Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: vimto

[[but Christians who have fallen for the ‘god of the gaps’ theory which is usually associated withthe liberal / left.]]

One has to wonder just who these self-professed ‘Christians’ worship- it certainly isn’t hte Creator that they worship, and infact, many who beleive in theistic evolution deny the very God-ness of Christ because it conflicts with their hypothesis of Macroevolution and hte need for a redeemer. I’ve seen many theistic evolutionists deny clai mthat Christ was nothign more than a ‘good teacher’ and claim that most portions of God’s word were nothign more than popular myths (some even goign so far as to claim the Holy spirit inspired writers of the bible weren’t infact holy Spirit inspired, but rather were plagarists who ‘stole myths’ from other religions’)

In order to reconcile Macroevolution with God’s word, one MUST call God out as a liar, deny whole portions of God’s word, Question the very Holy Spirit inspired writers of God’s word, Quesiton whether the bible is infact the Direct word of God to us, and not some simple man-inspired ‘good teachings of hte day’.

By their fruit shall ye know them- Theistic evolutionists play a good game, but their fruit is rotton to hte core, and hteir contempt for true Christians who hold that God’s word is infallible, is only thinly disguised by religious sounding rhettoric.. My God created man from the dust of hte ground, breathed life directly into his nostrils, created a mate for him- breathed life directly into her nostrils, and there was no sin or spirit death BEFORE the fall, which rules out macroevolution, and hwich therefore means the bible and evolution do infact contradict each other- any attemptto reconcile the two is nothign more than an attempt to discredit God’s word altogether by claiming we ‘need to broaden our interpretations’. The Evil One comes as an angel of light- quotign Scriptures (but out of context), and tryign to convince hte masses that there’s ‘more than one itnerpretation’ of hte bible, and tryign to convince the masses that the bible is open to all manner of error because the ‘writers were human, and the translators were confused’.

[[That is not to accuse our brother of being liberal/left]]

He accuses hismelf- it’s open for anyone to see and judge- He certainly accuses you and I I suppose, of being too ‘narrow minded’ (and htus by implication, apparently we’re ‘scientifically ignorant’ Christians who hold to the infallibility of God’s word, in his mind)


35 posted on 09/24/2009 10:13:17 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]


Yes, the4 bible and evolution are ‘perfectly compatible’ as long as you are comfortable callign God a complete liar, and ignoring His word- Yes, the ‘problem lies with us Christians’ who happen to take God at His word, and who doubt the failed hyptohesis of Macroevolution

At least Huxley was intellectually honest enough to admit one either beleives in evolution, or hte bible, and that there can’t be any middle ground- but apaprently htere are many today not honest enough to admit this

““But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.” (Mark 10:6)
If you believe Christ is Lord and are dedicated to following the Words of Jesus, then this becomes an enormous problem.

“Theory”? Evolution is not a theory; it is a failed hypothesis at best as its coherence leaves much to be desired.”

Huxley then gave a lesson on New Testament theology. He quoted Matthew 19:4–5: “And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”?’” Huxley commented, “If divine authority is not here claimed for the twenty-fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis, what is the value of language? And again, I ask, if one may play fast and loose with the story of the Fall as a ‘type’ or ‘allegory,’ what becomes of the foundation of Pauline theology?”4

And to substantiate this, Huxley quoted 1 Corinthians 15:21–22: “For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.”

Huxley continued, “If Adam may be held to be no more real a personage than Prometheus, and if the story of the Fall is merely an instructive ‘type,’ comparable to the profound Promethean mythos, what value has Paul’s dialectic?”5

Thus, concerning those who accepted the New Testament doctrines that Paul and Christ teach but rejected Genesis as literal history, Huxley claimed “the melancholy fact remains, that the position they have taken up is hopelessly untenable.”6

He was adamant that science (by which he meant evolutionary, long-age ideas about the past) had proven that one cannot intelligently accept the Genesis account of creation and the Flood as historical truth. He further pointed out that various doctrines in the New Testament are dependent on the truth of these events, such as Paul’s teaching on the doctrine of sin, Christ’s teaching on the doctrine of marriage, and the warning of future judgment. Huxley mocked those who try to harmonize evolution and millions of years with the Bible, because it requires them to give up a historical Genesis while still trying to hold to the doctrines of the New Testament.

What was Huxley’s point? He insisted that the theologians had to accept evolution and millions of years, but he pointed out that, to be consistent, they had to give up the Bible totally. Compromise is impossible.

This is an obvious reference to the millions of years associated with the fossil record. The god of an old earth is one who uses death as part of creating. Death, therefore, can’t be the penalty for sin and can’t be described as the last enemy (1 Corinthians 15:26).

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/couldnt-god-have-used-evolution

As each subsequent generation has pushed this door of compromise open farther and farther, they are increasingly not accepting the morality or salvation of the Bible either. After all, if the history in Genesis is not correct, how can one be sure the rest is correct? Jesus said, “If I have told you earthly things, and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you of heavenly things?” (John 3:12).


36 posted on 09/24/2009 10:29:47 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson