Read this one:
The first principle of the universe he supposes to have been air dark with cloud and wind, or rather a blast of cloudy air, and a turbid chaos dark as Erebus; and these were boundless and for long ages had no limit…From its connexion Mot was produced, which some say is mud, and others a putrescence of watery compound; and out of this came every germ of creation, and the generation of the universe. So there were certain animals which had no sensation, and out of them grew intelligent animals, and were called "Zophasemin," that is "observers of heaven"; and they were formed like the shape of an egg. Also Mot burst forth into light, and sun, and moon, and stars, and the great constellations.'
Such was their cosmogony, introducing downright atheism
The point is, back then, 2nd Century, I think, they recognised that evolution was the direct route to atheism (which modern atheism demonstrates in spades).
Meanwhile back down at St Andrew's house, the crowd seems blithely unaware that they are prime boosters for atheism while they fold their hands and tell us that God 'used' evolution to produce his creation.
Madness, if not blasphemy (attributing to the creation what God tells us is his work).
He also clearly indicates that the opposing world-view included 'long ages'. So, that's nothing new as well. This is it: in ancient times there was a known view of the world that had it creating itself over long ages, or in long ages past. It therefore strains credibility to reject the biblical frame with the claim that the ancients didn't know better: the fact is, they knew precisely what was going on and insisted on biblical creation.
The 'by their fruits' test, I've not heard of belief in evolution reliably leading to people turning to Christ; whereas the gospel route via creation, which Paul demonstrates to us in Acts 17, does produce results.
Posts
4 comments:
The trap Sydney Episcopalians fall into is to believe the "new" information coming from science over the past 150 years or more puts the Church into a new situation which has to be considered and taken on board. However, Eric makes it clear that the same problems faced the infant Church approximately 2,000 years ago.
You would think they would be smarter than that but they are not.
Sam Drucker
The SADs are historical revisionists. They make up the truth about the past on the hop.
Theophilus of Antioch wrote about the earth being young, in contradistinction to the pagans who held it to be ancient. The SADs want us to believe that the ancients didn't have a concept of an old age earth because they didn't possess our occult scientific knowledge of the earth's age and so they, SADs, falsify the past, and thus God's word, in order to hold up their paganisation of the Gospel as the real truth.
But what is far more intellectually cowardly is their evasive response to the issue when you back them into a corner: "Look, it's only a minor issue and you should focus on the cross."
And they say that while people outside the faith are saying "the cross has no meaning because the universe made itself and there is no God, no author, no creator and no redeemer is therefore necessary.
And so Sydney Episcopalians with Theistic Evolutionist and Long Age views are not enlightened with greater knowledge and thus better positioned than "primitive" Christians of the past.
Instead they just regurgitate errors capably refuted by the early Church. They are, therefore, more inferior in capacity to most members of the early Church.
It is an unhealthy Church where these people hold sway.
Sam Drucker
Post a Comment