While it’s somewhat old news (at least to many of the writers here), Ray Comfort has the dubious distinction, not only of speaking at an upcoming Health & Wealth Gospel conference, and not only of being a royal jerk in his actual witness (i.e. the way he treats the other street performers at Surf City’s Pier Plaza), but today one of his old bits of insanity received a dubious distinction:
It made the front-page of FARK, probably the only news-blog I read with any regularity (though I try to avoid many of the comments threads, which are long, nasty and brutish, to be nice). It was also FARK that picked up Ingrid’s attack on VeggieTales a couple years back that brought SoL briefly (and sadly) into the secular public eye.
Now it’s Ray Comfort and his banana act.
Which is pitiful.
It seems that an atheist site took hold of this and ran with it, and it’s been posted to FARK (which has also been demonstrated to be the #1 source for comedy writers of late-night TV and talk radio). So, don’t be surprised if this shows up in embarrassing places in the coming week or so. With some luck or providence, there will be better things out there to make fun of.
Here’s the running commentary on FARK on the article in question. To be clear, though, I don’t endorse anything that you’re likely to find there – it was already pretty bad 10 comments in – so proceed with caution.
—UPDATE 8:00 a.m. 7/3—
After sleeping, praying and reflecting on it, I should not have submitted this article in the shape that it’s in. The key message I was trying to get across -
that when we purposely engage the public square, we should do so in ways that are not offensive (even though the message of the gospel may bring offense) or pathetic
- was completely muddled and ill-thought-out in its presentation. A lot more thought and prayer should have been engaged before hitting ’submit’. However, since we do not try to cover up mistakes here by deleting things and pretending they didn’t happen, please feel free to stop by and say “Chris, you should have been much more considerate and reflective before hitting ’submit’” because, if you were to say this, you would be correct.
189 Comments(+Add)
I guess God messed up with the coconut. The stars and just creation in general might be a hint to a Creator.
The banana? Part of the fall.
BTW – what about people who are allergic to bananas or do not like them? Which creation is out of wack – the banana or the man?
1. Ray Comfort does not speak for the church any more than this blog does.
2. Who cares about the opinions atheists hold re: the church?
3. The comments at FARK are remarkably similar to those found on ecm blogs.
Having been on the street with Ray Comfort and using this method of evangelism myself, I can tell you that there is much more to this ministry than what you see in a few videos. Although I do not use just one method of evangelism because I am not a method guy, I have walked about 30 people (most in Russia) through the law, and I have been amazed at how convicted they were.
I have listened to most of his CDs, watched every program, etc. and most of the time people are laughing and enjoying themselves. More importantly, a few walk away with a lot to think about and every single one of them heard the Gospel. I will agree that the banana thing is not the best example but he does not use that very often. Way of the Master is doing two things. They are consistently sharing the Gospel and they are training hundreds to come out of their shell and share the Gospel.
I don’t know why he is speaking at the health & wealth event. Todd Friel is an odd pairing with Comfort and Cameron. I don’t know the whole story behind the controversy at Huntington Beach and I am not sure I would let one secular source guide me on that (you may have other sources). However, I will tell you that the vast majority of the time, these witnessing opportunities are done respectfully, under the law, and no one is infringed upon. That story you site, if true and unbiased, is the exception rather than the rule.
This ministry has really brought two verses to light for me. Romans 7:7 that an important part of evangelism is that when you witness, you need to guide the person to realize they are a sinner. This can be done gently. The other verse is James 4:17 which made me realize that if I feel the Spirit’s prompting to share the Gospel with someone, I should.
In sum, the banana thing may seem embarrassing to you, but just remember, those secular folks are laughing just as hard at Ben Stein for the movie Expelled. The vast majority of Comfort’s evangelism is very tame and unobtrusive and many people are hearing the whole Gospel.
Darren,
Part of the prompting to post this was also the article referenced on VS the other day, where it looks like he’s also being rude within the limited space provided…
What in the world!?! Comfort=evangelist…ok Scientist or apologist..NO!
I find it humorous as I watched that thinking, “Doesn’t the creation that is behind him say it all without adding a fruit of the loom?”
That was so abstract! It would be like me going to the bathroom and showing my neighbors and saying, “Look, it comes out perfectly in such a shape to sqeeze through the hole!”
Next, he should take a bruised banana against the one he had and say “This your banana with sin; this is your banana without sin…any questions?”
“Which creation is out of wack – the banana or the man?”
Neither….
Look dad, Bananas! We really are apes! LOL
Chris L.
You have officially sunk to a new low.
I personally have witnessed Ray witness on two occasions at Huntington beach. I have videos of both.
The article in the OC Register was clearly biased against him. I know, I love the man, so you will have the opinion that I am biased.
1. Ray is witnessing in the open air, without amplification. It is against the law in HB to use it. Ray, in obeying the law, and in speaking to crowds of 50-200 people (and those walking by) must raise his voice.
2. Ray never calls people liars and says they are going to Hell. He asks if they have lied, they admit to lying, and admit to being liars. He then summarizes whatever the portion of the ten commandments that the person has admitted to breaking…by your own admission you are a lying..thieving..blasphemous adulterer at heart and you have to face God on judgement day. If God were to judge you based on the Ten commandments, would you go to heaven or hell? He allows them to come to their own conclusion. It is a far cry from calling people liars and telling them they are going to Hell.
3. The break dancers were very disruptive, they had illegal amplification as well. This was detracting from the flow of the crowd in the plaza far more than Ray, and was overpowering the other venders.
4. There were four major groups using their first amendment rights when I was there last; The break dancers, a porno shop, the Athiests, and Ray. Please note the focus on Ray; none of these other groups were required to get into a rotation, or even asked to my knowledge.
It amazes me that you would take the side of an atheistic newspaper reporter/blog site over that of an evangelistic Christian ministry. You have done no background research from my perspective.
He is preaching the law and the Gospel to hundreds of people each Saturday. Now you may not agree with his method, but his motive is to glorify God and to plant seeds. This is a genuine, Godly man and you align yourself with FARK and the OC register to make fun of him? I really, truly wonder where you are coming from.
I am disappointed! I know you do not care, but I really am disappointed. You have hit a new low.
PB,
How is it Chris L’s fault an atheisit site picked up the silly “banana” video and are making fun of it? Tell me hos Chris L is responsible for this?
Again, casting false accusations at people not good for your cause.
iggy
I’m not aligning myself with FARK or the OC Register, I’m just observing that it seems to be Ray Comfort week, and much of it is his own doing. I also trust the guys at VS, who are first-hand familiar with this guy:
Upon reflection, I probably should have just noted this in the comments section in another post, as it probably didn’t warrant an entire post of its own. I just get so frustrated every time someone sends me a link to the stupid banana video, and I wish we as Christians would stick to what we know. And – having seen numerous street-videos of Ray in action, it’s just too reminiscent of the monster-shouters on the local college campus who bring far more disrepute to God by being Jerks for Jesus than the timid Christians who sit on their hands and do little-to-nothing (neither of which I recommend)…
Ray Comfort was already a running joke in the outside world.
I hope everybody knows this.
So easy to make him look stupid, too:
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2008/06/is-god-off-his-game.html
Oh boy here comes another debate about evangelism techniques.
Darren I agree with most of what you say.
Personally (in this case) I could care less about how the world views Ray Comfort. By all I’ve seen he is a Godly man, with a genuine heart for the lost and his ministry bears fruit. Todd Friel on the other hand…
If people are going to start condemnig Chris L. for this, they need to start condemning others as well. How many times has Ingrid sided with the media when it suited her needs. By the way, I don’t see Chris as “siding” with anyone here. Not everytime a Christian gets asked to be quiet is persecution. Sometimes Christians really are just jerks who like to shout at people.
I pretty much think of people who do the shouting-type presentations of the Gospel as an innoculation to the Gospel. In the things I’ve seen, I see two reactions. The first is people walk by as fast as they can. The second is that someone will occasionally stop and argue. Sometimes I see other Christians stop and start trying to correct the street preacher – dueling sermons.
At least Comforts typical style is based on face to face interaction. To me street preaching is kind of a cowardly way of doing things, because it allows the speaker to kind of look past people. It’s hard to explain, but I’ve done it. It’s a lot easier to take a public stand in front of an anonymous crowd rather than talk to someone face to face.
Wait – Ingrid posted against Veggie Tales?
Neil
Thank you for the update, Chris.
Your post brings out good points, but could have been a little more brotherly in its tone.
The update is a much needed balance.
Shalom
I just took a few minutes and prayed for our brother Ray.
I think it would be a good idea if all of us lifted him up at this time.
Friends,
I don’t want to get into a whole big thing here, but that video was hilarious. It would be funny no matter who did it. Cameron couldn’t even keep a straight face. I don’t know Mr Comfort, but that had to be satire. I cannot imagine for a minute he was being serious. I gotta go…I am crying that was so funny. At least the guy has a sense of humor.
jerry
Jerry,
I really do wish it was satire, but I don’t think it was meant to be. I believe they have used this argument in other venues as well.
Jerry,
You have a point there. Ray is a very funny guy, he uses humor in his Gospel presentation, to break the ice, and I believe that the banana as well as the coke can are a form of satire (or hyperbole) to show how foolish the thought of evolution is.
In his referenced OC message, he has another great illustration he uses to prove God’s creative powers, he challenges an athiest to make milk without a cow, or honey without a bee. He uses these methods to challenge those people who believe there is no God. It really gets you thinking!
But humor, satire, etc can be an effective method to get one thinking.
PB,
I am glad we agree on something… especially this…
iggy
Honest question here – what exactly does that prove? I’m not seeing the point of such questions.
Recently I was reading an article on honey making. It really is an amazing concept. I would suspect that there are so many complexities/processes involved in making honey that pure chance is an impossibility.
Phil,
There are a lot of people who believe in evolution that have never really thought about it. There are a lot of athiests at HB who can honestly look at the creation around them and not see the handiwork of God. The question is aimed to get a person thinking about the complexities of life by pointing out the complexities of making honey and milk, and that the likelihood of that process happening by chance is nil
If we can ge the person to agree there is a God, then we can jump to His nature, His holiness…and what are you going to do when you have to face Him?
That is the point.
Chris L.
BTW Thanks for the update.
PB,
Well I guess that those types of arguments may work for some, but they aren’t really that convincing for anyone who has studied evolutionary theory. Actually, I think they can work to discredit our overall credibility, but that’s another debate.
John Lennon had an album titled “Milk and Honey.” His last album I believe.
I know that has nothing to do with anything concerning this post…but (insert twilight zone them music) maybe it does…
jerry
CHRIS L.: Thanks for the update. I agree that in open air evangelism, there is a fine line between Peter at Pentecost and a carnival barker.
WHY GO AFTER EVOLUTION IN EVANGELISM: Post 22 by pastorboy is the idea and I think this is directly in line with Romans 1:18-20. There is a great segment of mankind for which secularism is their religion, evolution is their gospel, Darwin their messiah, and global warming their reformation.
HOW THIS PLAYS OUT: Acts 17:32-33 following Paul’s preaching before the Areopagus represents what generally happens; some sneer, some are interested, and some are saved. It’s the Gospel and it will be offensive to some.
Phil,
That may be true for scientists, but for the average Joe who thinks he believes in evolution, it gets them thinking. The purpose of it all is a launching pad to the spiritual, where Ray addresses the conscience using the ten commandments:
9th: How many lies have you told in your lifetime? What do you call some one who lies? (liar)
8th: Have you ever stolen anything? Value is irrelevant- What do you call someone who steals? (thief)
7th: Have you ever looked with lust? Jesus said that if you look with lust you commit adultery in the heart.
6th: Have you ever hated someone? Jesus says if you hate, you commit murder in the heart.
As Darren stated, Romans 7:& tells us that people need to be guided through the law so they can be made aware that they are not good, that they need a Savior.
If a person does not believe in God, you must use a logical, concise, argument that makes sense to the average Joe.
This is what Ray does; and then when the law awakens the conscience, Ray can share the good news, that When Christ dies a legal transaction took place, where Christ paid the fine (death) for all the sins that we have committed. All we must do is repent by confessing our sin (I am a lying thieving adulterous murderer at heart) and forsaking it, then placing our full trust in the atoning sacrifice Christ made for us. God draws us, provides the faith and the ability to repent, and makes us a new creation in Christ Jesus.
I think far too many Christians have completely lost touch with unbelievers — how they think, how they see things, how they interpret life and the world around them.
Consequently, when some Christians talk publicly/witness, they speak as if they are already preaching to the unsaved — RC is a case in point in this banana video. He might think it’s clever,m but it’s stupid — and if we’re not willing to say that, then the world certainly will.
I see so much witnessing/preaching wherein:
- Christianese, in-house jargon is used that unbelievers don’t understand or find offensive.
- Silly-sounding banana-like illustrations are used that Christians might oooh ‘n ahhh over, but unbelievers just think are idiotic (and rightly so).
- Points are made that are irrelevant to today’s life in our world.
- An overemphases is placed on terrifically minor issues at the expense of the weightier matters, and it’s corollary of putting the cart before the horse is pressed down upon the unsaved (e.g., stop listening to that music, stop dressing that way, and stop talking that way so you can come to Jesus).
I spend too much time arguing with New Agers, for example, just over the idiocy they’ve seen from “Christians” (and the hate and nastiness) — they’re not even against the gospel per se, they’re against all the people they’ve encountered who have tried to shove Christ at them and down their throats like he was …. a banana!
RAbanes
Richard – just so you know, you and Iggy made the SOL parade today along with me. You guys deserved it, I did not!
Richard
They have lost touch with unbelievers; so why would you criticize one who makes it his lifes goal to speak one on one or to crowds about Jesus? Man, I have seen Ray in action; the response you describe is so rare, most of the time they go away thankful and humbled to have heard the good news. And you also miss out on the one to one follow up, done by other Christians. It is so beautiful.
PB: …. but for the average Joe who thinks he believes in evolution, it gets them thinking. The purpose of it all is a launching pad to the spiritual …..
RA: I disagree. You know what it gets the average Joe to think? Here, from message boards:
Sigh. We need different launching pads, PB.
RAbanes
God’s law is irrelevant in todays world? Who said that? God?
Where is that in the law that Ray uses? He NEVER speaks about such issues; in fact, when it comes to homosexuality, he purposely AVOIDS it, sticking to the ten commandments, where, in Jesus’ words even looking with lust is committing adultery.
PB: God’s law is irrelevant in todays world? Who said that? God?
RA: Don’t put words in my mouth, please. Calm down. I never said that. Where did I say that? I said “points” made by various people, as evidenced by my comment: “I see so much witnessing/preaching wherein…” I said nothing about the law of God. C’mon, now.
________
PB: Where is that in the law that Ray uses? He NEVER speaks about such issues ….
RA: I was not attributing to Ray Comfort ALL of those points I made. Dude, seriously, clam the bop down. Read again. That list was prefaced by “I see so much witnessing/preaching wherein….,” then I make my list…
RAbanes
RICHARD: While many laugh off the banana, I have met people for whom it was effective. Ray uses another example where he points to a building and says, “you cannot see the builder but it does not mean there is not one,” in response to those that do not believe in God because they cannot see him. Some laugh this off but it makes many folks think and gives Ray the opportunity to tell how God has been seen in the person of Jesus Christ. As I stated before, Ben Stein’s Expelled is laughed at and he makes many intelligent, articulate arguments.
Having heard Ray numerous times, I will testify to something that has not been stated. Ray uses a ton of Scripture. I am amazed at how much he has memorized.
Kind of…
I guess I have trouble understanding how a Gospel presentation based entirely on the law is the most Biblical. What makes the OT law universal for all humanity?
By the way, I am not saying that Christians shouldn’t obey the 10 Commandments or anything. I’m just trying to follow the logic.
RA:
Are you saying your post was not about Ray comfort?
It seems with the opening and closing lines, it was.
RF: Richard – just so you know, you and Iggy made the SOL parade
RA: Yeah, the hyprocrisy is so thick in that article you can’t even BEGIN cutting it with a knife.
You challenge the factual/historical validity of an ODM and suddenly it’s all about: “STOP the slander,” “Oh, how vicious they are,” “…trying to ruin his reputation,” “look at them sneering,” “it’s so slanderous.”
But this is the one I loved the best: “If I have been mistaken or wrong in something I have written, it comes down.”
ROFL!! Riiiiiight, Ingrid. Oh and btw, Ingrid, you said: “Richard Abanes intended to hurt Ken Silva and his reputation with their comments.”
No, I attempted to give Ken a chance to tell people the truth about his involvement in apologetics, which is VERY recent in origin (and the truth about his relationship, or lack there of, to WM as a “Mentor”)
RA
Phil,
Every one of the Ten Commandments were reaffirmed by Jesus Christ in the New Testament EXCEPT for the Sabbath command.
Paul affirms the use of the law in The book of Romans 2, as well as the book of Galatians, where it is a tutor to point people to Jesus.
PB: Are you saying your post was not about Ray comfort?
RA: My post was about RC where I mentioned RC – please see post.
RAbanes
Darren,
I like the building one. I like the watch found in a field, too.
RAbanes
PHIL: Using the law in evangelism is not about telling people today to live by the ten commandments. It is about Romans 7:7. I could just as easlily say, “have you ever cheated on your taxes,” or ” have you looked at porn on the internet.” The point of using the ten commandments is that most Americans are familiar with it. Amazingly, the average Russian on the street knows a few of them due to their orthodox background, but since they are similar to universal moral law, they still work to convict people of their sin.
Just a few questions here…
If I believe that God used(uses) evolution as a method to create, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old (not 6000) and that the universe started with the big bang 13.7 billion years ago and that it is expanding, does that make me a heretic? Does that influence my salvation?
Sorry, I hit the submit butten to soon.
I wanted to add:
Can I still evangelize? Or must evolution be refuted to do that?
O, I’m guessing a common Creator.
The OT law was a schoolmasterto bring us to Christ, but now we must not return to the “beggarly elements”. Christ is the end of the law to all who believe.
We live in the age of the Spirit. The letter kills but the Spirit gives life. Jesus said, “If I be lifeted up…” not lifting up the OT law which is a message of death. I came to Christ when Billy Graham lifted Him up, I never thought about the law or even my sin.
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and youshall be saved!
PB & Darren,
I guess my point is that I have an issue with a law-based presentation because it gives the impression that if the law was followed perfectly, it would bring righteuosness. Paul says, though, that this is an impossibility.
I think a good argument can be made that Jews didn’t follow the law because they thought it would justify them, but they followed it out of obedience. The law was given to God’s people, not pagans. So what Christ did was offer us all a way to become one of the chosen by becoming our atoning sacrifice.
I guess it gets back to one’s view of the atonement. I’m not saying God can’t use WOTM’s presentation, but I just think that type of presentation is based on some premises that I have trouble accepting carte blanche.
You really want to hash this out all over again? I did what I could to drop this subject, now how about you do the same? You got a beef with Ingrid take it up with her. There was no need to add the digs at me into your comment.
Cuz dude ya’ll really don’t wanna get down in the mud an’ runt wit’ us pigs does ya?
Eugene: Yes, you can certainly evangelize without refuting evolution, but I have found that the majority of lost people will use that to refute you. Many folks hold onto evolution because if they are proved wrong then they must believe in creation until another theory rears its head.
I read Gen. 1 literally. I don’t know that it clearly spells out a young earth, but the truth of Scripture does refute transitional forms.
Evolution it a theory with zero data to support it. Zero.
Phil said: “I guess my point is that I have an issue with a law-based presentation because it gives the impression that if the law was followed perfectly, it would bring righteuosness.”
That is the point. The exercise of walking someone through the law shows them that no one can keep the law. Everyone stumbles on at least one point. The only way of salvation is through faith in Christ.
Comfort’s big issue is false conversion. His mission is to make sure folks really understand they are lost before they are found.
Repeating something does not make it true. Scientists will take you to the field with this. Do you need proof for survival of the fittest? The mutation of viruses to survive anti-viral medicine. This can be seen in a very short period of time.
Yes it is true that a lot of people use the theory of evolution to refute the existence of a Creator. I just think that if we stop using scripture to try to refute science, and start showing how scripture aligns with science, the argument of evolution proving Creation wrong will be void.
In my view spinach proves there is no God.
Well said, Eugene.
The majority of “lost people” will use it to refute you, Darren, because being “lost” does not equal stupid. When Christians continue to argue for a literal Gen 1 & 2 they lose credibility. Instead of making the Bible fit into our preconcieved notions of what the Word of God ought to be we should allow the Bible to be what it is – NOT a science book, for starters.
My biggest issue with this Way of the Master stuff is it is totally non-relational. Salvation is about relationships if nothing else. People shouldnt be scared into accepting Christ. That is not Good News.
peace,
Chad
I believed in evolution for almost two years after I was saved.
Now look! You’ve made me spit out my wife’s perfectly good and tasty food you made me laugh so hard.
With all due respect this would be more appropriate to lay at the feet of secular scientists and their fantasy of macro-evolution.
What must you know and believe to be saved? The absolute basics – no frills.
What do you think a sinner must knaow and believe to be saved??
Hmm, I think we should make it something really hard. How about the starting lineup of the Chicago Cubs the last time they won the World Series?
Ken, I want to comment on this but have to prepare for band practice now. (Want to join?) I will comment in about three hours time.
Right there’s your problem, Rick. Everyone knows the Puritans loved frillls, and the Puritans were right about everything.
Eugene & Chad: Repeating something does not make it true but the Word of God does. Evolution theory proof tries to blur the lines between macro and micro evolution, but the overaching truth is that the Word of God is perfect and Gen. 1 & 2 are the perfect truth. The original post by Chris L. has us focusing on bananas but vast majority of WOTM ministry is using Scripture and preaching the whole Gospel. Science/Evolution is sometimes used as a converstation starter to reveal the truths of Scripture.
Being lost does not equal stupid but it does equal blind to the truth. I offer the following tract from Ray Comfort on why scientist should look to the Bible: http://www.livingwaters.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=284
The reason I defending this type of evangelism is because I have seen its effect. It is certainly not the only way but a very effective way.
Darren,
Just fyi, I don’t reject this kind of evangelism either — I just want better illustrations than a banana.
As I said, I like the building illustration, I like the watch in a field, etc.
RA
Darren-
Gen 1&2 are the perfect truth. But what makes them perfect is not that they are a blueprint for how creation began.
peace.
CHAD: Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, so forgive me if I am stating the obvious.
The Word of God is perfect.
Genesis 1 & 2 are pefect.
Genesis 1 & 2 tell us how God created everything.
Therefore, Genesis 1 & 2 are the perfect blueprint of creation.
Says who? How do they know that? Hey while we’re at it, maybe Christ is the only Savior isn’t a blueprint for salvation either.
What Darren said. *whispering* Hey Darren, maybe they won’t notice I agreed with you.
Darren,
I don’t believe that they’re meant to tell the “how” of Creation. They are meant to describe the “why” and “who”. The “how” would’ve been a question that the ancients would have really been interested in asking or answering.
If we are talking about witnessing to unbelievers, here is yet another method I favor — artistry, sensitivity, appeal to the heart, and finding common ground wrapped together by God’s Word. See my second Eckhart Tolle video I made now featured at Phoenix Preacher.
R. Abanes
Darren & Ken,
I disagree. Phil is right – the ancients were not concerned with HOW God created the heavens and the earth – only with why or who.
A simple reading of Gen 1 and 2 in Hebrew reveals how poetic it is. Not to mention the number of inconsistencies between the two creation accounts (Gen 1 is one story and Gen. 2 is another).
When you stop trying to make it fit into some Enlightenment science experiment, however, the perfect truth that it conveys is overwhelming and awe-inspiring.
And Ken, your analogy between Christ and Creation misses entirely – by about a few thousand years, to be sure.
peace,
Chad
PHIL: While it is true that Scripture does not tell us everything we want to know, it does tell us everything we need to know, specifically for salvation. I don’t need to know that there is a scientific explanation for how someone can survive for three days in the body of a great fish. This might make some lost folks feel better about Scripture but I would rather them have faith in a supernatural God that does supernatural things.
Explaining our faith does not mean we have to throw our brains out of the window but sometimes we just have to say, “we don’t know how God did it, He just did it.” However, I dispel evolution because it opposes “how” God created the earth. When I read Genesis, I see “how” God created things as is, without the use of transitional forms. I don’t have nor must have the scientific explanation but I don’t see evolution as a viable option.
Please read more at my new website, http://www.godcreatedbananas.com (kidding: don’t go there)
KEN: Someday everyone will understand that I am always right, so you would do well to agree with me. (joking)
Darren,
I don’t deny that God does supernatural things, but I don’t see how that pertains to the discuss of Creation. I mean there is such a thing as theistic evolution. Francis Collins, the guy who headed up the Human Genome Project is an evangelical Christian, and he believes in theistic evolution.
I tend to lean that way, but it’s something I’m not too dogmatic about either way. I just don’t think it’s the best thing to fight about.
Um, you do know that Christ is the Creator, right. And you do know that we don’t need to give a toenail what so-called “ancients” thought because God Himself wrote through the human authors of Scripture, right.
I’m guessing that as God revealed what happened in creation He had more in mind than just what people with the nebulous title of “ancients” would have thought.
O, and peace.
Ken,
No, we dont need to give a “toenail” about what real people living in real times thought, Ken. We only need to care what you think about them, right?
Funny how someone who would eviscerate the history from a text is so keen to defend the history it reports.
how odd.
How odd is right Chad. It isn’t personal between you and me unless you make it so. Men like me think that the views you espouse are very deadly within the Christian community.
I would hope you’re sharp enough to realize my point is the Scripture inteprets Scripture and not some scholars who come way after the fact.
This isn’t about a young earth creationism, it’s about letting the text speak via the historical-grammatical context. In this way we care what someone like Joshua was thinking as Moses, the human instrument God used to write the creation account down, handed the text to him.
Likely he’d have not been thinking, “What a cool poem? I wonder what it means?” Leaving literal days or not aside, it may be poetic but it is also clearly an account of the way God created the earth.
I contemplated on getting into a discussion about this but decided it will take the thread away from the original OP. I will just say that doing a quick google search will give you enough material on evidence for the macro evolution theory.
What I really want to get at is that when you use methods like the banana-act to prove God is the Creator, and therefore real, you end up diluting the power of the Gospel. I say this because when you make an argument like this which can be easily refuted people will dismiss the rest of what you have to say. And it makes life difficult for all evangelizing; because people tend to judge all Christians according that one person they heard making this ridiculous argument.
I can accept that such an argument may work with some people bringing them to faith but not all people accept what they hear without questioning the validity of it. I for sure don’t.
“We only need to care what you think about them, right?”
That is my contention, that God doesn’t hold me accountable to what anyone believes but me. I read extensively including the preachers of old, however I do not care what they thought or believe because in the end it is a smorgasborg.
BTW Ken, what guitar(s) and amp(s) do you own? Which is your favourite?
When a person denies a Creator, it isn’t because he doesn’t see evidence, it’s because he has hardened his heart and refuses to see the evidence. I agree with Gene, the productivity of some of these apologetics is minimal. Read Charles Colson’s book “Born Again” which details a conversion experience that centered upon “who is Jesus” not some banana convinced me of a Creator.
Rick,
I would argue that such a contention makes religion purely subjective and individualized. Faith in Christ is (or ought to be) communal. We stand on the shoulders of the faithful that have gone on before us. The authority we grant the scripture attests to the value we give to what the “ancients” thought and did. John Wesley said there is no such thing as a solitary Christian. I think he’s right.
John isn’t saying there are no teachers, he is presenting the Holy Spirit as the teacher and His teaching does not depend upon what others thought. The ministry of the Holy Spirit depends soley on the Scriptures and not what anyone else thinks about the Scriptures.
That is why we have so many today that align themselves with certain men and give a charitable listening to them and a suspicious listening to others.
Rick,
Just so I am clear, are you claiming that you are 100% objective and utterly uninfluenced by any Christian past or present?
I recognize I have left the door wide open for you to be your usual modest (and humorous) self, but I really am interested.
i LOOOOOVE a dictation view of inspiration…
it’s so…
islamic.
PB – RA’s writing is like a law treatise. You may think he is on a particular topic, he may introduce and end on the same subject matter as you pointed out but that does not necessarly mean **everything ** in between is related specifically to that topic. You must read them **carefully** for subtle nuiances. Much due diligence is required.
“My writing is not the problem. It’s your reading. ” (C) RA – 2008.
lol@nc
Salam Alaykum. Or should I say, Banana Alaykum?
We live in a highly individualised culture and this has an effect on how we view the Bible and the Gospel. Take for example the term personal Saviour. No where to be found in the Bible but used in every modern altar call to Salvation. We place a high emphasis on personal devotion, Bible reading and prayer. I think this has its place but it is in relationship and community that these should be fleshed out, debated and lived.
Is John speaking to an individual or a community of believers here? I think it is the latter. If I read something in the Bible and get convinced of what it means I will discuss it with the Christians I am in relationship with before I become convicted about the meaning. I think the Holy Spirit works in me and through other Christians who I stand in relationship with.
What I am saying is that in the end what others believe and teach should be processed with as much objectivity as possible. Therefore, when Shane Clairborne presents a case for simple living and a non-political Christianity I can emrace that even if I would strongly disagree with some other areas he believes.
Some people take everything MacArthur says as gospel; others Warren; others Bell; I reject that blanket style of interpretation. In the end, I do not care what anyone believes but what I feel the Spirit has shown me, even if God uses someone to open my eyes.
That is why people when arguing doctrine or truth will say “Spurgeon believed…”. I reject what Spurgeon said as any more authoritative as what I say.
I fully agree. Like I said in comment #73 I question what I hear and test it. I even question what I believe, lol. Emergent me speaking now…
Eugene: I agree.
Rick: Of course we should be smart about what we latch on to. No one would advocate a blanket endorsement of another fallible human. But when you say, “I do not care what anyone believes but what I feel the Spirit has shown me,” I don’t buy it. In fact, I think you care DEEPLY what other people believe else you wouldn’t be in ministry and you wouldn’t be engaging others in this medium the way you, and I, do.
As Eugene points out, one of the ways God works is through human agents. Do you not agree? If we as Christians are filled with the Holy Spirit, the one who leads us into truth, I would think you should take very seriously what others believe and what they have to say about matters pertaining to faith. We are not on this journey alone, Rick. If we think we can do it by ourselves and not need anyone else, or that our ideas are solely from our own objective imaginations, we are fooling ourselves. We are all DEEPLY influenced by others, whether we want to admit it or not.
peace,
Chad
Being retired and, it’s a rainy day at the campgrounds I killed about 4 hours or so watching Ray Comfort and reading some of his material.
I found his style of street evangelization entertaining. That’s opposed to someone that looks like Peter Ruckman, with a five dollar megaphone preaching hell and damnation, all doing this with a facial tick…..
I watched the crowd that he attracted and it appeared they seemed to enjoy and respond to what he was doing. It certainly is all about planting seeds.
Also, I’m with Jerry on the banana thingy, I thought it was funny and maybe it was supposed to be to a certain extent.
Apart from the health and wealth controversy, I can’t fault the man for what I saw him doing.
Chad – I did not say I was an island, I said I process the teachings of others rather than be influenced by them. And in the end I usually do not quote others as a butress for my beliefs.
I see so much criticism on Ray’s methods and little to none testimonies of the effectiveness of how others are sharing their faith.
John 1:17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
The law shows God’s demand for holiness – a means to demonstrate the unrighteousness of man in order to show their need for a Savior, JESUS CHRIST.
I’ve personally used the WOTM method of evangelizing and seen the effects of using the law as a mirror. Then sharing the Good News can truely become the GOOD NEWS. Try offering someone a cure to a disease that doesn’t think they are sick.
I pray many of you will reconsider your hyper criticism and maybe try using the law then grace to see how effective it is. If you haven’t witnessed Ray in action for yourself, I am sure he will be there on Sat. and you can assess for yourselves his delivery and the effectiveness of God’s spoken word.
Rick,
You said you don’t care what others believe. Anyways, we are all influenced by others. Some badly, some for good. Some “process” (I assume you mean to filter) more of it than others. But the processing and the influence are not mutually exclusive.
But I feel I may be wasting my keypad here – you don’t care what I or others believe, right?
I find criticisms of evangelistic methodologies among professing evangelicals extremely odd and to a large extent elitist. God grants us the honor of being ambassadors for Him and the means of spreading the Gospel. If somes’ approach does not meet the standards of others so be it. Evangelize as you see fit, but don’t harp on Evangelist X. At least they are out there. God is bigger than you or I. His word does not return void. All the vessels are flawed, but He chooses to use us with all our failings. If I may paraphrase Paul, no matter what the
motivemethodology I rejoice that Jesus is being preached. The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation, not our methodologies. That one’s methodology causes more harm than good is flat out opinion that cannot be verified on this side of eternity. How, many stars will Mr. Comfort have in his crown vs, in your or mine? More for him than me, I would safely say, but not mine to decide. I find the distain for Mr. Comfort, undoubtedly a brother in Christ, and the “ moral” outrage shown in support and angst for the poor, poor street entertainers perplexing, to say the least.“Romans 14:10 – But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.”
I sometimes see as much contempt here for those of opposing views as I do on Slice. Sorry, but I do.
Rick,
If this is what you meant
when you said
the we agree.
John,
I agree with your sentiment but not the overall premise. I have no doubt Comfort is a Christian (which is perhaps what separates this site from a site like Slice or others that would bring into question the salvation of those that operate differently from us). However, I am sure you would not want to see someone on the street preaching to those passing by that if they just give $50 today that Jesus will bless them and they will receive it back ten-fold, right? Such a person, while we might not question their personal devotion to Christ, we might all question their evangelism tactics and ask whether this is really in line with scripture and whether it produces faithful disciples/converts.
peace,
Chad
You know, RA, for example, goes in to great detail to answer specific objections to RW’s ministry with facts and figures and quotes and rightfully so. They have even caused me to temper some of my more harsher views regarding his ministry. But similarly, several here have provided eyewitness accounts and have personally viewed hours of Comfort’s materials refuting what others have erroneously assumed to be the fruit of Comfort’s ministry and showing it to be very effective, simply because Comfort’s methodology is not their methodology. Further, they go from disagreement to outright ridicule. This is just wrong IMO. Again, I really just don’t get it.
“I will just say that doing a quick google search will give you enough material on evidence for the macro evolution theory.”
Eugene: Please share. Are you suggesting there is proof that macro evolution is true? I am serious. I have never seen one piece of evidence. Maybe I have been in a cave.
John,
Has anyone of Comfort’s detractors questioned his salvation? Ever call him a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” or a false prophet, false brother, liar, or Satan? Have they called any of those whom Comfort converts converts of hell and just as lost as he is?
I would say not. However, all the above has been said about RW and his church and those who “bought in” to PDL.
I don’t get that.
Many times when believers quote others as a substantiation of their own view it is laziness.
Iron sharpens iron except if you only have one ax, so I have learned things here but in the end it is my view about which I am responsible to God. And consider this, should I believe Spurgeon over you because he was of renown? That is being a respector of persons.
Paricpating on this blog I have learned another level of forgiveness, an appreciation for starnge views, loving brothers and sisters with whom I have some disagreements, and learning how to discourse without dying on every hill.
But as it pertains to my core beliefs I have not changed. I still remain basically right.
Really quick not sure but I think it was metioned before but here is what Ray Comfort says about the “banana video”
http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2008/06/banana-isnt-proof.html
“Referring to your video where you said that the existence of ridges on a banana that matches your hands, is proof that God exists. Since Apples don’t have ridges, is it proof that God does not exist? Or that God did not create the Apple?”
Thanks to Youtube I realize that I will have to say this over and over. Many times I have compared a banana to a coke can (with its tab at the top, etc.) using something called “parody.” This is arguably a humorous way of making a point. Atheists removed the coke can and said that I believe that the banana is proof that God exists. In doing so they did a good job and making a monkey out of me.
The banana isn’t proof that God exists–the whole of creation proves that there’s a Creator. This includes apples, oranges, pears, peaches, apricots, grapes and other succulent fruits that God has placed into our hands. They didn’t come from a big bang. That is mindless. They came from the creative genius of a benevolent and holy God, who also gave you life itself, and eyes to look at that which He has so kindly lavished upon you.
Posted by Ray Comfort on 6/29/2008 02:27:00 PM”
“This includes apples, oranges, pears, peaches, apricots, grapes and other succulent fruits that God has placed into our hands.”
Don’t forget cumquat!
Some will write paragraphs defending RW’s right to employe a public relations firm but R. Comfort can’t film his own street outreaches? I just don’t get it.
Voluminous tomes can be written defending the rights of Christians to use ** dirty ** words which cause stumbling blocks for other Christians but R. Comfort can be safely criticized for raising his voice while delivering the Gospel? Obnoxiousiness is undoubtedly in the eye of the beholder. I just don’t get it.
Churches who put up objectionable sexually provacative billboards (even by secular standards) will be defended with tome after tome, but if Comfort infringes on the street time of belly dancers he is to be soundly condemned? I just don’t get it.
But wait, I really do get. We are all just like the others except our cause makes **it** right. WE’RE ALL THE SAME, just different labels, differed homies.
John – I don’t agree with any of the things you mentioned. You made a good point, though.
I think God can work in any situation. I’ve seen Him work in MUCH worse conditions! I don’t think any of us can make a judgement call on how many disciples/converts such things produce.
No, they have not to their comendation.
True, and I readily disagree with such pronouncements. Shame on them.
Good for you, John.
What is RW??
I assume PDL is Purpose Driven??
RW = Rick Warren.
Apples and oranges. That is not the Gospel message, but a false Gospel. Where is there any accusation of Comfort sharing a false Gospel? The argument is over methodologies.
Hey you could use the 50 so they listen to you tell them about Jesus, you know, pay them for there time!
I must say Rick, I don’t get artichokes……who looked at ‘em and thought they would be something good to eat!!
John:
I still have that lingering question – has anyone here questioned Comfort’s salvation or devotion to Jesus Christ? Have you ever heard people question Rick Warren’s salvation or devotion to Jesus Christ on those “other” sites?
This is a pretty major distinction, don’t you think?
peace,
Chad
Rick, I already admitted to having demoted RW from The Anti-Christ to The False Prophet, thanks in part to RA’s apologetics. What more do you want?
Chad – John already expressed strong disagreement on that.
John-
Sorry, I posted 111 and while posting it saw that many more things had been said, namely, your answer. Thanks, brother.
I really don’t get the post at all. Most of the time you have some spiritual point to make, even though people may disagree, but why are you so worried about banana’s??? Seems strange.
Hey you guys ever seens Banana’s, I love that stuff it is pretty funny!
Our comments must have crossed. Yes, to their shame, many have wrongly questioned RW’s salvation which is completely wrong. I certainly agree with you on this issue.
After reading one of the comments, I believe the banana thing was satire. We all love a good satire!
Darren,
It is quite late in South Africa (11:55pm) and I want to give your question the respect it deserves. So if you will allow me to sleep on it I will be happy to discuss it with you tomorrow on this thread.
I also have to say that I am no expert in biology. I have an interest in physics and read a lot on that. But I will try my best with this subject.
In the mean time have a look at this:
http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2006summer/stickleback.html
John,
You may be right in saying I am comparing apples and oranges in #108 (I am trying REALLY hard to not insert a lame banana joke here).
I guess I was trying to say that there are some who would disagree that that is a false gospel but that it IS the gospel. Some might say that Warren’s PDL is a false gospel as well. And some might even say Comfort is a false gospel.
I guess I am trying to say that sometimes the message is in the methodology. We convey much by how we convey it.
peace,
Chad
“And some might even say Comfort is a false gospel.”
Chad – not a false gospel, but surely an encumbered gospel.
You mean a cucumbered gospel, right?
In a word the gospel is “Jesus”. Paul shows how the law was a scoolmaster to bring the Jews to Christ, but to suggest that the law of Moses has any place in the gospel is just wrong Millions of sinners have come to Christ without ever hearing about the Ten Commandments or any other part of the OT law.
The sermon on the Day of pentecost did not use the law, and Peter was speaking to Jews who would have been familiar with it. Lifting up Jesus as Savior and Son of God and His resurrection, that is evangelism. Of course their is room for some contouring to a given situation, but the Mosaic law is not any part of the gospel.
I really like Larry’s version of the gospel actually.
Compromiser
to Rick who said “the Mosaic law is not any part of the gospel” –
are you saying Jesus was wrong????
The Rich Young Ruler, Mark 10:17-27(2)
17 As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
18 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.
19 “You know the commandments, ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’ ”
20 And he said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up.”
21 Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”
22 But at these words he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property.
23 And Jesus, looking around, said to His disciples, “How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!”
24 The disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus answered again and said to them, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!
25 “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
26 They were even more astonished and said to Him, “Then who can be saved?”
27 Looking at them, Jesus said, “With people it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.”
Chad is right.
What you do shows what you really believe.
Everything is performative and/or event.
The verses you site are a good example of Jesus bringing the “righteousness of the law” to an end. Later Christ teaches the Apostle Paul “face to face” that the that embedded with the Old Covenant was a weakness that would be its strength.
The Old Covenant and its law was to be done away with upon the arrival of the New Covenant which was built upon the Chief Cornerstone, Jesus Christ. During Jesus’s life He often “You have read” or “Moses said” and then He would gently dsimantle what Israel had though was their end. The one great criticism that new believers face from the Jews is that they no longer followed the law.
The law does not draw a person to Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit does. Many missionaries minister to tribes which have no concept of sin as we define it, but they can communicate eternal life and heaven and then lift up Jesus as the Lord/Master/Son of God.
Why did you leave out “Sell ALL that you have and give it to the poor”, is that part of the gospel as well? You will find the doctrinal revelation of the gospel in the epistles as given to the church by the Holy Spirit.
Repent (change your mind) and believe has no law. Jn.3:16 has no law. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ has no law. He that believes on me shall never perish has no law. We cannot pull out one encounter with Chist and suggest that He was teaching law. There is no law, and to suggest there is law in the gospel of grace is a great error.
I did a search on Slice for Veggie Tales and came up empty – what was Ingrid’s “beef” with them?
Friends,
For those of you who don’t happen to think Genesis is true as opposed to Darwinism, let me ask for the sake of the argument: If God did not create the first world, or if he ‘used’ evolution to do it, then what confidence do we ’saved’ people have that God can create the new heavens and the new earth? Will it take billions of years for that to appear also?
Please don’t tell me this is beside the point because if ‘relationships’ is a large part of salvation (and I agree that it is), then new heavens and new earth is an even larger part, testified to in both testaments (Isaiah & Revelation for starters). So I’m just curious that’s all, because I don’t understand how brothers in Christ who accept Darwinism or ‘theistic evolution’ can be so d*** condescending to those of us who happen to think that Genesis gives us an accurate history of earth’s origins.
(PS–Someone said we should show how the Bible lines up with science. Really? Shouldn’t it be quite the other way around? Why does the Scripture, which we necessarily accept on the basis of faith, have to held accountable to the fallen, sin-riddled world? Furthermore, and here’s the rub, if I cannot trust the first words of the Bible, ‘in the beginning God created,’ then how on earth can I even come close to accepting anything else in the Bible as trustworthy?)
Fact is, Moses or whoever wrote Genesis, could have started anywhere they wanted. Yet for some odd reason, he or they, chose to begin at that very place. Ironically, when I read books by skeptics, the first place they challenge is Genesis. Isn’t that ironic? They normally go on to reject most of what’s in the Bible too! I saw a book the other day, I think it was called 101 Myths of the Bible, 85% of the book was dedicated to the first 11 chapters of Genesis. Isn’t that ironic?
What bothers me is that so many people are willing to accept the word of scientists (who clearly have nothing at stake in this debate) and nature (which has clearly not been affected by the fall) over the Scripture. Be that as is it may, how about that first question:
If God did not make the first earth quite apart from Darwinian mechanisms, then how can God be trusted to make a new earth, the new earth that he has promised as an inheritance to those who believe?
Thanks in advance.
Your friend,
jerry
PS–I realize I’m late to this topic and that you have moved on to other more important issues, but bear with me, if for no other reason, than to vent about those points.
Jerry,
I just think that there a lot of Christian scientists that see evidence of evolution, and they accept as a mechanism, not a theory of origins. I don’t see that it diminishes God or the wonder of creation.
If I look at a cathedral, I’m not thinking of whether it took 10 years or 400 years to build, I’m just struck by its inherent beauty. I guess that’s how I feel about the whole creation issue. Time isn’t all that important to God, so whether it took seven days or 7 billion years seems sort of irrelevant.
Also, one thing I would add, as a sort of side note, is that the text of Genesis 1:1 isn’t really the first words of Scripture, at least chronologically. Job is most likely the oldest book, and it’s interesting that it does deal with origins as well. But basically, the point is that God did it, but the how is probably beyond our understanding.
Jerry,
I appreciate your view. What you bring up as a potential problem (how can God be trusted in any of the Bible if the first words are not “true”) is a valid concern, one of which I hold as well. But what I hope you can see is that those who do not hold to a literal creation account in Gen. 1&2 hold it as true in other ways – ways that I would argue are far more true and even far more inspired than a literal interpretation would allow.
Therefore, the rest of the Bible isnt untrue becaues the creation accounts are false. That is a false dichotomy. Rather, the rest of the Bible is true for the same reason Genesis 1&2 are true – it is God’s revelation to humankind. The question is, how is that revelation revealed? DIfferent parts of the Bible are comprised of different genres of literature. Genesis 1&2 are creation poems, or myths, written down to invoke and teach an even deeper, greater truth – namely, that God created the heavens and the earth, nothing exists apart from him and he did it to be in relationship with the created realm. These are concepts that fly in the face of all the other ancient literature of the day.
THe reason most scientists poke holes in Gen. 1-11 is because that is the primeval history. It is not meant to be scientific and yet so many Christians make it out to be just that. It is true, but in a different way than you might want it to be.
I’d be happy to discuss this in more depth but don’t want to hijack a thread. I’ll let the others decide what course to take here.
peace,
Chad
Rick you should have said:
Then you would have been close. Paul said that had it not been for the law he would not have known sin. The law makes the Gospel relevant- most people do not think of themselves as sinners. Most people think that they are good, that they have a good heart. They need to know that the heart is desperately wicked. And that is what the law does, it is a mirror, that shows them in truth.
nc, you make me happy.
*chuckle*
Rick, I think you misunderstand….and by no means am I saying that the law must be kept to receive God’s grace and gift of salvation through Christ alone. What I am saying is that the Law can be used to help expose sin and the need for a Savior .
Law to the proud, grace to the humbe!
Romans 7:7
“Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law.”
Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.
Romans 2
13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.
You said “Many missionaries minister to tribes which have no concept of sin as we define it” and “There is no law, and to suggest there is law in the gospel of grace is a great error”
Romans 2
15since they show that the requirements of the law are WRITTEN ON THEIR HEARTS, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
Eugene: Please do not spend a lot of energy on finding proofs of evolution for me. 1) I don’t have a lot of time to read through articles. 2) Any supposed proof that is really just another theory does not help.
So, if you have some concrete, short and sweet examples, I would love to see them. I am not suggesting I don’t care or that you are not sincere. I am convinced that evolution is wrong and the Bible is my basis for that.
Wow…
That’s beyond caricature.
Darren,
Unfortunately when dealing with evidence for macro evolution we are dealing with dead stuff, i.e. fossils, and explaining that evidence cannot easily be done in a short and sweet way. I would just advise someone to look at evidence provided by the scientific community before making statements like
. If you do not know about evidence it does not mean there is none.
Here are some more links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/paleonet/paleo21/mevolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Your evolutionist friend in Jesus
Eugene
Jerry,
I hope I did not come over as condescending. If I did, please tell me where, I would like to apologise for it if I did.
That “someone” was me. That came out a bit wrong. Thank you for pointing that out.
I see it this way: Both the Bible and science points to God as the Originator and Creator of all things. The Bible tells me about God’s nature and His relationship with His creation as a whole. It does not tell me about the mechanisms of His creation. That is where science starts playing its role. Science is the study of God’s creation.
For me to look to the Bible to tell me how God’s creation works is just as invalid as looking to science to tell me about God’s nature, His relationship with His creation and my own salvation. Thereby I do not deny that there is some overlapping. (overlapping is the best word I could find for the Afrikaans word “oorvleueling”) It is this overlapping that we can use to bring the scientific community closer after Christians have driven them away from faith by stating that the Bible opposes science. I think this kind of explains what I meant with
I did not mean one should put science above the Bible.
As you can see from what I said so far, I take the words ‘in the beginning God created’ as absolute truth. Just because I do not take the Creation account as literal does not mean I do not trust the rest of the Bible. In fact I place all of my faith on the worthiness of the Bible, but not on the human interpretation of the Bible. As Chad has explained, the Creation account is a beautiful Hebrew poem with truths much deeper than what a literal reading of it would reveal.
Stating that scientists have nothing at stake in this debate is making the Gospel less acceptable for them in the same way using a banana to claim intelligent design. How God created and the study of how He did has nothing to do with Salvation, but if we keep on linking the two in this way the power of Salvation is being kept away from “scientific” people.
As for nature not being affected by the fall… I think all of nature has been affected by the fall.
I think God can choose whatever mechanism He uses. He made the laws governing the current universe. What stops Him from making another with different laws? In fact everything in our current universe is temporal. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is proof of this. So if the new earth and heaven will be eternal, new laws will have to be instituted by God.
Wow this is going way off the thread. Perhaps we should take this discussion to someone else’s blog?
That, my brother, is a great and profound statement. The New Testament doesn’t deal with this subject as an argument, and after I was saved I was an evolutionist for two years until the Spirit changed me. If someone had attempted to convince me of the valdity of Adam and Eve without evolution, I would never have listened.
Thank goodness Billy Graham preached Christ and Him crucified and not some myopic argument that only Christians can really understand anyway. My overarching view of creation is this deep theological montra-
God did it!!
I began a discussion on my blog about Genesis, Creation and the validity of the Bible if we allow for myth to creep into the creation accounts.
All are welcome to discuss that there: http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
Eugene,
Thanks for the links. I will take a look at them. I do notice on the Wikipedia link, this sentence,;
“Some creationists have also adopted the term “macroevolution” to describe the form of evolution that they reject. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species (”microevolution”), but deny that one species can evolve into another (”macroevolution”). These arguments are rejected by mainstream science, which holds that there is ample evidence that macroevolution has occurred in the past.”
That sentence describes me and shapes my view of the “ample evidence.”
Chris L,
BTW I don’t remember giving you permission to use my image in your illustration. Man did that fig-leaf chafe at the time.
Darren,
Thank you for the civilised conversation we could have thus far concerning this very contentious subject. Please understand that it is not my aim to win you over to the evolution side. I respect your view on Gen 1&2 being opposed to evolution. As I have stated before I think we must not make uninformed statements and that is basically all I was trying to say to you in particular. If you feel that we should take this conversation further please join the conversation at Chad’s blog or leave me a comment on my blog.
May you win many souls for Christ through your ministry.
Eugene
Hey guys –
I made it out to CO, but won’t be on all that much.
1) The writers are working on an article (similar to the atonement one) that compares the various views of creation, in which only one (atheistic evolution) is truly a “non-Christian” view.
2) Denigrating anyone for which view they choose is not all that helpful, so long as “in the beginning, God created” is true. A literal view of Genesis 1&2 shouldn’t be lorded as somehow more “superior” from a “religious” standpoint, nor should a theistical evolutionary view be somehow ’superior’ from a “scientific” standpoint. Whether Gen 1-2 is literal or figurative is irrelevant, because the basis of disagreement should not be the mode of creation, but whether or not the cause of creation is God or chance…
3) Mark Driscoll does a great job comparing/contrasting these views here.
Blessings,
Chris
It is decidedly a non-essential.
“I think far too many Christians have completely lost touch with unbelievers — how they think, how they see things, how they interpret life and the world around them.”
I totally disagree with this statement. I believe the problem we have today is that we don’t stand out like we should. Far to many Christians have become lukewarm and complacent in their walk with Christ and that, to me, is grounded in the fact that they are so in tune and in step with non-believers and the non-believers pirsuits in this world. L. Ravenhill once said, “We don’t need a new definition of Christianity; we need a new demonstration of Christianity.”
I believe if Christians would open their eyes, especially in light of eternity, they would see they are in the same pond outwardly and inwardly as the non-believer. I am not saying that they are not believers when caught up with this blindness, but I am saying that their lives are so in touch with the unbeliever that they have nothing to differentiate themselves from the lostexcept a “wing and a prayer.”
The sad part about it is that none of our hands are clean. (Especially the believers in America)
Believe me, Christians stand out.
Sore thumb.
I would change one word here: “unbelievers” becomes “human beings” and then the statement is completely accurate.
Obviously not to say that Christians aren’t humans…but that some Christians are so cloistered in their Capital-C Christian worldviews that they lose sight of the way the world actually runs…
I totally disagree with this statement I believe the problem we have today is that we have Christian Schools, Christian Radio, Christian bookstores, Christian toys, Christian clothing, Christian Jewelry, Christian breath mints, Political Christians, and so on and so forth.
Maybe isolationism and xenophobia have played a small part.
I thought that too!
I do not believe in isolationism, but that is not what Jon meant for Christians to stand out. We should be the most loving, gracious, merciful, and redemptive people on this earth. Our banner should not be what we do not do, that should be personal, it should be the the banner of the Lord Jesus and His gospel.
People do not ask us much about the hope that lies within us because we are too busy being negative and political and judgmental about the lost world. Ten little Amish girls were murdered and not one of them would say one negative thing about the murderer or complain about gun laws etc. No, they went to the murderer’s funeral and took up a collection for his widow.
That my friends happens to be one of the greatest acts of Christian charity I have ever seen. And that stood out even to the world. The world sees the church as religious today, not even moral anymore.
To their credit both Ken and Mrs. Schlueter have come out strong against the health and wealth conference and Comfort’s participation.
Probably because it’s both literal and figurative at the same time.
Brett, what do you mean by that?
Rick,
I appreciate your noticing. We have not made any friends. Looks like to many Ray’s a bit of an idol.
Ken, it appears you have an admirer:
http://chadholtz.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/when-rob-bell-writes-people-forget-how-to-read/
Chad – I do believe Will is Iggy.
That would be funny.
As a Ray Comfort defender, I would like to say I do not fully endorse his speaking at the health and wealth conference. Each of us are guided by the Holy Spirit and I don’t want to get into the habit of second guessing what others are guided to do.
My assumptions were correct, that Ray does not seem to endorse that particular doctrine and sees this as another opportunity to share the Gospel with lost people in the audience. Were this an atheists convention or some other secular group, I would be fine with it. The health and wealth folks though probably see this as an endorsement by him, unless he specifically tells them he does not agree with their false Gospel. Should Ray preach his typically message, they will be nodding in agreement.
Some lost people in the audience might become saved, but of consequential damage, some false Gospel folks might feel affirmed.
Very balanced, Darren.
Thanks Chad, but you really shouldn’t admire me. Look to Jesus and maybe you’ll find Him.
I for one don not get the big hoo haa about Ray speaking at a conference at which he necessarily agree with the doctrine of the organisers. Same for Rob Bell and Doug Pagitt at Seeds of Compassion. I would speak at a Satanist meeting if they would let me (I’d be a bit nervous if there was an altar with blood on it though). We should make use of every opportunity to share the truth as we feel God has entrusted it to us in a humble and loving way. What if some people at such an event see it as an affirmation of their beliefs? I do not think Ray just being there adds more affirmation to their beliefs than they already have.
I may not agree with all of Ray’s methods but it seems he loves God, the Gospel and people and he wins many souls for Christ. So I say go Ray, go Ray, go Ray…
This should read:
I for one don not get the big hoo haa about Ray speaking at a conference at which he does not necessarily agree with the doctrine of the organisers.
I agree, Eugene. As if we have the power and the authority to make people believe one way or the other anyhow.
It’s Jerry.
Actually it’s Jerry channeling Iggy through Will!
So it’s Jerry? He isn’t being serious, is he? I can’t imagine anyone being serious about that stuff. God help us if he (or she) is.
“I for one don not get the big hoo haa about Ray speaking at a conference at which he necessarily agree with the doctrine of the organisers. Same for Rob Bell and Doug Pagitt at Seeds of Compassion.”
There is a big difference between what RC is doing with this health and wealth extraviganza and what RB and DP did at the seeds of compassion. I don’t think I even have to explain what I mean when this topic has been done when the Seeds conference first came out…
I disagree, Jonathan. The big hoo haa (thanks, Eugene) about Bell at Seeds was the company he kept. Some disagreed that he shared the gospel. I happen to be one who thinks he did a fantastic job of reprensenting Christ.
peace,
CHad
You should consider stand-up commedianism theology Rick!
I.Todyaso = Iggy
struggle4laodicea = Jerry
Will Farel = ???
Actually, I too disagree. It’s one of the reason’s you’ve not heard me say anything about Ray Comfort going to this thing. I believe in a literal 6 day creation and I find his bananna thing to be one of the dumbest arguments I’ve ever seen.
Joe – I do believe RC claimed it was satire. I can agree with going to the Seeds conference if the gospel would be given, what Comfort would say most there would not distinguish from what they believe generally.
The assumption that everyone has in that all the speakers are in agreement, that removes any distiction.
Are you sure he claimed it was satire? I mean before he became a laughing stock for it? I know a few of his ardent defenders who use that in their home school curriculum. As for you and me disagreeing about this event, Go figure.
I bet you’re a Red Sox fan too.
Joe – read comment 100.
“I find his bananna thing to be one of the dumbest arguments I’ve ever seen.”
Me too!!!!
The distinctions are clear to me…Rob Bell, in my opinion, yielded no difference from the company he kept on stage at the seeds conf., other than his title which holds no weight in the post modern era…
RC can be very legalistic, self-righteous, and down right ridiculous in my view, but he does convey the gospel in his ministry…Something that I feel RB definitely did not do on Seeds.
Red Sox are communist footwear.
This is what makes America beautiful. You are entitled to that opinion.
“This is what makes America beautiful.”
Happy 4th as we celebrate the Revolution!
Red Sux.
Rick you and I might end up as friends yet.
I am your friend, Joe. I’m just seeking to be your mentor!
Yankees won today! Ramirez may be the antichrist!!
“This is what makes America beautiful. You are entitled to that opinion”
I guess nowhere outside this piece of dirt we reside people are entitled to their opinion…whether allowed to be expressed inward or outward…
“Rick you and I might end up as friends yet.”
Well dad, your life can fizzle out as complete now! LOL
Joe loves Christ – I love Christ.
Friends. Not really complicated.
“This is what makes America beautiful. You are entitled to that opinion.”
And if anybody who is reading this post lives in a place where you can’t express your opinion or feel oppressed….Take up arms and start killing your oppressors no matter what the oppression. That’s what the revolution was all about.
Hate taxes- start killing
Low minimum wage- start a war
etc, etc, etc
OK John, take your meds!
The sickness I have was inherited through the male chromosome. And I wasn’t adopted….