metaphysical monster: The voodoo of Word of Faith theology

  The metaphysics movement or "new thought" was popular at the turn of the 20thcentury. One left over version was the christian science movement. But a more popular movement accepted in many churches within orthodox christianity is known as the word of Faith movement.
"New Thought, sometimes known as Higher Thought,[1][2] promotes the ideas that Infinite Intelligence, or God, is everywhere, spirit is the totality of real things, true human selfhood is divine, divine thought is a force for good, sickness originates in the mind, and "right thinking" has a healing effect.[3][4]
  Although New Thought is neither monolithic nor doctrinaire, in general, modern day adherents of New Thought believe that "God" or "Infinite Intelligence" is "supreme, universal, and everlasting", that divinity dwells within each person, that all people are spiritual beings, that "the highest spiritual principle [is] loving one another unconditionally... and teaching and healing one another", and that "our mental states are carried forward into manifestation and become our experience in daily living".[3][4]
   The New Thought movement is a spiritually-focused or philosophical interpretation of New Thought beliefs. Started in the early 19th century, today the movement consists of a loosely allied group of religious denominations, secular membership organizations,[citation needed] authors, philosophers, and individuals who share a set of beliefs concerning metaphysics, positive thinking, the law of attraction, healing, life force, creative visualization, and personal power.[5] The three major religious denominations within the New Thought movement are Religious Science, Unity Church and the Church of Divine Science. There are many other smaller churches within the New Thought movement, as well as schools and umbrella organizations. " wikipedia "New Thought"
   "One popular critic and opponent of The Word of Faith, D.R. McConnell of Oral Roberts University, has charged in a thesis entitled Kenyon Connection, that Kenyon adopted the teachings of New Thought and relabeled them. Thus, the Word of Faith movement, in McConnell’s view, constitutes a "Trojan Horse". This argument was the primary conclusion reached by McConnell’s master’s thesis published as a book, A Different Gospel."  wikipedia "Word of Faith"



What is faith?
"it is the force of faith which makes the spirit world function" the Laws of Prosperity pg. 19 Kenneth Copeland Publications
"God can not do anythingfor you apart or separate from faith"
"faith is God's source of power" Freedom from Fear pg 11-12 Kenneth Copeland ministries

Romans 4:17(kjv) (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
Romans 4:17 As it is written, I have made you the father of many nations. [He was appointed our father] in the sight of God in Whom he believed, Who gives life to the dead and speaks of the nonexistent things that [He has foretold and promised] as if they [already] existed. (amplified)
One Word of Faith teacher defined faith through this passage as many do. "Calling those things which be not as though they are."
    Now philosophically there is a problem at the start. In a metaphysical philosophy faith is the ability to believe in something untrue. So Faith defined in metaphysic terms is to create something true out of something false.
So when we have faith in God... Is God not true, Is He only in our imagination?


How do we read the Bible?
The Bible as a spell book
Many Times preachers in the Word of Faith movement will use scripture as an authority with out the use of hermeneutics. In otherds Words they will disregard the context of the verses they quote. Then they will place authority on what they have said. This means that they can change and even add meaning to the Bible. Is this method scriptural?
1 Cor.14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

God wants us to take the scripture according to it's context. we have to be careful how we handel the word of God.
2Cor. 4:1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.


The use of the Amplified Bible... The amplified Bible is an interesting translation that provides the reader with built in commentary and leaves a lot of words with a variety of possible translations as oppose to actually translating the text.

This is a fine Bible study tool. Yet leaves a lot of room for confusion especially for those young in the faith. As we shall soon see the Word of Faith movement thrives off of confusion and irrational theology.
1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

What is man?
psalm 8:5 Yet You have made him but a little lower than God [or heavenly beings], and You have crowned him with glory and honor.

In Word of Faith teaching man is not simply a mortal being but a creature intended to have deity.
"God's reason for creating Adam was His desire to reproduce Himself." "He was not a little like God. He was not almost like God. He was not subordinate to God even."  Following the Faith of Abraham, tape#01-3001, side 1.
 Hebrews 2:6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him?

7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

 Here the author of Hebrews settles the controversy, man is lower than the angels. Who by the way are lower than christ.  since being lower than the angels is lower than God there is no controversy and in no real or ontological way is man the same as God.


What is God?
In Word of Faith theology God is an enchanced man who became a deity.  This is very similar to the mormon Gospel.  I believe there is probably some influence from various groups descending out of Missouri were the original mormons dwelled.
"God is not 427 feet tall, weighing 4000lbs, and got a fist as big as this room. He's big,  but He's not a monster. He measured out Heaven with a nine inch span...The distance between my thumb and my finger is not quite nine inches.  So I know he is bigger than me thank God.  Amen?" Jerrry Savelle
framing your world with the Word of God part 2 audiotape #ss-36, side one Jerrry Savelle evangelistic association
deuteronomy 4:16 Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,




Is God Sovereign?

john 10:10 The thief comes only in order to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have and enjoy life, and have it in abundance (to the full, till it [b]overflows).

 A word of faith teacher taught that this was a watershed verse.  Claiming the God was not fully Sovereign because evil existed.
Ultimately this leads to the heresy of manichaeinism.  The idea of 2 Gods one which is evil, and one which is Good.  WOF teachers commonly give godlike attributes to Satan.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
  God is sovereign over all things. While I do not conclude that this passage teaches that God is the creator of moral evil.  God is definitely Sovereign and in control of destruction upon the earth.


Are we healed?
Isaiah 53:5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our guilt and iniquities; the chastisement [needful to obtain] peace and well-being for us was upon Him, and with the stripes [that wounded] Him we are healed and made whole.
  He endured physically for our spiritual sins. Therefore by his physical stripes we are spiritually healed.

Are we supposed to be wealhy?
3john 2 Beloved, I pray that you may prosper in every way and [that your body] may keep well, even as [I know] your soul keeps well and prospers

3 john1 The elder unto the well beloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth.

2 Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.
   It doesn't take long to nottice that this is not a proclamation from the father but john the apostle giving a greeting to Gaius.




Is this an indictment of all charismatics?
"Furthermore, it is tragic that a number of non-charismatics have attempted to use the faith teachers to prove that the charismatic movement is in chaos." Hank Hannengraaf Christianity in Crises pg. 48
There are many charasmatic teachers who are thoroughly orthodox and not involved with the word of faith movement.  Walter Martin, Gordon Fee, Keith Green, Wayne Grudem etc.


What are man's words compared to God's Words?

The Damned Savior
"Do you think that the punishment for our sin was to die on a cross?  If that were the case, the two thieves could have [aid your price.  No, the punishment was to go to hell itself and to serve time in Hell separated from God.... Satan and all the demons of hell thought that they had Him down to the very pit of hell itself to serve our sentence." Frederick K. C. Price Ever increasing Faith Messenger (june 1980)


"Because he was "made sin," impregnated with sin, and became the very essence of sin, on the cross he was banished from God's presence as a loathesome thing.  He and sin were made synonymous...It was not sufficient for christ to offer up only his physical life on the cross. His pure human spirit had to descend into Hell.... His spirit must not only descend into hell, but into the lowest hell...
The Father turned Him over, not only to the death of calvary, but to the satanic torturers of his pure spirit as part of the just desert of the sin of all the race. As long as Christ was "the essence of sin" he was at Satan's mercy in that place of torment...
While Christ identified with sin, Satan and the host of hell ruled Him as over any lost sinner. During that seemingly endless age in the nether abyss of death, Satan did with Him as He would, and all hell was "in carnival" Paul Billheimer  Destined for the Throne pg 83-84

But the gospel is explained in the scripture…
1 Corinthians 15:1-4
King James Version (KJV)
15 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
The Subject of the Gospel is Jesus Christ and what He did. It is this gospel which saves us.
Romans 1:16
King James Version (KJV)
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

And the Gospel cannot be altered.

Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Now I am not accusing all of altering the gospel. But I know that there are teachers in this tradition who are. And a little leaven leaven’s the whole lump.
I shouldn’t have to see a teacher of God’s Word get nervous hearing me talk about how great heaven will be. Because this is the truth.
Matthew 6:20
King James Version (KJV)
20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
Heaven is not currently on the earth right now and for Good reason. The scripture teaches it would be corrupted.

I pray for anyone encounetering this teaching that they place faith in God through scripture and not man-made religion.
quotations gathered from "christianity in crises" by Hank Hannengraff

Where's the church at anyway? (poetic rap)

Where's the church at anyway?
You here all these busted religious people say.

I can't forget the memory
Kinda hope that it happens to me .

Jesus loved us dearly but he told us straight
That this world won't stop the hate.
So many dead though still be alive.
While we live all messed up and dead inside.
Nobody remembers, no one cares.
Mention their names you get stares.

Used to be... say "Jesus" and you get beat, tortured with your family tossed out on the street.

But what they don't tell you is the death toll wouldn't stop.
Constantine took control
Just to put Peter on the Rock

Confusion in the courts! Empire religion!
Put away your Bibles, the sword is the mission!
Worship Old gods now their just called apostles
But all of the real saints of God are just burnt up fossils

All they wanted was to follow God on their own.
Chased down into caves under candlelight all alone.

Call em left; call em right. they'd worship God all night
The were montanist, donatists, culdees, cathars and novations.

Albigensees, Waldenses, paulicans and nestorians
Hussites Lollards, anabaptists and more.
Neever Shifting or moving their convictions and core.

Picture this, a small pierenes village
The peace gets raped as the land gets pillaged
Families rounded up gathered in one place.  they been taught peace, but not at this pace.

Time to take the preacher, most holy teacher, 
be an example to the flock of how they gonna treacha!
Beat him and burn him in front of our women and babies
The soldiers are bloodthirsty like they got rabies!

They put us down and beat us; we can't take this no more!
We can't take one more smack of this Babylonian whore!
50 vrs. 120 soldiers; wasn't good odds.
They couldn't survive, they had offended our God.

Amidst their graves we didn't believe what we did!
Why couldn't they live and let live?
After it all we approached the prince with sorrow and feeling needy.
We told him all we wanted was peace, So he signed a treaty.
They let us live, like 5 years.
But only our genocide could stop the tears.

How long oh LORD?
As we wait for vindication.
But now it's all good though life had such frustration.
Now we are with Jesus as he is seated on the throne. While they roast in the underworld all alone...

If you can't join them... BEAT them!!!

  So I had another debate with Dr. Sarfati.  It is funny how you interact with someone you admire.  I have posted a couple times on the group "Jesus is the lamb".  Everytime Dr. Sarfati would respond to my post it was critical.  So I had the desire to post an article that was good but completely in line with what he taught and I even cited His ministry as a source.  Yet after a few weeks no response and then later he went back to critical remarks. Sometimes you are going to across people that you really want to please.  Yet they are just not going to be pleased by you.  So then he posted this article which I knew was in opposition to me. So I realized that if i could not simply gain his approval I could conquer his opposition and win respect.  Ultimately I was counciled by a friend in the group to remember that I should be content with The Lord's approval and not worry about if others(even christians) accept or reject me.
Meanwhile, I believe that the Bible version debate will be the theological and even apologetic debate of the 21st century.  As a New age culture picks and probes at the internal integrity of the christian religion we must be ready with an answer.  I think me and Dr. Sarfati had a classic arguement which is why I had to post this facebook debate. 




Jonathan David Sarfati


“What is overlooked in the approach that assumes that the earlier manuscripts were corrupted and produced by heretics is the fact that virtually all Gospels manuscripts harmonize. That is, in parallel passages between two or more Gospels, virtually all manuscripts, from time to time, change the wording in one Gospel so that it duplicates the wording in another. Would heretics do this? It represents rather a high view of scripture—or, as Paul said in another context, zeal that is not according to knowledge. Further, the great majority of these harmonizations are either found in isolated manuscripts or in later manuscripts. This tells us that the tendencies of the earliest scribes was to harmonize, but because such harmonizations are done sporadically and in isolation they are easily detected. And later scribes produced their copies in great quantities in a heavily concentrated area, resulting in a more systematic harmonization—again, something that is easily detected.”

Five More Myths about Bible Translations and the Transmission of the Text
danielbwallace.com
      Matt Singleton I find it interested how you excluded the beginning of this section: "Myth 3: Heretics have severely corrupted the text.



This myth is usually promoted by King James Only folks who assume that the manuscripts that came from Egypt were terribly corrupted. A more sophisticated approach seeks to demonstrate this in passage after passage. For example, would orthodox scribes begin the quotation of Isaiah 40.3 and Malachi 3.1 in Mark 1.2 with “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet”? The alternative reading, found in the majority of manuscripts, reads “As it is written in the prophets.” But the earliest, most widespread reading is “in Isaiah the prophet.” It looks as though the later scribes were troubled by this attribution and they ‘corrected’ it to be more generic so as to include Malachi." So in other words, the later manuscripts have corrected the old errors of the original manuscript. So the short text grew into a more complete text.

December 31, 2012 at 2:06pm · Like..
Matt SIngleton What does that sound like? Something small and simple changing to more complex over long periods of time? evolution? perhaps because the manuscript text critics were also text critics of dating authorship. representing textual evolution. You will also find this evolution going back the evolution of religion which goes back to the evolution of man/anthropology.

December 31, 2012 at 2:11pm · Like..
Matt SIngleton I want to pay careful attention to this section "Scholars have for a long time recognized that the Gospel writers shape their narratives, including the sayings of Jesus. A comparison of the Synoptics reveals this on almost every page. Matthew quotes Jesus differently than Mark does who quotes Jesus differently than Luke does. And John’s Jesus speaks significantly differentyly than the Synoptic Jesus does. Just consider the key theme of Jesus’ ministry in the Synoptics: ‘the kingdom of God’ (or, in Matthew’s rendering, often ‘the kingdom of heaven’). Yet this phrase occurs only twice in John, being replaced usually by ‘eternal life.’ (“Kingdom of God” occurs 53 times in the Gospels, only two of which are in John; “kingdom of heaven” occurs 32 times, all in Matthew. “Eternal life” occurs 8 times in the Synoptics, and more than twice as often in John.) The ancient historians were far more concerned to get the gist of what a speaker said than they were to record his exact words. And if Jesus taught mostly, or even occasionally, in Aramaic, since the Gospels are in Greek the words by definition are not exact." Why do we have to assume differents quotes are all the exact same quotes from different words? Why do we even have to assume that these men are making up stories off of their memory without the divine intervention of the Holy Spirit? I believe that the gospel writers are intelligent and with the revelation and inspiration of the Holy Spirit they are in errant. the words of God were penned by God in heaven psalm 119:89 "For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven."

So God had a reason for every Word that was penned down. 2 peter1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

December 31, 2012 at 2:21pm · Like..
Jonathan David Sarfati None of the above shows that the late Byzantine manuscripts are better. About the harmonization, a while ago I responded to someone who brought up:



“Therefore we have the Scriptures today, the "more sure word", and I would also conclude that God's word does not contradict itself, yet the Codex Sinaiticus does in various places including Mark 1:2-3 where it quotes from Malachi and Isaiah, yet attributes it all to Isaiah which is a contradiction.”



My response:



You mean Mark 1:2–4 which says:

"2 It is written in Isaiah the prophet: "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way" —

3 "a voice of one calling in the desert, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’"

4 And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins."



The first quotation (v. 2) comes from Malachi 3:1, as you note, and only the second quotation is from Isaiah 40:3. But this is no error, given the Jewish citation methods. The Jews often kept all the Prophets on a single scroll, and so would often cite the most prominent of the prophets. It it more likely that later gentile scribes failed to realize this, and "corrected" the text to "As it is written in the prophets". But there is no error in following the citation conventions of the day rather than 21st-century practices, as various biblioskeptics unreasonably demand.



Another example is in Matthew 27:9–10:



"9 Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel,

10 and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me."



Here, most of this was from Zechariah 11:12–13, and only a small allusion to Jeremiah 18:1–4 and 19:1–3, and the field mentioned in Jeremiah 32:6-9. Once more, some scribes tried to "correct" this, but far fewer manuscripts have this "correction" than the previous one. Hence the majority text has exactly the same type of supposed "error" that you criticize.

January 1 at 4:27pm · Like..
Matt SIngleton The Byzantine text is superior to the alexandrine text because it identifies with what the scriptures say about themselves.

Scriptures says that the church of the living God is the pillar and ground of truth 1timothy 3:15 and the scriptures are preserved for the assurance of salvation of that true church. 1 Peter 1:23-25

The Byzantine copiest out number the alexandrines almost 100/1.

And they were living at a time where they could evaluate the alexandrines manuscripts as well as manuscripts that we could never see.



"the prophets" is a common biblical phrase and classification of biblical writers. Matthew 11:13



The passage you site in Matthew 27:9-10

Sites Jeremiah as opposed to Isaiah. In the MacArthur study bible study notes on this text it says "Jeremiah came first in the order of prophetic books, so the prophets were sometimes collectively referred to by his name." however that would disqualify the explanation of the alexandrine text of mark 1:2, after all Isaiah would not be the head of the scroll.

Also it maybe that the references to Zechariah were simply illustrative, while the fulfillment of prophecy is literally accomplished in Jeremiah.



And let's get rid of the deceptive notion that the alexandrine texts are somehow the originals. They contradict themselves on 3,000 occaisions vaticanus vrs. Sinaiticus.



And even James white admits that there are thousands of manuscripts which were burned and have simply aged because of use.

But which manuscript has God's people used most?

January 1 at 9:17pm via mobile · Like..
Jonathan David Sarfati Arguments from circumstance mean nothing. Probably hardly any Bible was used for longer than the Vulgate. The above sounds like something a roman Catholic would say, since it is tradition-centred not Bible-centred.



There are no two Byzantine manuscripts that are identical. Nor are any of them identical to the so-called Textus Receptus.



On the issue of prophet citations, here is something from our site—http://creation.com/claimed-bible-errors:



Also, Noel Weeks, PhD in ancient history and languages at Brandeis University under Cyrus Gordon, showed how this actually supported the reliability of Scripture. In an interview in Australian Presbyterian by CMI-supporter Rev. Peter Hastie, he was asked, “Can we say that the Bible is true even though it is imprecise with some of its statements? For example, Matthew attributes a quote from Zechariah to Jeremiah in Matthew 27:9. Isn’t this an instance of imprecision?” Dr Weeks replied:



Let me tell you a story about when I was doing my PhD at Brandeis University in Boston. Brandeis is a leading Jewish university. I remember sitting in a lecture by a very fine Jewish scholar, Nahum Sarna, who was talking about the canon of the Old Testament as it was understood in early Judaism. One of the topics he touched on was the order of the books. He said, “Well, you know that there was a period in which Jeremiah was regarded as the first book of the prophets.” Of course, nobody in the class knew that. Anyway, he continued, “One proof is that you have a quote from Zechariah quoted as being from Jeremiah because in the Jewish way of labelling things you call a book by its first few words, and you call a collection of books by the first book in that collection. Thus one of the evidences that we have of Jeremiah being the first book of the prophets in the first century is the New Testament.” I was sitting there thinking, “This Jewish audience doesn’t understand why that’s an important question, because this particular text has been held up as proof that there are errors in the New Testament. All it says is that the New Testament is a Jewish document. It is speaking in the language that Jews would speak and understand.”

Claimed Bible errors

creation.com

A correspondent claims there are errors in the Bible, but all of the alleged  

Matt SIngleton If your position is bible centered then argue from scripture. I showed you where the bible gives detail to it's preservation. Am I right? If so your argument against the text is not according to God's Will, if not, then you should tell my why the scriptures say something else.

Why would denying the superiority of the Catholic bible be catholic? Codex vaticanus is under the control of the Roman catholic church. And until his recent death cardinal Carlo martini committee for the Nestlé/Alund text.



Why does it matter if the Byzantine manuscripts are identical? When are you going to hold the alexandrine manuscripts to any level of accountability?



The Byzantine differs in spelling while the alexandrine differs in canons.

Differences of spelling only show us that there where so many different copyists to destroy the idea of conspiracy.

But when people claim the gospel of mark is the first gospel and yet claim that it does not have an account of the resurrection; you can spin it however you like. But reality bears the fruits of apostates like Bart Ehrman.



As long as you think that there is not a single inspired book on planet earth you will have to compromise with scripture. At which point you will have to give up on key points of your apologetic and eventually, theology.

January 1 at 11:34pm via mobile · Like..
Jonathan David Sarfati Just come out with it: are you KJV-only?

January 2 at 1:35am · Like..
Matt SIngleton I am a preservationist. I believe that God has preserved his word perfectly for us in the Hebrew masoretic text and the Greek textus receptus.

I believe that the authorized version nicknamed Kjv is the standard English translation of the Bible.

I recommend the Kjv. Though translations are not perfectly inspired. But derive there authority from the Greek and Hebrew.

January 2 at 1:42am via mobile · Like..
Matt SIngleton Put it like this, if you saw me talking to James white and Peter Ruckman.

James white would say I am king James only. But Peter Ruckman would call me a liberal TR man.

January 2 at 1:47am via mobile · Like..
Matt SIngleton But my position is essentially the same as Westminster, Charles spurgeon, d.a.Waite, Henry Morris, Frank Logsdon and Edward hills

January 2 at 1:53am via mobile · Like..
Jonathan David Sarfati One can be a preservationist, but this doens't entail that God preserved the Biblical manuscripts they way you think. The KJVO way is untenable because it would follow that no Bible existed before the Romanist Erasmus performed his textual criticisms on a few Greek manuscripts. None of these MSS is identical to the so-called Textus Receptus, so where was the "preservation"?

What is the evidence that God preserved Scripture in the TR, which differs from the Majority Text in 1,800 places?



The Westminster divines were too early for the textual debate. Spurgeon preached a sermon called "And we are: A Jewel from the revised Version", based completely on the superiority of the Alexandrian text in 1 John 3:1. I know much more than Henry Morris did about this issue; his writings on textual matters were very weak (James White showed where Dr Morris erred on both factual and logical grounds http://vintage.aomin.org/A%20Response%20to%20a%20Brother%20in%20Christ.html). I have rebutted Waite's slanderous attacks on the NIV, again showing that he is loose with facts and guilty of double standards.



The Geneva Bible is a much better translation of the same texts that the KJV translators used.

Alpha and Omega Ministries, The Christian Apologetics Ministry of James R. White

vintage.aomin.org

Christian Apologetics, Theology, Information on Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, J...ehovah's Witnesses, etc. A reformed ministry dedicated to sharing the Gospel of God's grace!See More.January 2 at 2:14am · Edited · Like..Matt SIngleton Your first premise is contradictory, you say that the idea of original manuscript remaining intact means it disappeared???

You are not omniscient.

You did not live in every century. You are assuming your own uniformitarianism idea of the text.

Their were many copies that existed in those centuries that you don't have access to.


Why does the "majority text" matter?

One minute it is utterly ignored when it prefers the traditional reading. But it only seems to matter to disagree with the TR.

Well, let's acknowledge the truth.

10% is not the majority!!

Von soden's critical text is only based on about 500 of the 5000 Greek manuscripts. That means he can choose the text which will disagree most with the TR. and that has been the on-going mission of textual criticism.



Of the Westminster were too early for the textual debate, perhaps they were too early for sola scriptura debate. Perhaps they were too early for the justification debate as well!

Who were they to stand up against Rome?

All they claimed was that they had absolute authority from scripture. But if they did not then the premise of the reformation falls apart.



James white constantly errs on factual grounds. He is still selling the myth about Erasmus and the wet manuscript which was dispelled by Bruce metzger.

Or this constant obsession with Erasmus and 6-7 manuscripts ignoring the work of stephanus and Beza when Beza possessed 19 manuscripts.

Also ignoring how the reformers were aware of textual issues sense the KJV translators compared 15 ancient translations on top of their work with the Greek text.



Spurgeon Preached on mark 16:16

Morris was smart enough to know about the evolutionary presuppositions of the text critics.

Defending the NIV is equivalent to defending neo-orthodoxy. If God inspired the words of scripture then the words need to be translated.



www.wayoflife.org

Way of Life Literature

www.wayoflife.org

THE APPLE STORE: A WINDOW INTO THE NEW AGE (Friday Church News Notes, December 2...8, 2012, www.wayoflife.org fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) - I love Apple equipment, but on recent visits to Apple stores in two different countries, I realized that these are true windows into the New Age. Indeed, the...See More.January 2 at 8:10am via mobile · Like · Remove Preview..

Jonathan David Sarfati The same could be said about KJVOs who go on about their text agreeing with the "majority" of the manuscripts. But suddenly, when their reading is finds no support in the majority, it no longer matters. The fact remains: your view of textual preservation is untenable, because no manuscript looks like what you claim the "preserved" text is.

January 3 at 6:54pm · Like..

Matt SIngleton No the preservationist view is completely rational.

God inspired the bible without error

God preserved the Bible for believers

God provided a perfect text for believers.



What is irrational is.

God inspired the bible without error

God could not preserve his word with out error

God's people stop believing in Christ alone for salvation.

But the church was intact as a genocidal idol worship empire.

Suddenly people believed the bible correctly and thwarted the "church" with a bible filled with errors. Which the popes could correct at any time with their superior manuscript.

So that we now live based upon tradition which is superior to a more popular tradition because it is more in accord with the bible which the bigger tradition has held to the whole time.



The fact is that we hold to our canon because we believe the scripture which says that God would preserve His word for us are true. 1peter 1:23-25.

If God preserved the canon for us, then he could preserve the manuscript for us.

January 3 at 8:15pm via mobile · Like..Matt SIngleton I have read you arguing against evolution with aging methods that are not in line with evolution even though the result does not equate a young earth.

Such as the rate at which the ocean expels salt and the rate at which which the rate at which the moon orbits away from the earth.

Why are you using evidence that does not lead exactly to a 6,000-10,000 year old earth??

Because you new that evolution

Runs on a naturalistic system. So everything has to fit a naturalistic system or the premise of evolution and secular empiricism fails.

Young earth is based in the supernatural power of God.



I bring up that the majority of manuscripts agree with the TR over and against the alexandriane manuscripts.

Which means that the churches by and large rejected these manuscripts.

You say will they don't agree perfectly.

Just like the young earth position,

Revelation is the answer. The bible teaches that the word of God would be preserved among believers.

The textus receptus is the basis of most of the worlds bibles including the most reproduced book on earth.



Now besides the fact that many of Erasmus views moved toward an evangelical position.

The reformation NEVER based the bible on his work alone. Robert stephanus, and Theodore Beza and the elziver brothers and finally scrivener who based his work off of the textual decisions in the AV.



To claim that this is all the work of a catholic is A-historical.

January 3 at 9:50pm via mobile · Like..
Jonathan David Sarfati What are you talking about? Our reasoning for our age arguments is expressed in http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth



Yes, the KJVOs must indulge in historical revisionism to re-invent the Catholic Erasmus, an opponent of Luther and the Reformation, a...See More

Age of the earth

creation.com

Evidences for a young age of the earth and the cosmos.Yesterday at 11:20am · Like..  
Matt SIngleton Reading your age of the earth article you have vindicated my statement.

It's the same premise.

Science is not absolute, therefore it must bow it's knee to revelation.



The same logic of preservation.

Biblical criticism is a science which is not absolute, therefore it must bow it's knee to biblical criticism.



"to re-invent the catholic Erasmus, an opponent to Luther and the reformation"

This argument grows weaker and more embarrassing when you are encapable of giving a rebuttal after I have refuted the premise.



Erasmus never opposed Luther on any point other than free-will. And that is a subject which anabaptist, Luther's protege Melanchthon, and arminius opposed Luther and Calvin on in that day.

Besides the fact that Luther chose Erasmus work over and above the complutesuan polyglot; the Swiss anabaptist would have their sermons preached directly from Erasmus text, in order to deepen their convictions about anabaptist doctrine.

But you are still, yet again, refuted on this point. Because even if Erasmus was a raving papist, the reformers were not dependent solely on his work alone.

As Calvin's successor Theodore Beza had more greek manuscripts of his own than Erasmus. Not to mention the work of stephanus and the Elzivir brothers and others previously mentioned.



Still waiting on that...



Yet God preserved the word in the desert where Christians couldn't read it and have assurance of salvation, so that could be overcome by pagans claiming to be representatives of Christ.....sure.

But now we have a great authority which contradicts itself 3,000 times between 2 manuscripts and does not have the same OT or even NT canon that we have.

Based upon the authority of a "church father" who castrated himself denies that Son and Holy Spirit are of equal power to the Father, doesn't preach faith alone, argues for universal salvation even to the devil. Yep, sounds pretty orthodox!


Now with any facebook wall the debate didn't have an official end.  But after a week goes by I feel it is safe to it concluded. Also remember that as in any debate we are not as deep in our references as one would see in a research paper.

btw, I made a statement the otherday that Dr. Sarfati liked so there is hope ;)

Did Paul believe in the resurrection?

15 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

This may seem odd but biblical critics who deny the resurrection will argue for the organization of a myth and many have claimed that Paul did not really have a full understand that christ was really physically resurrected and did not profess the gospel.  Thus nobody understood the resurrection.

Now this is an amazing leap because we have to assume that Luke never taught the resurrection based on His account even though Luke was His disciple.  we also have to believe that the apostles were clueless as to the fact of a physical resurrection.  But I fifgured I would humor these assumptions and ask the question did Christ resurrect according to paul?

12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
Now at this point the claim would be made that Paul is referring to a future resurrection.  Although we do see a present tense reference.

14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
   They would also claim paul understood a spiritual resurrection.  But why would that be a point of contention?  Who could make a solid arguement over whether anyone truly is in heaven?




17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
   Here we see the idea of annihilation is looked upon as a curse.  which would have to be the case if there was no reurrection of christ.


19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
How could christ be the firstfruits of the dead if never rose from the grave?

23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Obviously they expected christ alive.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

So Paul believed that jesus was real because he had so many witness his life and resurrection.  Also they believe he literally would die.
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
5 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come

Is John's gospel the same as Paul's?

This is an article in response to a group that is commonly referred to as hyper-Dispensationalist. Many of which would refer to their teach as the "gospel of Paul".  This group argues that the apostle Paul was give a special dispensation to give the gospel to the Gentiles.  This much is biblically based (read Galatians 2 and Ephesians 3).
So that Jesus and the apostles were not concerned about doctrines like justification by grace through Fsith alone.  Instead they were focused on "the Gospel of the kingdom" as they delivered the gospel to the circumcised.
However hyper Dispensationalist take an extra step in this.  They claim that there are in fact 2 gospels. As a result the writings of the apostles have no direct message to the believer today. In an extension to this further the writings of John were meant for the Jews only.


It is significant that John wrote this after the fall of Jerusalem. It is also significant that John was writing either amongst gentile converts in Ephesus or to thesis rounding cities from the island of Malta, in both cases these people were evangelized by Paul.


Yes, John the baptist preaches a baptism of repentance. But the apostle John doesn't mention it.

That is from the Synoptics for a reason.

In regards to John 3:16.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.



First of all John and Paul wrote Greek not English and several translations translate the word "shall"

Secondly, assuming that "should" is the proper translation it makes no difference for two reasons.

A. In John 3:17 John is telling Gentiles that "the world through him might be saved" meaning that the gospel John is preaching is available to them.

B. John 3:18 says "He that beleiveth is not condemned.." this is present tense. So Gentiles reading the gospel of John had a sure foundation for their salvation that no one could tear asunder.

John 4:23 has Jesus prophecy "But the hour cometh AND NOW IS, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth:"

John is not writing for the departed Israel, this not a lamentation this is the good news.

And church history records how John would minister to the Gentiles. One of his disciples was the martyr polycarp. And He had a disciple named Irenaeus whose association to John gave him the ability to make the open and shut case that John was the authentic gospel of John.

Paul stated that his gospel was that which was seen of the apostles
1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

ephesians 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.



The gospel is not divided

Some thoughts on acts 8:37

Acts 8:36-38 King James Version (KJV
acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

 Earlier this week on a facebook group I was debating the superiority and inspiration on the text receptus. Another facebook user challenged me about this specific text "I assume you believe as well that Acts 8:37 was taken out of many bibles based on a conspiracy, yes?"

Here is my response.

Acts 8:37 is part of the textus Receptus Greek, greek manuscript E08 and the western Latin tradition. 9not to mention the early english translations (tyndal, wycliff. matthew, geneva. AV etc.) and any TR based translation.
We don't have it in the alexandrine text. Nor do we have it in 10% of the Byzantine text which we call a "majority".  (or Majority text by von Sodon)


  So obviously what must have happened is that Jerome, unbeknownst to his employer pope damasus was a raving baptist!  He was insecure about lack of biblical grounds for believers baptism and He wanted his priest to be thoroughly equipped in the roman catholic doctrine of believer's baptism!  They even made just 1 greek manuscript supporting acts 8:37 to cover their tracks.
  This was a very important conspiracy because they missed the previous conspiracy at Constantinople to conflate the text. Probably because Westcott and Hort were the first ones to hear of such a conflation.
   Now since we do not have the originals, if we deny that God is Sovereign and did not preserve the text perfectly in at least one copy.  Then we have no authority to claim what the canon consist of.  Nor What original manuscripts consist of.
  Besides the lack of authority the evolving text advocates to deny whether scriptures are inspired.  They also have to claim knowledge about manuscripts which they have not personally studied, which includes:

A. The majority of the Byzantine texts.

B. future manuscripts which are waiting to be discovered.

C. Manuscripts which have worn away out of decay

D. Manuscripts which were put to flames in times of persecution.


  We also have to assume that men of the past were incapable of accesses information back then. When they may have possessed information which we don't have.
Eventually when looking at manuscripts we have to put a prejudice over which group is more likely to be right.
   So if it is between the alexandrine church infiltrated with Gnosticism and adhering to neo-Platonism or whether it was the school of Antioch which had a good Christian tradition alongside a strong Jewish scribal influence, where the full deity and complete humanity were strongly held up.  I will side with antioch.
If this issue is between the Byzantine's and the textus receptus then I will side with the textus receptus. They would had to have motive to go against the Byzantine textus receptus. The Byzantine empire would be corrupted by Eastern Orthodoxy. Yet the protestants held to the gospel of grace.

John Calvin's assistant Theodore beza is reported to have gotten information from the ancient Waldenses. That they had received their text from antiochan missionaries in the 2nd century. This preserved their text better.  The church is the pillar and ground of truth 1timothy (3:15) and I find the Waldenses to be a true church while the Catholics and alexandrines are not.

"Darwin is dead" looking at the origin of species

(quotes from "The Origin of Species derived from the "Oxford World's Classics" Oxford University Press 1996 edition)

  In recent debates with evolutionists, there has been a strategy employed using a presuppositional style with "bait and switch" tactics.   They will claim on the one hand; that the debate surrounding evolution is only concerned with darwinian biological evolution.  Thereby deflecting failing arguments for naturalism and propping up more support for their presuposition "evolution equals science" defense.

 For instance one Youtube one user makes the claim of the following "misconceptions of evolution"
channel: mynameisjonas45
1. evolution deals with the origin of life [meaning evolution is on after life began]
2. evolution is just a theory [meaning evolution is a fact}
3. humans came from monkeys [meaning humans came from apes}
4. evolution has never been observed [meaning micro evolution exist and there is an argument for microscopic plant life.]
5. evolution violates the second law of thermo-dynamics (arguing that thermo-dynamics does not apply to biology]

  Now the goal for the article is not jump into the endless scientific creation debate.  the goal for the article is to ask whether Darwinism is not a shifting position.  If it does change positions then it has no right to claim sole authority over the sciences any longer.  Evolution has no right to ever have highjacked scientific academia if it can not be one consistantly true fact.

It's not about evolution
  So then evolution would only be concerned about darwinian evolution and not strictly rely upon one worldview like naturalism then, eh?
  After contemplating this I decided to search through Darwin's Origin of Species to see what he thought.  To my surprise I have found something shocking. Darwin doesn't employ the word "evolution" to describe His theory!  Now I may not have perfectly exhausted this book. But for a fact the word "evolution" is not employed in the index, the glossary, the table of contents nor the introduction. (or any page that I have examined.)
  Instead Darwin focuses on the concept of natural selection as the principle idea of his theory.  So where does the concept of evolution come into play?  It is brought up earlier among naturalist and is not used exhaustively of biology.  In fact it had a huge following in the realms of political science!
  As we will see in this paper,  evolution is just as much a religious concept as a scientific one.  Evolutionary science is based in the naturalistic worldview/religion. And it has no right to be so dominate over the minds of american scholars.
James 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

It's all natural
"When on board HMS Beagle, as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the inhabitants of South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants on the continent."
"I much regret that want  of space prevents me from having the satisfaction of acknowledging the generous assistance which I recieved from very many naturalists, some of them personally unknown to me."  pg. 4
  Naturalism is essential to evolution there is a reason that Darwin was encased among naturalistic thinkers.  Because his theory of natural selection was designed to give a philosophiocal naturalist understanding to the universe.  If one or many gods breaks the laws of naturalism they can not be admitted into evolutionary understanding.  Modern evolutionists are losing the case for athiesm and so they want to retain power and authority through pakaging evolution for christians and other religions etc.  But while naturalism is not limited to atheists, it is intended to be practically atheist in terms of any sense of application.
  But if the laws of naturalistic philosophy are broken. for instance a miracle takes place.  Their is no longer a need to assume evolution and the entire worldview falls apart.
  But the naturalistic world view has deep problems.  When considering the cosmological argument and the big bang theory.  The only way for the "Big bang" to have happened is for the laws of science to have been created by it.  The problem is that the laws of science are equivalent to our concept of nature.  So it would require the supernatural which naturalism declares to be non-existent. If there is an effect there has to be a cause.  Logic would declare.  But naturalism doesn't have a consistant answer.  Which breaks the philosophical worldview and then destroys the motive of evolution leaving itself to be irrational.


Political Implications
"We shall best understand the probable course of natural selection by taking the case of a country undergoing some physical change, for instance a climate."
On page 68 Darwin has an interesting illustration of natural selection using a kingdom
  Now one could argue this was merely a demonstration of the theory of natural selection.  But if true what would stop Darwinism from becoming a political movement?  Thus leading to the genocidal movements of nazism communism and facism.
  After all we must also then politically reconcile passages dealing with extinction!
"There is no exception to the rule that every organic being naturally increases at so high a rate, that if not destroyed, the earth would soon be covered by the progeny of a single pair.  Even slow breeding man has doubled in 25 years and at this rate, in a few thousand years there will literally not be standing room for his progeny." pg.54  This quickly leads us to the ideas of population control.  Which takes us to the sadistic ideas of genocide, concentration camps, forced sterilization, abortion on demand, euthenasia etc. etc.
james 4:From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? 2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.


The religious factor
"These facts seemed to me to throw some light on the origin of species-that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers." Intro. pg1
  When we here of mystery we are to look into the realm of religion.
"This is the doctrine of Malthus applied to the whole animal and vegatable kingdoms.  As many more individuals of each species are born that can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected." pg.6
 Survival of the fittest is now the meaning of life. Yet again a religious category.
Now one problem on this subject is that evolution and the darwian worldview is not one religion.  But it is in fact many religions.
Such as the religion of secular humanism.
"Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view as old as human civilization itself." preface to humanist manifestos I and II 1979 prometheus books
 Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.


The proof of Darwinism
psalm 14:1The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
2 The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.


"In considering the origin of species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographic distribution, geological succession  and other such facts might come to the conclusion that each species might not have been independently created, but had descended," pg.4   So here Darwin sets out a cumulative case for evolution.  And this is only applied to biological evolution.
his case is thus:
A. biological mutual affinity)
"Most importantly, similarity is not evidence for common ancestry
 (evolution), but rather for a common designer (creation). Think about
the original Porsche and the Volkswagen ‘Beetle’ cars. They both have
air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear,
independent rear suspension, two doors, trunk in the front, and many
other similarities (‘homologies’).
  Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities?
Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological
(shape, form) or biochemical, it is not an argument for evolution over
creation. If humans were entirely different from all other living things,
or indeed every living thing was entirely different, would this reveal
the Creator to us? No, we could think that there must be many creators
rather than one. The unity of the creation is testimony to the One True
God who made it all (Romans 1:20).
  Also, if humans were entirely different from all other living things,
then how could we live? We have to eat other organisms to gain nutrients
and energy to live. How could we digest them and how could we use the
amino acids, sugars, etc., if they were different to the ones we have in our
bodies? Biochemical similarity is necessary for us to have food." Creation Answers Book chapter 7
pg. 111. www.creation.com
B. embryological relations)
"Michael Richardson, a lecturer and embryologist at St George’s Hospital Medical School, London, has exposed this further fraud, in an article in the journal Anatomy and Embryology,8 recently reviewed in Science9 and New Scientist.
  Richardson says he always felt there was something wrong with Haeckel’s drawings, ‘because they didn’t square with his [Richardson’s] understanding of the rates at which fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals develop their distinctive features’.8 He could find no record of anyone having actually compared embryos of one species with those of another, so that ‘no one has cited any comparative data in support of the idea’.8
  He therefore assembled an international team to do just that—examine and photograph ‘the external form of embryos from a wide range of vertebrate species, at a stage comparable to that depicted by Haeckel’.8
  The team collected embryos of 39 different creatures, including marsupials from Australia, tree-frogs from Puerto Rico, snakes from France, and an alligator embryo from England. They found that the embryos of different species are very different. In fact, they are so different that the drawings made by Haeckel (of similar-looking human, rabbit, salamander, fish, chicken, etc. embryos) could not possibly have been done from real specimens.
    Nigel Hawkes interviewed Richardson for The Times (London).11 In an article describing Haeckel as ‘An embryonic liar’, he quotes Richardson:
  ‘This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry … What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don’t … These are fakes.’ 11"Fraud rediscovered:
It has long been known that one of the most effective popularizers of evolution fudged some drawings, but only now has the breathtaking extent of his deceit been revealed.
by Russell Grigg www.creation.com
"If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation [of life from non-living matter], then at this one point of the history of development we must have recourse to the miracle of a supernatural creation." *Ernst Haeckel, The History of Creation (1878), Vol. 1, p. 348.
This statement unifies Evolution with Abiogenesis Thus one of the cheif proponents of evolution in history has Admitted that the failure of abiogenesis is the concession to special creation!

C. geographic distribution)   This was a good argument for natural selection or micro evolution.  in the since that there are changes in "kinds" or differing breeds of animals.  Yet there are boundaries to these changes and no proof of macro evolution.
D. geological succession)
"Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
  The key phrase here is: fountains of the “great” deep were broken up. Now for as much water needed to flood the earth, there would be a lot of sediments coming up with the water. It would look very similar to the black smoker in the Picture above that is spewing black sediments. Except during the flood it would be erupting like a huge volcanoes. Sea creatures caught up in this would be buried according to where they lived in the seas because the burial would be so quick, the sea creature would have zero chance to escape. So if you notice, the Geologic Column has bottom dwellers first which is the correct order it would be for the flood. Then you have the mid-dwellers. And then the top dwellers. The exact order of how such a huge flood would bury the sea creatures.
  Then after all the sea creatures are buried, then comes the land animals. Which is correct order of what we see in the Geologic Column if the flood created it. It is ironic that even though science claims the column only supports evolution, that it also goes in the correct order of how things would have been buried in the flood." ikester 7579 www.yecheadquarters.org

1 Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. 40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

The challenge to darwinism
"nevertheless, such a conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, until it could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting this world have been modified, so as to acquire that perfection of structure and co adaptation which most justly excites our admiration." pg.4
  This is the problem, they have not in 150 years found a real transitional link.  Which has been the motivation for the intelligent design movement.
  Also we must remember, that darwinism also rest upon empiricism.  If Darwinism is the by-product of science alone; then it can never be permanently affirmed or held to with sincere dogmatics.  Because with empiricism there is always a fact that could change our view of the situation.
Psalm 8:3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

Lamarkianism: the skeleton evolving in Darwin's closet!
Ezekiel 18:1 The word of the Lord came unto me again, saying,
2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?
3 As I live, saith the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.

  Darwins based most of his ideas on the teachings of Charles Lyell.  The geologist responsible for the teachings of Uniformitarianism. 
"and it is the third volumeof the journal of that society.  Sir C. Lyell and Dr. Hooker, who both knew of my work-the latter having read my sketch of 1844-honoured me by thinking it advisable to publish" intro pg1
Charles lyell had ran his theories based upon lamarkianism.  The early form of evolutionary thought.  Only Lyell had the foresite to realize that a naturalistic worldview would require great multitudes of time.  At this point Lyell is going to plot out a lamarkian understanding of biology to affirm affirm an understanding of age amongs the fossils and then guestimate the age of the strata in order to affirm darwinian evolution.  Now to be fair Lyell was very skeptical of Lamark's theory. However the point to be made is that this was the ideology Lyell was operating from prior to Darwin.
"His work, Principles of Geology, had a profound effect upon Darwin. He read the first two volumes during the course of his service as naturalist aboard  H.M.S. "Beagle" (see below). By the time Darwin began his work upon the species question, the depth of geological time to the order of millions of years was quite well accepted."Encyclopedia Britannica 1969 Darwinism
  Basically they assume that an older species will adapt an inheretance then be buried in the same area.  But neo-darwinism teaches that we do not inherit "acquired characteristics".  Darwin argues for variation with Geographical distribution.  So How would we know the age of a strata if the fossils are not guaranteed in the order of the column? We don't even have evidence of a uniform order of the column anyway!  Besides new evolutionists are arguing against evolution necessarily being about advancement anyhow.
2 peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

  While darwin was focused on biology the rest of his worldview was naturalistic but still with lamarkian assumptions.  So as a result, later darwinist developed the neo-darwinian theory of evolution.
"In His Origin of Species, Darwin accepted the principle of the inheretance of acquired characteristics as one of the factors contributing to evolution." Encyclopedia Britannica 1969 lamarkism

While the west went along with this ideological shift. lamarkianism was far from dead.  Karl Marx was entertained by the Lamarkian perspective and as a result the Soviet Union Became a lamarkian establishment in their institutions.
"In the Soviet Union for example, where the inheretance of acquired characteristics is accepted and where it has an official standing, it is presented as a part of the Darwinian theory and is referred to generally as "creative Soviet Darwinism" as distinct from the "reactionary darwinism" of capitalistic countries."Encyclopedia Britannica 1969 lamarkism

  What we see is that Darwinism can not be a fact, because it is not one position and it has no authority to declare itself as objectively true.  It does have worldview tendencies and there are religions that have been based upon it.  But these ideas are on their own. Even though on their own they are failing.  Darwin's evidence was refuted long ago.  Sure Evolutionists are evolving.  But their species is only mutating and unless there is cheating (tyrannical military coersion) they will be headed towards extinction.  But like darwin himself the original "Origin of species" theory  is dead.  And God has killed him!
Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: