Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

This article shows how OE Compromisers need to be exposed

Expand Messages
  • Kurt Streutker
    Death of an Apostate Editorial by Dr. Carl Wieland www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v25n1_editorial.asp Up to 30,000 people a night would
    Message 1 of 3 , Dec 3, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Death of an Apostate
      Editorial by Dr. Carl Wieland
      www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v25n1_editorial.asp

      Up to 30,000 people a night would flock to hear Canadian evangelist
      Charles Templeton1 who, in his heyday, was more famous than his team-
      mate at the time, Billy Graham. Thousands professed to have found
      salvation in Christ through Templeton's preaching.

      Then things changed. Templeton had long had doubts about the history
      in Genesis, which is foundational to the entire structure of the
      Gospel, and how it seemed to contradict the `scientific facts'.
      Logically, `millions of years' meant that the fossils were laid down
      long before man, hence before sin. But the fossils showed death,
      bloodshed and disease. So the whole idea of a Fall ruining a once-
      perfect world, to be redeemed via the `last Adam', Jesus Christ (1
      Corinthians 15:46) was meaningless. And no-one seemed to be able to
      give Templeton answers to his associated questions: How could Noah
      fit all those animals onto the Ark? Where did the water come from?
      And more of the very ones dealt with in frontline AiG literature,
      such as The Answers Book.

      The reaction from his colleague, Billy Graham, implied that it
      was `unspiritual' for Templeton to be concerned with such things. Our
      article2 highlighted his tragic descent into total unbelief, and the
      eventual writing of his book, Farewell to God: My reasons for
      rejecting the Christian faith.

      Some time after our article appeared, Charles Templeton died, after a
      struggle with Alzheimer's disease. A Canadian Gospel broadcaster used
      the occasion to draw a lesson for Christians from his
      countryman's `fall from grace'. Templeton, he implied, was wrong to
      ask the questions in the first place. Trying to use commonsense and
      reason to approach issues of faith was wrong; it was the `flesh' (as
      he labelled the intellect) at war with the `spirit'.

      Such a confused and Biblically unwarranted response to Bible/science
      issues still reigns in many conservative Christian circles today.
      Sadly, it reinforces the secular caricature that Christianity and
      reality occupy two separate zones. Christian faith is thought to be
      only `in your head', some emotional crutch that might `work for you',
      but has nothing to do with hard facts.

      The Apostle Paul, however, well knew that his faith was based on
      concrete reality. The Lord Jesus died on a cross and rose again, as a
      fact of real history (and biology), sharing food with those who saw,
      touched and spoke with Him after His Resurrection. If that history
      and biology concerning the `last Adam' was wrong, said Paul, it was
      not a side issue; Christians would be a miserable lie-believing bunch
      whose faith was therefore futile (1 Corinthians 15:17).

      I think that, ironically, Paul would have taken the side of Templeton—
      the Apostle agreeing with the apostate-to-be—on one point, anyway. He
      would have chastized the broadcaster (and, dare one say it, Billy
      Graham) for being unconcerned with whether the Bible contradicts
      facts. Same with the Lord Jesus Himself, who taught that the greatest
      commandment was to love God with all your … mind (Matthew 22:37)!3

      If that which He stated concerning the first Adam (the history of his
      creation from dust and his Fall into sin ruining the whole creation,
      and the biology of the deathless world in which he lived originally
      prior to that Fall) is not really, truly true, we would also be
      miserable believers in falsehood, because all the hope of the Gospel
      is based squarely on the truth of its background history.

      But Paul would have gone on from there to proclaim that the Bible's
      history really was true. Creation, the Fall, the Flood—its biology
      and its geology. The first Adam fell in space, time and history just
      as surely as the last Adam rose in space, time and history.

      So if one investigates the past with the right `glasses', the right
      philosophical axioms (presuppositions) as one's starting point, the
      evidence, especially in the `big picture', will be seen to be totally
      consistent with the Bible's history. These vital points are brought
      out in our two-part article `The culture wars' on pp. 46–51.

      Biblical faith is not an excuse for ignoring the facts; it gives the
      right basis for understanding and interpreting the facts, which never
      speak for themselves, anyway.

      If only those surrounding Charles Templeton had not tried to fob him
      off with spiritual-sounding platitudes, but had dealt squarely with
      the real issues he was raising. If only they had shown him how many
      of the `facts' bothering him were really faith-interpretations that
      were originally developed on the basis of first rejecting the Bible's
      history, and that real science does not conflict with that history.
      How different things might have been!

      To see more ofthe danges of OE compromises also see:
      The slippery slide to unbelief:
      A famous evangelist goes from hope to hopelessness

      www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n3_Templeton.asp
    • yecreationist
      Mark: Have any of you read what passes as scholarship by Hugh Ross? I have read them on AIG with thier rebuttals. They are embarrassingly bad to the point that
      Message 2 of 3 , Dec 6, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Mark: Have any of you read what passes as scholarship by Hugh Ross?
        I have read them on AIG with thier rebuttals. They are
        embarrassingly bad to the point that I as a junior of Information
        Science could outdebate him. Ross either is the worst scholar ever
        or he blatantly lies. When you fact check his sources you find that
        his sources contradict him in many cases. Yet he has a captive
        audience. He is Darwin all over again he is. Darwin's only degree
        was in theology but Darwin is a "great" man of science because he
        has "all of the right answers". It goes to show the shambles that is
        the modern Christian church that a person like him could find an
        audience there.
      • yecreationist <krinks@pfnmail.net>
        ... www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v25n1_editorial.asp ... evangelist ... team- ... history ... down ... to ... Our ... the ... after a ...
        Message 3 of 3 , Dec 9, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com, "Kurt Streutker"
          <kurt_streutker@y...> wrote:
          > Death of an Apostate
          > Editorial by Dr. Carl Wieland
          >
          www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v25n1_editorial.asp
          >
          > Up to 30,000 people a night would flock to hear Canadian
          evangelist
          > Charles Templeton1 who, in his heyday, was more famous than his
          team-
          > mate at the time, Billy Graham. Thousands professed to have found
          > salvation in Christ through Templeton's preaching.
          >
          > Then things changed. Templeton had long had doubts about the
          history
          > in Genesis, which is foundational to the entire structure of the
          > Gospel, and how it seemed to contradict the `scientific facts'.
          > Logically, `millions of years' meant that the fossils were laid
          down
          > long before man, hence before sin. But the fossils showed death,
          > bloodshed and disease. So the whole idea of a Fall ruining a once-
          > perfect world, to be redeemed via the `last Adam', Jesus Christ (1
          > Corinthians 15:46) was meaningless. And no-one seemed to be able
          to
          > give Templeton answers to his associated questions: How could Noah
          > fit all those animals onto the Ark? Where did the water come from?
          > And more of the very ones dealt with in frontline AiG literature,
          > such as The Answers Book.
          >
          > The reaction from his colleague, Billy Graham, implied that it
          > was `unspiritual' for Templeton to be concerned with such things.
          Our
          > article2 highlighted his tragic descent into total unbelief, and
          the
          > eventual writing of his book, Farewell to God: My reasons for
          > rejecting the Christian faith.
          >
          > Some time after our article appeared, Charles Templeton died,
          after a
          > struggle with Alzheimer's disease. A Canadian Gospel broadcaster
          used
          > the occasion to draw a lesson for Christians from his
          > countryman's `fall from grace'. Templeton, he implied, was wrong
          to
          > ask the questions in the first place. Trying to use commonsense
          and
          > reason to approach issues of faith was wrong; it was the `flesh'
          (as
          > he labelled the intellect) at war with the `spirit'.
          >
          > Such a confused and Biblically unwarranted response to
          Bible/science
          > issues still reigns in many conservative Christian circles today.
          > Sadly, it reinforces the secular caricature that Christianity and
          > reality occupy two separate zones. Christian faith is thought to
          be
          > only `in your head', some emotional crutch that might `work for
          you',
          > but has nothing to do with hard facts.
          >
          > The Apostle Paul, however, well knew that his faith was based on
          > concrete reality. The Lord Jesus died on a cross and rose again,
          as a
          > fact of real history (and biology), sharing food with those who
          saw,
          > touched and spoke with Him after His Resurrection. If that history
          > and biology concerning the `last Adam' was wrong, said Paul, it
          was
          > not a side issue; Christians would be a miserable lie-believing
          bunch
          > whose faith was therefore futile (1 Corinthians 15:17).
          >
          > I think that, ironically, Paul would have taken the side of
          Templeton—
          > the Apostle agreeing with the apostate-to-be—on one point, anyway.
          He
          > would have chastized the broadcaster (and, dare one say it, Billy
          > Graham) for being unconcerned with whether the Bible contradicts
          > facts. Same with the Lord Jesus Himself, who taught that the
          greatest
          > commandment was to love God with all your … mind (Matthew 22:37)!3
          >
          > If that which He stated concerning the first Adam (the history of
          his
          > creation from dust and his Fall into sin ruining the whole
          creation,
          > and the biology of the deathless world in which he lived
          originally
          > prior to that Fall) is not really, truly true, we would also be
          > miserable believers in falsehood, because all the hope of the
          Gospel
          > is based squarely on the truth of its background history.
          >
          > But Paul would have gone on from there to proclaim that the
          Bible's
          > history really was true. Creation, the Fall, the Flood—its biology
          > and its geology. The first Adam fell in space, time and history
          just
          > as surely as the last Adam rose in space, time and history.
          >
          > So if one investigates the past with the right `glasses', the
          right
          > philosophical axioms (presuppositions) as one's starting point,
          the
          > evidence, especially in the `big picture', will be seen to be
          totally
          > consistent with the Bible's history. These vital points are
          brought
          > out in our two-part article `The culture wars' on pp. 46–51.
          >
          > Biblical faith is not an excuse for ignoring the facts; it gives
          the
          > right basis for understanding and interpreting the facts, which
          never
          > speak for themselves, anyway.
          >
          > If only those surrounding Charles Templeton had not tried to fob
          him
          > off with spiritual-sounding platitudes, but had dealt squarely
          with
          > the real issues he was raising. If only they had shown him how
          many
          > of the `facts' bothering him were really faith-interpretations
          that
          > were originally developed on the basis of first rejecting the
          Bible's
          > history, and that real science does not conflict with that
          history.
          > How different things might have been!
          >
          > To see more ofthe danges of OE compromises also see:
          > The slippery slide to unbelief:
          > A famous evangelist goes from hope to hopelessness
          >
          >
          www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n3_Templeton.asp
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.