Do You Ever Get Frustrated?

DO YOU EVER GET FRUSTRATED With The Endless Theology Definitions And Arguments?  ~   Three of the most prominent theologies today are: Calvinism, Arminianism, and Free Grace.  Yet there is another theology which sits somewhere in the middle of all those, which is my theology - but there is no fancy name for it.  It is a very simple theology. 

Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, the sinless man ~ He was crucified and died on the cross to make salvation, i.e., eternal life in the presence of God, available to all people ~ He rose from the dead, i.e., He resurrected, so that all people will also resurrect - some to eternal life, others to eternal damnation ~ He ascended into heaven where He sits at the right hand of God the Father, where He is the only mediator, i.e., defense attorney, for all believers.  That is the Gospel, pure and simple.

Since He made eternal life available to all people (unlimited atonement), what do we have to do to receive that gift of life?

Ephesians 1:13-14, 4:30, "In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the Gospel of your salvation; in Whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, Who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory. . . . And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by Whom you were sealed for the day of redemption."

Ephesians 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith (in Jesus Christ, alone), and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast."

John 3:16-17, "For God so loved the WORLD (all people) that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but HAVE everlasting life.  For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world (all people) through Him MIGHT be saved."

1 John 5:13, "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God (faith in Jesus Christ, alone), that you may KNOW that you HAVE eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God."

Our Calvinist brethren will tell us that the WORLD in John 3:16 does not mean the world, it means only those chosen to be the Elect before the Creation.  If this happened BEFORE the Creation - how can anyone know if they were chosen to be among the Elect?  The only way anyone can know for sure is at death. 

Imagine this:  a Calvinist dies and finds himself standing before two doors.  The doors are labelled Eternal Life and Eternal Death.  The Calvinist walks toward the Eternal Life door, but is told, "No, that is the wrong door.  The Eternal Life door is only for those chosen to be among the Elect.  You were chosen among the Reprobates and must enter the Eternal Death door."  Oops!  But too late, for once we die, there is no second chance.

Our Arminian brethren will rightfully tell us that the WORLD in John 3:16 means all the world, but that a person must believe in Jesus Christ for eternal life to be saved.  However, these brethren hold a big "BUT" over their heads.  BUT, some sin, maybe one so small that you did not know it was a sin, or it could be a sin that you do not know that you have committed. 

BUT because of that insignificant little sin - you have LOST your salvation, you no longer have His promise of eternal life.  How would you like to walk through life with that hanging over your head, continually having to look over your shoulder in fear that you may have committed that hell-bound sin?

Those two are the two extremes of the Theology Spectrum.   Somewhere in between we find the relatively new Free Grace Movement.  And this is where the water starts to get muddy.

Today I receive an e-mail notice of an article in the Grace In Focus magazine, the bi-monthly magazine of Grace Evangelical Society.   The article is written by Dr. Bob Wilkin, Executive Director of GES.  

The article is titled "Did Jesus' Death On The Cross Actually Or Potentially Remove Sin As A Barrier Between God And Man?"

In the article Dr. Bob Wilkin tells us:

Several years ago, a friend of mine met with me and the entire GES board at our annual conference.  He wanted to discuss three issues, one of which was the atonement.  He had graduated from DTS shortly before I started.  He indicated that he had been taught at DTS that the death of Christ was sufficient for all, but only efficient for those who believe that He died on the cross for their sins.

While my friend calls that view unlimited atonement, I call that view limited atonement.  If Christ’s death did not take away the sin of the world, but only potentially did so, then many verses are incorrect (e.g., John 1:29; 3:16; 1 John 2:2).

Bill Gray Note:  This is really confusing, for it sounds like Bob Wilkin is promoting Universalism, that ALL people are saved.  And I know that is not what he believes.  To me, Wilkin seems to be arguing that an orange is an orange.  Hey, Bob, you are right.  And unlimited atonement does mean that the death of Jesus Christ opened the door to eternal life - but each of us, individually, must choose to walk through that door.

He seems to be arguing the point that Christ's death took away all sin, which is correct.  Christ's death was the "Paid In Full" full pardon which allows us to walk out of the Sin Prison and be free of the Adamic Sin Debt to God.  The problem is that many people, even when told they have a full pardon, will still refuse to leave their Sin prison.  Those people still live under the Adamic Sin Curse - and unless we can convince them to change, leave their Sin Prison, and turn to follow Christ - they will be lost eternally.  This is why we must keep our Gospel Message to them short and sweet, but with enough meat for them to be spiritually fed and nourished.

(The article continues) Notice as well how this changes the content of saving faith.  One need not believe in Jesus for everlasting life (John 3:14-18, 36; 5:24; 1 Tim 1:16).  He only needs to believe that Jesus died on the cross for his sins.  He does not need to believe in Jesus for anything.  He need not believe in the free gift of everlasting life.  He could believe in works salvation and be born again.  The only issue is believing that Christ died for you.

Bill Gray Note:  Once again, Wilkin seems to be arguing that an orange is an orange.  Hey, Bob, you are right.  And unlimited atonement does mean that the death of Jesus Christ opened the door to eternal life - but each of us, individually, must choose to walk through that door.

(The article continues) In this view, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and nearly all Protestants are born again.  Assurance of everlasting life becomes a sanctification issue. It is like a sunroof on a car. It makes your driving experience a bit better, but you do not need it. In the same way, a person never needs to believe that Jesus has saved him once and for all. That is nice information to have, but it is not essential.

Bill Gray Note: On this point it appears that Wilkin is being a wee bit facetious - or tunnel visioned.  Yes, people from all Christian churches, i.e., Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and all Protestant churches - can be born-again.  I am not saying they are, but yes, it is possible for a person to be in the Roman Catholic church and be a born-again believer.  I will admit that after a while, if that were me - to see the worship of and praying to Mary and all the Saints - would begin to rub me the wrong way and I would have to leave that church.  I have always said that a person could stay in the Roman Catholic church about a year before his/her faith would force him to leave.

About 15 years ago, I went to the Church On The Solid Rock in Orange County because Dr. Anthony Pezzotta, who served as Roman Catholic Director of Schools and Seminaries and Rector of Local Salesian Communities in Manila, Philippines, for ten years - was speaking there that day.  After all those years, he could not teach what he did not believe and he left the Roman Catholic church and joined a Baptist church in Manila.

At his Q&A session, to get his personal view, I asked the question:  "How long can a person who has become born-again stay in the Roman Catholic church without it starting to bother him?"  His answer to me was short and sweet.  He told me, "I stayed about two hours."

So I have to disagree with Bob Wilkin, a person can be in those churches - and I have many Friends who are in Pentecostal churches, I have Friends who are in Legalistic churches, and I have Friends who are in Liberal Theology churches - and they are all just as born-again as me - and I have absolutely no doubt about my salvation and eternal life.

In the article excerpt above we read, "The death of Christ was sufficient for all, but only efficient for those who believe that He died on the cross for their sins."  The article continues with more of what could be confusing to the unbeliever:

What is it that we are seeking to persuade the person to whom we witness?  Is our ultimate goal to convince that person of substitutionary atonement? Or is our aim more than that?  Is our target to persuade him or her that because of the cross our sins are no longer the issue so that all we need to do to be saved is to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for the everlasting life that He guarantees to the believer?

There is an old saying using the acronym KISS - "Keep It Simple, Stupid!"   Although I prefer to say, "Keep It Simple, Sam!"  For I hate to call anyone stupid.

While I love to dig deep into the different theologies - much of the material which I study would not be useful for witnessing.  Let me give you an example:  My wife, Dory, calls me her "computer man."  What the heck, I have been called worse.  Dory is with computers like I am with cooking.  I cannot boil water - and Dory has learned to turn her computer on and find what she needs.  But when a problem occurs, "Honey, help me!"

Now just imagine that Dory's computer will not turn on and I go to help.  I find that it was not getting power, i.e., no electricity, and resolve the problem.  Should I tell her, "Your computer is working fine now."  Or should I explain to her:

"Your computer was not getting any power, i.e., no electricity.  And you know electricity is the set of physical phenomena associated with the presence and motion of matter that has a property of electric charge.  Electricity is related to magnetism, both being part of the phenomenon of electromagnetism, as described by Maxwell's equations.  Electricity works by getting a bunch of conductor elements together and creating a flow of electron-stealing patterns through them. This flow is called a current.  Conductors need to be surrounded with insulators so the electrons can only go in one direction."

Can you picture Dory standing there with a glazed look in her eyes, then turning and walking out of the room, mumbling to herself?  I can, for at that moment I have lost her attention and totally confused her.  The same will likely happen when we witness to an unbeliever - and attempt to show our expansive Bible knowledge.

I am not writing this to knock Dr. Bob Wilkin.  He is a devout and dedicated evangelist who loves to share and teach the Word of God.  It is just that I disagree with some of his Free Grace Theology - and must say I believe his writings are all "Preaching to the choir!"   Yet, I respect Bob in the same way I respect Dr. John MacArthur, who is Calvinist - Dr. Ron Rhodes, Reasoning From The Scriptures Ministries, who is Reform, i.e., Calvinist - and the late Dr. R. C. Sproul, Ligonier Ministries, who was also Reform. 

I often visit several web sites to get ideas on issues I am studying or writing about - and they are CARM (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry) which is headed by Matt Slick, Reform Theology - and Got Questions where S. Michael Houdmann is the Founder, President, and CEO of Got Questions Ministries.  He is also a follower of Reform Theology. 

Why am I telling you this?  My main reason is to emphasize that just because a person does not hold the same exact theological beliefs as me - does not mean that I cannot learn from that person.  I just keep in mind those differences and use them as filters when reading material from any of these outstanding sources.

That is also why I have been almost dogmatic in my belief that a Christian believer, early in their walk with the Lord - should go through the exercise of putting his/her Statement of Faith, what you believe theologically, in writing - supported by Scripture references.  That way you have a solid understanding of your beliefs which define your faith.  Over the years you may, most likely will, find that you have learned something new which has somewhat altered one or more of your beliefs.  That is not a problem.  Matter of fact, that is good - for it shows that you are maturing in your knowledge of God's Word.  And the more mature you are - the better witness for Christ you become. "Go, Make disciples, Teach them. . .  Be My witnesses in all the world"  (Matthew 28:19-20, Acts 1:8, Mark 16:15).

Yes, I left out "Baptize them" - for two reasons:  First, we are not saved through baptism, and second, I am a firm believer that baptism is such a personal step in your Christian walk, that you will want to share it with your new Christian family, your local church fellowship where you have begun to worship.

I pray you have found this blog to be useful and that it will help you as you go into "your world" to be His witness.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill 

Click on the image to enlarge:

 

"Black Lives Matter" - OR - "Abortion" ~ Which Is More Important?

Are "BLACK LIVES MATTER" and "ABORTION" Strange Bedfellows? ~  Or is each the antithesis of the other?  How can a person say that "Black Lives Matter" - and then support the Abortion of Babies, especially Black Babies - the murder, infanticide, of hundreds of thousands of Black Babies?

Today we often see folks getting offended when someone says, "All Lives Matter!"  No, no they declare, it is "Black Lives Matter!"   In the Bible does God say "Black Lives Matter!" - OR - does He say, "ALL Lives Matter!"? 

When Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in his Washington DC "I Have A Dream" speech, called for individuals to be judged by their character rather than their skin color - he was not calling for color blindness, but equality.  He wanted all people to have equal access to the same privileges, education, and power - based upon their abilities, not the color of their skin.  I believe that is what God is telling us in these Scripture verses:

Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

2 Peter 3:9, "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that ANY should perish but that all should come to repentance."

Most folks interpret 2 Peter 3:9 to say that God is speaking only about salvation.  But I see it in a much broader sense.  I see the last phrase "not willing that ANY should perish but that all should come to repentance" - to more accurately be read as "not willing that ANY should be excluded from God's care and love." 

In the video link below, the "Candace Owens Show (PragerU)" - Hawk Newsome, Chairman of "Black Lives Matter NY" joins Candace Owens for an in-depth conversation discussing the issues of "Black Lives Matter" and "Abortion Rights."  He strongly calls for Blacks to protest and even riot - to protest what he says is Police Targeting And Killing Blacks. 

According to him, far too many blacks are killed by the police.  Isn't it true that a higher percentage of Blacks are committing crimes which end badly?  Shouldn't we be viewing this more as a Societal Problem, instead of a Police Problem, i.e., more Blacks born out of wedlock to young single mothers and being raised in a home without a father?

Yet, in the next breath, Hawk Newsome is a strong advocate for the right of Black Women to kill their Black Babies via Abortion, Infanticide.  It  would seem that, according to him:  Black Lives Matter - BUT - Black Babies Do NOT!

According to the Guttmacher Institute charts below - 37% of Abortions in America in 2004 (charts were made in 2008) are Black Babies.  In America today, on average there are 1,000,000 abortions each year.  At 37% of that, this means there are 370,000 Black Babies, i.e., Black Americans killed every year through Abortion. 

Compare that 370,000 Black Babies killed each year through Abortion ~ to the number of Blacks killed each year by (1) other Blacks - 7,550, and (2) by Law Enforcement Officers - 104.   Which should be viewed as the greater problem - Blacks killing Blacks, Police killing Blacks, or Abortionist killing Blacks?

Let's look at my sources for these facts:

Every Christian is concerned about justice.  When people break the law, they should be held accountable regardless of their race or color.  Christians cannot be consistent with the teachings of the Bible if they make decisions based on any form of prejudice.  Between 1976 and 2011:  There were 279,384 black murder victims - 262,621 were murdered by other blacks.  That is approximately 7,550 blacks killed every year by other blacks. .  .  .  . During that same period, approximately 104 blacks every year were killed by police in the United States.  This is not to infer that those killed by the police were killed unjustly. 

This is 7,550 blacks killed by other blacks - to 104 blacks killed by police each year.  Though blacks are 13 percent of the nation's population, they account for more than 50 percent of homicide victims.  Black-on-black murder is far and away more deadly than murder by white police officers.   (From "A Christian Response To The Riots In Ferguson, Missouri" - By Robert L. Dickie, All Grace Blog, Tuesday, August 19, 2014)

If Black Lives Really Matter to Hawk Newsome and all the protesters and rioters - then why are they NOT protesting against Abortion, against Planned Parenthood?

In a recent episode of Fox Nation’s “No Interruption” - Tomi Lahren sat down with Hawk Newsome, president of Black Lives Matter of Greater New York, who argued that his organization and others like it are justified in using destruction to call attention to their grievances with American society.  “The riot is the language of the unheard,” said Newsome, who compared modern-day protests to The Boston Tea Party.

Bill Gray Thought:  Why aren't Newsome's Black Lives Matter protesters and rioters raising their voices and burning Planned Parenthood Abortion Clinics?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Abortion Rate Among Black Women Far Exceeds Rate For Other Groups  (Fox News)
 
Blacks do, indeed, have much higher rates of abortions than whites or other minority groups.  In 2000, while blacks made up 17 percent of live births, they made up more than twice that share of abortions (36 percent).  If those aborted children had been born, the number of blacks born would have been slightly over 50 percent greater than it was. .  .  .  In 1973, the year the Supreme Court rendered its Roe v. Wade decision, there were 11 abortions per 1000 women aged 15 to 44. 

Eight years later, that number doubled for the same group to 22.   In terms of the total number of abortions - 615,831 legal abortions took place in 1973 ~~ 1,300,760 in 1981 (doubled in only 8 years).  .  .  .  The Centers for Disease Control recorded detailed information on the race of those having abortions from 1970 to 1981.  It shows Roe’s impact on abortions by blacks in the years immediately before and after the decision.  The Supreme Court’s decision had the biggest impact on blacks, raising their share of abortions from 21 to 30 percent, while their share of live births only increased from 12 to 15 percent.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Black Babies In The U.S. Killed By Abortion In Large Numbers (REALity - Real Women Of Canada - September 2018)

In the U.S., abortion has taken a terrible toll on the lives of black babies.  Nationally, black women terminate pregnancies at far higher rates than other women.  In 2014, 36% of all abortions were performed on black women - although they make up just 13% of the female population in the U.S.   Abortion deaths of black children far exceed deaths caused by cancer, violent crime, heart disease, AIDS, and accidents. .  .  .   It is shocking to think that more blacks have been killed by abortion than by the Klu Klux Klan. 

Between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 blacks were lynched by the Klu Klux Klan, but today abortion kills more black American babies in less than three days than the Klan killed in 86 years. .  .  It is well known that Planned Parenthood, founded by the racist and eugenicist Margaret Sanger, has established its abortion clinics in the vicinity of low-income black neighborhoods.  By doing so, its billion dollar industry keeps down the black population with death by abortion.

Bill Gray Thought:  Why aren't Newsome's Black Lives Matter protesters and rioters raising their voices and burning Planned Parenthood Abortion Clinics?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Abortion And Women Of Color: The Bigger Picture (Guttmacher Institute, by Susan A. Cohen, Vice President, Guttmacher Institute)

This much is true: In the United States, the abortion rate for black women is almost five times that for white women.  Antiabortion activists, including some African-American pastors, have been waging a campaign around this fact, falsely asserting that the disparity is the result of aggressive marketing by abortion providers to minority communities.

The Issues4Life Foundation, a faith-based organization that targets and works with African-American leaders toward achieving the goal of "zero African-American lives lost to abortion or biotechnology" .  .  .  wrote to the Congressional Black Caucus to denounce "Planned Parenthood Federation of America" (PPFA) and its "racist and eugenic goals."  The group blamed PPFA and abortion providers in general for the high abortion rate in the African-American community - deeming the situation the "Darfur of America" - and called on Congress to withdraw federal family planning funds from all PPFA affiliates.

Bill Gray Thought:  Why aren't Newsome's Black Lives Matter protesters and rioters raising their voices and burning Planned Parenthood Abortion Clinics?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Are all these sources wrong about Black Deaths for:  (1) Black-on-Black homicides, (2) Police on Black deaths, and (3) Black Babies killed by Abortion?

Or should we look deeper at the motives of Black Lives Matter leaders such as Hawk Newsome?  Is Newsome really concerned about Black Deaths?  If so why is he not advocating Protests against Planned Parenthood? 

Could it be that he wants to milk both sides of the cow:  (1) Protests/Riots against Police for the much smaller number of Black deaths from Police actions, overlooking the far greater number of black deaths cause by other blacks.  And then (2) he turns the cow around to Protest For The Right Of Black Women to kill their babies through Abortions?

Hawk Newsome, and all Black Lives Matter supporters, I have a serious question for you:  "At What AGE Do 'Black Lives Really Begin to Matter'?"

It is my personal belief that Hawk Newsome is in this game ONLY for the money and admiration he can get from it.  Much like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the Clintons, Maxine Waters, and so many others. 

I put them all in the same pot with the Prosperity Preachers who make millions selling the Gospel.  These folks such as Newsome make money selling their twisted logic to millions of brainwashed Millennials who don't seem to be able to tie their own shoes, much less think for themselves.

Watch this video debate between Candace Owens and Hawk Newsome.  Then decide for yourself who you believe:

Candace Owens' Debate With BLM Leader, Hawk Newsome (PragerU)
https://youtu.be/piQywbIOxtw

Consider all these facts, then decide how YOU will vote in November.  Will YOU vote to continue allowing people such as these to bleed America, to destroy our America?  OR will YOU vote to Make America Greater Still - by reelecting President Trump?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill 

Click on the image to enlarge:

 

Theistic Evolution, Day Age Theory, Gap Theory, And Progressive Creation: Real Or Compromise?

It is often fun to look back into my archives to review my thoughts in past dialogues with Friends.  That can be constructive, for although the Bible never changes our knowledge and understanding of what it teaches may change as we mature in our Christian walk.  The blog below is from a January 28, 2012, discussion on the TimesDaily Christian Forum.  Reading it again, I see that my understanding of the Creation story found in Genesis has not changed.  This is what I posted in 2012:

In a discussion on the TimesDaily Religion Forum, begun by Firenze titled "From Sea To Land: Not How, But Why?" - my Christian Friend, O No, and I have begun a dialogue on the days of Creation.  Were they 24 hour lunar days, as I believe - or were they long periods of time as my Friend, O No, believes?

In an earlier post, O No wrote, "Frankly, I am one who loves the Lord with all my heart, but I have no problem with scientific fact.  The way I see it, the Lord created the laws of science when He created the universe, and everything is operating according to plan.

Bill, you always say that parts of the Bible are literal, and parts are allegory.  You have said that if the literal meaning doesn't make sense, then read it as allegory.  Well, to me the seven days are allegory.  Each "day" of God's time is a LOT longer than the days of our time.  When you read the creation story THAT way, everything falls into place, it all makes sense, and the conflict between science and faith no longer exists."

Yes, I have often written that, in reading the Bible, we first look for a literal meaning - and if that fits, that is our interpretation.  If not, look for a metaphorical or symbolic meaning.

However, the Hebrew word for day is "Yom" which appears in the KJV Bible 2287 times and the vast majority of those times (2008 times), it does mean a lunar day, i.e., 24 hours.

And, in the New Testament Greek the word for day is "hemera" which is found 389 times.  Of those incidences 355 times it means a lunar day.

So, it would seem that most of the time that we read "day" in the Bible - it is referring to a 24 hour day.

To attempt to read the Creation story of Genesis any other way, in an attempt to agree with atheist and secularist, is compromising.  As you said in your post, when God created the heavens and the earth - part of that creation was all the sciences and all the laws which govern and define those sciences.  So, there is no need to compromise.

And, O No responds, "Bill, you say, 'So, it would seem that most of the time that we read "day" in the Bible - it is referring to a 24 hour day.'

That still leaves 279 times, according to you, that the Old Testament uses the word allegorically.

Now, you KNOW I have never "attempted to agree with atheists and secularists" - so there's no need to make that insulting accusation.  I decided as a child that the interpretation I explained in my previous post, the one where I believe God's "days" are so much longer than ours, is the one that makes most sense to me.  Please, can't we agree to disagree without these hurtful and unfounded accusations?"

Yes, in the KJV, the word "yom" does have an allegorical meaning 279 times versus the 2008 times it means a lunar day.  That is an 8 to 1 ratio.  O No, would you walk across a busy highway or boulevard - if you only had a 1 out of 8 (12%) chance of making it across safely?   So, why accept the 12% chance that God did not mean a lunar day - when much of the Bible supports this teaching?

O, my Friend, while it may appear in my post that I was speaking of you when I mention compromise; that was not my thinking.  You and I are Christian brother and sister who can agree to disagree at times, without throwing rocks.  However, what I had in mind was more the organizations, groups, and teachers such as Dr. Hugh Ross and his "Reasons To Believe" ministry which holds a Theistic Evolution belief.

Why is the Theistic Evolution compromise so dangerous to our Christian faith?   When one begins to cast doubt upon the historicity of the Genesis Creation story - typically, they do not stop there.  Dr. Hugh Ross is a good example.  He, and his organization "Reasons To Believe" teaches the Day/Age Theory of Creation, i.e., that the days of Creation were not lunar days, but were billions of years.

The problem with this teaching, besides the fact that it attempts to negate the Genesis teaching of Creation, is that it begins the natural progression toward believing other non-Biblical teachings such as the Gap Theory and other misunderstandings.  Theistic Evolution, Day Age Theory, Gap Theory, and Progressive Creation are all progressive bed fellows and are not Biblical.

If you will read "Hugh Ross, ICR, and the Bible" by James Stambaugh, M.Div., at:  http://www.icr.org/article/hugh-ross-icr-bible/ you will find that Ross also denies that Adam's sin of disobedience caused physical death - and, against all scientific teaching of a world-wide Noah's Flood, Ross believes and teaches only a local flood - and, his teachings on Adam's fall not bringing physical death leads toward a belief in the Gap Theory, i.e., that death and suffering were in the world long before Adam and Eve were created.  You can see the progression - starting with one false teaching and progressing to more false teachings.  In this you can see the progression:  Theistic Evolution, Day Age Theory, Gap Theory, to Progressive Creation.

O No, when I wrote of compromise, it was not you that I had in mind - but, rather it was people such as Dr. Hugh Ross.

What are other dangers of the Theistic Evolution teaching?  The abbreviated article below lists ten dangers.  Keep in mind that when it mentions "evolution" it means Darwinian Evolution.  Evolution as micro evolution, i.e., adaptation to environmental, dietary, etc., changes, is valid as witnessed by different skin coloring in different nations where environments vary from extremely hot sun to very cool climates.  And, physical attributes, i.e., size, etc., can be attributed to different dietary habits.

However, Darwinian Evolution, which teaches that one species evolved into an entirely different species - is 100% against all Biblical teaching.  Over and over in Genesis, we read, "after their kind" telling us that all creatures "were fruitful and multiplied" after its own kind.  A kangaroo did not become a horse or a cow.  An alligator did not become a bird.   "Each, after their kind," is Biblical and is true.

10 DANGERS OF THEISTIC EVOLUTION
Christian Answers Network
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html

In the Theistic Evolutionary system, God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things, whose Word has to be taken seriously by all men.  But, He is integrated into the evolutionary philosophy.  This leads to 10 dangers for Christians:

Danger NO. 1… Misrepresentation of the Nature of God

The Bible reveals God to us as our Father in Heaven, who is absolutely perfect (Matthew 5:48), holy (Isaiah 6:3), and omnipotent (Jeremiah 32:17).  Theistic Evolution gives a false representation of the nature of God because death and suffering are ascribed to the Creator as principles of creation.  Progressive creationism, likewise, allows for millions of years of death. . . before (Adam's) sin.

Danger NO. 2… God becomes a God of the Gaps

In Theistic Evolution the only workspace allotted to God is that part of nature which evolution cannot “explain” with the means presently at its disposal.  In this way, He is reduced to being a “god of the gaps” for those phenomena about which there are doubts.  This leads to the view that “God is therefore not absolute, but He Himself has evolved -- He is evolution.”

Danger NO. 3… Denial of Central Biblical Teachings

The entire Bible bears witness that we are dealing with a source of truth aut****d by God (2 Timothy 3:16), with the Old Testament as the indispensable “ramp” leading to the New Testament. . . The biblical creation account should not be regarded as a myth, a parable, or an allegory, but as a historical report. . . The doctrine of Theistic Evolution undermines this basic way of reading the Bible, as vouched for by Jesus, the prophets, and the Apostles.  Events reported in the Bible are reduced to mythical imagery, and an understanding of the message of the Bible as being true in word and meaning -- is lost.

Danger NO. 4… Loss of the Way for Finding God

The Bible describes man as being completely ensnared by sin after Adam's fall (Romans 7:18-19).  Only those persons who realize that they are sinful and lost will seek the Savior who “came to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10).

However, evolution knows no sin in the Biblical sense of missing one's purpose (in relation to God).  Sin is made meaningless, and that is exactly the opposite of what the Holy Spirit does -- He declares sin to be sinful.  If sin is seen as a harmless evolutionary factor, then one has lost the key for finding God -- which is not resolved by adding “God” to the evolutionary scenario.

Danger NO. 5… The Doctrine of God's Incarnation is Undermined

The incarnation of God through His Son Jesus Christ is one of the basic teachings of the Bible.  The Bible states that, “The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14), “Christ Jesus… was made in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:5-7).

The idea of evolution undermines this foundation of our salvation.  Evolutionist Hoimar von Ditfurth discusses the incompatibility of Jesus' incarnation and evolutionary thought: “Consideration of evolution inevitably forces us to a critical review… of Christian formulations.  This clearly holds for the central Christian concept of the 'incarnation' of God… "

Danger NO. 6… The Biblical Basis of Jesus' Work of Redemption Is Mythologized

The Bible teaches that the first man's (Adam) fall into sin was a real event and that this was the direct cause of sin in the world: “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Romans 5:12).

Theistic Evolution does not acknowledge Adam as the first man - nor that he was created directly from “the dust of the ground”  by God (Genesis 2:17).  Most Theistic Evolutionists regard the creation account as being merely a mythical tale, albeit with some spiritual significance.  However, the sinner, Adam, and the Savior, Jesus, are linked together in the Bible (Romans 5:16-18).  Thus any view which mythologizes Adam - undermines the Biblical basis of Jesus' work of redemption.

Danger NO. 7… Loss of Biblical Chronology

The Bible provides us with a time scale for history and this underlies a proper understanding of the Bible.  This time scale includes:
The time-scale cannot be extended indefinitely into the past, nor into the future. There is a well defined beginning in Genesis 1:1, as well as a moment when physical time will end (Matthew 24:14).

• The total duration of creation was six days (Exodus 20:11).

• The age of the universe may be estimated in terms of the genealogies recorded in the Bible (but note that it cannot be calculated exactly).  It is of the order of thousands of years, not billions.

Galatians 4:4 points out the most outstanding event in the world's history: “But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son.”  This happened (just over) 2,000 years ago.

The return of Christ in power and glory is the greatest expected future event.

Supporters of Theistic Evolution (and Progressive Creation) disregard the Biblically given measures of time in favor of evolutionist time scales involving billions of years both past and future (for which there are no convincing physical grounds).  This can lead to two errors (of thinking):

• Not all statements of the Bible are to be taken seriously.

• Vigilance concerning the second coming of Jesus may be lost.

Danger NO. 8… Loss of Creation Concepts

Certain essential Creation concepts are taught in the Bible. These include:

• God created matter without using any available material (ex nihilo).

• God created the earth first, and on the fourth day He added the moon, the solar system, our local galaxy, and all other star systems.  This sequence conflicts with all ideas of “cosmic evolution,” such as the “big bang” cosmology.

• Theistic Evolution ignores all such Biblical Creation principles and replaces them with evolutionary notions, thereby contradicting and opposing God's omnipotent acts of creation.

Danger NO. 9… Misrepresentation of Reality

The Bible carries the seal of truth, and all its pronouncements are authoritative -- whether they deal with questions of faith and salvation, daily living, or matters of scientific importance.

Evolutionists brush all this aside, e.g. Richard Dawkins says, “Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myth, and the Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders.  It has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants.”

If evolution is false, then numerous sciences have embraced false testimony.  Whenever these sciences conform with evolutionary views, they misrepresent reality.  How much more then a theology which departs from what the Bible says and embraces evolution?

Danger NO. 10… Missing the Purpose

In no other historical book do we find so many and such valuable statements of purpose for man as in the Bible.  For example:

• Man is God's purpose in creation (Genesis 1:27-28).

• Man is the purpose of God's plan of redemption (Isaiah 53:5).

• Man is the purpose of the mission of God's Son (1 John 4:9).

• We are the purpose of God's inheritance (Titus 3:7).

• Heaven is our destination (1 Peter 1:4).

Conclusion:  The doctrines of Creation and (Darwinian) Evolution are so strongly divergent that reconciliation is totally impossible.  The Theistic Evolutionists attempt to integrate the two doctrines; however such syncretism reduces the message of the Bible to insignificance.

The conclusion is inevitable:  There is no support for Theistic Evolution in the Bible.

So, O No, and all my Religion Forum Friends, I pray that you see that there can only be one understanding of God's Creation.  And, that is the one taught in Genesis, that, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"  (Genesis 1:1) - clarified and emphasized in Genesis 1:5, "And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (evening and morning can only apply to a lunar day) - and confirmed in Exodus, "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them. . ." (Exodus 20:11).  Any other teaching denies the authority of the Bible and it denies our omnipotent, all powerful, God who created us.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Click on the image to enlarge: