Fw: [RTB Discussion Group] Wimps, Gimps and Blackguards:

From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Sat May 10 2003 - 17:15:12 EDT

  • Next message: Joel Peter Anderson: "Re: Evolutionary rate"

    Creation, Presuppositions, and Treason
    Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 22:55:26 +0100
    Sender: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
    Precedence: bulk

    Try this to see if you have commited treason.
    I presume it is an antiHugh Ross site.
    It exudes Christian love and charity

    ----- Original Message -----=20
    From: kurtstreutker=20
    To: RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com=20
    Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 12:58 PM
    Subject: [RTB Discussion Group] Wimps, Gimps and Blackguards: Creation, =
    Presuppositions, and Treason

    Wimps, Gimps and Blackguards: Creation, Presuppositions, and Treason=20

    by Rev. Brian M. Abshire=20

    Why do so many sincere Christians compromise on the issue of six-day=20
    creation? The first eleven chapters of Genesis are so clear, that it=20
    would take a creative writing professor to misunderstand them. God=20
    lays out in straightforward manner how he created heaven and earth.=20
    He identifies the "days" as having morning and evening. He sets the=20
    seventh day as an eternal reminder of his rest. He even provides=20
    genealogies from Adam to Christ. How much clearer could he be?=20

    The problem, of course, is that the controversy has nothing to do=20
    with the clarity of God's revelation, but the fact that it is=20
    embarrassing revelation. "Science" for the past 150 years has been=20
    utterly opposed to a Creator, and the church for the most part has=20
    simply knuckled under. But why did Christians surrender to the=20
    humanists on this one so quickly? Is the evidence for evolution, an=20
    ancient earth, local flood, etc., so overwhelming that we had to=20
    crawl back into our churches with our tails between our legs?=20

    I am going to suggest that there are three main reasons why=20
    Christians compromise on this issue: because they are wimps, gimps or=20
    blackguards. The wimps are those who refuse to take a stand because=20
    they fear controversy. The gimps are those who are handicapped by an=20
    inadequate Christian worldview and find themselves compromised=20
    despite their sincere desire to be orthodox. The blackguards are=20
    those who hate God and are seeking to destroy the church by=20
    pretending to be something they are not. Together, these three groups=20
    amount to theological treason, for they sell out their church and=20
    their God for the mantle of academic respectability.=20

    Theological Wimps
    Nobody loves a wimp. Oh, you might not hate him either, but you don't=20
    respect him and you certainly cannot trust him. A man who refuses to=20
    take a stand, who fears controversy and will not roll up his sleeves=20
    and get down in the mud and the blood when necessary, is beneath=20
    contempt. Such men are by nature slaves and are useless to=20
    themselves, their families, their churches and their nation. Families=20
    and churches with wimpy men are soon run by women, quickly=20
    degenerating into heresy and irrelevance. Nations with wimpy men are=20
    soon conquered by their more aggressive neighbors.=20

    However, seminaries and denominational colleges run by wimps get=20
    academic accreditation! Modern broad evangelical Christianity is=20
    largely composed of wimpy men who run like rabbits at the first sign=20
    of trouble. These individuals fear men more than God and constantly=20
    sell out the Faith. There is perhaps no more reprehensible evidence=20
    of this than the furor over six-day creation. Think about this: for=20
    1800 years of church history, few Bible scholars, theologians,=20
    prophets or priests ever believed or taught anything except literal,=20
    six-day creation. Then, with the advancing technological power of=20
    science in the nineteenth century, leading men in the church suddenly=20
    discovered for the first time that a "day"was not really a day any=20
    longer but could mean millions and millions of years. Wow, amazing!=20
    But does anyone really believe that there would have been any=20
    incentive to reinterpret the Scriptures unless humanistic=20
    evolutionary presuppositions had infiltrated the church?=20

    But to hold to six-day creation in a "scientific"age exposes one to=20
    endless ridicule, and that is the one thing a wimp fears most. I well=20
    remember the first historical geology class I took in a secular=20
    university. I took the class with an old friend who was known for his=20
    caustic sense of humor towards theological liberals. When the=20
    professor was explaining how fossils were dated by the strata of the=20
    rock, and that the rocks were dated by the kind of fossils found in=20
    them, I raised my hand and (believe it or not) ly asked, "But=20
    isn't that circular reasoning?"The professor looked at me with=20
    dripping contempt, then went into an impromptu speech saying that=20
    every year he had at least one of these anti-intellectual=20
    fundamentalist nuts, but he soon whipped them into shape or ran them=20
    out of his class. I slowly rose to my feet and said, "Sarcasm and=20
    ridicule is a poor substitute for logic and sound reasoning"and was=20
    about to invite the professor to step outside for a private little=20
    tutorial of my own when my friend jabbed me in the ribs with his=20
    elbow. He quietly explained that this was his last class before=20
    graduation so I should sit down and shut up. You get the message?=20
    Don't make waves, because a degree is more important than truth. The=20
    problem was not the insulting behavior of the professor, nor the=20
    complete bankruptcy of his worldview, but the fact that I had the=20
    audacity to point out that the emperor had no clothes. There were a=20
    number of other Christians in that class; but not one of them stood=20
    up, not one of them disagreed. How much evolutionary humanism did=20
    each one absorb simply because each just wanted to get a good grade?=20

    Theological Gimps
    Perhaps I am being cruel in calling all those Christians who bow the=20
    knee to modern evolutionary "science" wimps. Maybe they are not=20
    afraid of controversy. Maybe instead, they are=20
    theological "gimps"handicapped by an inadequate worldview that is=20
    simply unable to stand against the humanist onslaught. B. B. Warfield=20
    springs to mind. Depending on Scottish rationalism, Warfield=20
    eventually compromised on the issue of creation and the age of the=20
    earth because the rational arguments of the day seemed unanswerable.=20
    His philosophical presuppositions were such that he believed that=20
    truth was determined by "brute facts." And when the supposed "facts"=20
    of science undercut the old Christian worldview regarding the age of=20
    the earth, he was then forced to reinterpret Scripture to fit those=20

    Of course, since Van Til, we all ought to know that there are=20
    no "brute facts,"only interpreted ones. No one brings a clean slate=20
    to any issue. All of us interpret reality in the light of certain=20
    fundamental preconceptions. Nineteenth-century science rode on the=20
    crest of an Enlightenment dedicated to severing Christianity from=20
    civilization. Apostate men were looking for ways of overturning the=20
    Christian consensus and by attacking the historicity of Scripture,=20
    they were implicitly undermining its authority.=20

    Take for example Lylle and his Uniformitarianism. Lylle was a=20
    geologist who postulated that all contemporary geological features=20
    were the result of ongoing geological processes. The very idea=20
    of "catastrophism,"that certain geological features were the result=20
    of disjunctive events, became heresy of the first degree. The=20
    philosophical appeal is obvious, e.g., if all canyons are formed by=20
    rivers eroding the banks, then one can measure the rate of annual=20
    erosion and project back approximately how long it took the banks to=20
    reach their present depth. Therefore, the age of the earth indeed=20
    must be very old for such geological features as the Grand Canyon to=20
    have formed. An ancient earth is fundamental to evolutionary theory;=20
    there must be massive amounts of time for one animal to turn into=20
    another. On the other hand, the Scriptures give a reliable time line=20
    of human events. If one can demonstrate that the earth is=20
    immeasurably older than the Scriptural record, it is held, one has=20
    therefore destroyed Biblical credibility.=20

    Notice, though, that Lylle begins with an unverifiable assumption;=20
    i.e., how can he know that present processes can be extrapolated into=20
    the past? How can he know that rivers always ran at the same speed=20
    with the same amount of erosion? He cannot. But the assumption is=20
    necessary because he has to prove that the earth is incredibly more=20
    ancient than the Bible record teaches.=20

    Furthermore, when that same uniformitarian assumption is used in=20
    other areas to demonstrate that the earth is NOT ancient, the results=20
    are simply ignored. Take, for example, meteorite dust. Scientists can=20
    estimate the amount of dust that falls every year. Extrapolating the=20
    same rate in the past (a "fundamental"axiom of uniformitarianism), if=20
    the earth is billions of years old, there ought to be incredible=20
    mountains of meteorite dust. But no such dust mountains are found.=20
    Well, maybe they all washed into the oceans or something. We need=20
    some place where there is no erosion. Remember the big pads the=20
    Apollo landers had? Those were designed to soften the landing on the=20
    incredibly deep levels of dust thought to have piled up in the=20
    billions of years since the moon was formed. Instead the astronauts=20
    found no more dust than would have collected over a few thousand=20
    years. But nobody talks about that because, you see, it doesn't fit=20
    the humanist picture. Therefore Lylle and men like him were not=20
    objective seekers of truth, but men with an agenda. They deliberately=20
    choose one set of presuppositions over another, and ignored the=20
    inconsistencies because they wanted to disprove the Biblical=20

    It is interesting that catastrophism, so long out of vogue when it=20
    was necessary to destroy the credibility of the creation and flood=20
    accounts, has now returned with a vengeance in modern science. The=20
    nasty little secret of uniformitarianism was that there are certain=20
    geological features that DEMAND a world-wide catastrophe but until=20
    recently, nobody dared bring them up. For example, the disappearance=20
    of the dinosaurs was a great mystery until just a few years ago. Now=20
    it seems, an asteroid hit the earth 65 million years ago and=20
    essentially ended all life except some vermin, who surprise,=20
    surprise! crawled out of the smoldering carnage and evolved into=20
    certain seminary professors! But since the overwhelming majority of=20
    Christians have adopted the "scientific"view, creationism is no=20
    longer seen as the great enemy. Therefore, we can safely bring=20
    certain facts to light that were hidden or ignored for more than a=20

    Theological wimps will not wrestle with this kind of information=20
    because they just want to be accepted and approved and get their=20
    degrees from prestigious universities and go merrily along their way.=20
    Theological gimps CANNOT wrestle with this kind of vigorous=20
    opposition because they lack the necessary philosophical and=20
    intellectual weapons to say why the enemy is wrong. Repeatedly, when=20
    I raised the scientific evidence for a young earth with professors=20
    who held to some form of theistic evolution in both Christian college=20
    and seminary, they replied, "I don't know about those things, I am=20
    only a Bible teacher."Pietism has robbed modern theologians of a=20
    comprehensive theology that ties all areas of life together.=20
    Therefore, they are handicapped in fighting humanism, simply ceding=20
    battlefield after battlefield to the enemy without firing a shot=20
    while they retreat into theological irrelevance. It needs to be=20
    remembered that it was R. J. Rushdoony who got Whitcomb and Morris's=20
    book The Genesis Flood into print. Broad evangelicalism simply didn't=20
    care about evidence that the Biblical view of creation and the great=20
    Flood had a scientific basis because it is simply irrelevant in their=20
    emasculated worldview.=20

    Never mind that by compromising with the enemy on this issue, you=20
    destroy any validity to the Christian Faith (if you cannot trust=20
    God's account of creation, how can you trust him on anything else?).=20
    Never mind that by giving up on the first eleven chapters of Genesis=20
    you destroy salvation (if there was no literal first Adam, then=20
    Christ is simply irrelevant as the Second one). Never mind that by=20
    failing to believe, teach and defend the history of the Bible, you=20
    make its theology into existentialist nonsense (acceptable because=20
    the church has already retreated into pietism, existentialism's=20
    illegitimate half sister). No, we must accept the humanists' version=20
    because if we stand up in the accredited colleges, universities and=20
    graduate schools and affirm the Biblical account, then we will be=20
    laughed at, ridiculed, and we might not get that magic degree that=20
    promises to open every door.=20

    Thus we trade our Christian heritage for a bowl of left-over humanist=20
    porridge. And the irony is, Christians who compromise on this issue=20
    are still not accepted by the academic community. They laugh at our=20
    naivet=E9 and call us to be consistent with our own compromise. If the=20
    Bible affirms six-day creation and we reinterpret it to fit modern=20
    prejudices, then where else will we compromise? They do not respect=20
    us. We are wimps or gimps and moderns never will open their doors to=20
    us. But Christians seem to be happy riding in the back of the=20
    humanists' academic bus, just so long as they get a seat someplace.=20

    Theological Blackguards
    Of course, there is a third category. There are those who are=20
    unprincipled blackguards: men who know perfectly well what the issues=20
    are, who hate and fear the truth but still choose to identify=20
    themselves with the church anyway (I am tempted to say it is because=20
    they are not smart or talented enough to succeed in the humanist=20
    camp, but then you'd think I was being again!). These men=20
    utterly reject our Lord and King, but still make warm, encouraging=20
    noises that mislead the elect. They get jobs in our denominational=20
    colleges and seminaries and work quietly every year under the guise=20
    of "academic freedom"to destroy the Faith of entire generations of=20
    young people. And stupid Christian parents send their kids to these=20
    schools, join the alumni organization and send in their support=20
    checks every year to keep the dear old alma mater in business. And=20
    every year, the school becomes more and more apostate, the graduates=20
    less and less Biblical. Meanwhile, the deans and presidents tell the=20
    parents all sorts of nice, encouraging things about how well the=20
    basketball or football team is doing. And as long as they make the=20
    state championships, everyone is happy.=20

    Meanwhile, the theological blackguards stay in the background, adopt=20
    a smiling face and a pleasant manner and actively seek to destroy the=20
    Faith, while Christians pay them a tenured salary to do so. The=20
    theological wimps don't have the guts to correct or stand up to them.=20
    The theological gimps don't have the tools to do so. And year by=20
    year, our best and brightest are brought to theological ruin.=20

    Every age has its own issues where the culture demands one thing and=20
    the Scriptures another. Today, gnosticism is not a major problem, but=20
    it was a serious heresy afflicting the patristic church. Arianism is=20
    not a direct threat to the church in this age, but in the third and=20
    fourth centuries, it almost destroyed orthodoxy. The attacks vary=20
    from century to century, but the real heroes are those men who=20
    counter a culture at that one point where compromise is so tempting.=20
    In our age, I believe there are two issues which demand that we stare=20
    the enemy in the eye and say, "Here I stand, I can do no other."Those=20
    issues are six-day creation and the role of women in the church. In=20
    both cases, the prevailing cultural norms are diametrically opposed=20
    to Biblical truth. There is no room for compromise; you either=20
    believe the Bible or its adversaries. The temptation to reinterpret=20
    Scripture is no solution because reinterpretation destroys the heart=20
    of the Faith. And any man who compromises on these issues has just=20
    opened the door to heresy, apostasy and cultural irrelevance. It is=20
    where the battle is hottest that we must fight the hardest.=20

    It is time for the church to clean house on this issue. We need to=20
    fire the wimps, equip the gimps and expose the blackguards for what=20
    they are. If a man compromises on the issue of six-day creation, then=20
    not only is he unfit for the ministry, but he is also certainly unfit=20
    to teach our future pastors in seminary. If one belongs to a church=20
    with a denominational college or seminary, then write to the=20
    headquarters and find out their official stance. If they weasel in=20
    any way, then get out of Dodge, making sure you take your check-book=20
    with you. If they cannot take a definitive stand on something as=20
    fundamental as six-day creation, then they are unworthy of God's=20
    tithe. Who knows where else they are compromising?=20

    Treason is a hard word and not to be thrown out casually. But what do=20
    you call a man who sells out his country for personal gain? OK, up=20
    the moral ante a bit, a man who sincerely disagrees with his nation's=20
    policies and willingly gives aid and comfort to their enemies?=20
    Whether he is a self-serving SOB out to line his own pockets, or only=20
    an idealistic fool, he is still a traitor. Those who compromise on=20
    the issue of creation are selling out God's word. Maybe they are=20
    doing so for high and lofty motives, but they are still traitors.=20
    Maybe some of them can be won back before it is too late (let us give=20
    them every opportunity) but they are still traitors. The humanists=20
    have no love or respect for theological traitors. They may use them,=20
    but they don't like them.=20

    Therefore, there is no reason for God's people to compromise on this=20
    issue. Let us stiffen some backbones, smack some courage into the=20
    cowards, and train and equip those who don't know any better. This is=20
    war, folks, and the peace and purity of the church are at stake. Here=20
    I stand, I can do no other.=20

    Rev. Brian M. Abshire is the pastor of Reformed Heritage Church in=20
    Modesto, CA. He can be reached at abshire@ix.netcom.com =20


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 10 2003 - 17:15:19 EDT