Theological Liberalism

[Marvin Knox]

........... But to many others, denying evolution is akin to espousing a flat earth or denying that the sky is usually blue. Just saying, that's the way people think.

Almost every evolutionist I know of thinks that believing in the resurrection of the dead is akin to espousing a flat earth or denying that the sky is usually blue.

Some theistic evolutionist Christians may take a different viewpoint. But then, once you make a theological leap which eliminates the Biblical concept that death came through the transgression of one man and life comes through the obedience of one man --- all bets are off.

That's the trouble with liberalism. Once you've adopted a new view there's no appealing to the old standards to test the truth of what you now believe.

Whether we are talking about theistic evolution or a view of the salvation process which eliminates the sovereignty of God - as I've charged in the past - one almost has to believe in a different God than the Bible teaches us about to hold certain views.

But, like I said, "Being a liberal means never having to say you're sorry".

 

[lesliedellow]

Almost every evolutionist I know of thinks that believing in the resurrection of the dead is akin to espousing a flat earth or denying that the sky is usually blue.

Clearly you do not know too many evolutionists - or at least not those of a theistic persuassion.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Clearly you do not know too many evolutionists - or at least not those of a theistic persuassion.

In case you missed it.

Some theistic evolutionist Christians may take a different viewpoint. But then, once you make a theological leap which eliminates the Biblical concept that death came through the transgression of one man and life comes through the obedience of one man --- all bets are off.

But - you're right.

Most of the people I know well enough to talk personally at length with about the resurrection of Jesus Christ are Bible believers.

Forums like this are the about the only place where I have a great deal of discussion about what the Bible teaches with people who don't believe at least the most rudimentary concepts found in it.

 

[Aseyesee]

What makes a person theologically liberal?

Technically ... their soul.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Almost every evolutionist I know of thinks that believing in the resurrection of the dead is akin to espousing a flat earth or denying that the sky is usually blue.

Some theistic evolutionist Christians may take a different viewpoint. But then, once you make a theological leap which eliminates the Biblical concept that death came through the transgression of one man and life comes through the obedience of one man --- all bets are off.

That's the trouble with liberalism. Once you've adopted a new view there's no appealing to the old standards to test the truth of what you now believe.

Whether we are talking about theistic evolution or a view of the salvation process which eliminates the sovereignty of God - as I've charged in the past - one almost has to believe in a different God than the Bible teaches us about to hold certain views.

But, like I said, "Being a liberal means never having to say you're sorry".

The trouble with denying evolution is you are then . . . wrong. Trying to convince people about how great your theological beliefs are, while parading a clearly wrong notion about the history of life and the history of the universe, is like trying to sail your boat while dragging the anchor.

 

[lesliedellow]

Forums like this are the about the only place where I have a great deal of discussion about what the Bible teaches with people who don't believe at least the most rudimentary concepts found in it.

So Francis Collins isn't a Bible believer, even though he uses that phrase to describe himself.

 

[Marvin Knox]

..............Trying to convince people about how great your theological beliefs are, while parading a clearly wrong notion about the history of life and the history of the universe, is like trying to sail your boat while dragging the anchor.

You're right.

And - trying to convince people that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and that He therefore is worthy of our trust for eternity - in spite of what so called accepted science tells us is impossible - is like trying to sail our boat while dragging an anchor.

But, since the Holy Spirit is well capable of convicting people of the truth when it is preached to them, we have no need to compromise what the scriptures clearly say in order to make our messages more palatable to the world.

 

[Marvin Knox]

So Francis Collins isn't a Bible believer, even though he uses that phrase to describe himself.

To the extent that he denies one of the most rudimentary concepts found in the Bible - NO.

The same could be said about Hugh Ross, Paul of Eugene, and you.

Does that mean such liberals aren't saved - NO.

 

[lesliedellow]

You're right.

And - trying to convince people that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and that He therefore is worthy of our trust for eternity - in spite of what so called accepted science tells us is impossible - is like trying to sail our boat while dragging an anchor.

"So called science" is dead right in the absence of divine intervention. The regular operation of the laws of nature is all that it can talk about, and it is all that it does talk about.

 

[Marvin Knox]

"So called science" is dead right in the absence of divine intervention. The regular operation of the laws of nature is all that it can talk about, and it is all that it does talk about.

Except when it talks about evolution.

 

[lesliedellow]

To the extent that he denies one of the most rudimentary concepts found in the Bible - NO.

The same could be said about Hugh Ross, Paul of Eugene, and you.

Does that mean such liberals aren't saved - NO.

He doesn't deny the concept of creation by God, and he doesn't deny the doctrine of original sin, but he does reject the idea of six day creation.

 

[lesliedellow]

Except when it talks about evolution.

No exceptions.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Regarding accepted scientific inquiry, you and I said,

The regular operation of the laws of nature is all that it can talk about, and it is all that it does talk about.

Except when it talks about evolution.

No exceptions.

There are indeed exceptions and the "theory" of evolution presented as settled scientific fact is one of them.

Most true and honest scientists now admit that "evolution" as most have come to think of it is simply not supported by the facts.

* Regarding the idea of so called Bible believer's failure to argue against the resurrection while at the same time arguing for theistic evolution --- IMO this is a perfect example of why liberalism is so deplorable when it occurs in the area of theology.

This juxtaposition of doctrines is a prime example of people who claim to be Christians fulfilling the likes of the following scripture pictures.

“"O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!”

“… they do all their deeds to be noticed by men….”

“…Woe to you when all men speak well of you,…..”

Liberal Christians know that many within Christianity have caved to the flavor of the day when it comes to believing in evolution as established fact. For that reason they realize that they will not likely be condemned as heretics for teaching theistic evolution.

At the same time teaching it allows them to remain in the good graces of the non-believers in society and not be laughed to scorn for taking what the scriptures obviously appear to say as fact.

When it comes to the resurrection – most non-believers in society simply shrug off statements about the resurrection as “just religion” (particularly in the Easter season). Many non-believers are, after all, religious as well. Therefore people who claim to be Bible believers feel no great pressure from society to renounce the resurrection.


At the same time these nominal believers realize that if they renounce their belief in the resurrection they will be quickly shunned by the Christian community (which they dearly want to continue to associate with) as heretics and will be looked down upon and even shunned.

So the upshot of all this is that people who claim to be Bible believers often acquiesce to the pseudo science of evolution by espousing theistic evolution while holding to a belief in the resurrection.

All this in spite of the fact that there is more truly scientific reason to renounce the resurrection as “against the laws of nature” then there is to renounce evolution as “against the laws of nature”.

So what we have here IMO is a deplorable situation where so called Christians weigh out where they are likely to come out looking good vs. looking bad to their peers (both Christian and secular). Then they bend their theology in such a way as to make them look their best before men and ignore the fact that they are doing something utterly deplorable in God’s eyes.

I.E. – Liberalism in religious matters is usually well calculated (i.e. sinful IMO) whereas liberalism in secular matters is usually acquired by osmosis.

I would never spend a great deal of time arguing against liberal views with a non-believer. I expect them be in the dark concerning truth and even expect to sin.

But with believers I will take every opportunity I am given to call them on their sin in an effort to bring them to repentance.

 

[lesliedellow]

Most true and honest scientists now admit that "evolution" as most have come to think of it is simply not supported by the facts.

He must be close to unique, but here is a YEC who for once seems to have some idea what he is talking about:

Todd's Blog: The truth about evolution

 

[jimmyjimmy]

So what we have here IMO is a deplorable situation where so called Christians weigh out where they are likely to come out looking good vs. looking bad to their peers (both Christian and secular). Then they bend their theology in such a way as to make them look their best before men and ignore the fact that they are doing something utterly deplorable in God’s eyes.

I think this is the way it happens, in many cases. What those who do such things don't realize is that when one turns his back on truth he becomes less and less capable of seeing error. In other words, you do irreputable harm to you cognitive faculties just as when you lie you have less ability to tell the truth.

 

[lesliedellow]

I think this is the way it happens, in many cases. What those who do such things don't realize is that when one turns his back on truth he becomes less and less capable of seeing error. In other words, you do irreputable harm to you cognitive faculties just as when you lie you have less ability to tell the truth.

As clear a case of projection as ever I have seen.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I think this is the way it happens, in many cases. What those who do such things don't realize is that when one turns his back on truth he becomes less and less capable of seeing error. In other words, you do irreputable harm to you cognitive faculties just as when you lie you have less ability to tell the truth.

This is an absolutely Biblical concept.

“Therefore take care how you listen; for whoever has, to him shall more be given; and whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has shall be taken away from him.” Luke 8:18

 

[lesliedellow]

This is an absolutely Biblical concept.

“Therefore take care how you listen; for whoever has, to him shall more be given; and whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has shall be taken away from him.” Luke 8:18

And you suppose that is a recommendation to use the Biblas a source of scientific theories. Something it was never meant to be.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

. . . . There are indeed exceptions and the "theory" of evolution presented as settled scientific fact is one of them.
Most true and honest scientists now admit that "evolution" as most have come to think of it is simply not supported by the facts. . . . .

You are sadly out of touch regarding the status of evolution theory among scientists. Evolution is widely accepted among scientists, so much so that creationists complain they cannot get a hearing for their attempts to deny evolution. And the scientists who do so will seriously take umbrage if you try to characterize them as anything but "true" and "honest". A scientist has to bring truth to the table - it is the medium of exchange in science. Men like Carl Sagan, Neal Degrasse Tyson, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, they bring real evidence and real logic to the table.

Evolution denial has had its chance for over 150 years and continues to fail where it counts . . . in evaluating and explaining the evidence. Denying evolution is no longer a reasonable stance.

 

[Marvin Knox]

And you suppose that is a recommendation to use the Biblas a source of scientific theories. Something it was never meant to be.

NO - I suppose that it's a recommendation to believe what the Bible teaches - lest God turn you over to a reprobate mind wherewith you believe other ever compounding lies of the enemy.

I was first introduced to evolution as fact close to 60 years ago. What I was taught as fact quickly undermined my young faith and I became a strong agnostic and anti Christian antagonist. I immersed myself in sin and remained in that condition until I was in my 30's.

A further revisiting of the subject of evolution was the prime reason for my coming back to Christianity. When I realized that I had been lied to in school with the saturation of my young mind through my college years in evolutionary thought - I deeply resented it.

Understanding that evolution was not a fact at all was the prime vehicle the Lord used to reign me back into the Kingdom of God.

Virtually no scientists now believe in evolution as I was taught in school many years ago.

The hypothesis of evolution changes every year; if one theory is said to be fact, but then a year later is shown to be wrong, then how can it be fact in the first place? A true fact is something that never changes.

First comes theistic evolution then comes a denial of death being the wages of sin. First comes an abandonment of the authority of the scriptures in any meaningful way then comes a denial that sin itself came through the transgression of the first Adam and victory over sin comes through the obedience of the second or last Adam.

Not that there has to be a sequential cause and effect for these beliefs. IMO one has to disregard the second set of truths in order to believe the first.

I.E. - belief in theistic evolution requires a lack of belief in the basic truths concerning the cause and cure for our human condition.