing down pretty well.
Though one does not need to say that entropy was before the fall and still hold on to an old earth theory. I personally believe entropy was in effect upon the creation of the earth. I believe Scripture supports this view.
Kent Hovind (glen : ) ) takes the position that if you believe entropy took place before the fall, that you almost worship a different God.
The fact that death did exist should not be questioned (eating fruit). However, the issue is whether life and death of the plants and perhaps fish differ in meaning then the death that took place after the fall.
I believe it does to some degree. Otherwise the logical fallacy of equivocation would be my friend.
An interesting thing to think about.
I’m currently reading Safarti’s book against Hugh Ross. A good read even though he argues incorrectly.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).