Saturday, February 23, 2013

Saturday Resource: Video — How DNA Destroys Evolution

Do we really think that an hour in church and an hour in Sunday School is going to equip us to present and defend our faith? Are we really surprised that our kids are being deceived when they're under the control of secular humanists for several hours each day?

Mike Riddle discusses the importance of DNA and information in refuting evolution, and also the importance of a proper understanding of creation. The answers are there, and Christians should be learning as well as teaching the children.

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Evolution and the Inerrancy of Scripture

For Question Evolution Day, the link between evolution and the inerrancy of Scripture is explored. People who know their Bible and have a good understanding of doctrine know that evolution and creation are irreconcilable. Theistic evolution, the "Gap Theory", "Progressive Creation" and other compromises require eisegesis (reading into the Scriptures). People who do this elevate man's "wisdom" above that of God's revelation. That is ridiculous (1 Cor. 1.20, Psalm 14.1-3). Why would anyone want to add philosophies and interpretations of evidence that are based on atheism? And yet, the inerrancy of Scripture is of paramount importance to a proper understanding of the Bible.

What is your ultimate standard? Is it God's Word, or the ever-changing whims of man-made science philosophies?
For the purposes of this article, only inerrancy of Scripture of the five fundamentals will be discussed.  The attacks on inerrancy, beginning in Genesis 1, brought doubt to the Creation account, which led to doubt on Biblical inspiration, doctrine and authority of not only Scripture but of God Himself.
After the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species, many theologians came to accepting evolution as truth.  This thinking came into once very conservative seminaries as evolutionist thinking and more liberal seminary professors inched their way into these halls of theological training.
After holding several heresy trials involving liberal seminary professors, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in 1910 approved what are known as the Five Fundamentals.[1]  The document stated “that the following doctrines were essential and necessary to the Presbyterian system.”[2]  The five approved were:
  • The inerrancy of Scripture
  • The virgin birth of Christ
  • The substitutionary atonement of Christ by His death on the cross
  • The bodily resurrection of Christ
  • The authenticity of miracles[3]
Needless to say, a war broke out between the fundamentalists and the liberals. This led to the famous sermon by Harry Emerson Fosdick in 1922 titled “Shall The Fundamentalists Win?”[4]  Then, after the Scopes Trial of 1925, where Clarence Darrow made William Jennings Bryan, one of the stars of fundamentalism in his day, look like a complete idiot, the fundamentalist were defeated, but not down completely.
After the fundamentalist resurgence in the late 1970s, liberals were driven out of denominations such as the Southern Baptist Convention.  One of the casualties was one Dr. C. Welton Gaddy.  Gaddy.   Gaddy’s reaction, according to an article in the Charleston City Paper (no year is given as to when the article was written, only the date of April 14)  “What happened that day in 1981 was part of the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC as they led the nation’s largest Protestant denomination to secede from mainstream American Christianity. Through the 1970s and ’80s, fundamentalists conducted an almost Stalinesque purge of moderates from positions of authority in the convention, its churches and seminaries.”[5]   Obviously, Gaddy was not a happy camper.
I urge you to read the rest of this informative and extremely interesting article in its context, "How Evolution Undermines Inerrancy".

Friday, February 8, 2013

Evolution, Compromise and Foundations - Atheist MIchael Zimmerman encourages apostate churches to join him in celebrating evolution and rejecting Scripture.

It is more important than ever for Bible-believing Christian churches to take a stand for the truth. When compromise sets in, it begins a domino effect that leads to further compromise and even to unbelief. Liberal churches and atheists are attacking us at our foundations, which begin at Genesis.

Further, they appeal to emotion with loaded terminology and the false dichotomy that people must choose either faith or "science". This is a lie. (I have written before that even if we gave up the creation accounts, that would not be enough for liberals and atheists.) The church is in serious trouble, and people's faith is threatened because they do not see the relevance of their foundations, and do not bother to discover that there are indeed answers to those science philosophy questions.
This weekend, atheist Dr. Michael Zimmerman is once again encouraging churches to preach Darwin from their pulpits. He claims that his Clergy Letter Project, signed by over 12,000 members of predominantly liberal clergy, shows that evolution and Christianity are compatible so long as we define religious truth as dealing with doctrine and morality and scientific truth as dealing with facts.

The problem with his entire Letter is that it relies on the fallacy of the fact/value distinction. Jesus asked Nicodemus in John 3:12: If I tell you of earthly things and you don’t believe, how will you believe if I tell you of heavenly things?” Christianity doesn’t just make claims in a vacuum. Our doctrines, principles and moral claims are connected to historical facts. For example, our doctrines of salvation and future resurrection are based on the notion that Jesus Christ was historically and physically crucified, buried and resurrected by God as prophesied by Scripture. You cannot divorce the two. The doctrine of marriage as being between one man and one woman finds its foundation in Genesis 1 and 2, which Jesus quoted in regard to marriage.
So we cannot copartmentalize our faith and our science. Neither can we accept the all-natural assertions of science over the supernatural revelation of God’s Word, because if we get consistent in this policy of letting science chained to pure naturalism trump the revelation of Scripture, we will find ourselves with a curious book of stories that no one really believes, for all-natural science denies that men rise from the dead, that virgins conceive, that the weather can be controlled at a spoken command, etc. In reality, all that science chained to pure naturalism can do is to provide all-natural answers which may or may not be true and are certainly false where supernatural agency was involved. It has no way to determine whether God did anything, since supernatural agency is ruled out as a possible answer from the outset… but it pretends that any all-natural answer they come up with negates the possibility that God did it instead.
I strongly encourage you to read the rest of "On the Compatibility of Christian Faith & Evolution: Which Atheist is Lying To Us?"