Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
“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)
Falling Stars and Damnable Heresy
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)
Pouring more contempt on them he asked,
“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)
Concerning Matthew 19:5:
“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)
And concerning Cor. 15:21-22:
“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
Can we at least be clear about our terms?
Indeed!
Indeed, there seems to be a lot of "projecting" going on around here.
Of course, bb's mind may well be a "steel mouse trap", but she endlessly misrepresents my views, and now complains that it's I who am ad-hominin-ing her.
The poor dear.
Thank you! Sincerely, it warms my heart to see that at least some of my points have reached home.
betty boop: "Whatever happened to Aristotle's famous statement, 'All men desire to know'?
His implication is that, among other things, the inquiring human mind will not tolerate self-imposed, artificial barriers to human thought."
To me the answer is clear and obvious, and we can see it as early as Thomistic writings.
(With a prior acknowledgement that people who've seriously studied these things may take offense at my brief summaries)...
The greatest ever Doctor of the Church divided all human learning into two categories: theology based on the Bible, and natural-philosophy (today aka "science") which begins with inputs from our senses.
Back in those days, theology was a really big deal, called "the Queen of Sciences" and our "science" was the technology of alchemists and other common workers.
Aquinas' opinion was that these two modes of learning did not conflict, could not conflict, and any apparent conflict must be the result of a misunderstanding of theology, or science, or both (see YHAOS' post #106).
The problem is that while Aquinas was a genius of the first order, ordinary human beings (including many Church officials), couldn't work their way through apparent conflicts which arose over the centuries.
The result was numerous incidents, of which Galileo Galilee is the most famous.
Nevertheless, Aquinas' clear distinction between theology and science has allowed scientists to continue to operate outside most theological restrictions, a benefit of Christianity whose overwhelming importance can be seen when compared to the severe restrictions on science imposed by Islam (note R7's posts #322 & 334 above).
betty boop: "Once upon a time, science was understood as the quest for the truth of Reality of the natural world (which is a participation in Being), following all roads wherever they may lead that seem promising in that quest.
Now you suggest that what science really is, is a jail for the human mind?
Because there are certain things it refuses to engage or talk about? Like Being, for example?"
No, that is precisely where you're wrong.
From the beginning, from the time of St. Thomas Aquinas, "science" was never, ever, ever a "search for Truth".
"Searching for truth" is what theology did.
"Natural-science" then as now meant mostly what we call "technology" -- "how to do it" and more basically: "what works".
In short: "science" has always been a "jail", to which any serious theologian was only an occasional visitor, and out of which they quickly escaped.
Now of course, today some "inmates" of the science jail wish to expand the walls and fences of their jail until it includes all of existence -- or "what is".
But people who actually live outside the jail must fight to keep it as restricted as St. Thomas Aquinas first declared it to be.
Does that make sense to you, my FRiend?
Now am out of time, must rush off, will be back later...
Earlier, you said:
In my synecdoche, "science" stands for some part (at least) of the community of scientists. And it seems clear to me that that some part (at least) of the community of scientists does wish to do something — to treat the entire universe as if it were solely a physical object, obeying only physical laws.
You chose a specific group of people and made them representative of science, but then say that those people "in no way personify science" to you. I can't seem to find the nuance that doesn't make that contradictory.
Can we at least be clear about our terms?
It's always good to be clear about the terms. Where are you finding a definition of "personify" that "in no way" describes what you've done with your synecdoche?
And thank you, FRiend!
Naturally, in all good faith we at first assume the former.
But after people like betty boop and spirited irish have been corrected over, and over, and over again, and yet still refuse to acknowledge the truth of the matter, then even the most faithful of good-faithers must necessarily begin to suspect the latter.
Please let me return HiTech Redneck's favor to me, in calling off YHAOS, who had descended into mindless mockery.
R7, why, why are you hijacking, with accusations related to patriarchy a thread intended for discussion of science in general and evolution-specific related ideas?
Do such things not belong elsewhere?
The subject of the article, and by extension of the thread is heresy, not science.
Hey Bro and all, if we are believers, let’s exalt the Lord wherever the opportunity presents itself. That counts infinitely more than our own private ideas of what a “thread” is, which isn’t even particularly elevated in this case (it has fallen into a brouhaha over words and quibbles and philosophies with virtually nothing about the Lord himself, except where I have repeatedly interjected explicit reference to Him).
Once we have answered the question “What Hath God Wrought” with all due praise to Him, then and only then are we in a position to discuss HOW God hath wrought it.
And suppose it is... even yet we should keep perspective... “do all to the glory of God.”
The idea of spotting heresies, or anything else that is bad, is so we can effectively minister in love to those mired in them. Isn’t that the most crying need in this fallen creation? It seems that way too often, we holler “heresy” and pat ourselves on the back for our superior perception and never really get very far beyond that.
And indeed I think we are way too sensitive over what really needs to be counted as a heresy. Heresies are substantial violations of an orthodox Christian answer to the question of WHAT God has wrought. For example, the idea that Jesus was not the Son of God, but an emanation. Heresies are not disputes over HOW God has wrought something. If all agree that God DID create, then we have a firm basis against which we can weigh ideas of HOW God created.
I do not speak frivolously here. Too often Christians get going after externalities. God bless the Puritans, for just one example, but for all their notable works of faith they also underestimated the conquering power of Christ and therefore avoided all manner of externalities that had once been touched by unbelievers but then brought firmly into an orthodox Christian context. They threw the baby away with the bath water. When the strengths of all flavors of Christendom are brought together into a whole that is united rather than fighting one another, we have something through which divine power comes that makes the devil tremble.
What is God to you? Please explain. If God is just some convenient human invention so that things that you really think ARE important can be facilitated... then spit it out! Out with it! Confess!
How about pro-Father “from which every family on earth gets its name”???
Capital F Father. Do not miss this!!
Then we are discussing heresy in a forum dedicated to political activism.
Zionist conspirator, post #29: "why is this in “news” instead of “religion?”"
Lary Lucido, post #48: "I, too, would like to know why this is in News instead of Religion."
spirited irish, responding in post #31: "Today anything remotely connected with the West’s traditional foundations-—Biblical theism, the Genesis account, morality, etc. is strictly forbidden in public discourse and relegated to “religious forums” while evolution, abortion, ‘gay’ marriage, the implementation of Sharia in American courts, open borders, rock music, the hatred of Ted Cruz by the GOP and Left, white-straight homophobia, white racism, climate change, etc. are “politics” therefore allowed in the public arena."
So spirited irish chose to make her thread on heresies, evolution and a call for orthodoxy a matter of "news/activism" instead of the FR "religion" forum.
In "news/activism" the FR rules of behavior are laxer, or at least normally less strictly enforced than in "religion", and so such threads tend to be more rough-and-tumble.
Plus, many people who might not visit a "religion" thread will respond to a debate over the science of evolution.
HiTech RedNeck: "Hey Bro and all, if we are believers, let’s exalt the Lord wherever the opportunity presents itself.
That counts infinitely more than our own private ideas of what a “thread” is..."
Since this particular thread is set in "news/activism", that normally implies more serious discussion of relevant facts and opinions than prayer and exaltations of God.
But, whenever you feel the need, FRiend, please go right ahead, don't let us shut you up.
And considering that most news/activism scientific or political discussions don't even acknowledge the, ahem, existence of God, I'd say this thread has done yeoman's work in recognizing God as our Universe' Designer/Planner Creator and Guider.
So, FRiend HiTech RedNeck, if that's insufficient for your own needs, please feel free to add-in whatever harmonizing notes may sound appropriate to your ears.
Hmm, so this isn’t a Religion thread... fair enough, why not get it transferred if you think that’s better.
You think you’re so smart that you, too, like the Rocket man, can relegate God to being, at best, some kind of icing on the cake, rather than being the cake? And then look down your nose at giving God His proper place (king of everything) as somehow a small minded “meeting my own needs”?
Just because the secular world is dumbed down about God doesn’t mean you have to follow in its foot steps.
And by the way the charter of FR mentions... yup... that pesky Lord.
But anyhow, some group called Renew America (so nominally political) thinks that it’s somehow hugely important to press THIS theory about how the Lord created, and not THAT theory.
So they brought the matter up. Now if we don’t want to talk about God here, then we can’t talk about this either.
I confess, even though I read the thread-article several times, I don't really get the point of it, and so have only focused my remarks on the usual debate over science in general and evolution specifically.
The whole idea that we might discuss what is, or is not, "heresy" in a news/activism context doesn't even register with me.
So, if that means I've "hijacked" this thread, well, what can I say except: sorry about that, FRiends.
Well if it made us aware of nothing else — even if it was entirely mistaken in its premise — it still managed to remind us that God is Very Important.
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.