Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

Posts Tagged ‘inerrancy’

Why Evolution Is “A Hill Christians Want To Die On”

Posted by Job on September 14, 2010

Rod Dreher, the so-called “crunchy (environmentalist I guess) conservative” religious right Catholic, criticized the ouster of Old Testament scholar Bruce Waltke from Reformed Theological Seminary over prattling the “evangelical evolution” heresy of Francis Collins. Quoting Dreher (and why is a Catholic getting into a dispute between those who left Catholicism to begin with?):  “Why? It’s not clear, but this comes right after he was excoriated by other conservative Protestant figures for statements made in a video posted to the BioLogos website. (Full disclosure: BioLogos receives grant money from my employer, the John Templeton Foundation). According to an eyebrow-raising statement on the BioLogos site, Waltke stated in a video commentary that had been posted to the site that the church needed to come to terms with the fact of evolution, explaining that “if the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult…some odd group that is not really interacting with the world. And rightly so, because we are not using our gifts and trusting God’s Providence that brought us to this point of our awareness.” He said that refusing to deal with science as it is will marginalize Christians.”

In case you missed it, Dreher states: “Full disclosure: BioLogos receives grant money from my employer, the John Templeton Foundation).”  So, Dreher criticizes a Christian seminary for forcing out a person who disagrees with the position of someone that his employer gave grant money to, and it is safe to presume that his employer did so because he agrees with the agenda of BioLogos to get as many supporters of the “theistic evolution” heresy into evangelical seminaries and pulpits as possible. And since the list of seminaries and Bible colleges that affirm Biblical creation is small (see this list!), it looks like Dreher’s employers are getting what they are paying for.

Now after indulging in some Mark Noll type “Scandal of the Evangelical Mind” type Protestant bashing, religious right Catholic Dreher (who has been prominently and positively covered by Christianity Today and Pat Robertson’s CBN) reveals that it is inerrancy, and ultimately the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, that is his real problem, and he conveniently quotes some “ex-evangelical” to portray the idea that Bible-believing Christians are actually Bible idolaters, because, you know, the Bible is inconvenient as it tends to restrict things like iconography (idolatry) and praying to “Virgin” Mary (idolatry) and to “saints” (idolatry). Dreher is able to get away with mocking Christian beliefs – including his several vicious attack on those who believe in the rapture – because he is conservative, and as a result religious right Ameri-Christians (the same who are embracing Glenn Beck) won’t go after him the way they did Barack Hussein Obama after his “clinging to God and guns” PRIVATE COMMENT.

But Albert Mohler clearly lays it out: evolution means no Adam and Eve. No Adam, and no original sin. No original sin, no need for the ministry and work of Jesus Christ for original sin on the cross, or for Jesus Christ to have been deity to perform this work, or to resurrect from the dead. Therefore, Christianity becomes semi-Pelagianism (like Dreher’s Catholicism) at best, a philosophical/ethical/political system around a failed revolutionary and reformer who left rambling, incomprehensible and incomplete teachings behind at worst, but generally for most people a works-based “earn your salvation” religion like Judaism, Mormonism, Hinduism and Islam. It is revealing that Karl Giberson, the “moderate Baptist” to whom Mohler responded, stated that evolution requires a Christian to formulate “new and better way to understand the origins of sin.” Of course, that requires a “new and better” religion than actual Christianity, and that is the whole point of evolution: rejection of Bible-based Christianity. As Rod Dreher belongs to a Catholicism that rejected legitimate Christianity over 1000 years ago, it is no coincidence at all that he supports others who also desire to turn others away from a Bible-based faith, the faith once delivered to the saints, and that he and others like him preach “tolerance”, “diversity”, “ecumenism”, “big-tent”, and denounce Biblical separation in favor of allowing people who reject the Bible to remain at our seminaries and Bible colleges and in our pulpits and congregations.

By the way, this is no “slippery slope” type of argument. Rejecting Biblical creation, trying to allegorize or symbolize Adam and Eve event, is no less than a rejection of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Doing so pulls the very foundation away from the rest of the Bible, and as a result leaves no reason for the events of salvation history to have taken place to begin with. So yes, it is absolutely mandatory to have the position that one cannot believe in evolution and be a Christian, just as one cannot deny the deity of Jesus Christ or salvation by faith and do the same.

Now of course, the so-called evolutionary evangelicals will deny this. This is only because they are not being as intellectually honest as as Giberson. With no literal creation story, the doctrine of the cross as laid out by Paul in Romans (for instance) is totally unworkable and moot, because Paul’s federal headship atonement doctrine requires a literal, human Adam as the father of the human race. No first Adam, no need for a second Adam (Jesus Christ). And it also goes to the very heart of the meaning of Holy Spirit inspiration. For instance, it is obvious that Paul believed in a literal Adam and Eve and wrote Bible texts based on it, including not the aforementioned Romans passages, but also the 1 Timothy 2:14 passage that denies women the ability to hold the office of pastor-teacher based on Adam receiving the command from God (and attending covenant responsibility), not Eve. Why would the Holy Spirit use something that Paul was completely in error about as a basis for such vital doctrines as original sin, atonement, and the role of women in the church? If Holy Scriptures – and its foundational doctrinal points no less – are based on grievous errors and lies, then in what respect can they be considered “holy”? People for whom the Bible is not the final authority do not care about these things, and neither do those who reject inerrancy. But the evangelical who claims that evolution is compatible with the Bible is either fooling himself by refusing to think these issues through, or fooling others by rejecting these doctrines within himself while still desiring to be defined as an evangelical for his own reasons (including but not limited to retaining influence and other benefits).

So Christians, despite the fact that the world is going to mock and reject you over it, the fact remains that you are going to have to continue to refuse to reject the evolution falsehood, even when that ravening wolf comes in a so-called evangelical sheep’s clothing.

Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan

Advertisements

Posted in Bible, Christianity, false doctrine, false religion, false teaching, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Why The “We Need Female Leaders In The Church Because There Aren’t Enough Good Men” Is Just An Excuse For Rebellion And Sin

Posted by Job on August 17, 2010

Now, we have “evangelical feminists” on the move, demanding that the Biblical mandate for God-given roles to the sexes be discarded in favor of the current worldly fascination with the sort of social androgyny (the idea that there is no difference between the sexes that need to be respected) that homosexual Vaughn Walker used in his homosexual marriage advocacy from the bench. Further, in their pursuit of what is clearly an anti-Biblical agenda, they are employing the same rhetoric of the secular humanists feminists before them – as they are cut from the same cloth despite their evangelical pretensions – in claiming that Christians who support Biblical roles for males and females are contributing to spousal abuse, rape and child molestation. Of course, the recent explosion of such issues is due to society’s embrace of such notions as feminism and rejection of Biblical authority, not their fidelity to it. (I suppose that these evangelical feminists are going to claim that the early church, including the apostles who produced the New Testament, was this repository of child molesters and rapists. When you consider their outright rejection of inerrancy and Biblical authority in this matter, one would not be surprised if this is precisely what this group believes. Like the homosexual “Christians”, “evangelical feminists” ignore that these Bible interpretations have been handed down since the early church and are not the invention of a relatively recent group of bigots. Calling contemporary Christians misogynistic, homophobic child rapists for refusing to adhere to their current worldly interpretations means judging those who received the faith directly from Jesus Christ and His apostles as the same. But since honest theology and church history is not on their side, they resort to name-calling and appeals to the same body of “science” as is Freudian psychology and evolution that is used to justify homosexuality and a host of other abominations against one’s own body and other people.)

It seems that one of the more effective excuses to justify female church leadership – one that is gaining traction outside the Pentecostal and liberal theological circles that have long advocated for women pastors and leaders – is the shortage of suitable male leaders for the church. I do not deny the possibility that there is indeed a shortage of the number and type of male leaders required to staff our current ecclesiastical structure. However, the solution to that is to A) question if our (denominationally-driven) ecclesiastical structure is Biblical in the first place and B) realize that the abandonment of Biblical manhood and womanhood and a resulting environment of spiritual confusion and immaturity is a cause of this problem rather than the solution. Therefore, the way to have strong male leaders for the church going forward is for men and women to return to what the Bible commands rather than to use the spiritual condition of the contemporary church as an excuse to abandon it. Instead of looking for an excuse to justify sin and rebellion, we need to seek courage from the Holy Spirit to strengthen us to be faithful in this time of spiritual difficulty.

With that in mind, on my thread “Regarding Women Preachers: I Am Now Convinced That It Is Wrong” a Christian woman named Elsie made the following comment:

Paul says “I do not permit women to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” I agree with the word of God, but I see here that Paul says “I do not permit”, he did not say “God does not permit”.
I believe that only men have the authority to be pastors and leaders in the congregation. But I also believe that in some instances God has raised a woman to prophecy and to be a judge, etc.. When God chose these women to do a specific work, these women where humble women, godly women. I see in these days a lot of disharmony in the church with many women ministring. I don’t think they where called by God. One of the things that astonishes me is how these women dress when they stand in the pulpit. How can a man visit such congregation and stay connected with “the word” when this woman is dressed in a provocative way? There is nothing humble about that and there is nohing holy about that either. We have to be watchful and careful that we do not provoque others to fall.

I will allow her comment and my response below to serve as a rejoinder to those who might be deceived by evangelical feminism, including the argument “We need female leaders in the church because there aren’t enough good male leaders:

““I do not permit women to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” I agree with the word of God, but I see here that Paul says “I do not permit”, he did not say “God does not permit”.”When Paul was saying “I do not permit”, he was speaking from the position of authority as an apostle of Jesus Christ. So, what an apostle permitted or denied was based on revelation from Jesus Christ, and therefore binding to the church. That was the real meaning of the oft-misunderstood “binding and loosing” passages of Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18, which is that the apostles, being appointed by Jesus Christ and received the revelation directly from Jesus Christ, had the right to establish doctrines and practices for the early church and those thereafter. This is not to say that Paul was divine in any sense, only that he spoke in the Name of God just as did an Old Testament prophet. When Paul was giving an opinion that he didn’t want to be considered binding, he said so in verses like 1 Corinthians 7:6 when he gave his opinion that it is better not to marry. Please note that in another place (1 Titus 4:3) Paul called forbidding to marry a devil’s doctrine.

“But I also believe that in some instances God has raised a woman to prophecy and to be a judge, etc..”

That is clear. God also raises up female deacons. The issue is the offices [that the Bible restricts women from holding] of pastor and teacher, not of evangelist, prophet or deacon.

… the Bible clearly lays out the role of elder spiritually gifted women in the church, which is to instruct younger women in faith and practice and to tend to the moral and spiritual development of children. In these times Christian woman have despised the role intended and laid out by God for them in order to seek the roles that God has set aside for men. You can see the negative effects on young women and children that result from this neglect. Ironically, the confusion in the church that results in the neglect of young women and children (as confused young women and children today become the very confused people who wind up leading churches 30 years down the line) is what is used as an excuse to justify female pastors.

For instance, a lot of people claim that there should be women leaders because there aren’t enough suitable male leaders, and they use Deborah in the time of the Judges as their proof-text. What they ignore is that the lack of suitable male leaders is precisely because of the refusal of elder women to instruct young mothers and of young mothers to instruct young women. And the proof-text of this is not only that of the kings in Israel (meaning that the kings who had righteous mothers who followed the Lord themselves followed the Lord, but the kings who had wicked mothers turned away from the Lord, and this was the case regardless of the spiritual condition of the father … a godly king and a rotten queen would produce rotten a rotten kid inheriting the throne, but a rotten king and a godly queen would produce a good child who would go on to become king) but also that Deborah herself had to rule because of Israel’s spiritual apostasy, their turning against God, at the time.

So, it speaks volumes that the women who use the lack of suitable male leaders as an excuse to be pastors and teachers are perfectly willing to personally profit from the dire straits that the church is in. That makes you nothing but a spiritual scalawag or carpetbagger. (If you are not from the American South, look the terms up … they mean someone who exploits a great tragedy for personal gain.) The proper response for Christian women to the lack of good male leaders in this generation is to adhere to what the Bible says regarding instructing younger women and children so that the next generation will have strong male leaders for the church. And this is precisely what the God-fearing queens of Israel who were married to evil husbands did. They did not attempt coups against their husbands so that they could rule righteously in their husband’s stead. (Consider that the only female usurper of the throne of Israel was the Baal worshiper Athaliah.) Instead, they raised their sons to know and fear God so that righteous rule would return in the next generation. The righteous queens of Israel knew the merits of adhering to God’s plan instead of following after their own human designs. Christian women chasing feminism idolatry would do well to follow their example. This is ever so more the case of Pentecostal women for whom female pastors is commonly accepted, as Pentecostals are known for their particular emphasis on Old Testament types and examples.

So, if righteous Old Testament queens operating without the benefit of the full revelation of Jesus Christ were able and willing to do what was necessary to produce godly kings for Old Testament Israel, how much more should New Testament Christian women who have the full revelation of Jesus Christ be expected to do so? Those who reject the Bible on this issue in order to follow a corrupt and fallen worldly mindset are without excuse.

For a more exhaustive treatment of this issue, please read:

Why Women Cannot Be Preachers

And to begin conforming your life to God’s desires:

Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan

Posted in Bible, Christianity, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments »

The Importance Of Professing And Submitting To Biblical Authority: Jesus Christ!

Posted by Job on March 23, 2009

Please read post below by Mike Ratliff.

Authority: Christ and the Bible

Posted in Bible, Christianity, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Evidence that Jesus Christ Did Predict the Future

Posted by Job on December 16, 2008

Evidence that Jesus Did Predict the Future

Posted in Apologetics, Bible, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , | 3 Comments »

Science in the Bible

Posted by Job on December 16, 2008

Science in the Bible

Posted in Apologetics, Bible, Christianity | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: