Philip Bell oversteps the mark

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Philip Bell oversteps the mark

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:37 pm

As just sent to CMI:


http://www.creation.com/from-fables-to-truth
Evidence-based science is not 'fables' (unless you are an anti-science fundie pretending to be pro-science).

http://toddcwood.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09 ... ution.html

Your hero Nagel is - wait for it - a philosopher.

"With these things in mind, it is time to ‘call a spade a spade’...". Yet Mr Bell fails to spell out clearly his obvious belief that if Christians do not reject science ('historical science') then they are not believers at all, that they are devoid of the Holy Spirit and that they have infiltrated churches in order to encourage or spread false teaching and 'fables'.

Your god is clearly a science-hater. How weird.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8388
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Philip Bell oversteps the mark

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:22 am

Email sent to five Christian acquaintances: I have no particular reason to doubt that any of them are Christians though three believe in evolution as far as I know.


"Apparently if you are not a science redefining bigot, you are just a
pretend Christian.

Pretty unpleasant of God to force people to make such a choice I'd
say.

Or else simply bad luck that the Bible writers knew nothing of
science.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3291
http://creation.com/from-fables-to-truth"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8388
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Philip Bell oversteps the mark

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:23 am

What is wrong with God?

What is His problem?
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8388
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Philip Bell oversteps the mark

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:32 am

Whatever it is, He makes it rational to hold irrational beliefs and irrational not to hold them.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8388
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Philip Bell oversteps the mark

Postby Peter Henderson » Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:19 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:Email sent to five Christian acquaintances: I have no particular reason to doubt that any of them are Christians though three believe in evolution as far as I know.


"Apparently if you are not a science redefining bigot, you are just a
pretend Christian.

Pretty unpleasant of God to force people to make such a choice I'd
say.

Or else simply bad luck that the Bible writers knew nothing of
science.

http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3291
http://creation.com/from-fables-to-truth"



Has Bell actually stated that those Christians who accept biological evolution an ancient Earth and who reject a global flood aren't really Christians at all ?
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4346
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Philip Bell oversteps the mark

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:58 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:Email sent to five Christian acquaintances: I have no particular reason to doubt that any of them are Christians though three believe in evolution as far as I know.


"Apparently if you are not a science redefining bigot, you are just a
pretend Christian.

Pretty unpleasant of God to force people to make such a choice I'd
say.

Or else simply bad luck that the Bible writers knew nothing of
science.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3291
http://creation.com/from-fables-to-truth"




Has Bell actually stated that those Christians who accept biological evolution an ancient Earth and who reject a global flood aren't really Christians at all ?



In my opinion, he has strongly implied that that is the case.

I could understand if he had stated that if someone preaching or teaching in a church argues that molecules to Man evolution is what God has done and that you can harmonise this understanding with scripture then the person concerned is a false teacher and quite possibly not a true Christian. But Bell's article goes much further.

I quote:
"A person cannot embrace fables and at the same time keep a firm hold on truth! Embracing fables always goes hand-in-hand with a departure from God’s truth. To turn aside to consider fables is not merely a little unwise—it is to ‘wander off into myths’. Ultimately, it is to court disaster, because it is impossible to allow a fable to have a place in one’s mind without also rejecting biblical truth. Fables result only in bad fruit. Good cannot come from toying with this or that new teaching."

This strongly suggests that if you mentally embrace evolution, even if you don't pro-actively discuss this with other Christians, you are departing from part of 'God's truth' and courting 'disaster' (either damnation or loss of salvation, if that is possible, I assume).

Again:
"According to the scriptural definition, those who espouse various kinds of fables are false teachers". Thus if you espouse science and question biblical creation you ARE a false teacher - merely by being present in a church. Bell then speaks of 'a spirit of antichrist', and compares theistic evolutionists with members of cults!

Though he does not expressly state "any professing Christian who embraces evolution cannot be truly saved unless they renounce such a belief" I think Bell has let the cat out of the bag and revealed what he really thinks of theistic evolutionists or at least what he really thinks scripture is saying (2,000 years ago) about them.

If you espouse something unbiblical it is a 'fable' and thus you are a 'false teacher'. False teachers are not believers at all but are "those who are focussed on what is ‘worldly’ (‘sensual’, KJV), causing divisions in the church because ‘they are devoid of the [Holy] Spirit’". That is what Bell's article controversially states.

Again, he makes clear that both "the reputation and glory of God" and "the eternal destiny of human beings" are 'at stake' because of evolutionary viewpoints within churches/Christian groups and urges genuine believers to be "jealous guardians of the truth" by rejecting evolutionary 'fables'. It is clear to me that he has concluded from scripture that any people in churches who advocate evolution (whether they are in the minority or the majority) are not saved or not yet saved. His article does not contain the sorts of caveats that similar articles by Ken Ham usually contain.

I note that no supporting comments have appeared yet under the article.

I suppose you could believe evolution is true but try to keep that a secret from other Christians. But Bell still seems to think that even if you don't teach or advocate this 'falsehood' within the church, you are still in danger of departing from the gospel and 'disaster'. (His colleague David Catchpoole only became a YEC 10 years after becoming a Christian - not a disaster from Bell's perspective I assume.)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8388
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Philip Bell oversteps the mark

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:00 pm

What do others think Bell is claiming?
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8388
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Philip Bell oversteps the mark

Postby cathy » Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:33 pm

In my opinion, he has strongly implied that that is the case.



And in mine also. Don't forget that given a choice most people would be quite happy to be Christians who could accept science. Why wouldn't they, nobody but the biggest moron or sociopath would become a Christian based on Genesis as literal. If only because of the image it creates of God. Most become Christians because of the NT.

The number of CMI obsessed loons is smallish in the greater scheme of things. But most people aren't particularly scientifically or theologically literate. And those attracted to the creationist churches are probably more inclined to look to authority figures a little less critically than others might. So whilst they would prefer to accept science because even to the less scientifically literate the creationist claim of massive conspiracy is inane, if told they can't be and told they have to choose they will choose faith.

CMI rely on that! They rely on bullying people into thinking that they cannot be a Christian, or at least a good one, unless they become creationists. After that its just a matter of providing enough sciency sounding garbage to keep them.

Look at the amount of time and effort CMI, AiG etc put into damning non creationist Christians as this evil, that evil etc. Far more than into their nonsense science or attacks on atheists. And atheists like Dawkins use that and they in turn use him. Your assessment is right.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Philip Bell oversteps the mark

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:09 pm

Theistic evolutionists don't set out to undermine scripture or theology.

Rather they believe in science as well as revelation (science does not suddenly cease to exist if a person is converted to Christ). This not uncritical broad acceptance of science and its methods or conclusions may mean that these Christians end up re-interpreting or ignoring SOME scriptures.

There are other scriptures such as John 1 verse 12 which Bell's article ignores and which imply that if you truly receive Christ by faith you become a child of God, however much or little you have studied the rest of the Bible.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8388
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Philip Bell oversteps the mark

Postby cathy » Thu Jul 11, 2013 6:29 pm

There are other scriptures such as John 1 verse 12 which Bell's article ignores and which imply that if you truly receive Christ by faith you become a child of God, however much or little you have studied the rest of the Bible.

There are a whole raft of scriptures that are against lying. Bell and his buddies ignore all of those. So if the bible is infallible and not open to interpretation how come the bits about lying are?
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Philip Bell oversteps the mark

Postby Peter Henderson » Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:36 pm

I suspect the reply to your message Ashley, will be something along the lines of "we've never stated you have to be a young Earth creationist in order to be saved", or "Christians who are evolutionists are saved", or something similar.

I did pose this question to CMI on their Facebook page before they banned me and this is what they came back with.

However, the fact remains that if, in the course of their "outreach", someone states that they are willing to accept Christ as their saviour but not young Earth creationism, what would CMI do or say to that person in relation to evangelism ?

Would they sate categorically that you can be a Christian and born again/saved even if you do accept evolution and a 4.55 billion year old Earth ? Would they point hem in the direction of theistic evolution ? Would they prefer a person is saved and a theistic evolutionist, or an Atheist if they rejected YECism ?

I never did get a straight answer from either Paul Garner or Marc when I posed this question. In fact, I don't get a straight answer from any YEC on this.

Put this point to CMI Ashley and see what they say.

I've been told this is a very good question I and it's not surprising YECs don't come back with a straight answer.

I think it's a serious problem for them with regard to evangelism.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4346
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Philip Bell oversteps the mark

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Jul 12, 2013 12:17 am

I have just flagged this thread to them.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8388
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Philip Bell oversteps the mark

Postby Peter Henderson » Fri Jul 12, 2013 12:34 am

Well, it'll be interesting to see what they come back with Ashley.

When I was involved with Youth For Christ and Evangelical Ministries in the late 70's/mid 80's, young Earth creationism was never, ever, used as a form of Christian Evangelism.

I don't ever remember people like Clive Calver or Graham Kendrick mentioning creation or the age of the Earth in any of their Christian outreach throughout the 80's/early 90's.

Why is it such a big issue for CMI now ?
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4346
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Philip Bell oversteps the mark

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Jul 12, 2013 7:22 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:Well, it'll be interesting to see what they come back with Ashley.

When I was involved with Youth For Christ and Evangelical Ministries in the late 70's/mid 80's, young Earth creationism was never, ever, used as a form of Christian Evangelism.

I don't ever remember people like Clive Calver or Graham Kendrick mentioning creation or the age of the Earth in any of their Christian outreach throughout the 80's/early 90's.

Why is it such a big issue for CMI now ?



I can safely say that they will totally IGNORE me.

Perhaps someone else who has not already been banned or blacklisted by them should ask the question. I find it rather hard to believe that 100% of even CMI's apparently mindless committed followers are entirely persuaded by Bell's somewhat selective quoting of scripture and attempt to equate being in a church with 'teaching' in a church and attempt to label science as first century 'fables'.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8388
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Philip Bell oversteps the mark

Postby cathy » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:58 pm

Well Peter it looks like its been asked and answered?
http://creation.com/from-fables-to-truth"

Philip are you stating categorically that you cannot be a Christian and born again/saved if you do accept evolution and a 4.55 billion year old Earth?

What about new Christians for whom it is the deal breaker - who can accept Christ but NEVER creationism? Would they point hem in the direction of theistic evolution? Or watch them walk away?

Or existing Christians for whom it is also the deal breaker. Who can and have willingly accepted Christ but will never accept creationism?

Would they prefer a person is saved and a theistic evolutionist, or an Atheist if they rejected YECism ?

I ask because it has become an issue in our church with several people leaving after a creationist pastor arrived. And many more unhappy at his creationism.

Philip Bell responds
The short answer to your question is a definite "No. I am not stating (nor seeking to imply) that a person cannot be a true Christian while believing in evolution and a billions-of-years old earth." On the contrary, I often spell this out in my talks using my own personal testimony. I was once a committed Christian who held to theistic evolution; I was sincere but quite wrong, unaware of my 'blessed inconsistency'.

Hypothetically, if a person to whom I was witnessing said "I'll only accept Christ if I can keep my belief in evolution" (or words to that effect), this would indicate that she was merely considering adopting Christianity as a matter of rational, intellectual thought; but one cannot ignore the vital spiritual dimension. No true convert to Christ comes merely by a decision of his/her will (see John 1:13) but under deep conviction of personal sin and the need of salvation from sin's penalty and power. To put it another way, in coming to God, the pathway is repentance and faith in Jesus Christ and there can be no deal brokering with Him!

Whether potential Christian converts or existing Christians, Christ is the Truth. Therefore, a sign of true faith will inevitably and inexorably mean a move towards truth in a person's life (this being the ministry of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, John 16:13). If big-picture evolution is in fact false, a true believer will be exercised about this by the Holy Spirit Himself, increasingly, until his/her will is brought into submission to God's (c.f. 2 Corinthians 10:5).

Ultimately, salvation is not of man, but is of/from the Lord (see Jonah 2:9) so it is not really possible to answer your last hypothetical question. Is a person who is truly saved (having called with genuine faith upon the Lord, Romans 10:9, Romans 10:13) but believes in error better off than an God-rejecting atheist? Without a doubt; there is no starker difference than that between eternal life and the punishment of hell! But true Christians increasingly realise that they are under 'new ownership' (they are no longer their own; 1 Corinthians 3:16) and that a major purpose of their existence is consequently to glorify God (1 Corinthians 6:20); it is the Christian's duty to avoid and shun that which is false, as this article sought to demonstrate.



Basically it seems to boil down to the holy spirit will tell you evolution is false. If the holy spirit hasn't told you evolution is false, you won't move towards truth (creationist version not real version) and you aren't really a christian? Thats my reading, so I guess as the holy spirit hasn't warned you and Michael off evolution you're in trouble tsk tsk. I'm guessing the holy spirit is what we call the holy ghost?

Who'd have thunk the holy spirit would be such a liar.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Next

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

cron