Do Baptists appear to be intellectually challenged baboons...?

[PrincetonGuy]

You won the prize!

God always blesses faith in His Word.

Blessings,
H.

God always blesses faith His word; but He never blesses faith in a careless and reckless interpretation of His word. God has blessed man with the ability to learn by observation, but men who refuse His blessing remain in ignorance and its woeful consequences. God has blessed man with the ability to learn by studying the Bible in a thorough and responsible manner, learning not only what the Holy Spirit has shown us in His word, but also what the Holy Spirit has shown others in His word.

A Baptist once wrote,

“In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have laboured before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others.”

Charles Haddon Spurgeon


Contemporary exegetical commentaries on the Hebrew text of Genesis tell us what the Holy Spirit has revealed to others about His word through their studying the Bible in a thorough and responsible manner, taking advantage of the tools for learning with which God has blessed us.

 

[phoenixdem]

The above quote from Spurgeon gives part of what he was talking about. I have read many of Spurgeon's sermons and I don't doubt that he would call Darwin's Theory of Evolution anything short of a work of Satan.

Here is the rest of Spurgeon's remarks and it is a verbatim continuation of the above quote. Bible Commentaries, Why Bother? « Symphony of Scripture

"So, when I speak of the blessing of commentaries, my message is not for those hypocrites who think themselves “above” using the gifts that Christ Himself gave His church… but for you who are content to learn from holy men, taught of God, and mighty in the Scriptures.

I realize it has been the fashion of late years to speak against the use of commentaries. And if there were any fear that the expositions of men like Matthew Henry, Gill, Scott, and others, would be exalted to the level of being equal to Scripture, we would join the chorus of objectors. But the existence of, or approach toward such a danger we do not suspect. No, the temptations of our times lie rather in people wandering off course by following their own vain ideas and their own subjective interpretations, rather than a “too slavish” following of accepted guides. (A respectable acquaintance with the opinions of the giants of the past, might have saved many an erratic thinker from wild interpretations and outrageous inferences!). But, unfortunately, it’s more common to find that those who despise the prudent use of commentaries are men who have no sort of true acquaintance wit them; in their case, it is the opposite of familiarity which has bred contempt. It is a lack of familiarity that has caused their hatred of commentaries!”"
- Charles Spurgeon, “Lectures to My Students,” Vol. 4.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Whoa...brain hasn't arrived in this timezone yet. To sum up: the Bible is inerrant, evolution is a lie from the depths of hell.

Please quote from the Bible where it says that evolution is a lie from the depths of hell. Please quote from an evolutionary biologist who has said that the Bible is not inerrant. Please quote from the Bible where it says that Moses compiled the Book of Genesis any differently than Luke compiled his gospel.

Luke 1:1. Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,
2. just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
3. it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;
4. so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (NASB, 1995)

Where in the Bible does it say that Moses did not “compile an account” of creation based upon the information that was “handed down” to him? Where in the Bible does it say that your understanding of the inspiration of the Bible is more accurate than Luke’s understanding of it?

I believe that Moses (or the final redactor of Genesis) “compile[d] an account” of creation based upon the information that was “handed down” to him, and that God, in the person of the Holy Spirit, through Moses (or the final redactor of Genesis), wove together the information, giving us the first eleven chapters in the Book of Genesis. What kind of information was available to Moses for him to compile those eleven chapters? Hundreds of years of research have given to us the answer to that question. He had available to him many legends, myths, and epic tales of the creation, the fall of man, the wrath of God, and mans salvation from the floodwaters, all of which were handed down by peoples who preceded him and his people.

 

[phoenixdem]

Please quote from the Bible where it says that evolution is a lie from the depths of hell. Please quote from an evolutionary biologist who has said that the Bible is not inerrant. Please quote from the Bible where it says that Moses compiled the Book of Genesis any differently than Luke compiled his gospel.

Luke 1:1. Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,
2. just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
3. it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;
4. so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (NASB, 1995)

Where in the Bible does it say that Moses did not “compile an account” of creation based upon the information that was “handed down” to him? Where in the Bible does it say that your understanding of the inspiration of the Bible is more accurate than Luke’s understanding of it?

I believe that Moses (or the final redactor of Genesis) “compile[d] an account” of creation based upon the information that was “handed down” to him, and that God, in the person of the Holy Spirit, through Moses (or the final redactor of Genesis), wove together the information, giving us the first eleven chapters in the Book of Genesis. What kind of information was available to Moses for him to compile those eleven chapters? Hundreds of years of research have given to us the answer to that question. He had available to him many legends, myths, and epic tales of the creation, the fall of man, the wrath of God, and mans salvation from the floodwaters, all of which were handed down by peoples who preceded him and his people.

The Scriptures don't mention evolution or even the concept. That should be revealing.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The above quote from Spurgeon gives part of what he was talking about. I have read many of Spurgeon's sermons and I don't doubt that he would call Darwin's Theory of Evolution anything short of a work of Satan.

Here is the rest of Spurgeon's remarks and it is a verbatim continuation of the above quote. Bible Commentaries, Why Bother? « Symphony of Scripture

"So, when I speak of the blessing of commentaries, my message is not for those hypocrites who think themselves “above” using the gifts that Christ Himself gave His church… but for you who are content to learn from holy men, taught of God, and mighty in the Scriptures.

I realize it has been the fashion of late years to speak against the use of commentaries. And if there were any fear that the expositions of men like Matthew Henry, Gill, Scott, and others, would be exalted to the level of being equal to Scripture, we would join the chorus of objectors. But the existence of, or approach toward such a danger we do not suspect. No, the temptations of our times lie rather in people wandering off course by following their own vain ideas and their own subjective interpretations, rather than a “too slavish” following of accepted guides. (A respectable acquaintance with the opinions of the giants of the past, might have saved many an erratic thinker from wild interpretations and outrageous inferences!). But, unfortunately, it’s more common to find that those who despise the prudent use of commentaries are men who have no sort of true acquaintance wit them; in their case, it is the opposite of familiarity which has bred contempt. It is a lack of familiarity that has caused their hatred of commentaries!”"
- Charles Spurgeon, “Lectures to My Students,” Vol. 4.

Your quote is inaccurate. Spurgeon wrote,

In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have laboured before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others. My chat this afternoon is not for those great originals, but for you who are content to learn of holy men, taught of God, and mighty in the Scriptures. It has been the fashion of late years to speak against the use of commentaries. If there were any fear that the expositions of Matthew Henry, Gill, Scott, and others, would be exalted into Christian Targums, we would join the chorus of objectors, but the existence or approach of such a danger we do not suspect. The temptations of our times lie rather in empty pretensions to novelty of sentiment, than in a slavish following of accepted guides. A respectable acquaintance with the opinions of the giants of the past, might have saved many an erratic thinker from wild interpretations and outrageous inferences. Usually, we have found the despisers of commentaries to be men who have no sort of acquaintance with them, in their case, it is the opposite of familiarity which has bred contempt….
​

Spurgeon, C. H. Commenting & Commentaries. 1876.

Perhaps you are quoting from a posthumous revised edition of Spurgeon’s lectures.


Had Spurgeon lived in the age of science, and had he had the opportunity to read the commentaries on Genesis by Hamilton, Skinner, Wenham, and Westermann—would not his understanding of the first eleven chapters of Genesis been very different?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The Scriptures don't mention evolution or even the concept. That should be revealing.

The Scriptures do not mention a spherical earth or even the concept. That should be revealing! Let us not join the flat earth society out of desperation to maintain an interpretation of the Scriptures that is responsible for millions of young people mistakenly concluding that the Bible contradicts science and hence cannot be a source of truth.

 

[phoenixdem]

The Scriptures do not mention a spherical earth or even the concept. That should be revealing! Let us not join the flat earth society out of desperation to maintain an interpretation of the Scriptures that is responsible for millions of young people mistakenly concluding that the Bible contradicts science and hence cannot be a source of truth.

Are you changing now from evolution to science denied by the Holy Bible? Haven't you been talking about evolution? I think the rest of us were. Because, I would be happy to say that science itself isn't contradicted by the Scriptures. So, let's make up our minds here. Are we talking about evolution or science?

 

[supersoldier71]

I'd said to myself that I was done with this discussion, yet here I am:

Let us not forget that no one can gain any sort of accurate understanding of the Holy Scriptures without the insights given by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I point this out because if we as believers think that our logic, our facts, or our ability to reconcile the Bible with modern science will move one person's heart towardds Christ, well then we've lost our way, and our ability to do the mission that Christ has sent us to do.

A question for those of us who are being saved: is there nothing in the Bible that makes perfect sense now, that seemed foolish before you were saved?

Further, the Message of the Cross WILL be foreign to those who seek answers apart from God.

Those who seek to overturn the simple and plain language of Genesis 1-3, seek to understand the Bible through their own observations and understanding, when the Bible is clear throughout that this is doomed to failure.

I've said more than I intended. I will say no more because the only way anyone changes anything is if their heart changes, and only God changes hearts, so instead of arguing and debating, I'll pray.

Good day and God bless.

 

[Hupomone10]

The above quote from Spurgeon gives part of what he was talking about. I have read many of Spurgeon's sermons and I don't doubt that he would call Darwin's Theory of Evolution anything short of a work of Satan.

Here is the rest of Spurgeon's remarks and it is a verbatim continuation of the above quote. Bible Commentaries, Why Bother? « Symphony of Scripture

"So, when I speak of the blessing of commentaries, my message is not for those hypocrites who think themselves “above” using the gifts that Christ Himself gave His church… but for you who are content to learn from holy men, taught of God, and mighty in the Scriptures.

I realize it has been the fashion of late years to speak against the use of commentaries. And if there were any fear that the expositions of men like Matthew Henry, Gill, Scott, and others, would be exalted to the level of being equal to Scripture, we would join the chorus of objectors. But the existence of, or approach toward such a danger we do not suspect. No, the temptations of our times lie rather in people wandering off course by following their own vain ideas and their own subjective interpretations, rather than a “too slavish” following of accepted guides. (A respectable acquaintance with the opinions of the giants of the past, might have saved many an erratic thinker from wild interpretations and outrageous inferences!). But, unfortunately, it’s more common to find that those who despise the prudent use of commentaries are men who have no sort of true acquaintance wit them; in their case, it is the opposite of familiarity which has bred contempt. It is a lack of familiarity that has caused their hatred of commentaries!”"
- Charles Spurgeon, “Lectures to My Students,” Vol. 4.

Thank you Phoenix.

Keeping things in context.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I'd said to myself that I was done with this discussion, yet here I am:

Let us not forget that no one can gain any sort of accurate understanding of the Holy Scriptures without the insights given by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I point this out because if we as believers think that our logic, our facts, or our ability to reconcile the Bible with modern science will move one person's heart towardds Christ, well then we've lost our way, and our ability to do the mission that Christ has sent us to do.

A question for those of us who are being saved: is there nothing in the Bible that makes perfect sense now, that seemed foolish before you were saved?

Further, the Message of the Cross WILL be foreign to those who seek answers apart from God.

Those who seek to overturn the simple and plain language of Genesis 1-3, seek to understand the Bible through their own observations and understanding, when the Bible is clear throughout that this is doomed to failure.

I've said more than I intended. I will say no more because the only way anyone changes anything is if their heart changes, and only God changes hearts, so instead of arguing and debating, I'll pray.

Good day and God bless.

There are many spirits and there is no shortage of people listening to them. The Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that their spirit is God; the Mormon’s believe that their spirit is God; and very many Christians of very many different beliefs all believe that their spirit is God. God, however, is not a hodgepodge of conflicting theological concepts—He is the God of truth, and He reveals His truth to those persons who honestly and diligently seek Him—not in laziness or slothfulness, but in consecrated prayer and the arduous study of His word. Those persons who invest little in prayer and study can expect to receive little in return. Those persons, however, who commit themselves to a lifetime of consecrated prayer and the arduous study of His word, can expect to receive much in return. Nonetheless, it has been my observation that those persons who have received the least from God believe that they have received the most—and they haughtily and superciliously mock those who toil and travail before God on their knees and who invest their lives in the study of His word that they may might be taught by Him.

 

[Mikecpking]

Here is someone's signature which I think should be the correct position:

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

 

[joshua41]

Let us not forget that no one can gain any sort of accurate understanding of the Holy Scriptures without the insights given by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I point this out because if we as believers think that our logic, our facts, or our ability to reconcile the Bible with modern science will move one person's heart towardds Christ, well then we've lost our way, and our ability to do the mission that Christ has sent us to do.

I will not base my relationship with God on I know is a lie. I am tired of listening to fellow Christians make up false propaganda arguments against evolution (not you but just in general from my experiences at churches).

Don't get me wrong. I know that all things are possible with God. However, physical evidence of the world doesn't support a literal interpretation of Genesis creation account.

And, I do not believe that our ability to reconcile with modern science will move a person's heart towards Christ. What moves a person's heart toward Christ is the great understanding of undeserved grace and love that God showers us with.

There shouldn't be a rift between people who do and don't accept a creationism viewpoint. We are all chasing the same goal.

 

[phoenixdem]

I will not base my relationship with God on I know is a lie. I am tired of listening to fellow Christians make up false propaganda arguments against evolution (not you but just in general from my experiences at churches).

Don't get me wrong. I know that all things are possible with God. However, physical evidence of the world doesn't support a literal interpretation of Genesis creation account.

And, I do not believe that our ability to reconcile with modern science will move a person's heart towards Christ. What moves a person's heart toward Christ is the great understanding of undeserved grace and love that God showers us with.

There shouldn't be a rift between people who do and don't accept a creationism viewpoint. We are all chasing the same goal.

You are certainly free to believe what you will. You do give those of us who have opposing viewpoints the same leeway?

 

[Hupomone10]

Regarding missing links...

credits to Dr. Duane Gish, author and speaker, Ph.D. in biochemistry. "Dinosaurs By Design."

 

[joshua41]

You are certainly free to believe what you will. You do give those of us who have opposing viewpoints the same leeway?

I have no problem with a literal interpretation of Genesis. I also respect that interpretation.

I am just against people who try to argue a creationist viewpoint in terms of modern science.

Do you find the other way around to be a legitimate interpretation of Genesis?

 

[sealacamp]

I am just against people who try to argue a creationist viewpoint in terms of modern science.

Isn't that a hoot since the entire methodology of science what created by Christians who believed they could find and understand the laws of nature that God created and substantiate Gods written word. So now, according to what you stated, and what many believe these days, Gods word has become secondary and subservient to the very methodology that was developed by His people to substantiate His word. Yes that is very funny indeed.

Sealacamp

 

[EdMa]

I have no problem with a literal interpretation of Genesis. I also respect that interpretation.

I am just against people who try to argue a creationist viewpoint in terms of modern science.

Do you find the other way around to be a legitimate interpretation of Genesis?

Creation.com have a lot of those answers.

 

[phoenixdem]

Creation.com have a lot of those answers.

Thanks for the website. Did you see this?

Evolutionary Christianity?

Add emotionalism plus evolutionary scientism and you’ve got a plea to be a theistic evolutionist

Evolutionary Christianity

 

[joshua41]

I read the entry at the bottom of the page. I think I am missing something from your point of view.

How does believing in a literal theistic evolution or a figurative theistic evolution water down the Bible and the Gospel?

Thanks

 

[phoenixdem]

I read the entry at the bottom of the page. I think I am missing something from your point of view.

How does believing in a literal theistic evolution or a figurative theistic evolution water down the Bible and the Gospel?

Thanks

I just got back home. I've been on the run today. To make my response shorter, two articles on your question appear below. Basically, the entire Holy Bible rests on its foundational teachings.

The importance of foundations

Importance of foundations

Does Creation Really Matter?

Does creation really matter?