Posted on 04/07/2016 11:56:15 AM PDT by Heartlander
God in envented evolution.
Frustration with people who don't have faith in the religion of evolution.
>>Frustration with people who don’t have faith in the religion of evolution.<<
No more than frustration with people who don’t understand “the religion of physics,” “the religion of biology,” “the religion of astrophysics,” etc.
It isn’t that “some people get hung up over the creation details” but that faithful orthodox Christians receive the Revealed Word of God, meaning the Old and New Testament, as sacred writings that are not to be dealt with deceptively by artful deceivers such as Ken Wilber, Leonard Sweet, Hugh Ross, Teilhard de Chardin, and many others. Such men lack fear of the Lord (Jer. 36: 24), which is why they take their scissors to His Word, cut out the parts they don’t like, and then paste their abominable evolutionary cosmologies and other false teachings (i.e. social gospel, prosperity gospel) in place of what’s been cut out. When men turn away from the propositional Revelation of God it destroys the acceptability of their worship because their thoughts, words, and actions demonstrate unbelief in God and His revealed truth. On the basis of the Word of God apostasy denotes this turning away from God.
I’m sorry, you err to paint with such a broad brush.
Just because there are things that are falsely called knowledge (skientia) does not mean that all skientia is false.
I am quite familiar with Hugh Ross and he, at least, does not lack fear of the Lord; he however does not fear a certain line of fundamentalist humans.
Some people do get hung up over creation details because they can’t push past their own imaginations, which the bible itself says became vain. Why doesn’t anyone ask the questions that even I have asked, such as why no noons or afternoons in the creation days? Why is a global activity being characterized with a uniform evening-to-morning progression? The 6 x 24 hour folks owe answers here, and credible ones.
I.e. the bible offers propositions with a context. People are not expected to come into creation stories with a tabula rasa; they are expected to have some knowledge about nature already. Since nature was put there to testify about God (and the bible backs this up) this makes sense.
I think it is you, not people like Hugh, who are putting scissors to things rather than asking God what your point of view should be.
And frankly, none of this approach backs up evolutionary theory as secularists see it. Hugh Ross completely dismisses such a thing as impossible. He starts to ask some of the difficult questions that secularist evolutionists don’t bother with, like not only why did life get knocked uphill, why hasn’t it all fallen back downhill either, and why does the burgeoning of species increase rather than decrease as they become larger and bear fewer progeny. And he will not take the secular intellectual question begging equivalent of “it’s turtles all the way down.”
Hugh is not a prophet on the level of an inspired scripture writer, but we don’t have to be in order to get wisdom out of the bible, and out of nature.
John 1:10 tells us that everything seen and unseen was created ex nihilo by the spoken Word of the Son of God, which means that Jesus Christ was active and present long before His incarnation, therefore eternally co-existent with the Father. Jesus Christ is therefore God just as the Father and Holy Spirit are God, thus the Word of the Old Testament's creation account is Jesus Christ of the New Testament. Jesus Christ is the Word. His Word is Truth even as He Himself is Truth, the same today as yesterday and for always. Thus Jesus Christ does not change and as He is the starting point for the reasoning of the faithful, then Christians must reject the neutrality principle and doubt, its' ugly twin, the long unchallenged principles in evolutionary modernism's longstanding war against the Word of God – the Book of Genesis in particular – in all its parts... historical, prophetical, geographical, linguistic, and doctrinal.
When Paul affirms in the Lord that his Gentile readers should no longer live as Gentile pagans do in the futility of their darkened minds (Ephesians 4: 17-24), he speaks to all pagans from antiquity to our own age who reject the pure knowledge of the Holy Trinity and vainly think of themselves as "enlightened" when in reality they are "en-darkened." Their ignorance is not a lack of education, and some of them are brilliant in their own way, but such brilliance is wasted on vain imaginings and pseudo-scientific wisdom of this world which will not get them to heaven, thus utterly foolish and futile, especially when combined with hardness of heart toward the truth of the gospel in Christ (Matt. 13:14-15; John 12:40; Acts 28: 26; Rom. 11:8)
"En-darkened" modernists claim scientific neutrality as a general operating assumption. Two applications of modernist thought evidence this: evolution (anti-creation account/relentless change/relativism), an inverted exegesis that deconstructs and reduces man in the spiritual image of the Trinity to evolved ape or hominid, and deconstructionism (destructive criticism/critical theory). Along with evolution, deconstructionism is a form of relativism or nihilism that for more than eighty years has been spilling into and contaminating our moral and culture sustaining institutions from seminaries and Biblical scholarship to academia, law, media, arts, and politics, thence our minds, individually and collectively.
The origin of the neutrality principle is the Garden of Eden. Its' father is the Evil One who tempted Eve to approach the question of eating from the forbidden tree in a neutral, unbiased fashion. He slyly suggested that she adopt a neutral position in order to decide who was right, God or the snake. Like modernists of our own age Eve doubted and therefore rejected God's Word as authoritative and conclusive. As a true neutralist she determined for herself which choice to take. (Gen. 3:4-6)
Todays' Christian Church and Western culture have for so long been saturated with evolutionary modernist claims of scientific neutrality paired with intellectual and moral autonomy that the ungodly neutrality principle which forbids the existence of immutable Truth and moral absolutes has been thoroughly ingrained in us. It is so constant and we are so accustomed to it that even within the church we fail to discern it.
For evolutionary modernists to choose to not believe the Word of God on an individual level is one thing. But in the past few hundred years the world has been witnessing a strange yet consistent phenomenon: institutionalized Biblical deconstructionism issuing in a concerted drive,
"...on an institutional level to rubbish the Scriptures altogether. It is nothing new of course. It's just the scale of the enterprise which takes the breath away. And it's not just international. It's global." (The Authenticity of the Book of Genesis, Bill Cooper, p. 7)
The first Biblical deconstructionists – the ancient "fathers" of today's Biblical deconstructionists – were various Gnostic pagans in the first centuries of the Christian era.
The methodology employed by the early Gnostic pagan Marcion for example, was to masquerade as a scholar concerned only for truth while really getting rid of everything he was offended by, especially the entire Old Testament which he deconstructed by reducing in its entirety to an unhistorical myth. In a nutshell, this is the same method employed by modern Biblical deconstructionists like Hugh Ross, Tim Keller, etc. ad nauseum.
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 Gnostic 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 elements of Genesis as Revealed by God 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)
Ross has you twisting and turning in the winds of deceit. Why do you place your faith in him rather than Jesus Christ, the Eternal Word, the incarnation of the propositional truth of the Revealed Word?
Evolution is a ludicrous, futile belief! Its short-sighted hogwash!!! I mean I don’t even understand…scientists came up with this bizarre laughable idea, and it’s even against their own book! The second LAW of thermodynamics instantly disproves evolution. I quote: “the entropy (a measure of the disorder that exists in any system) of the universe must always either increase or remain the same. It can never decrease.” So what that states is nothing can get better or come from nothing which just happens to be exactly what evolution insists! Really? Evolution tells us that once nothing was here then all of a sudden a single cell appeared either from the BBT (Big Bang Theory) don’t even get me started with that, or just flat appeared. And then this adorable little cell morphed after millions some say billions of years later we humans now “dominate” the earth. The second law of thermodynamics clarifies that this is impossible. Oh and there is no way the earth could be millions or billions of years old because the ocean would be so salty that no fish could live or prosper in it so……yeah if you are a scientist out there and you believe in evolution being the key to life on earth and all the rest of the universe; go back to class and check your facts! Because evolution cannot be decisive; you said it yourself.
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.