Theistic evolution

by

THE GOSPEL COALITION: THE “NEW CALVINISM’S” ATTACK ON THE BIBLE AND ITS EPISTEMOLOGY

new-calvinists-or-yrr

If you trust and revere men like, John Piper, Mark Dever, Mark Driscoll, Tim Keller,Kevin De Young, Joshua Harris, D A Carson, Tullian Tchividjian, Ligon Duncan, Jared Wilson, Thabiti Anyabwile , Al Mohler, C.J. Mahaney and all those part of this movement T4G/Gospel Coalition (TGC) /Reformed Charismatics/ you had better think again my friend. Test these men and pray for discernment, because their deception is finely tuned very finely tuned.

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.  (2 Corinthians 11:13-14 KJV)

You can also read our previous articles on the issue, all names mentioned above are well known in the Reformed Circles here in South Africa, some of them visited South Africa recently .  Why We Cannot Endorse Rezolution 2013 , More on the New Calvinist /YRR Mystic Tim Keller and Rezolution Conference 2013 , Charismaticism: fraud, lies, arrogance and deception and The New Calvinists. 

Also read these extensive well written articles which voice  serious concerns,  by Dr Paul M Elliott Tim Keller’s False Gospel: A Point-By-Point Analysis. Timothy Keller promotes a “gospel” designed to be attractive to unregenerated man, but stripped of the Biblical essentials and robbed of Divine power and authority.Tim Keller’s False Gospel: Changing Both the Method and the Message. Timothy Keller’s “gospel” rests on a faulty foundation: the misconception that man changes, therefore the message must change. Tim Keller’s Gutless ‘Gospel’. A segment from an interview with Tim Keller shows just how gutless his “gospel” is – a mass of evasions, equivocations, and misrepresentations of God’s truth.Tim Keller: Dangerously Influential. Dr. Timothy J. Keller is one of today’s most influential religious leaders, and one of the most dangerous. Continue reading →

by

Arminianism Agrees With Roman Catholicism, Calvinism Agrees With The Bible

road to rome

Arminianism at Home in Rome

But, however frivolous his cavils, the principles for which he contends are of the most pernicious  nature and tendency. I must repeat, what already seems to have given him so much offence, that Arminianism “came from Rome, and leads thither again.” Julian, bishop of Eclana a  contemporary and disciple of Pelagius, was one of those who endeavoured, with much art, to gild the  doctrines of that heresiarch, in order to render them more sightly and palatable. The Pelagian system,  thus varnished and paliated, soon began to acquire the softer name of Semipelagianism. Let us take a  view of it, as drawn to our hands by the celebrated Mr. Bower, who himself, in the main, a professed  Pelagian, and therefore less likely to present us with an unfavourable portrait of the system he  generally approved. Among the principles of that sect, this learned writer enumerates the following:

“The notion of election and reprobation, independent of our merits or demerits, is  maintaining a fatal necessity, is the bane of all virtue, and serves only to render good  men remiss in working out their salvation, and to drive sinners to despair.

“The decrees of election and reprobation are posterior to, and in consequence of, our  good or evil works, as foreseen by God from all eternity.”

Is not this too the very language of modern Arminianism? Do not the partizans of that scheme argue on the same identical terms? Should it be said, “True, this proves that Arminianism is Pelagianism revived; but it does not prove, that the doctrines of Arminianism are originally Popish:” a moment’s cool attention will make it plain that they are. Let us again hear Mr. Bower, who, after the passage just quoted, immediately adds, “on these two last propositions, the Jesuits found their whole system of grace and free-will; agreeing therein with the Semipelagians, against the Jansenists and St. Augustine.” The Jesuits were moulded into a regular body, towards the middle of the sixteenth century: toward the close of the same century, Arminius began to infest the Protestant churches. It needs therefore no great penetration, to discern from what source he drew his poison. His journey to Rome (though Monsicur Bayle affects to make light of the inferences which were at that very time deduced from it) was not for nothing. If, however, any are disposed to believe, that  Arminius imbibed his doctrines from the Socinians in Poland, with whom, it is certain, he was on terms of intimate friendship, I have no objection to splitting the difference: he might import some of his tenets from the Racovian brethren, and yet be indebted, for others, to the disciples of Loyola. Continue reading →

by

The Gutless, False Gospel Of The Dangerously Influential New Calvinist Tim Keller

Tim Keller thinks God may have a ‘trap door’ to heaven ?  

Dr. Paul M. Elliott of Teaching the WordMinistries:

Part 1. Tim Keller: Dangerously Influential

Part 2. Tim Keller’s Gutless ‘Gospel’

Part 3. Tim Keller’s False Gospel: Changing Both the Method and the Message

Part 4 Tim Keller’s False Gospel: A ‘Sandwich’ Made Without the Bread of Life

Also read here :

Keller’s theistic evolution

Keller openly admits that his account of theistic evolution is confused. And because he realises that there are insurmountable difficulties with his theistic evolution theory he says that he prefers the messy approach. Continue reading →

by

More on the New Calvinist /YRR Mystic Tim Keller and Rezolution Conference 2013

New Calvinists OR YRR

Concerning Tim Keller the Mystic and the New Calvinist/YRR movement. Here are further concerning reasons why we should be aware of,  and Why We Cannot Endorse Rezolution 2013, as Tim Keller is a leader in this movement where the so called Young Reformed and Restless all work in unity to further the New Calvinist Charismatic movement.  Some of the major figures in this movement are John Piper,  Mark Driscoll, Al Mohler,  Mark Dever,  C.J. Mahaney,  Joshua Harris.

It has come to our attention, that many Reformed brothers and sisters in South Africa are excited about the coming Rezolution Conference , being held in South Africa in April 2013. We have some concerns about the speakers as they are all from the Young, Restless, Reformed movement also known as the New Calvinism movement.  Hearing names like Tim Keller , who is a leader in this new movement is concerning,  as Keller has, in recent years embraced  mysticism ,   theistic evolution and more recently his church has now embraced Lectio Divina. Tim Keller’s books are also highly recommended by pastors and teachers across South Africa in many Reformed churches. Continue reading →

by

POLL: What do you believe about evolution?

There are three major origin-of-life worldviews, atheistic evolution (also commonly known as Darwinian evolution and naturalistic evolution), theistic evolution and special creation.

Atheistic evolution says that there is no God and that life can and did emerge naturally from preexisting, non-living building blocks under the influence of natural laws (like gravity, etc), although the origin of those natural laws is not explained. Special creation says that God created life directly, either from nothing or from preexisting materials.

Theistic evolution says one of two things. The first option is that there is a God, but He was not directly involved in the origin of life. He may have created the building blocks, He may have created the natural laws, He may even have created these things with the eventual emergence of life in mind, but at some point early on He stepped back and let His creation take over. He let it do what it does, whatever that is, and life eventually emerged from non-living material. This view is similar to atheistic evolution in that it presumes a naturalistic origin of life.

The second alternative of theistic evolution is that God did not perform just one or two miracles to bring about the origin of life as we know it. His miracles were constant. He led life step by step down a path that took it from primeval simplicity to contemporary complexity, similar to Darwin’s evolutionary tree of life (fish begot amphibians who begot reptiles who begot birds and mammals, etc). Where life was not able to evolve naturally (how does a reptile’s limb evolve into a bird’s wing naturally?), God stepped in. This view is similar to special creation in that it presumes that God acted supernaturally in some way to bring about life as we know it.

Special creation says that God created life directly, either from nothing or from preexisting materials, exactly according to the Genesis account over a literal six day period.

Share with us your views on which of these three is true of how, what we see today in the universe, came to be. Please feel free to leave us a comment on the subject, in support your view.

– Grant Swart