[BaseballMan]

During the Scopes Trial in 1925, ACLU attorney Clarence Darrow placed William Jennings Bryan (seen as the man representing Christianity) on the stand and questioned him about his faith. In his questioning, Darrow pitted Bryan’s faith in the Bible against his belief in modern scientific thinking. Darrow questioned Bryan about the meaning of the word “day” in Genesis. Bryan’s answer rejected the clear teaching of Scripture, which indicates that the days of Genesis 1 are six actual days of approximately 24 hours. Bryan accepted modern evolutionary thinking instead when he said, “I think it would be just as easy for the kind of God we believe in to make the earth in six days as in six years or in six million years or in 600 million years. I do not think it important whether we believe one or the other.”1 This is not the first time a Christian has rejected the intended meaning of God’s Word, and it certainly will not be the last.

Many Christians today claim that millions of years of earth history fit with the Bible and that God could have used evolutionary processes to create. This idea is not a recent invention. For over 200 years, many theologians have attempted such harmonizations in response to the work of people like Charles Darwin and Scottish geologist Charles Lyell, who helped popularize the idea of millions of years of earth history and slow geological processes.

When we consider the possibility that God used evolutionary processes to create over millions of years, we are faced with serious consequences: the Word of God is no longer authoritative, and the character of our loving God is questioned.

Scriptural Implications
Already in Darwin’s day, one of the leading evolutionists saw the compromise involved in claiming that God used evolution, and his insightful comments are worth reading again. Once you accept evolution and its implications about history, then man becomes free to pick and choose which parts of the Bible he wants to accept.

From an Evolutionist’s Perspective
The leading humanist of Darwin’s day, Thomas Huxley (1825–1895), eloquently pointed out the inconsistencies of reinterpreting Scripture to fit with popular scientific thinking. Huxley, an ardent evolutionary humanist, was known as “Darwin’s bulldog,” as he did more to popularize Darwin’s ideas than Darwin himself. Huxley understood Christianity much more clearly than did compromising theologians who tried to add evolution and millions of years to the Bible. He used their compromise against them to help his cause in undermining Christianity.

In his essay “Lights of the Church and Science,” Huxley stated,

[INDENT]I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how anyone, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests upon the interpretation of the passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them. If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were not ordained by Jahveh; if the ‘ten words’ were not written by God’s hand on the stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the Story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the Creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of the regal period of Rome—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which is so much less clearly enunciated: And what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?2
Huxley made the point that if we are to believe the New Testament doctrines, we must believe the historical account of Genesis as historical truth.[/INDENT]

Huxley was definitely out to destroy the truth of the biblical record. When people rejected the Bible, he was happy. But when they tried to harmonize evolutionary ideas with the Bible and reinterpret it, he vigorously attacked this position.

[INDENT]I confess I soon lose my way when I try to follow those who walk delicately among “types” and allegories. A certain passion for clearness forces me to ask, bluntly, whether the writer means to say that Jesus did not believe the stories in question or that he did? When Jesus spoke, as a matter of fact, that “the Flood came and destroyed them all,” did he believe that the Deluge really took place, or not? It seems to me that, as the narrative mentions Noah’s wife, and his sons’ wives, there is good scriptural warranty for the statement that the antediluvians married and were given in marriage: and I should have thought that their eating and drinking might be assumed by the firmest believer in the literal truth of the story. Moreover, I venture to ask what sort of value, as an illustration of God’s methods of dealing with sin, has an account of an event that never happened? If no Flood swept the careless people away, how is the warning of more worth than the cry of ‘Wolf ’ when there is no wolf? 3[/INDENT]

Huxley then gave a lesson on New Testament theology. He quoted Matthew 19:4–5: “And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”?’” Huxley commented, “If divine authority is not here claimed for the twenty-fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis, what is the value of language? And again, I ask, if one may play fast and loose with the story of the Fall as a ‘type’ or ‘allegory,’ what becomes of the foundation of Pauline theology?”4


And to substantiate this, Huxley quoted 1 Corinthians 15:21–22: “For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.”

Huxley continued, “If Adam may be held to be no more real a personage than Prometheus, and if the story of the Fall is merely an instructive ‘type,’ comparable to the profound Promethean mythos, what value has Paul’s dialectic?”5

Thus, concerning those who accepted the New Testament doctrines that Paul and Christ teach but rejected Genesis as literal history, Huxley claimed “the melancholy fact remains, that the position they have taken up is hopelessly untenable.”6

He was adamant that science (by which he meant evolutionary, long-age ideas about the past) had proven that one cannot intelligently accept the Genesis account of creation and the Flood as historical truth. He further pointed out that various doctrines in the New Testament are dependent on the truth of these events, such as Paul’s teaching on the doctrine of sin, Christ’s teaching on the doctrine of marriage, and the warning of future judgment. Huxley mocked those who try to harmonize evolution and millions of years with the Bible, because it requires them to give up a historical Genesis while still trying to hold to the doctrines of the New Testament.

What was Huxley’s point? He insisted that the theologians had to accept evolution and millions of years, but he pointed out that, to be consistent, they had to give up the Bible totally. Compromise is impossible.

From the Teaching of Christian Leaders
B. B. Warfield and Charles Hodge, great leaders of the Christian faith during the 1800s, adopted the billions-of-years belief concerning the age of the earth and reinterpreted Genesis 1 accordingly. In regard to a discussion on Genesis 1 and the days of creation, Hodge said, “The Church has been forced more than once to alter her interpretation of the Bible to accommodate the discoveries of science. But this has been done without doing any violence to the Scriptures or in any degree impairing their authority.”7

The book of Genesis teaches that death is the result of Adam’s sin (Genesis 3:29; Romans 5:12, 8:18–22) and that all of God’s creation was “very good” upon its completion (Genesis 1:31). All animals and humans were originally vegetarian (Genesis 1:29–30). But if we compromise on the history of Genesis by adding millions of years, we must believe that death and disease were part of the world before Adam sinned. You see, the (alleged) millions of years of earth history in the fossil record shows evidence of animals eating each other,8 diseases like cancer in their bones,9 violence, plants with thorns,10 and so on. All of this supposedly takes place before man appears on the scene, and thus before sin (and its curse of death, disease, thorns, carnivory, etc.) entered the world.

Christians who believe in an old earth (billions of years) need to come to grips with the real nature of the god of an old earth—it is not the loving God of the Bible. Even many conservative, evangelical Christian leaders accept and actively promote a belief in millions and billions of years for the age of rocks. How could a God of love allow such horrible processes as disease, suffering, and death for millions of years as part of His “very good” creation?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...-evolution

[BaseballMan]

Interestingly, the liberal camp points out the inconsistencies in holding to an old earth while trying to cling to evangelical Christianity. For instance, Bishop John Shelby Spong, the retired bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Newark, states:

[INDENT]The Bible began with the assumption that God had created a finished and perfect world from which human beings had fallen away in an act of cosmic rebellion. Original sin was the reality in which all life was presumed to live. Darwin postulated instead an unfinished and thus imperfect creation ... . Human beings did not fall from perfection into sin as the Church had taught for centuries ... . Thus the basic myth of Christianity that interpreted Jesus as a divine emissary who came to rescue the victims of the fall from the results of their original sin became inoperative.11[/INDENT]

This is an obvious reference to the millions of years associated with the fossil record. The god of an old earth is one who uses death as part of creating. Death, therefore, can’t be the penalty for sin and can’t be described as the last enemy (1 Corinthians 15:26).

The god of an old earth cannot therefore be the God of the Bible who is able to save us from sin and death. Thus, when Christians compromise with the millions of years attributed by many scientists to the fossil record, they are, in that sense, seemingly worshipping a different god—the cruel god of an old earth.

People must remember that God created a perfect world; so when they look at this present world, they are not looking at the nature of God but at the results of our sin.

The God of the Bible, the God of mercy, grace, and love, sent His one and only Son to become a man (but God nonetheless), to become our sinbearer so that we could be saved from sin and eternal separation from God. As 2 Corinthians 5:21 says, “For He has made Him who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”

There’s no doubt—the god of an old earth destroys the gospel.

Door of Compromise
Now it is true that rejection of six literal days doesn’t ultimately affect one’s salvation, if one is truly born again. However, we need to stand back and look at the big picture.

In many nations, the Word of God was once widely respected and taken seriously. But once the door of compromise is unlocked, once Christian leaders concede that we shouldn’t interpret the Bible as written in Genesis, why should the world take heed of God’s Word in any area? Because the church has told the world that one can use man’s interpretation of the world, such as billions of years, to reinterpret the Bible, this Book is seen as an outdated, scientifically incorrect holy book not intended to be believed as written.

As each subsequent generation has pushed this door of compromise open farther and farther, they are increasingly not accepting the morality or salvation of the Bible either. After all, if the history in Genesis is not correct, how can one be sure the rest is correct? Jesus said, “If I have told you earthly things, and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you of heavenly things?” (John 3:12).

The battle is not one of young earth vs. old earth, or billions of years vs. six days, or creation vs. evolution—the real battle is the authority of the Word of God vs. man’s fallible opinions.

Why do Christians believe in the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ? Because of the words of Scripture (“according to the Scriptures”.

And why should Christians believe in the six literal days of creation? Because of the words of Scripture (“In six days the Lord made ...”.

The real issue is one of authority—is God’s Word the authority, or is man’s word the authority? So, couldn’t God have used evolution to create? The answer is No. A belief in millions of years of evolution not only contradicts the clear teaching of Genesis and the rest of Scripture but also impugns the character of God. He told us in the book of Genesis that He created the whole universe and everything in it in six days by His word: “Then God said ... .” His Word is the evidence of how and when God created, and His Word is incredibly clear.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...used-evolution

[thecavemaster]

Have you personally ever read ORIGIN OF SPECIES?

[BaseballMan]

Have you personally ever read ORIGIN OF SPECIES?

Yes. Have you?

[thecavemaster]

Yes. Have you?

Why else would I ask if I hadn't read it myself? I happen to believe that the "leap of faith" required to believe a missing link exists between apes and human beings is nearly as large as any religion's leap of faith. With that said, I believe creatures have the capacity to adapt, sometimes with great variation.

[BaseballMan]

Why else would I ask if I hadn't read it myself? I happen to believe that the "leap of faith" required to believe a missing link exists between apes and human beings is nearly as large as any religion's leap of faith. With that said, I believe creatures have the capacity to adapt, sometimes with great variation.

I agree it does take a leap of faith - possibly an even greater leap of faith than believing in the God of the Bible - especially concerning the mounting evidence refuting it.

I also think animals adapt, even with great variation, however, they will never change from an elephant to a whale by jumping in the water, nor will they change from a monkey to a human by walking upright.

[thecavemaster]

I agree it does take a leap of faith - possibly an even greater leap of faith than believing in the God of the Bible - especially concerning the mounting evidence refuting it.

I also think animals adapt, even with great variation, however, they will never change from an elephant to a whale by jumping in the water, nor will they change from a monkey to a human by walking upright.

Have you ever heard the idea that the word "serpent" in Hebrew could have actually been the word for orangutan? Also, in early language ({Malay} the word for this ape is orang hutan, which is orang (man) hutan (forest).. or man of the forest. There is no real reason for an orangutan not to walk upright, instead of dragging its belly along the ground, while there is no real biological reason to suggest that a serpent ever walked upright. Also, the orangutan is notorious for its babbling, while a serpent seems ill equipped to speak.

[BaseballMan]

Have you ever heard the idea that the word "serpent" in Hebrew could have actually been the word for orangutan? Also, in early language ({Malay} the word for this ape is orang hutan, which is orang (man) hutan (forest).. or man of the forest. There is no real reason for an orangutan not to walk upright, instead of dragging its belly along the ground, while there is no real biological reason to suggest that a serpent ever walked upright. Also, the orangutan is notorious for its babbling, while a serpent seems ill equipped to speak.

In the account of the temptation of Eve and the Fall of mankind, in Genesis chapter 3, we are introduced to a creature called 'the serpent'. Who or what is this creature? Was it a real serpent? Some people try to make out that the story is just symbolic or an allegory, because animals do not speak human language. So who or what is the person who uses the body of this 'beast of the field', not only to speak to Eve, but also to persuade her to disobey almighty God?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation...erpent.asp

[BaseballMan]

the word "serpent" in Hebrew could have actually been the word for orangutan?

The answer is a certain and absolute No!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Serpents are frequently mentioned in Scripture. More than forty species are found in Syria and Arabia. The poisonous character of the serpent is alluded to in Jacob's blessing on Dan (Gen. 49:17; see Prov. 30:18, 19; James 3:7; Jer. 8:17). (See ADDER.)

This word is used symbolically of a deadly, subtle, malicious enemy (Luke 10:19).

The serpent is first mentioned in connection with the history of the temptation and fall of our first parents (Gen. 3). It has been well remarked regarding this temptation:

"A real serpent was the agent of the temptation, as is plain from what is said of the natural characteristic of the serpent in the first verse of the chapter (3:1), and from the curse pronounced upon the animal itself. But that Satan was the actual tempter, and that he used the serpent merely as his instrument, is evident (1) from the nature of the transaction; for although the serpent may be the most subtle of all the beasts of the field, yet he has not the high intellectual faculties which the tempter here displayed. (2) In the New Testament it is both directly asserted and in various forms assumed that Satan seduced our first parents into sin (John 8:44; Rom. 16:20; 2 Cor. 11:3, 14; Rev. 12:9; 20:2)."

http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/serpent.html

[thecavemaster]

In the account of the temptation of Eve and the Fall of mankind, in Genesis chapter 3, we are introduced to a creature called 'the serpent'. Who or what is this creature? Was it a real serpent? Some people try to make out that the story is just symbolic or an allegory, because animals do not speak human language. So who or what is the person who uses the body of this 'beast of the field', not only to speak to Eve, but also to persuade her to disobey almighty God?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation...erpent.asp

If, on the Mount of Transfiguration, Moses (the law) appeared to Jesus, and Elijah (the prophets) appeared, but the "voice" said, "This is my son, listen to him"... what does that suggest? For me, it suggests that the rest of the "bible" is optional reading material for the non-Jewish disciple.

[BaseballMan]

If, on the Mount of Transfiguration, Moses (the law) appeared to Jesus, and Elijah (the prophets) appeared, but the "voice" said, "This is my son, listen to him"... what does that suggest? For me, it suggests that the rest of the "bible" is optional reading material for the non-Jewish disciple.

The entire story goes like this:

Matthew 17
The Transfiguration
1After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. 3Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.
4Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah."

5While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!"

6When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified. 7But Jesus came and touched them. "Get up," he said. "Don't be afraid." 8When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus.

9As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, "Don't tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead."

10The disciples asked him, "Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?"

11Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. 12But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." 13Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This passage of scripture informs the disciples and gives very good miraculous reasons as to who Jesus is by placing Him in His full glory with these 2 men of God. Therefore, after His death, in writing about Jesus in the letters, these men have incredible credibility of having being inspired by God in the flesh as well as God the Father in penning the rest of the Bible. If not for these writings, you would not know how to listen to Jesus. Therefore the suggestion to you is of the enemy, the same one who deceived Eve in the garden.

[thecavemaster]

The entire story goes like this:

Matthew 17
The Transfiguration
1After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. 3Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.
4Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah."

5While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!"

6When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified. 7But Jesus came and touched them. "Get up," he said. "Don't be afraid." 8When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus.

9As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, "Don't tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead."

10The disciples asked him, "Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?"

11Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. 12But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." 13Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This passage of scripture informs the disciples and gives very good miraculous reasons as to who Jesus is by placing Him in His full glory with these 2 men of God. Therefore, after His death, in writing about Jesus in the letters, these men have incredible credibility of having being inspired by God in the flesh as well as God the Father in penning the rest of the Bible. If not for these writings, you would not know how to listen to Jesus. Therefore the suggestion to you is of the enemy, the same one who deceived Eve in the garden.

So, you are suggesting that the words of Moses and Elijah are necessary to understand Jesus? When did Jesus say that? The law came by moses... but grace and truth came by jesus?

[BaseballMan]

So, you are suggesting that the words of Moses and Elijah are necessary to understand Jesus? When did Jesus say that? The law came by moses... but grace and truth came by jesus?

Not by any means. I am saying the inspired Word of God is necessary to understand Jesus in His full. Every aspect of the Bible points to Him. Jesus said, "I AM!" He did so meaning He is God, the one who appeared to Moses in the bushes. Jesus claimed that all scriptures testify about Him. (John 5:39-40)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus Christ: The Interpretive Key to the Scripture
Jesus Christ: The Interpretive Key to the Scripture
With Four Examples of Doctrinal Errors that Arise When this Key is not Used.

"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life." (John 5:39, 40)

"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" - (1 Tim 2:5)

"The Scriptures should be read with the aim of finding Christ in them. Whoever turns aside from this object, even though he wears himself out all his life in learning, he will never reach the knowledge of the truth." - John Calvin


I have recently had the privilege of reading a phenomenal book that I highly recommend to all teachers of the Word. That book was Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics by Graeme Goldsworthy. Its thesis is simple: the Gospel (or, Jesus Christ) is the Key to all Christian Hermeneutics. During the course of reading, his focus got me to thinking about its antithesis which would be that almost all errors and inconsistencies in our understanding of Bible texts occur when our interpretation is less than Christ-centered. This is foundational. Unless our study, however diligent, leads us to see that all Scripture points to Jesus Christ, our study is in vain. The importance of the Bible (OT & NT) is that it testifies about Jesus Christ (John 1:43-45, Acts 3:18, Acts 17:2-3, 2 Tim 3:14-15,1 Pet 1:10-12, Rom 1:1-3, 16:25-27, Luke 24:25-27 & 44-46).

Jesus never condemned a Pharisee for taking Moses too seriously. They take him far less seriously than they should. For Jesus says, "If you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for He write of Me. But if you don't believe His writings, how will you believe My words. Your accuser is Moses." (John 5:46). So to understand Moses is to come to know Christ when He is revealed. Likewise, Abraham saw Jesus’ day and was glad, the Bible testifies. And "...foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU." (Gal)

But now, let's shift gears by getting specific about doctrinal errors that fail to take into account the above biblical principles ... These are produced by an interpretitive grid or presupposition that arises from Christless or less-than-Christocentric views of Scripture. In the following, I wish to give 3-4 examples of current popular, but erroneous, interpretations, that err simply because they fail to see the centrality of Jesus Christ in their understanding:

1) The False Assertion that Salvation can be Lost

The claim by some that a Christian can actually lose his or her salvation is a prime example of reading Christ out of the text, because the focus becomes your own moral ability rather than Christ. Some erroneously believe that a Christian, after being saved by Christ, can make certain choices that will lead to the loss of their adoption and justification, and thus, their salvation in Christ. In other words, they must, by their own effort, or with the Spirit's help, maintain their just standing before God. With such a view, Christ is not sufficient to save completely. Such a doctrine should immediately make us think of Paul's warning in Galatians: "Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?" (Gal 3:3) But why is Paul so stern as to call them foolish? Because they have forgotten that Christ and Christ alone has saved them. To think that we can add to Christ's perfect work is to utterly misapprehend the Gospel at its core. For, we ask, is it Jesus or something else which is sufficient to carry you to the end? Any addition to Jesus Christ is to believe that justification is found in something else has forgotten about the centrality of Christ.

So we ask in relation to this doctrine, is it Christ who saves us, or does He merely assist us so we may save ourselves? The warning passages in Hebrews actually warn against this very error. They start by pointing out that Jesus is superior to the angels, to Moses and to the Sacrificial System. The warnings of falling away are actually warnings about going back to something inferior to Christ, like the sacrificial system which only pointed to Christ. To read that a particular sin can make us lose our salvation, is thus, to utterly forget what the context of the Text in Hebrews itself is. So the assertion that a Christian can lose salvation is the first error that we have spotted that arises because Christ was seen as the ultimate interpretive presupposition, and thus, left out of the interpretation. Some other ultimate presupposition guided our exposition.

2) Synergism

Synergism is the error that affirms that the natural man can cooperate with God in the regeneration process (the new birth) ...that an unregenerate person has the moral capacity to embrace the Gospel apart from the work of the Spirit changing the heart.

Again, remember what our interpretive Key to the Bible is? Jesus Christ. So, in relation to regeneration and conversion, when the gospel is preached, what makes people to differ in their response to it? Does Jesus Christ make us differ or does something else? This “something else” may take various forms; it may be something native to the human constitution (i.e. Pelagianism) or something alien yet universal (i.e. Arminianism)? In either case, the point is that it is not Christ that makes the difference. Anyone who claims that the difference arises from one of these something-else’s has failed to see first our hopelessness as fallen creatures apart from Christ and second the exclusive sufficiency of Christ’s saving work. If I am different than my neighbor because of something other than Jesus Christ, then Christ, whatever role he may play, cannot be central to my understanding of salvation. He is only partly responsible for it. It is the grace we have in Christ that saves, and nothing in addition to it.

3) Four-Point Calvinism

Four-point Calvinism fails the test of Christ-centered interpretation because this view tends to see the TULIP as an abstraction. But the TULIP only works when we see Christ at its center. Consider the TULIP as a chiasm with the "L" at the top of the pyramid. It is Jesus Christ which makes sense of all the doctrines of grace. Four-point Calvinists who reject Limited Atonement but embrace irresistible grace must consider this: Irresistible grace is not some abstract doctrine but must be seen in relation to Jesus Christ, specially in relation to the grace purchased by Christ upon the cross. The Spirit of Christ illuminates, regenerates and effectually brings to faith his elect. And this enabling, effectual grace is, from first to last, Christ-centered. It does not come out of a void, nor from some hidden source of grace in God the Father. Therefore Christ must have died for the elect so as to purchase that grace in a way – a redemptive way – that he did not die for the non-elect. That is why we often call it particular redemption. Irresistible grace is one of the redemptive benefits purchased by Jesus Christ ... and it was never granted to the non-elect nor intended for them. I believe that until Jesus Christ is seen as central to the TULIP then four-pointers will continue to reject what is plain.

4) Purgatory

Roman Catholics believe in Purgatory, which again accents their belief that Christ is not sufficient to save completely. Rather then, we must work off our sins after death for 1000's of years until it is paid. Where is Christ in all this? Was His work insufficient to cover their sins completely and once for all?

Each of these errors occurs when the our hermeneutic - our ultimate presupposition - is not Jesus Christ.

J.W. Hendryx

http://www.reformationtheology.com/2007/...retive.php

[thecavemaster]

"You will not come to me." Isn't this the pinultimate issue? I understand how, for example, Isaiah 40-55, 53 in particular, lend clarity; however, is it necessary for the non-Jew who answers IN WORD AND DEED "yes" to "Follow me" in the life and teaching of jesus to study "answers in genesis" ad nauseum? I don't think so, not by a LONG shot.

[BaseballMan]

"You will not come to me." Isn't this the pinultimate issue? I understand how, for example, Isaiah 40-55, 53 in particular, lend clarity; however, is it necessary for the non-Jew who answers IN WORD AND DEED "yes" to "Follow me" in the life and teaching of jesus to study "answers in genesis" ad nauseum? I don't think so, not by a LONG shot.

Not unless first called by God to come closer, to dig deeper, as the Gospel was presented to the Gentile and the Jew.

Yes, it is extremely necessary for the Jew and Gentile, who have been saved by grace to study to show thyself approved. It is extremely necessary to fight against the enemy of this world and the principalities of darkness that flood this world of all reasons for non-belief.

Ephesians 6:11-13
11Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.

[thecavemaster]

Not unless first called by God to come closer, to dig deeper, as the Gospel was presented to the Gentile and the Jew.

Yes, it is extremely necessary for the Jew and Gentile, who have been saved by grace to study to show thyself approved. It is extremely necessary to fight against the enemy of this world and the principalities of darkness that flood this world of all reasons for non-belief.

Ephesians 6:11-13
11Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.

The close study of jesus, the rebel jesus, counted a heathen and a pagan, when coupled with humble following, is worth a million years worth of apologetics.

[BaseballMan]

The close study of jesus, the rebel jesus, counted a heathen and a pagan, when coupled with humble following, is worth a million years worth of apologetics.

I'm sure you would think so. Jesus was counted as a heathen and a pagan by the world, but it is only those who count Him as Lord and Savior who will ever know the truth.

[thecavemaster]

I'm sure you would think so. Jesus was counted as a heathen and a pagan by the world, but it is only those who count Him as Lord and Savior who will ever know the truth.

jesus was counted a heathen and a pagan by firmly established religious people...counting jesus lord and savior means little... living jesus lord and savior, in all his blessed are you who are poor revolutionary vision, is a whole other thing.

[BaseballMan]

jesus was counted a heathen and a pagan by firmly established religious people...counting jesus lord and savior means little... living jesus lord and savior, in all his blessed are you who are poor revolutionary vision, is a whole other thing.

He was indeed counted as a heretic and blasphemer by the Pharisees and Sadduccees. That's the reason they wanted Him put to death.

Counting Jesus Lord and Savior means professing that very thing, and the Bible is explicit in Romans 10:9-10 about confessing with the mouth and believing with the heart. It's after that when you live as Jesus is your Lord and Savior.

I'm not sure where you're trying to go with that last statement, so I'll dismiss it for now.

[thecavemaster]

He was indeed counted as a heretic and blasphemer by the Pharisees and Sadduccees. That's the reason they wanted Him put to death.

Counting Jesus Lord and Savior means professing that very thing, and the Bible is explicit in Romans 10:9-10 about confessing with the mouth and believing with the heart. It's after that when you live as Jesus is your Lord and Savior.

I'm not sure where you're trying to go with that last statement, so I'll dismiss it for now.

jesus was a revolutionary... not the kind with banderos of bullets, but the kind with explosive ideas and vision which run counter to the dominant culture. Is "blessed are the poor" ... "woe unto the rich" revolutionary? Not if you spiritualize it to the point of bread in milk; however, what jesus said and who he said it to got him executed, Plus, it was the whole crowd yelling, "Give us Barabbas," not just the Pharisees and Sadduccees.

[BaseballMan]

jesus was a revolutionary... not the kind with banderos of bullets, but the kind with explosive ideas and vision which run counter to the dominant culture. Is "blessed are the poor" ... "woe unto the rich" revolutionary? Not if you spiritualize it to the point of bread in milk; however, what jesus said and who he said it to got him executed, Plus, it was the whole crowd yelling, "Give us Barabbas," not just the Pharisees and Sadduccees.

Of course His ideas were explosive and He had tremendous vision. He even claimed to be God, and to be there in the beginning of creation. He was more than a revolutionary by claim, He was God. He came to teach us how to live and to make us new. It was real, not spiritualized. It was after Him that the Counselor, or Holy Spirit came. This is all biblical, and not "spiritualized to the point of bread in milk".

Also, you are partially right about the reason for Jesus' death. The Pharisees and Sadducces of the day were legalists and traditionalists. They did not even understand the presence of Jesus although the Scriptures spoke of Him. It was they who had him sent before Pilate and who influenced the whole crowd yelling "Give us Barabbas!" However, it was for the sin of every man that He died. The blame for His death is not to be placed solely on a few people, but on every man for that is the reason He came to die. It is written that He died as a sacrifice for our sins.

[thecavemaster]

Of course His ideas were explosive and He had tremendous vision. He even claimed to be God, and to be there in the beginning of creation. He was more than a revolutionary by claim, He was God. He came to teach us how to live and to make us new. It was real, not spiritualized. It was after Him that the Counselor, or Holy Spirit came. This is all biblical, and not "spiritualized to the point of bread in milk".

Also, you are partially right about the reason for Jesus' death. The Pharisees and Sadducces of the day were legalists and traditionalists. They did not even understand the presence of Jesus although the Scriptures spoke of Him. It was they who had him sent before Pilate and who influenced the whole crowd yelling "Give us Barabbas!" However, it was for the sin of every man that He died. The blame for His death is not to be placed solely on a few people, but on every man for that is the reason He came to die. It is written that He died as a sacrifice for our sins.

From the manward side, jesus died because he threatened existing power and social structures. His "camel through the eye of a needle" talk doesn't play well in the land of crystal cathedrals and Range Rovers, didn't then, doesn't now.

[BFritz]

I only read a bit of the first post, but my take on the whole thing is that God created all in existence but He did it so that we wouldn't know that He did it. That, or He just put everything in motion so that people and the Earth would turn out a certain way.

[BaseballMan]

From the manward side, jesus died because he threatened existing power and social structures. His "camel through the eye of a needle" talk doesn't play well in the land of crystal cathedrals and Range Rovers, didn't then, doesn't now.

He spoke with authority about the sin of man and the consequences thereof. He said the only way to the Father was through Him. If that "camel through the eye of a needle" talk doesn't play well with you, then you will need to take that up with Him when you come in contact with Him on the Day of Judgement. As for me, you seem to have read the Bible, so therefore you are accountable for what you have read and heard.

If you don't believe that will happen that's completely fine with me. I suppose you'll just have to wait to find out.

[BaseballMan]

I only read a bit of the first post, but my take on the whole thing is that God created all in existence but He did it so that we wouldn't know that He did it. That, or He just put everything in motion so that people and the Earth would turn out a certain way.

And do you base that on your own thoughts that truth is relative to you, because I put my faith in the Holy Scriptures as absolute truth. According to it, God has narrated the origin of this world and the story of Himself throughout it.

[thecavemaster]

He spoke with authority about the sin of man and the consequences thereof. He said the only way to the Father was through Him. If that "camel through the eye of a needle" talk doesn't play well with you, then you will need to take that up with Him when you come in contact with Him on the Day of Judgement. As for me, you seem to have read the Bible, so therefore you are accountable for what you have read and heard.

If you don't believe that will happen that's completely fine with me. I suppose you'll just have to wait to find out.

I don't mind accountability in the heavenward direction, as mercy and grace and love flow freely. However, in the manward direction, those who sift the net for themselves are a little scary. I assume you are using the "you" in a general sense, because I don't mind Jesus the Revolutionary; it's the Jesus the Investment Banker that bothers me a little.

[BaseballMan]

don't mind accountability in the heavenward direction, as mercy and grace and love flow freely. However, in the manward direction, those who sift the net for themselves are a little scary. I assume you are using the "you" in a general sense, because I don't mind Jesus the Revolutionary; it's the Jesus the Investment Banker that bothers me a little.

Exactly what do you mean by the second statement.

I was using the you in a sense that refers to you personally. I tell you the truth, it doesn't matter if you mind Jesus the Revolutionary or the Investment Banker - it matters whether you mind Jesus the Son of God as He claimed Himself to be and for it to matter.

[thecavemaster]

Exactly what do you mean by the second statement.

I was using the you in a sense that refers to you personally. I tell you the truth, it doesn't matter if you mind Jesus the Revolutionary or the Investment Banker - it matters whether you mind Jesus the Son of God as He claimed Himself to be and for it to matter.

Every religion has a manward manifestation...in the direction of men. If the story is to be believed, god made male and female in his image; and ever since, man has returned the favor. It does matter what Jesus taught, as that is bound up with who he is. Apparently, many christians think the cross is an object to be believed instead of a life to be received.

[BaseballMan]

Every religion has a manward manifestation...in the direction of men. If the story is to be believed, god made male and female in his image; and ever since, man has returned the favor. It does matter what Jesus taught, as that is bound up with who he is. Apparently, many christians think the cross is an object to be believed instead of a life to be received.

Matthew 7:21-23
21 Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
22 Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?"
23 And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness."

http://www.faithalone.org/news/y1988/88dec3.html

Not all who profess to be christians are followers of Christ. Billy Graham once said that 3/4's of professing Americans in church would not see Heaven. And it is true today that many churches are based on non-biblical doctrines and traditions. When christians think the cross is an object to be believed, it becomes an idol and a god. The cross is simply the mechanism used to carry out the purpose for which Christ came.

[thecavemaster]

Matthew 7:21-23
21 Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
22 Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?"
23 And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness."

http://www.faithalone.org/news/y1988/88dec3.html

Not all who profess to be christians are followers of Christ. Billy Graham once said that 3/4's of professing Americans in church would not see Heaven. And it is true today that many churches are based on non-biblical doctrines and traditions. When christians think the cross is an object to be believed, it becomes an idol and a god. The cross is simply the mechanism used to carry out the purpose for which Christ came.

Agreed.