Bible
The following is just another reason why one should be a Biblical Independent Baptist rather than a denominational Baptist and in this case Southern Baptist.
‘The Baptist General Convention of Texas, one of few Southern Baptist groups that has not specifically excluded women from church leadership roles, passed a resolution at its 2021 General Convention earlier this month to “affirm and celebrate” the contributions of women in “advancing God’s kingdom.”
“Be it resolved that the messengers of the 2021 Texas Baptists annual meeting affirm the ongoing efforts of Texas Baptists following Christ’s example of engaging, empowering, and entrusting women with the gospel,” the resolution said, acknowledging that women have served and continue to serve the denomination in “numerous and complex ways,” including being elected to church offices, serving on committees, doing local and foreign mission work, holding positions in higher education and working within local churches.
The move distinguishes BGCT from the overall Southern Baptist Convention, which does not affirm pastoral roles for women. Conservatives within the SBC — complementarians — believe God created men and women for different roles, designating men to have authority in churches and at home, Baptist News Global reported.
A brochure written by the staff of the executive committee of the Southern Baptist Convention noted that just two of 5,000 Southern Baptist churches in Texas — and about 30 of the 40,000 SBC churches overall — currently have women leading their congregations.
Titled “Southern Baptists and Women Pastors,” the brochure, copyrighted in 2021, outlined the denomination’s position on women pastors, saying, “The question at hand is not whether women are of equal value to men, nor is it whether they can minister effectively.” Rather, the issue is that “the Scripture assigns the role of pastor to males.”
“Critics argue that Baptists are merely behind the times or have been unduly influenced by a ‘patriarchal’ society,” it said. “However, we think Baptist churches have male pastors because they believe they are so instructed by the New Testament.”
“Even a cursory reading” of pertinent texts in the New Testament leads to the conclusion that “women cannot have a pastoral position, or perform the pastoral function, for that puts them in authority over men in the life of the church,” the brochure went on to say, quoting verses from Timothy and Titus.’https://julieroys.com/women-pastors-sbc-texas-baptist-celebrate/?mc_cid=d19d51b218&mc_eid=b13d34ad49
Titus 1:6 ¶ If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; 8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; 9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
‘One way to get a Nobel prize in something, you’ve got to break some new ground or discover something no one has ever seen. In the world, the making of a printing press or light bulb changes everything. People still try to invent a better mousetrap. It happens. The phone replaced the telegraph and now our mobile devices, the phone.
Everyone can learn something new from scripture. You might even change or tweak a doctrine you’ve always believed. On the whole, you don’t want to teach from the Bible what no one has ever heard before. The goal is the original intent and understanding of the Author.
From the left comes progressivism. The U. S. Constitution, just over two hundred years old, means something different than when it was written. Loosely constructed, it has a flexible interpretation into which new meanings arise. Hegelian dialectics say a new thesis comes from synthesis of antithesis and a former thesis. Everything can be improved.
Early after the inspiration and then propagation of the Bible, men found new things no one ever saw in scripture. Many of these “finds” started a new movement. People have their fathers, the father of this or that teaching, contradictory to the other, causing division and new factions and denominations. Some of these changes become quite significant, a majority supplanting the constituents of the original teaching.
At the time of the Reformation, it was as if the world first found sole fide and sole scriptura. Men often call justification the Reformation doctrine of justification. This opened a large, proverbial can of worms. Many could read their own Bible in their own language. Others now dug into their own copy of the original languages of scripture. Skepticism grew. “If we didn’t know this before, what else did they not tell us.” It became a time ripe for religious shysters and this practice hasn’t stopped since then.
Socinus
The Italian, Laelius Socinus, was born in 1525 into a distinguished family of lawyers. Early his attention turned from law to scripture research. He doubted the teachings of Roman Catholicism. Socinus moved in 1548 to Zurich to study Greek and Hebrew. He still questioned established doctrine and challenged the Reformers. Laelius wrote his own confession of faith, which introduced different, conflicting beliefs. They took hold of his nephew, Faustus Socinus, born in 1539.
Faustus rejected orthodox Roman Catholic doctrines. The Inquisition denounced him in 1559, so he fled to Zurich in 1562. There he acquired his uncle’s writings. His doubt of Catholicism turned anti-Trinitarian. The Reformation did not go far enough for Socinus. His first published work in 1562 on the prologue of John rejected the essential deity of Jesus Christ.
Socinus’s journeys ended in Poland, where he became leader of the Minor Reformed Church, the Polish Brethren. His writings in the form of the Racovian Catechism survived through the press of the Racovian Academy of Rakow, Poland. His beliefs took the name, Socinianism, now also a catch-all for any type of dissenting doctrine.
Socinianism held that Jesus did not exist until his physical conception. God adopted Him as Son at His conception and became Son of God when the Holy Spirit conceived Him in Mary, a Gnostic view called “adoptionism.” It rejected the doctrine of original sin.
Socianism denied the omniscience of God. It introduced the first well developed concept of “open theism,” which said that man couldn’t have free will under a traditional (and scriptural) understanding of omniscience.
Socinianism also taught the moral example theory of atonement, teaching that Jesus sacrificed himself to motivate people to repent and believe. His death gave men the ability to be saved by their own works, who weren’t sinners by nature anyway.
Unitarians
The work of Socinus lived on in the belief of early English Unitarians, Henry Hedworth and John Biddle. Socinian belief was helped along also by its position of conscientious objection, a practice of refusing to perform military service. This principle was very popular with many and made Socinianism much more attractive to potential adherents. The First Unitarian Church, which followed Socianism as passed down through its leaders in England, was started in 1774 on Essex Street in London, where British Unitarian headquarters are still today.
As the Puritans of colonial America apostatized through various means, Unitarianism, a modern iteration of Socinianism took hold in the Congregational Church in America. After 1820, Congregationalists took Unitarianism as their established doctrine. The doctrine of Christ diminished to Jesus a good man and perhaps a prophet of God and in a sense the Son of God, but not God Himself.
Spirit of Skepticism
I write as an example of the diversity in the history of Christian doctrine and why it takes place. When you read the beliefs of Socinians, you easily see them in modern liberal Christianity. They influence on religious cults that deny the deity of Jesus Christ.
A limited amount of skepticism wards away the acceptance of false doctrine. Better is a Berean attitude (Acts 17:11), searching the scripture to see if these things are so, and what Paul wrote in 1 Thessalonians 5:21, proving all things, holding fast to that which is good.
As I grew up among fundamentalists and independent Baptists, I witnessed regular desire to find something new in the Bible. Many sermons espoused interpretations I had never heard and didn’t see in the text. A preacher often said, “God gave it to me.” You should know God used the man because no one had seen such insights into scripture.
The same spirit of doctrinal novelty continues today in many evangelical churches. The same practice led Joseph Smith in his founding of Mormonism. Many cults arose in 19th century America under the same spirit of skepticism of established historical doctrines.
The Temptation of Novel Teaching
The temptation of novel teaching preys on anyone. Faustus Socinus accepted many orthodox doctrines of his day. He rejected Christ as fully God and fully human because it was contrary to sound reason (ratio sana). This steered Socinians toward Enlightenment thinking, where human reason took the highest role as arbiter of truth.
Warren Wiersbe wrote that H.A. Ironside, longtime pastor of Chicago’s Moody Church, said, “If it’s new, it’s not true, and if it’s true, it’s not new.” Elsewhere I read that Spurgeon first said that. I don’t know. Clever new interpretations, teachings, and takes on and from scripture corrupt and overturn scriptural, saving doctrines in the hearts of men. They condemn them through all eternity.’https://kentbrandenburg.com/2021/11/22/the-regular-history-of-clever-new-interpretations-teachings-or-takes-on-and-from-scripture-socinianism/
Hebrews 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: 25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
‘Online church is now here as a part of the outreach of churches around the world, but California megachurch pastor John MacArthur is not one who is a fan of it.
MacArthur, the senior pastor at Grace Community Church in Greater Los Angeles, is the kind of pastor who speaks his mind. He doesn’t feel the need to provide answers that please the general Christian community. So when the discussion came to church, he didn’t mince his words.
While most churches closed their doors during Covid last year, MacArthur risked prison time by keeping his open.
John MacArthur says by definition, an online church service “cannot fulfill the New Testament’s commands for Christians”. During a recent Question and Answer session, Macarthur stated: “There’s nothing about that (online church) that fulfills the biblical definition of coming together, stimulating one another in love and good works. Singing, speaking to yourselves in Psalms [and] spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord, sitting under the Word of God, praying together, being led by those who preach the Word and open the Scripture.
“The definition of a church is crystal clear in the New Testament. We see the picture of it. They came together on the first day of the week. They worshipped the Lord. They prayed. It was fellowship, and it was the breaking of bread and the Lord’s Supper. So the church is defined clearly. And it’s the communion of the saints. It’s fellowship, it’s partnership.
“Zoom church is not Church. It’s not Church. It is watching TV. There’s nothing about that that fulfils the biblical definition of coming together, stimulating one another to love and good works, coming together.
“We are only the Church when we are together.”’https://mychristiandaily.com/its-not-church-it-is-watching-tv-says-john-macarthur-on-online-church/
Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
Now, of course that is from the Bible which many today do not recognize as any authority on almost anything. That’s why some say ‘…there is actually plenty of oxygen on the Moon. It just isn’t in a gaseous form. Instead it’s trapped inside regolith — the layer of rock and fine dust that covers the Moon’s surface. If we could extract oxygen from regolith, would it be enough to support human life on the Moon?’ https://theconversation.com/the-moons-top-layer-alone-has-enough-oxygen-to-sustain-8-billion-people-for-100-000-years-170013 Oh, there’s plenty of oxygen on the moon BUT! One wonders why the oxygen isn’t there available for humans to live there as they do on earth? Is it because the earth was FORMED to be INHABITED by God the Creator?
See, many seek to bypass the fact that the earth was made for man to inhabit. We have what we need here, including OXYGEN! It’s as Paul wrote in Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
Exodus 12:12
“‘For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.’”
Modern skeptics of the Bible, including skeptics within the church, often deny the Bible’s description of God’s actions in the ten plagues against Egypt. However, our growing knowledge of ancient Egypt tells us that the plagues described in the Bible were exactly what God Himself said that they were. They were indeed the true God’s judgment against the false gods of Egypt.
When God turned the Nile water into blood, He was acting against Hapi, the Egyptian god, who was honored as the giver of life. When the river turned to blood it was no longer able to give life. When Egypt filled with frogs, God showed that the frog-headed goddess Hekt, responsible for creation and fertility, could not even control the fertility of frogs. The massive death of Egypt’s cattle was an attack on Hathor. Hathor was the cow-headed goddess of love, one of the oldest Egyptian gods, and the one that was worshipped by Pharaoh.
The hail was God’s judgment against the sky goddess Nut who was also mother of the sun god. It was her job to protect the land from destruction that came from the heavens. The three days of darkness showed the powerlessness of Amon-Re, one of Egypt’s main gods. Finally, the death of Pharaoh’s firstborn and then Pharaoh, both considered living gods, left no doubt about the all-powerful nature of Israel’s true God.
Today people still look to things in the creation to give them what only the true Creator God can give them. Yet it is the creation itself that bears witness to the only true God.’ https://creationmoments.com/sermons/one-god-against-the-gods-2/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=one-god-against-the-gods-2&mc_cid=094bf6d747&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
I was introduced to Dave Hunt and the Berean Call years ago while in Bible college. Dave is now in glory but the Berean Call continues to help Christians in their walk with the Lord.
‘There’s a saying that underscores what the Scriptures declare continually: The Bible is not a book that men could write if they would…or would write if they could. Regarding the first part of the saying, finite man obviously lacks the omniscience [1] of our infinite God, so he cannot know the hearts and minds of his fellow man.
As to the latter part, fallen prideful man would hardly be inclined to expose his wickedness, as is presented in Matthew:15:18-20
and numerous other places: “…[t]hose things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: these are the things which defile a man….”
Clearly the Bible is at odds with psychology [3]’s view of the nature of man, which this pseudo-science [1] proclaims is inherently good. Therefore, any issues adversely affecting our lives are said to be caused by external factors, i.e., parents, friends, enemies, our environment, the media, etc. Moreover, the issue of sin cannot even be addressed in psychotherapy (except for those therapists who will negatively point to belief in it as an obstruction to achieving a healthy mental condition).
Numerous other problems with psychological counseling have been presented in the many volumes authored by Dr. Martin and Deidre Bobgan [4] and a host of others, including books by various researchers and academics. Even so, common sense is often a valued means for discerning what’s wrong with psychotherapy. For the believer in Jesus Christ and His Word, he or she is without excuse regarding turning from God’s Word to psychological counseling for help related to mental, emotional, and behavioral problems.
For all the claims of believing in the inerrancy and authority of Scripture, many, including biblical Christians and pastors, do not hold fast to the sufficiency of the Word of God, which the Bible claims. “…as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue” (2 Peter:1:3).
For a believer, what does not pertain to “life and godliness”? Isn’t the Bible wholly sufficient to meet the needs of our Christian walk? For example, Psalm:119:9 declares, “Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.” Psalm:1:1 adds an instruction that certainly relates to psychological counseling: “Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.”
Even a cursory review of the lives of the founders of psychotherapy and their latter-day disciples reveal their blatant ungodliness, let alone their false teachings. Consider 2 Timothy:3:16-17
: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be complete, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
What could psychological counseling possibly supply regarding “instruction in righteousness” and the enablement of a counselee to manifest “good works”? Nothing…and worse. The entire field of psychotherapy is spiritually bankrupt, creates confusion and hopelessness, intimidates through its deception and promotions, and keeps people in mental and emotional bondage. Many years ago, secular psychologist Dr. O. Hobart Mowrer, definitely not a biblical Christian, asked this question: “Has evangelical religion sold its birthright for a mess of psychological pottage?”
Time has shown that the answer is “yes!” That’s the bad of “the good, the bad, and the ugly” that has influenced counseling in the church. There is much more that could be said to inform Christians about the unbiblical teachings and practices of psychotherapy. And most of those things can be readily discerned by simply being a Berean (Acts:17:10-11
), those who compared what they were being taught with what the Word of God teaches. Furthermore, as has been noted, a biblical Christian has no grounds for turning to psychological counseling.
Yet many would agree and declare with great assurance that they have turned from psychology [3] to one of the programs that are a part of the Biblical Counseling Movement. That would include the Association of Certified Biblical Counselors (ACBC), the Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation (CCEF), and the Biblical Counseling Foundation (BCF). That may seem to be a good thing but sadly, it’s rarely the case.
What’s the problem?
Biblical counseling programs look to the Bible, for the most part, for its teachings about the curse of sin, the fallen nature of man, the ways and means of how we can be reconciled to God, and receiving the gift of eternal life by putting one’s faith in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sin. And they are acutely aware that such beliefs are rejected by the psychological approach to counseling. Nevertheless, they have drifted (maybe even rushed!) into some of the methods of clinical counseling that inevitably are counterproductive regarding the spiritual welfare of those involved, and that includes both the biblical counselor and the counselees.
There are a host of practices performed in Biblical Counseling that have no basis in the Scriptures. They include searching one’s past to discover the basis for one’s sin issues through personal data inventory (PDI), setting up a position of counselor within a fellowship, females counseling males and vice-versa, charging for counseling services, either within the church or external to the church, obtaining licenses from the state in order to counsel, earning degrees and certification in counseling, scheduled fifty-minute counseling sessions, and maintaining an air of professionalism.
None of those things can be found in the Bible as relating to ministering to brothers and sisters in Christ. They are in fact the modus operandi of psychological counseling that inevitably compromises biblical truth. As destructive as they are to ministering biblically—and they are really bad—they are not the ugly part, although they are related.
“Problem-centered counseling” is the chief cause of the ugliness.
The Bobgans underscore the unbiblical facets of problem-centered counseling in their books Christ-centered Ministry versus Problem-centered Counseling and Stop Counseling! Start Ministering! They begin by making an important point in their distinction between the terms “counseling” and “ministering.”
“Counseling” is a word that carries a lot of baggage, often bringing to mind psychological ways and means when that is never intended. They chose to distinguish the term counseling (because it is generic enough to cover both psychological and biblical counseling) and ministering, because it puts the emphasis on Christ and the teachings of His Word.
So, when does biblical counseling not become biblical ministering? In two very critical areas. First and foremost, when the counseling becomes problem-centered. Predictably, that leads away from a focus that is Jesus-centered and obedience-to-His-Word oriented. As the Bobgans point out, “We contend that as long as personal ministry remains problem-centered, and therefore person-focused, there will be less spiritual growth and more superficial fixing of the flesh.” Once a problem is “fixed,” it usually lingers on and comes up in future counseling sessions. Whether the counselor is secular or biblical he or she becomes the “fixer.” And the approach becomes a revolving door of dealing with new problem after problem.
On the other hand, the ministering approach focuses primarily on encouraging brothers and sisters in Christ to strengthen their walk with Him, thereby maturing the believer in the faith and attaining to godliness. Remember, godliness is one of the traits gained for believers in the verse telling us of the sufficiency of God’s Word (2 Peter:1:3). That will not only help reduce life’s troubles without the need for specifically addressing each one, but it will eliminate many future issues from developing and rearing their ugly heads. Besides that, it does away with dependence upon a fellow human being as the “fixer” and shifts one’s reliance to the Holy Spirit, where it should be.
The problem-centered method is common in the Biblical Counseling Movement, and that may seem reasonable to some. Counseling is in the business of resolving problems. Right? No, not according to Scripture. The problem-centered method is not biblical and has created situations that foster sin rather than bringing about repentance. And it often gets really ugly. For example, counseling, as we noted, is talk therapy. It is conversation. The counselor, in attempting to resolve the conflict between a husband and wife, has them air their problems (which is a problem in itself). That nearly always produces accusations, one against the other, which often results in consequences found and condemned in Ephesians:4:31: “Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice.”
The problem-centered exchange between the counselees often exhibits sins such as slander, self-serving biases, backbiting, blame-shifting, etc. Rather than a biblical counselor halting the sinful speaking, he or she often fosters it by asking probing questions that supposedly give insights that reveal the heart of the problem. The methodology of exploring problems in depth in search of solutions related to sin is an act of vanity. It goes nowhere and, in the process, it exacerbates the conflict. Furthermore, and most important, it’s a diversion from what the Bible clearly says, which can be understood and obeyed without difficulty.
Problem-centered counseling rarely, if ever, directs the counselees past the problems to Christ himself and their walk with Him. Some of the Biblical Counseling organizations have produced videos utilizing their people role playing as counselees. What’s presented in their own productions shows clearly their approach to counseling as I’ve just described. The Bobgans “are not saying ‘Do not talk about problems.’ We do listen to problems; but the way we respond and the direction we take differ from those in the biblical counseling movement.” The ministering approach does not major in addressing problems in contrast to the biblical counseling movement’s problem-centered approach. The goal of the ministering approach is to “turn the attention back to the Lord and His Word and the daily walk as soon as possible and as often as necessary. Of course there are exceptions, as when immediate action needs to be taken. For instance, if gross sin has been committed, such as a crime, physical or sexual abuse, or unfaithfulness in a marriage, there must be evidence and there must be action beyond the conversation of personal ministry.”
What of the good in regard to counseling in the church? I know of some, who, although they don’t make the distinctions between the terms “counseling” and “ministering,” nevertheless do not subscribe to either psychological counseling or the hybrid of that found in the Biblical Counseling Movement. They do not refer their people out to professional psychotherapists, do not set apart individuals as counselors, nor do they adhere to any methodology of counseling.
They believe that the full counsel of God, taught through verse-by-verse sermons, Bible studies with like-minded believers, individuals studying the Scripture, much time spent in prayer, and obedience to the Scriptures through the power of the Holy Spirit enables all biblical Christians to be fruitful and productive in their life in Christ. Those things are sufficient in dealing with life’s problems.
Hopefully, the Lord will use these two articles to speak to those who have been confused by, even deceived by, practices and experiences they have had either as counselors or counselees and be encouraged to “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thessalonians:5:21).
I believe the Bobgans have pointed the church back to the old paths, which the Holy Spirit inspired the prophet Jeremiah both to restore and to warn his people. “Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls” (Jeremiah:6:16). My prayer is that the church will not respond as the Israelites did: “But they said, We will not walk therein.”
I can’t think of a better way to end this message than to quote the conclusion given in the Bobgans’ book Stop Counseling! Start Ministering!
“We urge all believers to grow in grace, in faith, and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ and to be ready to minister to one another as the Lord provides opportunities and wisdom. New believers can certainly testify of the Lord’s work in them, which can be a great encouragement to others. As believers talk with one another, they will find opportunities to give a word of comfort, encouragement, and exhortation.
“They may have opportunities to remind one another of essential truths of Scripture that need to be emphasized. And, they may find themselves sought out for personal ministry by those who are enduring trials and various problems of living. Those who are trusting the Lord and His Word, who are giving themselves as ready vessels for the Holy Spirit to work through them, and who have been walking daily with the Lord through both sunny and stormy days are equipped to minister in some of the most difficult situations that fellow believers may be experiencing.
“We thank God for those individuals who, without counseling certificates, degrees, manuals, books, or programs, are not intimidated by a lack of counseling education and training and who minister to others just as believers were doing prior to the rise of the psychological and biblical counseling movements. We say to all who have been prepared by the Lord and are dependent on Him rather than on the wisdom of men: Go forth and minister by grace through faith.”’
Dr. Jimmy DeYoung unpacks Isaiah 38 http://xtremeprophecy.com/XtremeProphecy/HOME.html
‘Is evolution compatible with Adam and Eve and the Fall of Man?” as Keller says it is?
This question relates to an article by Time Keller on the Gospel Coalition website. Tim Keller (MDiv, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary; DMin, Westminster Theological Seminary) is founder of Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Manhattan, chairman of Redeemer City to City, and founder of The Gospel Coalition.
Tim Keller was asked: If biological evolution is true and there was no historical Adam and Eve, how can we know where sin and suffering came from?
His brief answer was: Belief in evolution can be compatible with a belief in a historical fall and a literal Adam and Eve. There are many unanswered questions around this issue.
Keller followed this statement with a detailed article, which is mainly the opinions of theologians about the style of literature in Genesis followed by Keller’s own interpretation of Romans 5 and I Corinthians 15.
Keller states he believes in an historical Adam and Eve but does not explain how this is compatible with evolution, since Darwin himself described evolution as the “war of nature” and claimed that long ages of famine and death brought about “the production of higher animals”. (Darwin, Origin of Species, 1859) This is the exact opposite of God’s description of the original created world as “very good”(Genesis 1:31).
So we wonder if has ever bothered to compare such processes to what God said in Genesis 1 and 2, or if Keller really understands evolution, and the processes claimed to bring it about, so let us do that.
Modern day evolutionists use less emotive terms than Darwin, such as “selective advantage” but the process is still the same. This is a flat denial of Genesis 1, which culminates with God looking at all that He had made and declaring it to be “very good” (Genesis 1:31). Darwin and his successors also regard human beings as simply “higher animals,” which is another complete denial of Genesis. Human beings are unique creations made in the image of God.
Keller tries to avoid the issue by referring to various theologians who clearly do not believe Genesis 1 and 2. For example Keller refers to Bruce Waltke who claims that forming Adam from dust of the ground could mean “the author might be speaking figuratively in the same way, meaning that God brought man into being through normal biological processes.”
Keller and Waltke (and their followers) should take note: there are no normal biological processes that turn dust into people. It works the other way around, i.e. people turn to dust – it is happening all the time, but that is a destructive death process and the opposite of a creative process.
Keller spends a lot of time naming names such as C. S. Lewis and hiding behind their opinions. After meandering through the opinions of such theologians Keller summarises his section on Genesis: “In summary, it looks like a responsible way of reading the text is to interpret Genesis 2-3 as the account of an historical event that really happened.” If that is what Keller really believes, he should say so straight away and affirm what the text actually states.
So let us clearly state what the Biblical text does says. The first thing we are told about the creation of human beings is they were special creations made in the image God (Genesis 1:27-28). We are then given details of how God did this in Genesis 2. Adam was made from “dust of the ground,” i.e. raw materials, not some pre-existing animal, and Eve was created from tissue taken from Adam. This is either an accurate description of what God actually did or it is a fairy tale. If it is a fairy tale it has no authority, and sceptics, liberal theologians and other unbelievers are justified in scoffing at it.
There is a theory promoted by John Stott and others that God somehow “stamped His image” on a pair of the evolving hominins that had come into being by evolutionary processes, but this cannot be reconciled with the description of the creation and man and woman in Genesis. For more a more detailed critique of this theory see the question: HUMAN EVOLUTION? Does it create any problems for Christians who believe it? Answer here.
Anyone reading Genesis 1 and 2 will straight away see that it is not compatible with the evolutionary story of how human beings arrived on the planet, and what a ‘non-good’ state the world was in if evolution was true.
Keller claims he believes in a historical Fall of Man but does not go into details concerning Genesis 3 or the chapters that follow, so let us provide them. After judging the serpent and promising a Saviour who would defeat the serpent, God sentenced Adam and Eve to death and cursed the ground. From then on the living world degenerated into violence, disease and general degradation – all things that are not good. If death, disease and struggle had already been in the world, these would not be punishments. Again, there is a clear incompatibility between Genesis and evolution.
Rather than dealing with the actual events of the Fall of Man, Keller goes straight to Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 and correctly states that Paul believed in a literal Adam and we should too. However, Keller reveals his own “pick and mix” attitude to the Bible when he states:
“The key for interpretation is the Bible itself. I don’t think the author of Genesis 1 wants us to take the “days” literally, but it is clear that Paul definitely does want readers to take Adam and Eve literally. When you refuse to take a biblical author literally when he clearly wants you to do so, you have moved away from the traditional understanding of biblical authority.” (word “days” in inverted commas in original)
What Keller really means is that he doesn’t want to take the days of Genesis 1 literally, presumably so as not to upset those who believe in an old earth and millions of years of evolution.
If Keller wants to use the Bible as the key to interpreting itself, let’s see what it says about the days in Genesis. In Exodus we are told that God spoke and wrote down the Ten Commandments, which include this statement:
“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labour, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” (Exodus 20:8-11)
It is clear from the context God is speaking about real days, not some vague long periods or symbolic times. We would also remind Keller that the Creator who spoke and wrote down these words is Christ, who made all things (John 1:3).
For further details see the question: CREATION DAYS: Were the days of creation, as described in Genesis 1, real 24 hour days? Answer here.
Keller goes on to explain how we can benefit from Christ’s death. He states: “We are in covenant with him, not because we are related biologically but through faith.”
This is half-truth. Yes, we are in a covenantal relationship with Christ through faith, but it is only effective because we are biologically related, and Christ is our Kinsman Redeemer. Only a relative can be a Kinsman Redeemer. If we go back through the generations, the entire human race can be subsumed into Adam. All human beings, including Christ in His incarnate form, are descendants of Adam, so we are biologically related to both Adam and Christ, and that is why the covenant applies to us.
Keller skips over the real link between Adam, Christ and us, and completely ignores how death really came into the world. Paul makes it very clear that Adam’s sin brought death into this world, and Christ’s death and resurrection brings eternal life in the next. This is the real basis of Paul’s “one man” principle in Romans 5. One man, Adam, brought sin and death into the world; one man, Christ, paid the penalty, which made forgiveness and new life freely available for all people.
Finally, we have a challenge for Keller and all evangelical Christians who believe that Christ’s death and resurrection will bring them eternal life in a New Heaven and Earth. Think carefully about this question: What will that new world be like? If God created the first earth through a long process of struggle and death, and declared that to be “very good” can we trust Him to keep those things out of the New Heaven and Earth that Christ’s death and resurrection enables us to live in for eternity? Sadly the Gospel Coalition is increasingly characterised by such half truths concerning the gospel. Wake up guys!’https://askjohnmackay.com/tim-keller-on-evolution-adam-is-evolution-compatible-with-adam-and-eve-and-the-fall-of-man-keller-says-it-is/
‘Our country is divided. Many say it is more divided than any time since the Civil War. Most of you readers live here, so this is no surprise to you. Many articles and even whole books have been written in the last decade on the division in the United States, but the present situation provoked some to write in the last month on the subject. The following paragraph represents writing in the last month on severe division in America.
The City Journal published an article by Andrew Klavan, titled, “At the Heart of Our Divisions.” Klavan, part of Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire, tries to explain the division as others have. Newsweek reports that a “Majority of Trump Voters Want to Split the Nation Into ‘Red’ and ‘Blue’ Halves.” The Las Vegas Sun reported it this way:
A new political poll offers an alarming look at the state of American unity and our population’s respect for some of the nation’s core values.
The poll, conducted by the University of Virginia’s nonprofit Center for Politics, shows that 52% of respondents who voted for former President Donald Trump were in favor of splitting the country into red and blue states, while 41% of voters for President Joe Biden agree with the idea. More than 2,000 voters participated in the poll, nearly equally divided between those supporting Trump and Biden.
Ed Kilgore at The Intelligencer, part of New York Magazine, writes, “No, We Can’t Get a National Divorce There’s growing sentiment for secession, particularly on the right. It should be rejected.” At Substack, Claremont senior fellow David Reaboi writes, “National Divorce Is Expensive, But It’s Worth Every Penny.” Karol Markowicz writes at the New York Post, “Sorry, but a national split up just won’t work.” Steven Malanga at the City Journal writes, “The New Secession Movement.” Conservative commentator Rich Lowry writes at Politico of all places, “A Surprising Share of Americans Wants to Break Up the Country. Here’s Why They’re Wrong.” Dan Rodricks writes at the Baltimore Sun, “Civil war unlikely, but the nation’s present course could still be disastrous.” Most of these were written in the last week, and there are more.
Okay, so there’s division. Everyone can agree with that. Putin of Russia and Xi of China smile. Why though? I’ve read or heard a lot of different reasons: media, tribalism, the education system, the deep state, and more. Klavan lists reasons in the first paragraph of his post. Those are typical, whole books written about them, but I believe these are surface reasons, I would call, non-worldview reasons, that are superficial and don’t dig deep enough.
My take on the acute and bitter division between states, people, and parties in the United States, I want to give credit, corresponds to something Nancy Pearcey writes about in her book, Total Truth. She explains a division portrayed by the lower and upper stories of a building or house with the lower story being “facts” and the upper story being “values.” Today you hear a lot about facts in the media, news, and schools. This is the “science is real” at the top of the leftist value sign. In this upper and lower story bifurcation, values are probably not what you think they are. Let me explain.
God is One. Truth, which proceeds from God, is also one. Pearcey’s proposition is “total truth,” the title of her book. There are not two stories that treat facts different than values, where values are constructed, personal and subjective. You can’t really know these with certainty. No, with God His natural laws, facts or science, are no different than moral laws. If you fall from the edge of a cliff, gravity sends you down to destruction. Breaking moral laws also destroys. Worse even. God is the Author of both.
Premoderns took a transcendent view of the world. Truth, goodness, and beauty, the transcendentals, all related to God. God transcending the world is the basis of the transcendentals. He’s not part of the world. He created it and having created it, He is separate from it. As James 1 says, that with God there is no shadow of turning. God is holy. He is Self-existent and immutable. Nothing affects Him. All meaning comes from God, so truth, goodness, and beauty, the transcendentals, are objective.
This world is God’s world. Even if someone doesn’t believe in God, they are living in His world. This is reality. The division breaks down into those who live in reality, recognition that this world functions according to laws according to which everyone must live, even if they reject the God of the Bible, and then those who don’t live in reality.
The ones not living in reality, which are one side of the division in the United States, see the top story, values, how they want to see them. It’s one reason they are called “values,” and not “morals” or “moral laws.” Using “values” is using language with power. Incidentally, part of critical theory is perfecting this language for use in reconstructing reality.
Looking at the world like two sides of the campus, religion, art, etc. on one side and then science, math, and engineering on the other, the blue part of the country thinks they can assign their own meaning on one side of the campus. They ultimately don’t want God in charge. They don’t want objective values that clash with what they want, so they make up their own and dismiss God or make up their own god that approves of their values. This is the basis for the Democrat party booing God when voting on their political platform in 2012. This is also how they justify killing babies.
The truth is that the blue states, people, etc. now assign their own meaning to science as well. They call it science like hanging out a shingle, pulling science out of a Cracker Jack box. Their subjectivity on the upper story, think of it as bad plumbing, has burst through into the lower story like a broken pipe. That side can’t tell you that a girl is a girl. This is one reason why many don’t want to go to college in this country anymore. They know it’s a racket that is not living in reality.
One side of the division in the country wants the nation to be called like it really is. Borders are representative of this. You can’t be a nation when you don’t protect, not just protect — how about acknowledge that you have a border. Whatever one thinks about the virus and masks and the vaccination, it’s understandable why a big chunk of the country doesn’t trust authority on this. I’m not going to even get into what Fauci has said. He doesn’t speak science and this is demonstrative on multiple occasions.
The government, the media that supports it, and now even corporations are all in on the lies. They allot whatever meaning they want and they expect you to receive it. If you don’t, now they’ll even prosecute you. They’ll fire you. If you don’t put on their particular pin, which supports whatever lie that they deem correct, you might lose your job.
I believe most churches too have succumbed to the two stories I’ve described. They put beauty, music, dress in the personal, the subjective, the top story. They capitulate on basic doctrine and practice to accommodate for popularity and numbers. Their targets see the world according to the lie of these two stories. They know it and they concede to it. This does not bode well for the country. Even if the nation does split into two parts, what will happen to the red side when the churches have taken the same basic approach to truth? This is the most fundamental aspect of worldliness in churches today.
Another metaphor to demonstrate what the division of truth, the two story view, does to the country is a rudderless ship. The country has no certain belief to hold it together or to give it direction. It moves according to whatever current or wind produced by the world, like a float or a bob on an aimless sea. The force of popularity, what scripture would call lust, the combined desires of the population, decides what is it’s truth, it’s goodness, and it’s beauty, whatever each of these is in their own eyes.
Everything above explains the division in the country. Maybe the next question is, what is the solution to this division? That, my friend, is much more difficult.’https://kentbrandenburg.com/2021/10/10/what-is-the-primary-cause-of-division-in-the-united-states/
whatyareckon 