Skip to comments.Falling Stars, Damnable Heresy, and the Spirit of Evolution
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 Kellers 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 Gods 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 Darwins 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 Gods 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 Romewhat 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? (Darwins 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 Noahs 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 Gods 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 Jonahs 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 Pauls 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
The collapse of the family, along with everything else was caused by the creation of government schools, which were created for precisely that purpose.
Children belong in the home, not in the cesspool.
I agree that the government schools are crap and that they are designed to produce obedient leftist drones, but they existed throughout the 20th century. The extremely high 50% divorce rate of America (mostly initiated by women to extract cash prizes out of the ex husband's backside) appeared in the late 1960's and early 1970's when the modern family and divorce court system was created. Comedian Bill Burr leaves the American Christian Right in the dust when it comes to identifying the real cause of more and more men boycotting marriage 2.0.
My questions should be easy to answer, unless you were de-balled by the evangelical American princesses
It doesn't matter if the children are kept at home or not. All it takes is for the American wife to make that one phone call to kick the husband out and rape him at divorce court for petty reasons. No wonder why more and more men are boycotting marriage 2.0. Bill Burr was spot on.
Yes because raping men at divorce court will encourage men to play the marriage 2.0 game. It’s so much easier to blame da gayz than it is to blame the ball busting Western women.
betty: I’ll only add that the “logical consistency” you require seems to be available only on the basis of the reductionist model, with which so much of contemporary science seems to be embroiled.
Spirited: Methodological naturalism or natural science requires from the outset the exclusion of the supernatural or unseen half of reality: Jehovah God, creation ex nihilo, miracles, Imago Dei, Heaven, hell, holy angels, unholy angels.
Reductionism is the method of reducing the supernatural to the natural (biological), i.e., spirit (mind and its abilities) to firing of neurons and movement of chemicals. Thus it can be said that man has no soul/spirit because it cannot be weighed, measured, tested, touched, etc.
The Biblical view of reality posits two interfacing, interacting halves of reality: seen (body, brain) and unseen (soul/spirit and abilities of mind).
After much thought C.S. Lewis concluded that natural science and its primary doctrine evolution is devised not to seek truth but to keep God (and the supernatural half of reality) out:
“More disquieting still is Professor D.M.S. Watson’s defense. “Evolution itself,” he wrote, “is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or...can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” Has it come to that? Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice. Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God?” (CS Lewis, The Oxford Socratic Club, 1944)
Eric Voegelin addresses the following fallacies: immanentism (pantheist conception of God), evolution, biological reductionism in general and tacticalogic’s reductionist ‘reasoning’ in particular:
“...the biological theorists don’t know that Kant has analyzed why one cannot have an immanentist theory of evolution. One can have empirical observation but no general theory of evolution because the sequence of forms is a mystery; it just is there and you cannot explain it by any theory. The world cannot be explained. It is a mythical problem, so you have a strong element of myth in the theory of evolution.” (Eric Voegelin, CW Vol. 33, The Drama of Humanity Conversations, III, Myth as Environment, p. 307)
If scientists adopted that philosophy, the logical conclusion would be for them to abandon their research as futile and seek a different line of work.
Is that what you'd like to see as the solution to the problem?
But I also suspect your ire is misplaced because divorce law varies greatly by State.
For instance, spousal maintenance is difficult to obtain under Texas law. As I recall it is based on one's inability to obtain employment, is limited to three years and can only be made indefinite if the spouse asking for maintenance is handicapped.
Also, Texas District Court judges I have personally known have only two concerns in a divorce proceeding: the custody of the children and the interests of the creditors. As I recall, in a custody dispute the Texas judge speaks to the children age 10 or over to see where they want to live and will try to make it so on the theory that they are at risk of becoming runaways.
Also on personal knowledge, I aver that Texas judges will distribute debt obligation according to the spouse's ability to service the debt. A wife who makes the lion's share of income will be saddled with the lion's share of debt.
Concerning marriage per se, I observe that many of today's marriages are merely contracts and not Holy matrimony, despite the title of the person who conducted the marriage ceremony.
God alone can make anything holy. And no minister has power over God.
A Holy matrimony occurs when God brings two people together and makes them one in His eyes. Adam and Eve, for instance, were united by God Himself.
And when God brings two people together, woe begets anyone who separates them:
Another important part of Scripture than ruffles many a feminist's feathers is that God appointed the man to be the head of household. And He in fact holds them accountable for the whole family (Ephesians 3).
To the feminist who feels like a second class citizen in this decree by God, I hasten to add that God requires a husband to love his wife. Three times He commands this in Ephesians 3. And His command to the wife is to submit herself to her own husband as unto the Lord - which is to say, not submit to every male but her own husband.
As I recall, you consider yourself to be atheist and may discount my words by your presupposition.
But I testify to you that God is not a hypothesis. He lives. His Name is I AM. I've known Him for over a half century and counting.
Indeed, I know Him better than I know my own brother. You most likely would not doubt my testimony that I have a brother. Likewise, you should not doubt my testimony about God.
Well said; marriage now-a-days is pretty much contract of EN-LUST-IFICATION..., GOLD-DIGGING.., -or- a FRANCHISE in some social Crime...
Marriage is totally about the children otherwise why GET married?..
Several businesses exist wholly because of marriage.. like: lawyering.. and clergy... and witch-doctoring..
"God" does not seem to require "a marriage license" the lawyers do...
Three entities in a marriage.. 1) man.. 2) woman.. 3) God..
Common law marriage is a mental game.. and pal-i-moaney is a legal scam..
Any "SOCIETY" is based on how marriage is treated.. the "quality" of it's Morality is born in that treatment..
Marriage is the corner-stone of a society NOT THE capstone..
NO GOD........ no marriage.. it's serial fornication..
Very, very well said, dear hosepipe! There’s a lot of wisdom in your post.
marriage now-a-days is pretty much contract of EN-LUST-IFICATION..., GOLD-DIGGING.., -or- a FRANCHISE in some social Crime...
Spirited: For people dissatisfied with ‘self’ (homosexuals)marriage is coveted in the vain hope that possession of it will resolve dissatisfaction with ‘self.’ But as the real source of dissatisfaction is the human condition, after the initial euphoria of marriage wears off, dissatisfaction with self will once again rear its ugly head.
Is that what you’d like to see as the solution to the problem?
Spirited: Foolish ‘scientists’ who in support of methodological naturalism reduce their own minds and cognitive abilities to movement of chemicals and firing of neurons cannot be expected to offer ‘solutions’ nor have anything worth saying since by their own admission they are walking dead bodies that somehow talk.
I don't see you doing it better.
If you’ve come here for matriculation, perhaps Jim can send you a bill.
Even the state of Texas rewards paternity fraud by forcing men to pay child support for children that are not theirs. I see that you're trying to defend the corrupt family law system. And you wonder why more and more young men don't take the Christian Right seriously. The Christian Right panders to women because it is mostly women who attend church nowadays. Comedian Bill Burr has more credibility on this issue than any churchian pastor.
And it is apparent that you oppose biblical morality.
tacticalogic responded: "If scientists adopted that philosophy, the logical conclusion would be for them to abandon their research as futile and seek a different line of work.
Is that what you'd like to see as the solution to the problem?"
Tacticalogic, maybe spirited irish should invest in a burka and a prayer rug since she believes that God can change the truth in much the way the Islamic religion conceves of God... In contrast to what Christianity conceives of God.
Spot on. When many conservatives started viewing marriage as a romance/love based institution instead of a reproductive contract between two families, the argument against gay marriage was neutered. When society doesn't incentivize men to get married, men will abandon the institution of marriage as they are doing now.
Examples of such disencentives is the (anti)family court and divorce court system that overwhelmingly punishes husbands, no matter what the husbands do.
Another disincentive against men is the anti-dowry. What do I mean by anti-dowry? In societies where real family values exist such as India, a prospective woman for marriage comes with a dowry and virginity, in order to encourage men to marry these women in an arranged marriage with the woman's father's family. In anti family societies, such as America and Europe, the woman (who probably had sex with the football team at high school, and dated several tatted-up thugs while she was in college pursuing her worthless liberal arts degree) comes with an anti-dowry such as student loans and consumer debt.
What man would want to marry in the Western World?
The Christian Right's obsession with "gay marriage" is just an example of moral cowardice. They refuse to confront the real issue
>> “ than any churchian pastor.” <<
Could this raging misogynist be a disciple of Michael Rood?
You don’t sound like one, but...
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.