Falling Stars, Damnable Heresy, and the Spirit of Evolution

“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22).

“And the fifth angel sounded the trumpet, and I saw a star fall from heaven upon the earth, and there was given to him the key of the bottomless pit." (Rev. 9:1)

In his Concise Commentary Matthew Henry identifies falling stars as tepid, indecisive, weak or apostate clergy who,

"Having ceased to be a minister of Christ, he who is represented by this star becomes the minister of the devil; and lets loose the powers of hell against the churches of Christ."

John identifies antichrists, in this case clergy who serve the devil rather than Christ, sequentially. First, like Bultmann, Teilhard de Chardin, Robert Funk, Paul Tillich, and John Shelby Spong, they specifically deny the living, personal Holy Trinity in favor of Gnostic pagan, immanent or Eastern pantheist conceptions. Though God the Father Almighty in three Persons upholds the souls of men and maintains life and creation, His substance is not within nature (space-time dimension) as pantheism maintains, but outside of it. Sinful men live within nature and are burdened by time and mortality; God is not.

Second, the specific denial of the Father logically negates Jesus the Christ, the Word who was in the beginning (John 1), was with God, and is God from the creation of all things (1 John 1). In a pre-incarnate theophany, Jesus is the Angel who spoke “mouth to mouth” to Moses (Num. 12:6-9; John 9:20) and at sundry times and in many ways “spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all…” (Hebrews 1:1) Jesus the Christ is the incarnate Son of God who is the life and light of men, who by His shed blood on the Cross died for the remission of all sins and bestowed the privilege of adoption on all who put their faith in Him.

Therefore, to deny the Holy Father is to logically deny the deity of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, hence,

“…every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist . . . and even now already is it in the world” (1 John 4:3).

According to Peter (2 Peter 2:1), falling stars will work among the faithful, teaching damnable heresies that deny the Lord, cause the fall of men into unbelief, and bring destruction upon themselves:

“The natural parents of modern unbelief turn out to have been the guardians of belief.” Many thinking people came at last “to realize that it was religion, not science or social change that gave birth to unbelief. Having made God more and more like man---intellectually, morally, emotionally---the shapers of religion made it feasible to abandon God, to believe simply in man.” (James Turner of the University of Michigan in “American Babylon,” Richard John Neuhaus, p. 95)

Almost thirty years ago, two well-respected social science scholars, William Sims Bainbridge and Rodney Stark found themselves alarmed by what they saw as a rising tide of irrationalism, superstition and occultism---channeling cults, spirit familiars, necromancers, Wiccans, Satanists, Luciferians, goddess worshippers, 'gay' shamans, Hermetic magicians and other occult madness at every level of society, particularly within the most influential--- Hollywood, academia and the highest corridors of political power.

Like many scientists, they were equally concerned by Christian opposition to naturalistic evolution. As is common in the science community, they assumed the cause of these social pathologies was somehow due to fundamentalism, their term for authentic Christian theism as opposed to liberalized Christianity. Yet to their credit, the research they undertook to discover the cause was conducted both scientifically and with great integrity. What they found was so startling it caused them to re-evaluate their attitude toward authentic Christian theism. Their findings led them to say:

"It would be a mistake to conclude that fundamentalists oppose all science (when in reality they but oppose) a single theory (that) directly contradicts the bible. But it would be an equally great mistake to conclude that religious liberals and the irreligious possess superior minds of great rationality, to see them as modern personalities who have no need of the supernatural or any propensity to believe unscientific superstitions. On the contrary...they are much more likely to accept the new superstitions. It is the fundamentalists who appear most virtuous according to scientific standards when we examine the cults and pseudo-sciences proliferating in our society today." ("Superstitions, Old and New," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. IV, No. 4; summer, 1980)

In more detail they observed that authentic ‘born again’ Christians are far less likely to accept cults and pseudoscientific beliefs while the irreligious and liberalized Christians (i.e., progressive Catholics, Protestant emergent, NAR, word faith, prosperity gospel) are open to unscientific notions. In fact, these two groups are most disposed toward occultism.

As Bainbridge and Stark admitted, evolution directly contradicts the Bible, beginning with the Genesis account of creation ex nihilo. This means that evolution is the antithesis of the Genesis account. For this reason, discerning Christians refuse to submit to the evolutionary thinking that has swept Western and American society. Nor do they accept the evolutionary theism brought into the whole body of the Church by weak, tepid, indecisive, or apostate clergy.

Over eighty years ago, Rev. C. Leopold Clarke wrote that priests who embrace evolution (evolutionary theists) are apostates from the ‘Truth as it is in Jesus.’ (1 John2:2) Rev. Clarke, a lecturer at a London Bible college, discerned that evolution is the antithesis to the Revelation of God in the Deity of Jesus Christ, thus it is the greatest and most active agent of moral and spiritual disintegration:

“It is a battering-ram of unbelief---a sapping and mining operation that intends to blow Religion sky-high. The one thing which the human mind demands in its conception of God, is that, being Almighty, He works sovereignly and miraculously---and this is the thing with which Evolution dispenses….Already a tremendous effect, on a wide scale has been produced by the impact of this teaching---an effect which can only be likened to the…collapse of foundations…” (Evolution and the Break-Up of Christendom, Philip Bell, creation.com, Nov. 27, 2012)

The faith of the Christian Church and of the average Christian has had, and still has, its foundation as much in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis, the book of beginnings revealed ‘mouth to mouth’ by the Angel to Moses, as in that of the person and deity of Jesus Christ. But how horrible a travesty of the sacred office of the Christian Ministry to see church leaders more eager to be abreast of the times, than earnestly contending for the Faith once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3). It is high time, said Rev. Clarke, that the Church,

“…. separated herself from the humiliating entanglement attending her desire to be thought up to date…What, after all, have custodians of Divine Revelation to do making terms with speculative Biology, which has….no message of comfort or help to the soul?” (ibid)

The primary tactic employed by priests eager to accommodate themselves and the Church to modern science and evolutionary thinking is predictable. It is the argument that evolution is entirely compatible with the Bible when we see Genesis, especially the first three chapters, in a non-literal, non-historical context. This is the argument embraced and advanced by mega-church pastor Timothy J. Keller.

With a position paper Keller published with the theistic evolutionary organization Bio Logos he joined the ranks of falling stars (Catholic and Protestant priests) stretching back to the Renaissance. Their slippery-slide into apostasy began when they gave into the temptation to embrace a non-literal, non-historical view of Genesis. (A response to Timothy Keller’s ‘Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople,” Lita Cosner, Sept. 9, 2010, creation.com)

This is not a heresy unique to modern times. The early Church Fathers dealt with this damnable heresy as well, counting it among the heretical tendencies of the Origenists. Fourth-century Fathers such as John Chrysostom, Basil the Great and Ephraim the Syrian, all of whom wrote commentaries on Genesis, specifically warned against treating Genesis as an unhistorical myth or allegory. John Chrysostom strongly warned against paying heed to these heretics,

“…let us stop up our hearing against them, and let us believe the Divine Scripture, and following what is written in it, let us strive to preserve in our souls sound dogmas.” (Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, Fr. Seraphim Rose, p. 31)

As St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote, higher theological, spiritual meaning is founded upon humble, simple faith in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis and one cannot apprehend rightly the Scriptures without believing in the historical reality of the events and people they describe. (ibid, Seraphim Rose, p. 40)

In the integral worldview teachings of the Fathers, neither the literal nor historical meaning of the Revelations of the pre-incarnate Jesus, the Angel who spoke to Moses, can be regarded as expendable. There are at least four critically important reasons why. First, to reduce the Revelation of God to allegory and myth is to contradict and usurp the authority of God, ultimately deny the deity of Jesus Christ; twist, distort, add to and subtract from the entire Bible and finally, to imperil the salvation of believers.

Scenarios commonly proposed by modern Origenists posit a cleverly disguised pantheist/immanent nature deity subject to the space-time dimension and forces of evolution. But as noted previously, it is sinful man who carries the burden of time, not God. This is a crucial point, for when evolutionary theists add millions and billions of zeros (time) to God they have transferred their own limitations onto Him. They have ‘limited’ God and made Him over in their own image. This is not only idolatrous but satanic.

Additionally, evolution inverts creation. In place of God’s good creation from which men fell there is an evolutionary escalator starting at the bottom with matter, then progressing upward toward life, then up and through the life and death of millions of evolved creatures that preceded humans by millions of years until at long last an apish humanoid emerges into which a deity that is always in a state of becoming (evolving) places a soul.

Evolution amputates the entire historical precedent from the Gospel and makes Jesus Christ unnecessary as the atheist Frank Zindler enthusiastically points out:

“The most devastating thing that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve, there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus…into the ranks of the unemployed. I think evolution absolutely is the death knell of Christianity.” (“Atheism vs. Christianity,” 1996, Lita Cosner, creation.com, June 13, 2013)

None of this was lost on Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1985). Huxley was thoroughly familiar with the Bible, thus he understood that if Genesis is not the authoritative Word of God, is not historical and literal despite its’ symbolic and poetic elements, then the entirety of Scripture becomes a collection of fairytales resulting in tragic downward spiraling consequences as the Catholic Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation makes clear in part:

“By denying the historical truth of the first chapters of Genesis, theistic evolutionism has fostered a preoccupation with natural causes almost to the exclusion of supernatural ones. By denying the several supernatural creative acts of God in Genesis, and by downplaying the importance of the supernatural activity of Satan, theistic evolutionists slip into a naturalistic mentality which seeks to explain everything in terms of natural causes. Once this mentality takes hold, it is easy for men to regard the concept of spiritual warfare as a holdover from the days of primitive superstition. Diabolical activity is reduced to material or psychological causes. The devil and his demons come to be seen as irrelevant. Soon ‘hell’ joins the devil and his demons in the category of antiquated concepts. And the theistic evolutionist easily makes the fatal mistake of thinking that he has nothing more to fear from the devil and his angels. According to Fr. Gabriele Amorth, the chief exorcist of Rome, there is a tremendous increase in diabolical activity and influence in the formerly Christian world. And yet most of the bishops of Europe no longer believe in the existence of evil spirits….To the Fathers of the Church who believed in the truth of Genesis, this would be incredible. But in view of the almost universal acceptance of theistic evolution, it is hardly surprising.” (The Difference it makes: The Importance of the Traditional Doctrine of Creation, Hugh Owen, kolbecenter.org)

Huxley had ‘zero’ respect for modern Origenists and received enormous pleasure from heaping piles of hot coals and burning contempt upon them, thereby exposing their shallow-reasoning, hypocrisy, timidity, fear of non-acceptance, and unfaithfulness. With sarcasm dripping from his words he quipped,

“I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how any one, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests upon the interpretation of passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them. If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were not ordained by Jahveh; if the “ten words” were not written by God’s hand on the stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of the regal period of Rome—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which is so much less clearly enunciated? And what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?” (Darwin’s Bulldog---Thomas Huxley, Russell Grigg, creation.com, Oct. 14, 2008)

“When Jesus spoke, as of a matter of fact, that "the Flood came and destroyed them all," did he believe that the Deluge really took place, or not? It seems to me that, as the narrative mentions Noah’s wife, and his sons’ wives, there is good scriptural warranty for the statement that the antediluvians married and were given in marriage; and I should have thought that their eating and drinking might be assumed by the firmest believer in the literal truth of the story. Moreover, I venture to ask what sort of value, as an illustration of God’s methods of dealing with sin, has an account of an event that never happened? If no Flood swept the careless people away, how is the warning of more worth than the cry of “Wolf” when there is no wolf? If Jonah’s three days’ residence in the whale is not an “admitted reality,” how could it “warrant belief” in the “coming resurrection?” … Suppose that a Conservative orator warns his hearers to beware of great political and social changes, lest they end, as in France, in the domination of a Robespierre; what becomes, not only of his argument, but of his veracity, if he, personally, does not believe that Robespierre existed and did the deeds attributed to him?” (ibid)

“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?” (ibid)

“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 mythus, what value has Paul’s dialectic?” (ibid)

After much thought, C.S. Lewis concluded that evolution is the central, most radical lie at the center of a vast network of lies within which modern Westerners are entangled while Rev. Clarke identifies the central lie as the Gospel of another Spirit. The fiendish aim of this Spirit is to help men lose God, not find Him, and by contradicting the Divine Redeemer, compromising Priests are serving this Spirit and its’ diabolical purposes. To contradict the Divine Redeemer is the very essence of unfaithfulness, and that it should be done while reverence is professed,

“…. is an illustration of the intellectual and moral topsy-turvydom of Modernism…’He whom God hath sent speaketh the Words of God,’ claimed Christ of Himself (John 3:34), and no assumption of error can hold water in the face of that declaration, without blasphemy.” Evolutionary theists are serving the devil, therefore “no considerations of Christian charity, of tolerance, of policy, can exonerate Christian leaders or Churches who fail to condemn and to sever themselves from compromising, cowardly, shilly-shallying priests”---the falling stars who “challenge the Divine Authority of Jesus Christ.” (ibid)

The rebuttals, warnings and counsels of the Fathers against listening to Origenists (and their modern evolutionary counterparts) indicates that the spirit of antichrist operating through modern rationalistic criticism of the Revelation of God is not a heresy unique to our times but was inveighed against by early Church Fathers.

From the scholarly writings of the Eastern Orthodox priest, Fr. Seraphim Rose, to the incisive analysis, rebuttals and warnings of the Catholic Kolbe Center, creation.com, Creation Research Institute, Rev. Clarke, and many other stalwart defenders of the faith once delivered, all are a clear, compelling call to the whole body of the Church to hold fast to the traditional doctrine of creation as it was handed down from the Apostles, for as God spoke and Jesus is the Living Word incarnate, it is incumbent upon the faithful to submit their wills to the Divine Will and Authority of God rather than to the damnable heresy proffered by falling stars eager to embrace naturalistic science and the devil's antithesis--- evolution. But if it seem evil to you to serve the Lord,

“…you have your choice: choose this day that which pleases you, whom you would rather serve….but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15

metmom quoting BroJoeK: "But the Bible does not directly say that Jesus is God Himself."

metmom: "Except here....." lists eight proof-texts.

FRiend, none of the proof-texts you quote actually say, "Jesus is God Himself".
All of them can be, and have been, interpreted to mean something other than what you claim.
For example, I've already addressed at some length your second quote, John 10:30: The Father and I are one," in posts #1,940, #2,304 and others.

Some of these discussions can become quite lengthy, and your list in post #2,306 is only a partial list.
So, if you truly wished to go through these on a one-by-one basis, we can, but I doubt if you would find the exercise enlightening.
Your mind is doubtless made up, and so you just will never "see" what some others have.

And indeed, unlike for example, Kevmo, my purpose here is not to proselytize you, only to defend our Founders against spurious charges of being, in Kevmo's words, "God Damned Heretics".

This does not require that you, metmom, agree with me, only that you recognize the point of view I defend (that of many Founders) as legitimate enough to belong in the Free Republic family of conservatives.

Do you?

redleghunter: ""Many" Founders were Unitarian?
A bit of a stretch to say "many."
Perhaps a confirmed "few" for sure."

My word "many" clearly refers to all three categories I mentioned: Unitarians, deistically-inclined and Freemason Christians.
Those categories do include "many" Founders, indeed, only a few fall into none of them -- Washington's friend, John Jay comes to mind.

George Washington himself is an excellent example, clearly a devout Christian and a leader in his church.
But he was also a leader amongst deistic-Freemasons, he often referred to the protections of "Providence", but never (so far as I know) to the deity of Christ.
It is also said that while Washington attended various church services -- including Catholic -- he refused to take communion.
Bottom line: while Washington was not Unitarian, he was a deistically influenced Freemason Christian.

Others like Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were less traditional Christian and more influenced by Unitarian, deistic Freemason ideas.

Do you disagree?

spirited irish: "Stop playing silly, tiresome word games.
What you disagree with, and doubtless find contemptible, is what the Almighty Word has revealed about Himself."

Simply not true, FRiend.
In fact, the beliefs I defend here reflect the Unitarianism of some Founding Fathers, plus what are today known as "Restoration Churches" -- i.e., Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, New Apostolic Church, etc. -- a total of circa 50 million Christians worldwide.

I think most of these people qualify as genuine conservatives, and therefore deserve respect and a welcome home on Free Republic.

Do you disagree?

MHGinTN quoting John 14:9: "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father."

MHGinTN: "What Jesus had related to Philip was the truth that the entirety of what the disciples could sense of the multi-dimensional God was what they could sense in Jesus."

At this point we are into some very fine theological hair-splitting, about which much speculation has been written.
But the bottom line is suggested here, even in your words: Jesus is not necessarily claiming to be God Himself.

What Jesus certainly did call himself is: Son of God, Christ/Messiah, all in the traditional Old Testament senses of those words.

No Jew, then or now, could ever claim to be God Himself.

The necessity for proclaiming Jesus "God the Son" of the triune God-head, arises out of much-later challenges from Greek philosophy, and if I dare say this: Roman Empire politics.

redleghunter: "Perhaps someone else would like to take a swing at what I presented."

I already (briefly) addressed your quote from John 20:28 in my post #2,197.

If you wish a more detailed discussion, we can do that, but I'd have to ask you: why?
There is no possibility my words could change your mind, and that is not my intention.

I am only here to defend the views of many Founding Fathers, who were Freemasons, Unitarians or otherwise deistically influenced Christians.
If I can get you to treat their views with a modicum of respect (see Kevmo's post #1,983), then my purpose is accomplished.

redleghunter to metmom: "Indeed very clear, and you have only given us a small sample.
Others have posted a full PC window full of texts with associated logical commentary. "

It's important to note that the majority of those quotes (5 of 8) come from the Gospel Writer John.
So, if John's gospel is properly understood, then most of the justification for full-blown trinitarianism disappears.

Christian denominations known as "restorationists" begin to understand John by going first to his final words on this subject: John 20:30-31:

"30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.
31 But these are written that you may believe[b] that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

John does not say he wants us to believe that Jesus is God Himself.
From this perspective, when we re-examine all those other proof-texts to see if John ever violated his own intentions, it turns out, he did not.

betty boop: "The problem you limn here points to the total inadequacy of the arguments presented by tacticalogic and BroJoeK on this thread."

Arguments which you, Ms boop, have so far proved unable to summarize accurately.

betty boop: "And so, BroJoeK is looking there for the explicit positive statement: Jesus is God.
He does not find that statement in so many words — notwithstanding metmom's insightful list of citations on this very point.
Therefore, BroJoeK evidently feels himself entitled to "skepticism" on this point."

FRiend, I am not "skeptical" -- I am here to defend the religious views of (among others) our Freemason, Unitarian or deistically inclined Christian Founding Fathers.
Many of these beliefs are also found amongst nearly 50 million "restoration Christians" worldwide today.

I believe they deserve both fair hearings and respectful treatment here on Free Republic.

Do you agree?

betty boop: "I imagine most Christians are not as "sola scriptura" in their approach to the biblical idea of human existence as BroJoeK seems to be."

You are absolutely entitled to believe whatever you wish on these subjects.
I am only here to defend and seek some respect for beliefs of others (i.e., our Founders) who saw things differently.

betty boop: "Of course, I suspect that BroJoeK is a poseur, just here to stir up trouble and set off bombs...."

"Poser" for defending our Founding Fathers?
"Stir up trouble" by explaining their beliefs?
"Set off bombs" by linking them to around 50 million other non-Trinitarian Christians, world-wide?

Ms. boop, I ask again: what exactly is your problem?

betty boop: "BJK's main position appears to be this: All Christians are "wrong" in their belief, and one can use a selective culling of evidence from the Holy Scriptures to prove it.
And not just positive evidence; but negative evidence as well — i.e., that the Bible doesn't explicitly say "Jesus is God," in so many words."

In fact, I've several times posted the opposite -- i.e., quoting my post #2,143:

I'm not even saying that one interpretation is necessarily wrong or right.

Most important point here: that's why our Founding Fathers' first clause of their First Amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

betty boop: "In so many words, BJK is telling us that Christianity is basically a "dead letter"; but to say this, he has to "forget" that the people who live in Faith find that letter — the Word — very much alive in their hearts, in their direct experience, in their acts...."

Of course, I've said nothing of the sort, shame on you, Ms boop.
I refer you to the "living Faith" of around 50 million "restoration Christians".
Do you have a problem with them?

boatbums: "Trinity has ALWAYS been a major tenet of Christianity and those who claim to follow Christ cannot deny this."

In historical fact, there is no explicit Trinitarian language in the New Testament, and no Christian confessed full-blown trinitarianism for not just decades, but centuries after Christ.

Yes, of course, I agree that trinitarianism is a logical conclusion to be drawn from New Testament texts, and possibly even necessary in response to various theological arguments.
But, it is not the only possible conclusion, and those who believed otherwise (including some of our Founders) should be treated with more respect than they sometimes receive.

Kevmo: "Of course, heretics think there are “other ways” to “interpret” this passage.
They also think the same thing of myriad other passages, so much so that they turn themselves into pretzels when they twist scripture and history around so much.
It becomes an unrecognizable mishmash very quickly rather than a simple, straightforward statement from the God of the Universe to us."

Your bitterly foul language towards yours truly, BroJoeK, notwithstanding, the fact remains that historically and even today, millions of people have not interpreted those words in the same way you do.

And historically many of those were persecuted and murdered for their "heretical" beliefs.
So I am here to tell you, Kevmo, that neither they nor I deserve the verbal abuse you've dished out.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.