The title of my blog post covers three subjects that are all intertwined into one recent experience that I had in requesting a conversation with a professing Christian Scientist.
You see Creationism is under attack and many Christians and Pastors alike are buying the lie without any sense of digging into the scriptures. It’s often boils down to sentiments among family, friends, pastors, scientists and colleagues something like the following, “Please don’t argue this point anymore as it really does not matter. How God created is not as important as Who created it. Let’s all just get along and love one another in Jesus and be happy.” When it comes to Genesis chapter one I have heard about every possible theory you could imagine accept for one theory: That is, the theory of heresy.
(As you read this please note that someone accused of being a heretic does not imply that that person is intentionally evil, perverse, unethical or immoral. A heretic is simple someone who teaches wrong doctrine that leads to deception from the truth of God's Word. Someone who is heretical or becomes heretical is supposed to be warned so they may correct their error and continue in THE WAY. If no repentance or change occurs regardless of how honest, sincere, kind and loving someone may be, they nonetheless are in serious error and need to be barred from continued influence over the body of Christ. Today we have been so infiltrated with heresy that we do not even have the courage to deal with it, or for that matter, the discernment to recognize it. Please name me even one heretical teacher that in recent years was corrected, or removed from authority, in any of our Christian Universities.)
Science and Bible Truth
Pastors and leaders who know and love the sciences, and scientists professing Christ, often cannot (or just simply, will not) call white “white” and black “black,” and this may be the demise of the Church in these Last Days. I will admit that because the majority of believers have accepted the scientific theory of the earth and universe being billions of years old, I just assumed that was right myself and squeezed everything between the first two verses of the bible and then went on my merry way. Within the last few years, however, I was challenged to think about a young earth creation based on the Word and confirming scientific evidence— and it stretched me. The more I read and researched the more God’s Word became alive to me, and the more deception I recognized within those things I had accepted based merely upon the opinion of “Most People.”
Now I realize that it does not matter how many degrees “a man” has before or after his name, or how many “new discoveries” are found and written up by men around the world, who say things that contradict the Bible. What really matters is what God’s Word says. Even that became a study issue for me about the Bible “autographs.” When it all boils down to it we must be sensitive to the Holy Spirit in our hearts and not get so cerebral that we cannot see the forest for the trees when it comes to eternal truth and God’s word. After all, the supernatural is first and above the natural world and universe.
Deception in the Church
Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, Don't let anyone deceive you in any way. As believers I think we can think that we will not be deceived; but I want to remind you that in the Garden of Eden the very first perfect sinless humans were deceived. And if they could be deceived — two people who walked with God without sin — then anyone who professes Christ can be deceived as well. Is that not true? If you answer “NO” to that question (that you cannot be deceived) then I guess you will need to change some scriptures around including the one above and many others.
We need to be careful in these last days. Just because someone says they are a “Christian” (including Pastors) does not mean that they are. And even if they are genuine Christians, they could still be in a deceived state themselves and leading others in the same destructive path without being aware of such:
Should We Be Loyal to Man or Christ?
I am concerned that our “loyalty to years of friendship” may run deeper than the “truth of the gospel” in our veins. I believe many leaders may really being compromising God’s Truth for the sake of “keeping the peace” with an old friend or colleague. But Paul commanded leaders NOT to act that way at all: After all who wants to confront a life long friend or colleague about error?
Those [elders] who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear. I charge you before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality. Do not lay hands on anyone hastily, nor share in other people’s sins; keep yourself pure….
Some men’s sins are clearly evident, preceding them to judgment, but those of some men follow later. Likewise, the good works of some are clearly evident, and those that are otherwise cannot be hidden. (An excerpt from 1 Timothy chapter 5:20-25, NKJV)
So let me draw my post here to the point at hand: It is interesting to me that a scientist (especially professing Christian Scientist) will not even talk with a creationist pastor. Let me explain what happened to me over the last year…
Standing Up For Truth
I came under great attack recently by liberals within the church world. I proposed that Professor Giberson who taught me in the late 80’s, and who had since digressed into a full-fledged evolutionist, be removed from his role in a Christian College. Professor Giberson still teaches the same classes at the same College that I attended, and now has written several books and clearly deconstructs the Bible in order to fit it into the flawed and ludicrous evolutionary theory. In 2009 I wrote to one of our denominations general superintendents about my concerns, and in essence, asked for an investigation of the issue.
Please note that I assume Karl is a great guy. He certainly was when I was a student, and I have actually read great comments about his influence on other people’s lives within the last few years. But with all those great comments and accolades he is still writing and advocating heresy (false teachings).
Now back to the string of events: Three months later I received a 3-page letter back that, in summary, said, “There is room for diversity, and he is a wonderful Christian man making a difference in the scientific community. There is room for his different belief system of theistic evolutionism within the church.” The author of that letter said that he did not see harm in that professor’s books and teachings — but he also did explicitly state that he disagreed with the professor. That last comment troubles me almost as much the reality that he refused to address a foundational doctrinal issue with seriousness and integrity.
After that response from our highest authority in the church, I wrote a one-page letter to Professor Giberson directly, inquiring about his beliefs on Adam and Eve. I received a brief personal reply that in essence said, “I do not have time for personal correspondence and please see my blog and website for the answers you seek.”
Interestingly, about 3 months later, Dr. Albert Mohler rebuked Professor Giberson publicly on the Internet within a blog post (because of his previous public comments about Dr. Mohler). It was at that point I emailed Dr. Mohler and thanked him for saying what needed to be said about a heretic that my own denomination refused to deal with.
An Unexpected Reaction
In August of this same year, my college alumni organization offered pastors the opportunity to take a book study with professors over the phone (limited to the first 15 pastors). I signed up for a book study on “Coming to Peace with Science.” This is yet another theistic evolution embracing book written by a professor Darrell Falk who teaches at another Christian University. The college sent me the book and the course was to start in September. A week before the first review was to be held on the phone, I received a call from the Chaplain of the college asking me to withdraw from taking the course. The class was not full and even now the class is not full. He gave me a reason that was unreasonable; but nonetheless I withdrew on his insistence. Why was I asked to withdraw? You can make your own conclusions, but in my opinion these science professors knew I was a solid creationist and could not or did not want to handle the heat of someone who is as passionate about creationism as they are about evolution. They do not have either a biblical or truly scientific leg to stand on — and they know it.
So since I was asked to withdraw from the book study I decided to read the book anyway. I then formed my opinions about the text, and was hoping to share them with several scientists and creationists who professed Christ.
However, while reading the book I had also noticed in it a reference to another theistic evolutionary scientist who was quoted therein, and subsequently did my research and found more information about him, including his email address. So the idea came to me that I could start a live call-in recorded podcast for both creationists and evolutionists, to discuss the issue at hand. So I set the date. I then emailed this scientist—and another who professes a Creationist view—asking these two professing Christians with opposing scientific theories about their willingness to participate in my podcast project. The Theistic Evolutionist declined and the Creationist scientist told me to call him anytime.
Though I did receive a few replies from the evolutionist, he in essence refused to participate in the podcast recording. Why? If he is an academic who truly believes that his views are based upon sound theory and verifiable evidence, shouldn’t he be willing (and prepared) to defend those views within a friendly podcast?
A Remarkable Conclusion
In the light of the things I am about to share with you, I am now beginning to think that maybe evolutionists are not just evolutionists after all. Maybe they are those who have become heretics who have fallen from scriptural Christianity and are now making inroads into the true body of Christ. In the process they as unchecked teachers are deceiving believers and destroying their faith in God’s inerrant Word.
So to give you some idea how I formed such a conclusion through my research and experiences, you will find further below my original emails to this scientist, and his replies. I did remove his name and replaced it with Mr. Mystery for courtesy sake.
After that text, I have another for you to examine…
Once this scientist declined me I sent the string of emails to a minister friend that I highly respect who is a great master of the Word of God and discerner of apostasy and heretics. I wanted his unbiased opinion of Mr. Mystery and why he thought the man declined me. I think you may find my friend’s response interesting.
But before you read my friend’s reflections please make up your own mind about Mr. Mystery’s response to me as you read his original email. See if the Lord reveals to you how crafty Mr. Mystery’s deception is, and which of his points that you agree with and do not agree with.
Then you can read the same e-mail the second time below that, with my friend’s comments inserted within the text. Once you then re-read that letter in the light of my friend’s remarks, see if you agree with his rebuttal. Then post why or why not as a comment to this post; but please base your response on scripture as much as possible.
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:10:23 -0500
From: Peter Migner
To: Mr. Mystery
Subject: re: invite to discuss age of earth for podcast
Dr. Mystery,
I am reading the book "Coming to Peace with Science" by Darrel Falk. In his books he mentioned _________ that are over 10,000 years old as one piece of many for proof of old earth age. So as I did my research and it lead to this information from you. In your paper I see that you are a professing Christian who advocates an old earth. I was also able to find another gentleman giving an interesting perspective on the ______ that refutes the reliability of leaning on each ____ to represent each year who trusts in God for a young earth. I still have not drawn my conclusion yet on that issue, but there seems to be perspective on both sides on multiple fronts on age of earth from multiple professing Christian Scientist.
As a pastor who believes in a young earth view I am by no means a scientist, but am willing to read and listen to the old age views by professing Christians in the theistic controversial issues of the day. My greatest concern is in the eventual deconstruction of all scriptures based on the old age view and making the bible fit into science.
I see the potential it has in breaking down a lot of solid doctrine and that greatly troubles me. To the best of my knowledge there are only a handful of accredited Universities left in North American that even teach and represent a young earth view based on scripture and scientific evidence. Since Christian Scientist represent both old age and YEC views it would seem only reasonable that all Christian Colleges and Universities should at least represent both theories well and with equal passion, thus my concern and passion as clergy.
In October I am planning on starting a phone / web podcast a few times a month for a few months on this issue based on the book noted above and would like to have people from both sides of the issue call in and share with me for the recorded podcast. The podcast will then be available on ITunes so that other people can listen to both sides. Instead of it being hosted by a scientist in the university setting it will be hosted by clergymen (me) from the field of ministry. If you are open to such in the future please give me a call sometime. I would love to hear your testimony of how you came to know Christ and as well share mine with you.
As I read about you I see that you have been working with NASA. I had the wonderful privilege many years ago to meet and visit with former Astronaut James Irwin of Apollo 15 to the moon. He has since passed away. I recall well looking at his moon rocks in his office in Co Springs in the early 80's and listening to his passion about the bible and creation. He shared with me his supernatural experience of grace on the moon and his return to Christ as Savior while looking at the earth. It was a moving story for sure.
God Bless
Peter Migner, Pastor
From: Mr. Mystery
To: Peter Migner
Sent: Saturday, October 2, 2010
Subject: RE: invite to discuss age of earth for podcast
Dear Pastor Migner,
I have not yet read the book "Coming to Peace with Science", but it sounds like an interesting one.
You mention the slippery slope argument--that if one accepts the idea of an old Earth, one should consider giving in on other doctrinal issues. The problem with this idea is that essentially all Christians of this generation are well down the slippery slope and just don't realize it. The Bible describes a "firmament" in which stars and other heavenly bodies are fixed. There are also Bible verses that describe the Earth as "firmly fixed", certainly implying something other than rotation and orbital motion. Also mentioned are the "ends of the Earth" and other phrases implying a flat Earth. People today can shrug these terms off as figurative, but that was certainly not the case only a few hundred years ago. That is the reason that Galileo was put on trial.
So if one is really concerned for the deconstruction of scriptures, one ought to stick with the position of the church prior to the scientific revolution: The Earth is a firmly fixed flat surface surround above us by the firmament. Of course that seems foolish today, but only because the public has completely accepted what was once heretical. We are now convinced that God was not trying to teach us in the Bible that the Earth is flat or that the geocentric theory of the solar system was correct.
I have a strong respect for those who are zealous for the orthodoxy of scriptures. However, I think we need to learn from the Pharisees. They were also very zealous for the orthodoxy of scriptures, but so much so that they could not see God's plan. My conclusion is that we need to let God be God and to remember our place, far beneath Him in our knowledge. Like the Pharisees, we will not honor God by fighting blindly for orthodoxy, but rather, we will honor God by being in awe of Him, by respecting scriptures, by hesitating to deviate from traditional interpretations but also being potentially open to them if changes to our previous interpretation are clearly needed. So I remain relatively conservative, but I clearly believe in an old Earth.
To respond to your suggestion that Christian colleges teach both young and old Earth positions: this is the very big goal of the young Earth organizations. This idea was voiced in a recent issue of World magazine. In my own experience in college (a Christian college) I learned about young Earth organizations, but not in a positive way at all. A prominent young Earth organization came to our college and gave a presentation to the science faculty. The faculty had severe doubts about many of their "evidences". The tactic of the YEC organization was to use this occasion to ask how many of the faculty believed x, y, and z doctrines (i.e., literal six-day creation, age of the Earth, and other doctrines). The YEC organization had a person or persons at the back of the room who were watching which faculty members raised their hands or didn't raise their hands in response to these questions. The organization took down the names of some of these faculty members. There was later contact by this YEC organization with the board of trustees. This kind of tactic really angered the science faculty. They thought the YEC meeting was about presenting ideas, not a means toward removal of certain faculty members. The faculty certainly did not appreciate this coming from a Christian organization. I don't believe that YEC organization was ever invited on campus again, and their ideas are not being taught in that college.
I know some of the young Earth organization leaders personally, and I have heard some of these leaders admit that the scientific evidence is stacked in favor of an old Earth, but their view of scripture is completely preventing them from accepting the weight of evidence. I know that is not the picture these leaders present to the Christian public, and this misrepresentation upsets me. However, in the end that is between them and God.
We need to recognize that these issues (method and age of creation) are not at the core of our faith. We agree that God created, that He acted in history and is sovereign, that Jesus atoned for us, and that the Bible is inspired and is useful for all purposes given in II Timothy 3:16-17. These, and our love for God and for one another, are top priority.
God bless,
-- Mr. Mystery
Now here are my friend’s rebuttal comments in blue, inserted within the original text of Mr. Mystery’s reply to me:
From: "Mr Mystery
To: Peter Migner
Sent: Saturday, October 2, 2010 6:43:43 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: RE: invite to discuss age of earth for podcast
Dear Pastor Migner,
I have not yet read the book "Coming to Peace with Science", but it sounds like an interesting one.
You mention the slippery slope argument--that if one accepts the idea of an old Earth, one should consider giving in on other doctrinal issues. The problem with this idea is that essentially all Christians of this generation are well down the slippery slope and just don't realize it. The Bible describes a "firmament" in which stars and other heavenly bodies are fixed. [Dr. Mystery apparently does not know the meaning of the Hebrew words here, nor the work of those associated with the Creation Evidence Museum in Glenrose, Texas at CreationEvidence.org. If he did, he would not be so uninformed with his interpretation of the “firmament.” These scientists at CE have created a Creation model that includes a “crystalline canopy” as a firmament, complete with scientific data to support their thesis. Even NASA has had Dr. Baugh lecture to them on the things they discovered with their biosphere experiments, based upon that mode.] There are also Bible verses that describe the Earth as "firmly fixed", certainly implying something other than rotation and orbital motion. [This is also a very ignorant statement, as the Bible clearly says that, “He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing” (Job 26:7). In other words, the only thing “fixed” in the Bible account is the laws upon which the earth operates, but the earth itself hangs “on nothing” i.e. is NOT supported on an object, but suspended in its orbit by gravity around the sun. ] Also mentioned are the "ends of the Earth" and other phrases implying a flat Earth. [Again, he is reading his own understanding of the “implications” of such statements, as there are MANY passages of Scripture that indicate that the earth is ROUND: e.g. “When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth” (Proverbs 8:27). Compasses are round, and the “face” of the depth would be the horizon. Also, Isaiah 40:22 says, “He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth...”. Christopher Columbus said within his autobiography that these passages of Scripture convinced him that the earth was round, and upon these, he held firm during the many trials in which his terrified crew sometimes plotted mutiny for fear he would get them all killed. So the good doctor is quite ignorant of the Bible (and history) on these topics, and if he spent any real time looking at the MASSIVE amount of good science being reported in Creationist circles, he would know that.] People today can shrug these terms off as figurative, but that was certainly not the case only a few hundred years ago. That is the reason that Galileo was put on trial. [Galileo was put on trial by the Roman Catholic Church, NOT the Christian Church. The RC’s banned the Bible from the public, and were essentially themselves heretics in the light of Scripture. To blame Christians for Galileo's situation—which was not that bad anyway, as he lived under “house arrest” in a beautiful villa—is absurd, and a red herring of an argument. It is a logical failure known as an “ad hoc argument”: His effort to substantiate his point is nothing more than a desperate appeal to history, but one which actually does not support the point being made.
So if one is really concerned for the deconstruction of scriptures, one ought to stick with the position of the church prior to the scientific revolution: The Earth is a firmly fixed flat surface surround above us by the firmament. [That was the RC, not “The Church.” Further, that was also the primary opinion of MOST “scientific thought” for the day, regardless of the RC position on the topics. So again, a moot point with NO substantiation in the light of either Scripture or accurate history.] Of course that seems foolish today, but only because the public has completely accepted what was once heretical. [Again, he forgets the RC considered anything that was contrary to their own heresy as heretical...so he still misses the point terribly.] We are now convinced that God was not trying to teach us in the Bible that the Earth is flat or that the geocentric theory of the solar system was correct. [That is a true statement; but in spite of his thesis and evidence, not based upon such. He clearly is misinformed about both the Bible and supporting scientific evidence for a literal 6-day Creation as described therein.]
I have a strong respect for those who are zealous for the orthodoxy of scriptures. However, I think we need to learn from the Pharisees. They were also very zealous for the orthodoxy of scriptures, but so much so that they could not see God's plan. [The Pharisees were NOT zealous for orthodox interpretation of the Scriptures, as they interpreted the Bible according to the Talmud (which they elevated to “divine” status of authority) and their own whims. That is why Jesus rebuked them, saying, “You make the Word of God of none affect by your traditions” (Mark 7:13). This is an EXTREMELY ignorant statement made by Mr. Mystery. In logic, this is a fallacy called a “straw man augment.” Here is an interesting discussion of this type of fallacy, using a statement of James Dobson, of all people, as an example: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html So Mr. Mystery holds up a “straw man” (i.e. a false example that does not actually exist in reality, but is made up for the sake of argument). He then “tears it apart” with fine-sounding reasoning that would cause ignorant people to think that he is brilliant. The only problem is that his “target” is an illusion, and therefore, his reasoning is empty speculation about nothing that ever existed in the first place. It sounds good, but cannot hold up to either Scripture or history....once again.] My conclusion is that we need to let God be God and to remember our place, far beneath Him in our knowledge. [That, again, is a true statement; but not predicated upon his own logic or false-assertions. Again, it sounds good and even Christian, but is actually a deflection from the real issues he failed to address.] Like the Pharisees, we will not honor God by fighting blindly for orthodoxy, but rather, we will honor God by being in awe of Him, by respecting scriptures, by hesitating to deviate from traditional interpretations but also being potentially open to them if changes to our previous interpretation are clearly needed. [This is another, and rather obvious, logical fallacy called a self-contradiction: He first says in the previous sentence, “[We] need to let God be God and to remember our place, far beneath Him in our knowledge.” He then says in this last sentence, essentially, “But if we, in our own earthly human wisdom, decide that the Bible is incorrect on a topic, then we should change our interpretation to fit OUR understanding of such things.” This is his way of saying, “I like to sound as if I honor God and His Word, but in reality, my belief system is founded upon humanism and I just don’t want you to know that.”] So I remain relatively conservative, but I clearly believe in an old Earth. [i.e. “I profess to be a Bible-believing Christian, but in reality, I am not; and I don’t want to look at any evidence that supports such a literal Creation thesis.”]
To respond to your suggestion that Christian colleges teach both young and old Earth positions: this is the very big goal of the young Earth organizations. This idea was voiced in a recent issue of World magazine. In my own experience in college (a Christian college) I learned about young Earth organizations, but not in a positive way at all. A prominent young Earth organization came to our college and gave a presentation to the science faculty. The faculty had severe doubts about many of their "evidences". The tactic of the YEC organization was to use this occasion to ask how many of the faculty believed x, y, and z doctrines (i.e., literal six-day creation, age of the Earth, and other doctrines). The YEC organization had a person or persons at the back of the room who were watching which faculty members raised their hands or didn't raise their hands in response to these questions. The organization took down the names of some of these faculty members. There was later contact by this YEC organization with the board of trustees. This kind of tactic really angered the science faculty. They thought the YEC meeting was about presenting ideas, not a means toward removal of certain faculty members. The faculty certainly did not appreciate this coming from a Christian organization. I don't believe that YEC organization was ever invited on campus again, and their ideas are not being taught in that college. [Despite his experience with ONE SET of unethical YE proponents (if we can fully believe his one-sided account), that is NOT a sufficient foundation upon which he has a right to reject ANY and ALL YE proponents and their Bible-based scientific theories. Again, logically, this is a fallacy known as an “ad hoc” argument; and certainly does not raise my estimation of this man’s educational credentials one bit.]I know some of the young Earth organization leaders personally, and I have heard some of these leaders admit that the scientific evidence is stacked in favor of an old Earth, [I would like to see him name even ONE...which he does NOT. So in the light of his demonstrated ignorance of Scriptures, logical fallacies, and unsubstantiated arguments above, I just don’t believe him. There is a HUGE amount of information that supports a YE model of Creation scientifically. One particularly intriguing one is the “radio halos” found in ALL the granite rock of the earth’s crust: http://75.125.60.6/creatio1/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=36
I have read so much scientific evidence that supports a YE elsewhere—and so much garbage in Mr. Mystery’s email reply to you—that I will have to require some substantiation of his assertion that he knows EVEN ONE genuine YE scientist that secretly believes that the evidence supports an OE thesis.] but their view of scripture is completely preventing them from accepting the weight of evidence. [Given what I have read in his email, I would say it is more accurate to say that Mr. Mystery’s disbelieve of Scripture—and ignorance thereof—is blinding him from accepting the weight of evidence for a YE model. He has NOT substantiated his beliefs at all—and has produced ONLY logical fallacies for his reasoning. So I cannot accept him as being anything but intellectually dishonest (based on the evidence at hand) and I DO question whether he is genuinely a born again Christian or not, as he seems to lack reasonable revelation of God’s word also.] I know that is not the picture these leaders present to the Christian public, and this misrepresentation upsets me. [Substantiation...substantiation. He offers none, but a false front of “righteous indignation.”] However, in the end that is between them and God. [And he will find out how true that statement is one day, to his own detriment, unless he repents.
Furthermore, this is a typical “defense” response from heretics, in my experience. They are essentially saying, “Let’s not discuss the real issues, and especially my own position, and just let God sort it all out later.” However, that is NOT biblical. In essence, Mr. Mystery makes a “God is the judge” statement. Though his context implies “...and not me” it is really a distraction from his true intent. By saying, “God is the judge,” he really implies, “So leave me alone and don’t challenge my doctrine.”
Yet, the Bible actually TELLS us (yea, even commands us) to judge doctrine and to “contend for the faith once delivered to the saints” (see Jude). Since heresy is so easily disproved upon closer analysis, the heretics want to throw up a “shield” to prevent that scrutiny. Thus, they take advantage of the common misconception that the Bible admonishes us “not to judge”, when Jesus merely warned not to judge hypocritically; He never forbad it categorically, and in several places, TOLD us to judge; e.g.:
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. (John 7:24)
Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me remove the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the plank that is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck that is in your brother’s eye. (Luke 6:42; and also Matthew 7:5)
If you review EVERY one of Jesus’ so-called “do not judge” passages (many of which I did not cite herein) He was only admonishing against being a hypocrite. Otherwise, how else can we “judge a tree by its fruit” if we are not to look at the “fruit” of others and judge such things? The logical absurdity of this common misconception about “judging others” when analyzed in the light of Scripture, is astounding.
Thus, in short, a common “defense” used by heretics is the “God is the judge” ploy. Yet, the Bible tells us to challenge heresy and error with God’s Truth, which ALL the apostles demonstrated for us in the NT, and the true prophets of old certainly demonstrated in the OT.]
We need to recognize that these issues (method and age of creation) are not at the core of our faith. [That is a lie (though he might sincerely believe that). John Calvin, Martin Luther, and many others, clearly understood that the question of Creation, the fall of man, and other such topics, are very much CORE issues; the deviation from which was pure heresy, as it undermined the very foundations upon which the Gospel is based.] We agree that God created, that He acted in history and is sovereign, that Jesus atoned for us, and that the Bible is inspired and is useful for all purposes given in II Timothy 3:16-17. [Yet he just spent his entire reply to you denying portions of the Bible’s inspiration....so this is again a logical self-contradiction, and pure folly. If we cannot believe in the Bible’s account of a literal 6-day Creation, how can we trust its literal account of the fall of man and justification through the sacrifice of Jesus? He is theologically a heretic, but either too ignorant to know it or too dishonest to admit it.] These, and our love for God and for one another, are top priority. [Most heretics I encounter also resort to the “love of God” distraction, just like he did here. Thus, I have to conclude he is knowingly a heretic as this one seems to be their favorite “trump card” in their let’s-change-the-subject-away-from-the-real-issues stratagem.]
God bless, [Don’t you just love it when heretics send you their blessing? Peter, my brother...I hope I have substantiated my point already within the notes above: I obviously believe you are dealing with a heretic here. That is why he does NOT want to be recorded for a podcast expressing his views, for fear you might expose the underlying heresies upon which they are founded.
Let me acknowledge here that Mr. Mystery obviously had not expected or intended his email to be so thoroughly scrutinized and dissected. Nevertheless, we can certainly conclude that he is truly expressing his own paradigm on these issues. So his use of logical fallacies, poor theology, and unsubstantiated facts, to support his thesis in a reply to you, betrays the unsustainable nature of the position that he has chosen to embrace against the Scriptures (and against the copious empirical evidence that supports those Scriptures).
Remember also: Augustine hit the nail on the head when he wrote, “Pride is the mother of all heresies.” This man’s pride is evident throughout his email response above, despite the false humility and many logical fallacies he used to cover that fact up. So unless you are willing to take the “Law to the Proud” and wear him out with the truth (like a good “spanking”) then you are likely going to waste your time on him; he can never accept grace (i.e. get delivered from his multiplied errors and, if necessary, even get saved for the first time) with such demonstrated pride in his heart.]
--Mr. Mystery.
Closing Remarks
Let me end this letter with a question or two: What you do believe about creation? Do you believe what the Word of God says? Do you doubt what the Word of God says because many scientists and theologians have agreed with their theories that question the clear and implied account of the history the creation and mankind? Are you willing to do serious study to determine for yourself what is truth, or will you throw your arms in the air and just say it does not matter and merely trust the theory that has the most adherents? If this generation does not defend the biblical creation account as outlined in the Bible what will happen to the next generation?
Were you taught evolution in school with an equal rebuttal of teaching of creationism? This generation more than any other sways the future for many other generations to come. With professing Christians now embracing evolution by renaming it theistic they are able to deceive the innocent with heresy in the name of God. Evolution is evolution, be it theistic or atheistic. Unless leaders who hold positions of authority in the church take the time to study and have convictions from God and react one way or the other we will have continued controversy among the sheep over this issue.
However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8
