Your session will end in  seconds due to inactivity. Click here to continue using this web page.
The Study Bible - A Bible that gives you instant access to all of John’s teaching on the passage you’re reading.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010 | Comments (31)

This preprint of an interview with John MacArthur is used by permission of Creation Ministries International ( and is from the October 2010 issue of CMI’s Creation magazine. As you’ll see, CMI’s Lael Weinberger asked John some pointed questions that expose the nature and heart of the evolution controversy within evangelicalism. John provides critical insight into the failure of evangelical leadership to confront evolutionism directly; he identifies ground-zero in the debate; and he explains how the church can find its way back to certainty and confidence in God’s Word.

Here’s the link to the PDF. After you read it, go to the comment thread and tell us what you think about this question:

Why do you think evangelicals (OECs, TEs, and YECs alike) fail to center the debate on the text of Scripture and its interpretation?


You have 3000 characters remaining for your comment. Note: All comments must be approved before being posted.


#1  Posted by El Amigo De La Playa  |  Tuesday, July 13, 2010 at 5:46 AM

I completely agree with the PDF article. I am very glad about RC Sproul´s young earth views... Please forward that article to brother Mark Driscoll, in the name of Jesus !

#2  Posted by Erica Mckinney  |  Tuesday, July 13, 2010 at 9:21 AM

Finally someone backing up God's word! There doesn't seem to be alot of that lately. I've been asking people why churches feel lead to prove the bible or their faith through science. Aren't the Christian beliefs in Jesus Christ based on faith? Believeing without seeing? Why can't we just read the Word of Truth and take it as such without all the twisting and digging?

#3  Posted by Mathieu Johnson  |  Tuesday, July 13, 2010 at 9:44 AM

"For decades evangelicals have been entertaining themselves and calling it worship. The church is now largely untaught and devoid of biblical conviction." John MacArthur, from the above article.

Very sad but very true.

#4  Posted by Douglas Grogg  |  Tuesday, July 13, 2010 at 10:21 AM

Why do you think evangelicals (OECs, TEs, and YECs alike) fail to center the debate on the text of Scripture and its interpretation?

UNBELIEF! Faith comes by hearing the word (see Romans 10:17). The new birth is the result of the word being preached (see 1Peter 1:23-25). Sanctification of the believer is the result of the word, as we see in Christ’s prayer to the Father (see John 17:17). Every true believer believes these things to be true. Their acting upon these truths gives evidence to the validity of their faith. The failure of a person to act upon these truths gives evidence to their unbelief. This is the point that James was making when he made the distinction between a faith that saves and a faith that cannot save (see James 2:14-26).

Frankly, I personally don’t argue about creation, not because I don’t believe the creation account. Since my new birth I have never doubted the creation account. I don’t argue the creation account because I also believe God’s testimony in Romans 1:18-32 which can be summed up in verse 20, the evidence of God in creation is self evident and they are without excuse. Rejection of the creation account evidences a much greater problem which can only be remedied by a genuine new birth which takes us back to Romans 10:17 and I Peter 23-25. Sinners must be brought to see the sinfulness of their heart, the dreadfulness of their condition and their desperate need of a savior. Christ Jesus came to save His people from their sins. He is mighty to save and He saves to the uttermost. He does not save half-way, but then again, He will not save a half-hearted follower either. What did Christ say to the multitudes that were following Him? “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26, 27) Dear readers, count the cost. Consider also the value of your own soul. –His Unworthy Slave

#5  Posted by William Rhoden  |  Tuesday, July 13, 2010 at 10:58 AM

Evangelicals do not generally want to be seen as brainwashed by Scripture. We all want to show that our beliefs are not believed just because someone told us so. After all, cults and false religions are created by such techniques. So we search for reasons outside of Scripture to "prove" Scripture, and the study of apologetics is a noble task to defend Scripture.

Yet, in our quest for apologetics we get pridefully wrapped up in our knowledge to "prove" Scripture that we forget what Scripture actually says. This is why Scripture is full of warnings to keep to sound doctrine and Godly wisdom. (2 Tim 4:1-4, Proverbs, Psalm 119, Revelation 1-3, 2 Peter 3:14-18 and others) The only place to get these things is from the Word of God, yet in our sinfulness we forget that "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge;" (Proverbs 1:7a). We do not fear God (but we fear our reason), and therefore we do not truly listen to His Word unless our reason approves it.

The loss of the fear of God in the face of reasoning pride is why Evangelicals have left Scripture as a valid argument. Yet, God in His sovereignty has already warned us of this occurring. (2 Peter 3:17)

Praise be to God!

#7  Posted by Millard Lightfoot  |  Tuesday, July 13, 2010 at 1:09 PM

Throughout history changes have ravaged the cathedral of the Church creating challenges to the point of cult creation and near total destruction only to be revived again by each succeeding generation. (Romans 9:27 (KJV) Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:) The twenty/twenty first century has certainly not been an exception to the norm with the challenges of change ringing the steeple bell of troubled times about. If we were to example each era of church history back to the apostles, Cross and perhaps beyond we would find the biggest problem in the church is lack of scripture understanding not just by laity but church elders as well. (Mark 12:10 (KJV)And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:)

The question therefore is very well stated of why evangelicals fail to debate with Scripture and proper interpretation as the foundation of their conversation/debates. With the technical equipment we have at our fingertips today one would think a scripture based conversation/debate would be the norm but lack of scripture understanding leads us to a poorer use of advanced equipment to say the least. Obtaining the basis is difficult if one knows not ‘that’ that he lacks.

We are all very much like the green horn showing up at the rodeo with worn and torn equipment to express our preexistent payment of dues for participation in the event only to find the ride would have been more successful if in fact we had paid those dues. Not so deep into the body of the Church are those hiding with a worn Bible marked with meaningless notes hoping no one will offer a question of the sermon we just heard and if they do then we will respond how powerful it was delivered touching our heart to the inner walls of shame and quilt of our meaningless life. More shameful is the fact that upon questioning the preacher who delivered the inspiring sermon similar results might be heard.

Many years passed me by as an uneducated Christian in Scripture knowledge and now my responsibility is to learn ‘that’ I thought I once knew. The mountain ahead is steep but I have now reached the place where I can see just how high it is as opposed to just hearing what c-o-u-l-d to be achieved if I chose to go ahead. We, evangelicals, fail to make Scripture the foundation of our debates because of self pride attempting to convince our brothers in Christ of our vast knowledge and understanding Of God’s word thus deceiving only ourselves. If we would only confess that we believe and are ready now to learn as I understand Augustine to have once said 'Credo ut intelligam'; I believe in order that I may understand. (Matthew 11:28-30 (KJV) Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.)

#8  Posted by Jorge Alvarado  |  Tuesday, July 13, 2010 at 4:13 PM

"Why do you think evangelicals (OECs, TEs, and YECs alike) fail to center the debate on the text of Scripture and its interpretation?"

At best, it could be because most of them (I don't want to say ALL of them) don't believe it's as important an issue to divide over . They may see it as a secondary issue. One of those where we can "agree to disagree".

At worst, it could be because they just lack the knowledge one can readily acquire to defend the biblical view.

#9  Posted by Melissa Worcester  |  Tuesday, July 13, 2010 at 5:21 PM

I fully agree with this quote (and the rest of the article), tragic as it is:

"Most Christian leaders (including some whose personal convictions about the origin of the universe are perfectly sound) remain silent about the issue and allow confusion to fester, rather than dealing with a controversial issue."

I have witnessed this first hand. :-(

#10  Posted by Jorge Alvarado  |  Tuesday, July 13, 2010 at 9:00 PM

William wrote: "Evangelicals do not generally want to be seen as brainwashed by Scripture."

I, for one, do, If you mean by brainwashed totally surrendered to what scripture teaches.

Doesn't "being born again" relate to that? Going from what the world believes to believing only Christ?.

#11  Posted by William Rhoden  |  Wednesday, July 14, 2010 at 7:45 AM

I agree that any true Christian will want to surrender to what Scripture says. True Christian eyes are opened to the truth by grace through the Holy Spirit. It's the Word of God, who can dispute it?

Yet, by those who cannot see, we are accused of being narrow-minded and/or brainwashed by someone. They want us to open our minds and see that all views can be valid if understood right. Their god is their own reason (science, logic, etc), and the only way they listen is if we answer them according to their reason. Some Evangelicals fearing reason did answer according to their reason, and that is what got the ball rolling away from Scripture.

However, this debate has been going on for so long, that we have gotten used to arguing away from the Scriptures. So now Christians debate with each other in this way. Debating primarily this way is certainly not a good thing (in fact is ultimately rooted in pride), but it is possible for true Christians to believe OEC and TE without knowing the implications on Scripture (since the arguments are not from Scripture). R. C. Sproul was a great example of such in the article. It's not like he was any less of a believer while subscribing to the framework theory, but just didn't consider all implications on the text.

In the end we are saved by the Gospel, and not OEC, TE, or YEC. God will sanctify every true believer with His Word, which demands a high view of Scripture. When dealing with non-believers (even scholarly ones), we should be giving them the Gospel of salvation from sins by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Too many Christians have gotten distracted from the Gospel, chasing after wordly arguments for the world. Not a good thing, but it's the reason why arguments are not often Scripture based today.

#12  Posted by Jorge Alvarado  |  Wednesday, July 14, 2010 at 1:49 PM

Well, I'm glad to see we are agreeing that not defending the authority of scripture is the wrong way to go.

I have (from previous posts) participation from christians who believe old earth creation, and TE

I have a question. What do TE (theistic evolutionists) (in a nutshell) believe?

Do they believe that God got evolution rolling?. I hope not.

#13  Posted by Daniel Wilson  |  Wednesday, July 14, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Yes, I agree with John MacAuthur.

For years some pastors put things off what the bible really says. What's

the deal with preachers preaching million yrs. Don't they truly understand the bible? God can change their hearts but who is encouraging

our pastors turning to million yrs.? Satan?

God bless.

#14  Posted by Janet Young  |  Wednesday, July 14, 2010 at 6:56 PM


Yes, those who believe in TE believe that God guided evolution and used it as a means of creation. They believe that even though there is nothing in the Genesis account that directly talks about evolution, it must be there behind the scenes because of what modern "science" tells us.

The problem with this view is that evolution implies struggle and death among species--which biblically is impossible before the Fall because there was no death before the Fall. Since creation was in a perfect state, why would there be a need for anything to evolve?

#15  Posted by Sergio Consuegra  |  Wednesday, July 14, 2010 at 7:17 PM

I was thinking, what would be the purpose of sex, male and female in evolution? According to the theory of evolution, the asexual or hermaphrodite should dominate the world because they have more chances to survive and adapt, do you had thought on that before?. How do evolutionists explain this "division"?. being dependant on another being of my own species to procreate makes all more difficult. right?

It's just a thought.

#16  Posted by Larry Bucar  |  Wednesday, July 14, 2010 at 7:17 PM

News flash: Secular scientists document that a protein isolated in a chicken egg proves that the chicken came before the egg ( It's going to be hilarious how die hard evolutionists attempt to force this fact into their fractured model.

Answer to question: Western evangelicals (except those likeminded on this blog) are brainwashed hook, line, and sinker into believing the evolutionary paradigm.. If we honestly debate the evidence we're accused of being "unloving" and "divisive" and then we succumb under the pressure, more concerned what others think of us.

I'm trying to downplay this next bit of info since I want our triune God to get the glory.. I'll be volunteering in Indonesia the same time as Dr David Catchpoole's ( visit from August 2 - August 31, 2010 performing a land survey of a 60 acre Bethesda hospital campus in Kalimantan Barat (West Borneo) to produce a base map that a dedicated team of architects and civil engineers will use to produce a master plan for expansion and renovation that may take generations to see it's fruition on the ground.. This hospital was started by Conservative Baptist missionaries in the 1950's and has grown to minister to 50,000 people/yr providing medicinal healing and the gospel (the one John M. proclaims) of Jesus Christ in a country of 90% Muslims!

Creationists in America have been maligned, marginalized, mis-characterized, insulted, humiliated, treated like buffoons, and more, given up lucrative careers for taking God's Word as literal, factual, and trumping science. What have past and current evolutionists given up? LJB

#17  Posted by Jorge Alvarado  |  Wednesday, July 14, 2010 at 8:10 PM

from Daniel # 15: "What's the deal with preachers preaching million yrs. Don't they truly understand the bible? God can change their hearts but who is encouraging our pastors turning to million yrs.? Satan? "

Ultimately, yes. But the question remains; I don't see how, from scripture, anyone can come to that conclusion.

If one believes what one knows is in keeping with scripture, one must, in all humility, try to see things from the other person's point of view. Focus on their arguments and use scripture to "prove" one's knowledge and show them where they err. It's easier said than done. Some people will call you "arrogant" if you claim you know the truth, and absolutely shut out anything you have to say after that.

After God created up until day five, did He wait millions of years, until Adam evolve enough to come back into the picture?. To me, that just sounds ludicrous, yet, some people will say "why not?".

We can get into all kinds of arguments as to how do we know the bible says what one thinks it says; how can we be sure what someone's taught us is THE truth?; how do we know what we think we know is true?; how can be so arrogant as to be 100 % sure we are right and others aren't?.

So, sometimes it helps if we,at the beginning, will agree that the bible must be the ultimate authority on any subject. If the person you're debating will not abide by the authority of scripture, you'll just be throwing your pearls before swine.

#18  Posted by Garrett League  |  Wednesday, July 14, 2010 at 9:30 PM

Posted a super-long comment a while back and looks like it ain't coming up. Guess I'll just do the cliffs notes version (I had way too much commentary on the articles itself):

"Why do you think evangelicals (OECs, TEs, and YECs alike) fail to center the debate on the text of Scripture and its interpretation?"

The evidence is so overwhelming and wielded so mercilessly by pagans like Dawkins that we often feel that the MOST pressing issue is "Oh crud, what do we do about the latest find!" In reality, we need to start by saying "Ok, what does the text demand" and then discuss the evidence from there. Of course, not a soul does that consistently (I'll take anyone to task for claiming he/she does!), but, in a perfect world, we'd start with special revelation and then look at the general in light of it. On a related note, what do y'all think of this quote by Charles "Darwinism = Atheism" Hodge:

"Nature is as truly a revelation of God as the Bible; and we only interpret the Word of God by the Word of God when we interpret the Bible by science. As this principle is undeniably true, it is admitted and acted on by those who, through inattention to the meaning of terms, in words deny it. When the Bible speaks of the foundations, or of the pillars of the earth, or of the solid heavens, or of the motion of the sun, do not you and every other sane man, interpret this language by the facts of science? For five thousand years the Church understood the Bible to teach that the earth stood still in space, and that the sun and stars revolved around it. Science has demonstrated that this is not true. Shall we go on to interpret the Bible so as to make it teach the falsehood that the sun moves around the earth, or shall we interpret it by science, and make the two harmonize? Of course, this rule works both ways. If the Bible cannot contradict science, neither can science contradict the Bible…There is a two-fold evil on this subject against which it would be well for Christians to guard. There are some good men who are much too ready to adopt the opinions and theories of scientific men, and to adopt forced and unnatural interpretations of the Bible, to bring it to accord with these opinions. There are others, who not only refuse to admit the opinions of men, but science itself, to have any voice in the interpretation of Scripture. Both of these errors should be avoided."

Any thoughts? Is it always wrong to allow general revelation to correct possible misreadings of the bible? Does GTY/Biologos find Hodge's middle ground, or do both err to one side or the other?

#19  Posted by Douglas Grogg  |  Wednesday, July 14, 2010 at 10:40 PM

“it is possible for true Christians to believe OEC and TE without knowing the implications on Scripture”

Matthew, Mark and Luke give us an account of a man with a demon possessed son and Christ’s dealing with the issue of unbelief. “Oh unbelieving, and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring your son here.” In Mark’s account we see that the man persevered by asking “…if you can…” How did Christ respond? “If you can! All things are possible to him who believes.”(Mark 9:23) God takes the sin of unbelief very seriously. “And straightway the father of the child cried out and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief. (Mark 9:24 KJV) In the end it was demonstrated that the man did, in fact, have faith. He acknowledged the truth, namely, the Sovereignty of God in Christ by calling Him Lord. He confessed his sin of unbelief and petitioned Christ for enabling grace that he might triumph over that sin. Please note that Christ did not treat this man’s sin of unbelief with gentleness and neither should we.

In my earlier post (#4) I endeavored to demonstrate the widespread prevalence of this sin of unbelief in those who claim to be “Christians” and profess Christ by exposing the fact that their actions, speak louder than their words. I also endeavored to demonstrate that their faith failed to measure up to the standard of biblical saving faith as it is defined by God and is revealed in His word, namely, the example of a faith that saves and a faith that cannot save as was demonstrated by James. However, I failed to emphasize that the example of the faith that saves was none other that of Abraham when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar. (James 2:21, 22) To demonstrate the seriousness of this truth James prefaced these verses with “But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?” (James 2:20) Don’t miss that last word “useless”! Another example of a Biblical saving faith was that of Rahab when she received the messengers and sent them out another way. (See James 2:25) When she did this she was risking her life. Her actions demonstrated that her faith that God would save her was greater than any fear that she might be caught and executed as a traitor to her city.

God alone has the right to give assurance of salvation. If the Holy Spirit withholds assurance of salvation from a true child of God because of their sin, do we dare work against Him? If we desire for a person to have assurance of salvation perhaps we should work in concert with the Holy Spirit by coming along side the person to deal with their sin. We dare not lower God’s standard of Biblical saving faith by giving assurance of salvation to people who hold to, much less advocate, doctrines of demons! These doctrines pervert the attributes of God and rob Him of His glory. They also work to undermine the faith of His children. Faith relies on and puts its confidence in another. If a doctrine works to undermine the majesty and power of the object of that faith, faith loses its power and its strength is diminished. God spoke… and it was so. The word of God teaches us that Satan is the god of this world and that the whole world lies in the power of this evil one. Believers are pilgrims in a world that is at war with the true God of the Bible. The intensity of the world’s hatred towards God is growing greater and greater and will someday reach a point where war will be declared against all who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus (Revelation 12:17). But the One who spoke …and it was so, will speak once more. The heathen raged, the kingdoms were moved: He uttered His voice, the earth melted. The Lord of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah. (Psalms 46:6, 7 KJV) “Come, behold the works of the Lord, what desolations He hath made in the earth.” (Psalms 46:8 KJV) “Be still and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth. The Lord of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah. (Psalms 46:10, 11 KJV) -His Unworthy Slave

#20  Posted by Dan Fisher  |  Thursday, July 15, 2010 at 12:39 AM

We left a church over this issue about 16 months ago. We were in a local "megachurch". One Sunday, one of the pastors was preaching on reconciliation of "essentials vs. non-essentials" in scripture. He placed one chair at one end of the stage, and said that represented evolution. He placed another chair at the opposite end of the stage, and said that represented a literal six-day creation. Then he stood in the middle and said that we could find common ground between these two "extremes." I knew then that we were in the wrong church. We're now in a church where God's Word is given it's proper place in the teaching. My "radar" is always "on", but so far, so good. There certainly is a paucity of pastors willing to teach and stand up for God's Word the way Dr. MacArthur does. I am extremely thankful to God for the day I discovered Dr. MacAurthur on our local Christian radio station. Glory be to God!

#21  Posted by William Rhoden  |  Thursday, July 15, 2010 at 10:36 AM

I should clarify...

It is possible for a true believer to be an OEC or TE, because they are not judged on OEC, TE, or YEC, but on Christ's Righteousness. If they have the Gospel, then they are a believer even if they are wrong on OEC or TE.

This does not mean that we compromise on the Authority of Scripture. YEC is clearly the most obvious interpretation from Scripture alone, and Pastors are charged with preaching the Word and nothing else. For a pastor to do what Dan described is not good. It's not about making peace in the middle ground, but holding to what God has revealed.

The parallel that YEC is like the earth being flat is not a fair parallel. From the historic (and today's) vantage point, the earth does look flat. References to the sun moving were then used to "prove" that assumption. (Notice it is Scripture being used to prove our assumption.) Once people realized the earth was round, this did not change the Scripture. The sun moving is still an accurate statement from our frame of reference, so there is no true conflict.

However, for YEC there are no witnesses to creation except the Trinity. We cannot test our theories in a lab, and we've never been there. So we must have the testimony of someone who was. It would be inconsistent with God's character to encrypt the story for us to unlock with science. We must take Him at His Word in the narrative form He presents it!

It makes sense that OEC and TE cause doubt. If someone is not taking Genesis 1-11 literally, why should they take the rest of the Bible literally? It's up to God how He will deal with His children specifically, but as a church we should constantly present the truth of the Word. Then that person will either be affirmed in faith or fall away in God's timing. It takes great patience, but no more than Jesus had with His disciples (including Judas).

The doctrine to die on a hill for is the Authority of Scripture, and that's what really needs to be addressed in a doubting believer before they can get to OEC vs TE vs YEC. If someone denies the Authority of Scripture (or practically denies it after repeated rebukes) that's clearly the Doctrine of Demons, where as someone who is an OEC or TE may just be misguided. Either way, they should be corrected, some with harsh words (Galatians 1:9), and others with gentle restoration (Galatians 6:1).

#22  Posted by Jorge Alvarado  |  Thursday, July 15, 2010 at 3:17 PM

William # 21 wrote:

"It is possible for a true believer to be an OEC or TE, because they are not judged on OEC, TE, or YEC, but on Christ's Righteousness."

True, the problem arises when a person asks them what they believe. Will they say "whatever" or will they have the knowledge to defend their view? (if any).

If anything, If they believe the earth is millions of years old, what do they believe went on in the "earlier" years? evolution?. I hope not.

#23  Posted by Jorge Alvarado  |  Thursday, July 15, 2010 at 5:28 PM

Melisa # 9 wrote:

"Most Christian leaders (including some whose personal convictions about the origin of the universe are perfectly sound) remain silent about the issue and allow confusion to fester, rather than dealing with a controversial issue."

This is not a personal attack, but Did YOU "allow confusion to fester, rather than dealing with a controversial issue.", or were you able to defend the authority of scripture?

I, for one, have undergone ridicule for doing just that. (defending, not remaining silent).

#24  Posted by Douglas Grogg  |  Thursday, July 15, 2010 at 5:31 PM

“If someone denies the Authority of Scripture (or practically denies it after repeated rebukes) that's clearly the Doctrine of Demons, where as someone who is an OEC or TE may just be misguided. Either way, they should be corrected, some with harsh words (Galatians 1:9), and others with gentle restoration (Galatians 6:1).”

William, I would submit to you that doctrines of demons are doctrines of demons weather or not the one holding to them or advocating them is doing it out of ignorance or not. As you so wonderfully pointed out they all need to be corrected. Your reference to Galatians 1:9 is perhaps an appropriate text. Though this present attack on the gospel does not directly distort the gospel per se, in some ways the attack is even more deadly as it is an attack on the authority of the Scriptures which renders the gospel impotent. It has no power. It takes away our sword. Sinners must be brought to see the evil of their own hearts, the certainty of the judgment to come, the necessity of the new birth or the “gospel” (as most people understand it to be) is absolutely meaningless. The sinner has no clue what they are actually “being saved” from.

As to gentle restoration, you might want to consider how Paul address the churches of Galatia? “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him.” What an indictment! “Am I now seeking the favor of men, or God?” Rather serious words here! “You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you…?” It is not until Galatians 4:12 that his tone really changes. “I beg you, brethren…” Paul truly loved them didn’t he?

The Corinthian church was another church that was being influenced by Christ’s enemies. They truly did repent, but it took what theologians refer to as “the severe letter”. So severe was that letter, Paul actually struggled with second thoughts about having sent it. (2 Corinthians 7:8) Even though he acknowledged their repentance in 2 Corinthians 7:9-11, he goes on, as it were, to rub their noses in their sin (being influenced by false teachers) from chapter 10 through the rest of the book! Paul would have died for those saints. The dangers of the enemies of Christ, often times are so severe that they warrant such extreme measures.

The fact that someone comes out of these “doctrines of demons” does give evidence that they are (perhaps were) in fact “in Christ”. I would hope that their repentance would be a “loud repentance”. You cannot conclude that this evidence is conclusive evidence of being in Christ. Being in Christ involves much more than just having right doctrine. Ye must be born again. His Unworthy Slave

#25  Posted by Larry Bucar  |  Thursday, July 15, 2010 at 6:34 PM


Perhaps Fred and the gang are taking a much needed sabbath rest. Here's my 10 cents:

The quote from Mr. Hodge is full of presuppositions, opinions, and conjecture. "Nature is as truly a revelation of God as the Bible" meaning what? The Bible's purpose is to tell of man's depravity after disobeying God and the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ through God's paradigm, not ours - what's nature's purpose? Further down, "If the Bible cannot contradict science, neither can science contradict the Bible…," says who? The Bible i.e. God's Word TRUMPS science. Science subordinates itself to God because HE created it. Answer me this: How would science document that Lazarus was dead for 4 days? and this: What have past and current evolutionists sacrificed for their faith? LJB

#26  Posted by Dan Wilson  |  Thursday, July 15, 2010 at 7:04 PM

Science did'nt created God. As some think, that's the person makes gods

, I meant all different kinds. I agree what you meant about the Bible's

purpose. But remember Jesus did say the scripture won't give eternal life. Only a relationship with Jesus and acknowledging Him as Son of

God, Believing Him as risen Lord will save the person. Jesus did'nt use

science to prove himself he is God. He wanted to show Martha that He is

the Lord of the Living and Jesus loved Lazarus like a brother. He wept.

Jesus is the resurrection and the life. Jesus is God.

Let's say move over evolution and start reading God's Word, word for word, not going left or right. Praying will be helpful to us and those

whom are doubting God's Word and the Lord God too.

#27  Posted by Paul Tucker  |  Thursday, July 15, 2010 at 11:00 PM

My experience with Over Whelming Evidence is that here is none. What we have been talking about over these past months centers on what the text of Scripture says. Very few of the "dissenters" really have a handle on the text, and it shows. (And I am not trying to be mean spirited here, please do not take it that way). The questions which we have discussed on this blog are in the realm of theology. Theology is a science, one that requires much of the techniques of objective rigor that one would apply to any serious study. But it is not left to us to make it mean anything we want it to mean. It is not of any "private interpretation" and requires a man be "Spirit filled and controlled". It also requires that we look into it in such a way that we are the learners and not the teachers. A learner allows the text to say what it will. Let it say what it says. (Just a thought)

#28  Posted by Larry Bucar  |  Friday, July 16, 2010 at 8:22 AM


Thanks for the input.. BTY, Matthew 4:4 (note the word every) applies to ALL of these posts concerning God's ultimate plans and purposes in our lives. Also, I'm enjoying the lively debate over on the "Don’t Surrender the Ground" post. LJB

#29  Posted by Dan Wilson  |  Friday, July 16, 2010 at 6:35 PM

Dan Fisher,

I was a member of a church in Kirkland, OH for 5-6 yrs. At first, the

church was fine and bold on God's Word. Someone crept in the church and

twisted it around. They turn the worship time into playtime. Throwing

footballs and candy in the pulpit. Water-down preaching. Actually I got

hit in the head with a football, pom-poms, candy. My mom and I felt the

Holy Spirit just left the church. It was sad and God wanted us to leave

and He was guiding us to another church. I do understand what you are

saying. Thanks for sharing that.

God bless.

#30  Posted by Dan Wilson  |  Friday, July 16, 2010 at 6:54 PM

Larry Bucar,

Yhank you, I agree it is a lively debate too.

#31  Posted by Dan Wilson  |  Sunday, July 18, 2010 at 2:39 PM


The blogging is aggressive and I am trying my best to be patience.

Seems some non-believers are a little aggressive towards me during

the blog " don't surrender the ground" . I will try to keep up and maybe their eyes will open to the truth.

#32  Posted by Jorge Alvarado  |  Sunday, July 18, 2010 at 7:27 PM

# 27 Paul wrote:

about: "My experience with Over Whelming Evidence is that here is none."

Well, most posts here seem pretty well founded in scripture; Many references to scripture to uphold it's truths (or authority). I don't see many "misinterpretations". I for one, am guilty of not being able to "persuade" anyone. That is not my intent. I, as many here, want to make clear what we understand from the scriptures: It was God who created everything in six days. Evolution is not possible. Theistic evolution is not possible.

about: "But it is not left to us to make it mean anything we want it to mean. It is not of any "private interpretation" and requires a man be "Spirit filled and controlled".

True, but the "problem" is that the "dissenters" are going all over the place with their arguments. There's nothing wrong with that. May cooler heads prevail. Onward Christian soldiers!