Congressman calls evolution lie from 'pit of hell'

[Alcott]

Congressman calls evolution lie from 'pit of hell'

There's probably some in Congress that would call it a pith from the lie of hell.

 

[Oldtimer]

I wish I had taken science more seriously in high school, and other subjects for that matter. I guess my train of thought has always been that all of the theories on Creation were formulated by created, flawed thinking human beings. I have always wondered what goes through the mind of the Lord who created everything when He sees the conclusions His created beings reach about Him creating us. All of the principles involved in the various theories of creation were also created by Him. Any knowledge imparted through us through scientific research came from God, in addition to Scripture.

I just re-read your post to catch up with the gist of this thread, again. This time something jumped out at me in the paragraph above.

Before I get to that, I share your thoughts on why God didn't explain, which has left us wondering and speculating. The only conclusion that I can come to about the mystery of Genesis and many other mysteries in the Bible, is His expectation of our faith in Him. Faith that isn't based on scientific knowledge. Faith that isn't based on seeing Him perform miracles of parting the sea or turning one person's lunch into food for thousands. The ministry of His only begotton son, in the flesh, on this earth, who died and rose again provides the ultimate testimony.

With our faith in Jesus Christ, we no longer need to see manna from heaven or physically touch the wounds in His palms. Where is our faith if we continually need a burning bush that isn't consumed? Where is our faith if we can't *see* what He's already done? Electron microscopes show us the complexity of things so small the human eye can't see them without help. Telescopes show us the majesty that lies far beyond what we can see in the heavens, at night. With unaided eyes we can see more of His creation than we can take in. Like grains of sand on a beach it's all there for us to view and to accept that there's a mystery beneath what we can see on the surface. Faith is knowing there's more than what meets the eye. Knowing that God didn't reveal all to us, from the beginning, as there wouldn't have been a need for faith and trust in Him otherwise.

In the bold above in your post, IMO, you've left one thing out. There's another force present in this world. A force that can corrupt scientific research. A force, that when allowed by men's lack of faith, can formulate all sorts of theories that are fostered to deliberately deceive. Hath God said how He created an apple?

 

[Oldtimer]

Following is an article by the President of Southern Seminary, Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.,in which he discusses the BioLogos movement. Emphasis is mine!

Thank you for posting that quote. I hadn't heard of the BioLogos movement before this thread began. I'll take a look at the additional links you posted when time permits. I've gotta get off this keyboard to see what God's will has in store for me today. I'm already running behind.

 

[saturneptune]

OT,
I have looked at some of this Congressman's voting record, and he appears to be fairly consistantly conservative. That is a good sign. I need to remember, and many on this board do, that each church has the right to make their own policies. If the congreagation of this local church felt it was ok to him to come and speak about Creation, then that is their right. Our objections would be limited to if a politician wanted to speak at our home church.

 

[quantumfaith]

OT,
I have looked at some of this Congressman's voting record, and he appears to be fairly consistantly conservative. That is a good sign. I need to remember, and many on this board do, that each church has the right to make their own policies. If the congreagation of this local church felt it was ok to him to come and speak about Creation, then that is their right. Our objections would be limited to if a politician wanted to speak at our home church.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[OldRegular]

Call it what you will, Theistic evolution, punctuated equilibrium, intelligent design, old earth creationism, even BioLogos, any concept that introduces death into creation prior to the rebellion of Adam and Eve must be rejected as contrary to Scripture.

Jesus Christ Himself told us:

Mark 10:6-9
6. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8. And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Now what is not to understand about the statement? But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

From the beginning of creation God made. And that is the truth! Those who willingly embrace any concept that denies the persons of Adam and Eve deny the recorded words of Jesus Christ!

Following are some thoughts of Dr. Albert Mohler on the essential connection of Adam and Eve with the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

False Start? The Controversy Over Adam and Eve Heats Up

The denial of an historical Adam and Eve as the first parents of all humanity and the solitary first human pair severs the link between Adam and Christ which is so crucial to the Gospel.

Monday, August 22, 2011

Each generation of Christians faces its own set of theological challenges. For this generation of Evangelicals, the question of beginnings is taking on a new urgency. In fact, this question is now a matter of Gospel urgency. How are we to understand the Bible’s story, if we can have no confidence that we know how it even begins?

In terms of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the most urgent question related to beginnings has to do with the questions related to the existence of Adam and Eve as the first parents to all humanity and to the reality of the Fall as the explanation for human sinfulness and all that comes with sin.

A report from Barbara Bradley Hagerty of National Public Radio a few weeks ago is an undeniable sign that even the secular world now recognizes that this is a question central to Christianity. Hagerty, a skilled religion reporter, talked to me and several others about this subject. Her interviews were broadcast as a report on August 9, with Steve Inskeep of NPR as host.

Inskeep got right to the point: “For many Evangelicals, a historical Adam and Eve is a critical part of their theology, but now some conservative religious scholars are saying, publicly, that they can no longer believe it.”

<snip>

Ever since the challenge of Darwin and evolutionary theory appeared, some Christians have tried to argue that the opening chapters of the Bible should not be taken “literally.” While no honest reader of the Bible would deny the literary character of Genesis 1-3, the fact remains that significant truth claims are being presented in these chapters. Furthermore, it is clear that the historical character of these chapters is crucial to understanding the Bible’s central message — the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Apostle Paul, for example, clearly understood Adam to be a fully historical human who was also the genetic father of the entire human race. The fall of the human race in Adam sets the stage for the salvation of sinful humanity by Jesus Christ. But now, Professor Schneider is telling us that “in the moral experience of human beings, there never was any such paradise to be lost.”

Karl Giberson, who has also been affiliated with BioLogos and is the author of Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution, goes so far as to argue that the biblical account of Adam and Eve “was never intended to be read as literal history.” But, he was asked, what does this then say about the Bible’s truthfulness and authority?

Giberson then wrote:

The Bible is not a book. It is a library — dozens of very different books bound together. The assumption that identifying one part as fiction undermines the factual character of another part is ludicrous. It would be like going into an actual physical library and saying “Well, if all these books about Harry Potter are fictional, then how do I know these other books about Abraham Lincoln are factual? How can Lincoln be real if Potter is not?” And then “Aha! I have got you! So much for your library.”

That is an amazing and deeply troubling paragraph. Giberson uses the metaphor of the Bible as a library of books — a metaphor popularized by author Brian McLaren. But Giberson then goes where many others lack the courage and candor to go — he is ready to identify part of the Bible as “fiction.” In his words, “The assumption that identifying one part as fiction undermines the factual character of another part is ludicrous.” What can his argument mean but that Adam is to be understood as like Harry Potter, a fictional character, while Jesus is like Abraham Lincoln, an historical figure who really existed?

The implications for biblical authority are clear, as is the fact that if these arguments hold sway, we will have to come up with an entirely new understanding of the Gospel metanarrative and the Bible’s storyline.

The denial of an historical Adam and Eve as the first parents of all humanity and the solitary first human pair severs the link between Adam and Christ which is so crucial to the Gospel.

If we do not know how the story of the Gospel begins, then we do not know what that story means. Make no mistake: a false start to the story produces a false grasp of the Gospel.

http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/08/22/false-start-the-controversy-over-adam-and-eve-heats-up/

 

[Oldtimer]

OT,
I have looked at some of this Congressman's voting record, and he appears to be fairly consistantly conservative. That is a good sign. I need to remember, and many on this board do, that each church has the right to make their own policies. If the congreagation of this local church felt it was ok to him to come and speak about Creation, then that is their right. Our objections would be limited to if a politician wanted to speak at our home church.

SN, I should have made it clear that I agree with you that each church as the right (and obligation!) to make their own policies. Whether I agree or disagree with a particular policy, that doesn't matter, from this standpoint. There should be no one outside of the assembly who has the right to tell them what they can and can't do in their service to our Lord.

My only "beef" for lack of a better term is why would a church forbid a "class" of people from giving what appears to be a sincere testimony of their faith in our Saviour. A year or so ago, our church ordained a man who previously had fit the stereotype of the "town drunk". No, our church wouldn't want one of the "town drunks" in the pulpit on Sunday morning. Yet, this particular one, hit rock bottom and came to Christ. He turned his life around and his life bears witness to his walk with God.

No, I can't see our church turning over the pulpit to most of the politicians in office today. However, I leave open the possibility that 1 in 10, or maybe 1 in 100 is a better number, is a true born again believer in our Lord. Again, IMO, we need that 1 in every 1,000 to give his testimony at every opportunity. The location of the microphone is secondary to allowing him those opportunities. Especially in view of how many venues are being closed today if a person wants to publically mention God.

Actors are another example. Probably 90-95%+ (guessing at a figure) would not be invited to speak to our congregation. However, I don't think we'd have a policy forbidding 100% of them. That leaves open the door for the possibility that there is an actor who's roles on and off screen indicate that he'd give a heartfelt testimony of God's presence in his life.

In any event, Saturneptune, whether we agree or disagree, I appreciate the opportunity for this discussion. I can't speak for anyone else. For me, when we can talk without resorting to things I won't mention, it helps me to better understand both sides. It helps to think through what I "think" I believe and stand for. Thank you.

 

[Oldtimer]

Following are some thoughts of Dr. Albert Mohler on the essential connection of Adam and Eve with the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

Once again, thanks.

There's so much reading to do, as such a short time left to do it, compared to the years I could have but didn't. :tear:

Yet, I can't help but believe that I'm right where He wants me to be for reasons yet to be revealed. Thanks for your part in reinforcing 2 Tim 2:15 and Proverbs 2:3-6.