Leading Evangelical Villified for Supporting Evolution

Evolution and Creation are NOT compatable. John MacArthur "for Creation" says they are NOT compatable and Richard Dawkins "for Evolution" says they are NOT compatable. Whom are you going to believe? Try to put them both in a blender and say vola?!? Sorry Jesus said if you were of the world the world WOULD LISTEN to you,BUT I called you out of the world. The things of God are foolishness to those who are perishing. Here is the flip side.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3eqka4Q4jU

 

The debbil said "Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."


Look what happened!! 'Cuz Eve believed somebody else, rather than God!!

Bottom line, who are you gonna believe, God, or man???

 

Didn't see anything in the video that substantiated the vilified claim.

 

We now have two threads on the same subject. See "The Video That Ended a Career."

Never mind, the other one was closed because of the 10-page limit.

Carry on.

 

The young-earth creationist machine has done a great commercializing and promoting their origin model. So great a job that to disagree with them ostricizes others. This wasn't always so. Old earth creationists were a presence in early fundamentalism.

Waltke affirms the authority of Scriptures, the Trinity and the centrality of Jesus Christ. READ HIS WORDS.

Dr. Bruce Waltke’s Statement of Clarification:
“I had not seen the video before it was distributed. Having seen it, I realize its deficiency and wish to put my comments in a fuller theological context:
1. Adam and Eve are historical figures from whom all humans are descended; they are uniquely created in the image of God and as such are not in continuum with animals.

2. Adam is the federal and historical head of the fallen human race just as Jesus Christ is the federal and historical head of the Church.

3. I am not a scientist, but I have familiarized myself with attempts to harmonize Genesis 1-3 with science, and I believe that creation by the process of evolution is a tenable Biblical position, and, as represented by BioLogos, the best Christian apologetic to defend Genesis 1-3 against its critics.

4. I apologize for giving the impression that others who seek to harmonize the two differently are not credible. I honor all who contend for the Christian faith.

5. Evolution as a process must be clearly distinguished from evolutionism as a philosophy. The latter is incompatible with orthodox Christian theology.

6. Science is fallible and subject to revision. As a human and social enterprise, science will always be in flux. My first commitment is to the infallibility (as to its authority) and inerrancy (as to its Source) of Scripture.

7. God could have created the Garden of Eden with apparent age or miraculously, even as Christ instantly turned water into wine, but the statement that God “caused the trees to grow” argues against these notions.

8. I believe that the Triune God is Maker and Sustainer of heaven and earth and that biblical Adam is the historical head of the human race.

9. Theological comments made here are mostly a digest of my chapters on Genesis 1-3 in An Old Testament Theology (Zondervan, 2007).”


If you don't understand point #5 seek clarification - it really makes a difference

Rob

 

The "cult" thing is questionable, but he is right that we should not ignore scientific findings, and therein lies the problem. Old earth views ignore scientific findings, and that is greatly problematic for them. The "head in the sand" approach that they take is becoming less and less viable as our knowledge grows and as forms of communication disseminate the information.

Science does not "find" that the earth is old. Some scientists theorize that it does, and in so doing they ignore a vast amount of actual science.

The question is whether or not the process of evolution, as modern science holds it, is compatible with orthodox science. There are many reasons to believe it is not.

There is still no good reason to abandon a young earth.

 

I've stated my position on this elsewhere and stand by it.

I will say this though, that the way some (please note an emphasis on "some") Young Earth Creationists speak about their theology can reflect the mind-numbing zealotry of some cultish people I know. We need to work out these things with humility and openness...otherwise we just fall into the same foolish discourse that has prohibited growth for centuries.

 

Who was that guy?

 

That was then, this is now. Seems like the chap decided to change his mind on the matter.

I do agree that #5 "Evolution as a process must be clearly distinguished from evolutionism as a philosophy. The latter is incompatible with orthodox Christian theology" makes a very important distinction.

While there are some very small scale evolution happening today, that is today. God said He created everything in six days and that's good enough for me. If I can't believe that then how can I accept that a God who is not capable of creating something full and complete would be able to save my eternal soul? If He can't make plants and animals without having to rely on evolution then how can His Son be able to take my sins? If He can't give life to the dust and make man how could He able able to raise Jesus from the tomb?

If you toss Genesis (or water it down) you might as well toss out the rest of the bible. Genesis is the foundation upon which all of scripture stands.

 

"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"

 

What disturbs me most about this video statement is his endorsement as 'cult' those who are of Christian faith and take a more literal view of scripture than he does.
Is that the humility we're expected to model?

I put my faith in God and confidence in His Word.
I don't trust that my own interpretation of His Word is correct.... but I do trust His Word is infallible and that no science can disprove it.
I also believe that there are many things which science cannot prove or can only partially explain..... walking on water and water tension for example... though water has a surface tension... walking on water is a miracle. Resurrection from the dead after three days.... science can't even explain the remote possibility...... vital signs may not be apparent in a person and they may be presumed dead and later revive.... This has happened in real time.... but not after 3 days. Yet there was Lazarus.... and then there was Jesus.

I don't think true science disproves the Bible: Neither do I think all miracles can be proven by science to be real. What is more amazing than giving a command like "Let there be light" and suddenly all the darkness flees and light is everywhere? God spoke.... it happened..... what a miracle.... who else was there to witness? who else was there to see? what gain is there for science? It will always come short and be a theory, an attempt to explain away a 'who and how' to agree with the finite reasoning of man, no matter how many theories maybe spawned... and a means to discredit the power and authority of God. True science confirms. False science is based on theorectical models which can never be proved...... they omit the only witness(es).... and that is the existent triune God.