tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post425863270172513051..comments2024-03-18T18:19:19.002-07:00Comments on bylogos: Canadian Reformed Classis Rejects Human Evolutionjohn bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-37141533722090752772015-03-16T10:39:46.683-07:002015-03-16T10:39:46.683-07:00Hi Arnold
Thanks for your comment. I have read you...Hi Arnold<br />Thanks for your comment. I have read your defense, but I doubt whether it will alleviate concerns regarding your stance on human evolution. <br /><br />Yes, you affirm <i>“the special and direct creation of Adam by God”</i>. But you also you affirm evolution:<i> “I do explain the undeniable fact that the biological theory of evolution is the scientific community’s current prevailing theory which has not yet been falsified, and which has significant descriptive [what] and explanatory [how] power within its proper (biological, scientific) limits, and as a scientific theory it makes no comment on the way in which God’s activity is perceived in the processes.”</i><br /><br />Put together, this seems to imply that, although God was directly involved in a special way in creating Adam, God also used evolution, at least for Adam’s biological body.<br /><br />To clarify your position, please address the questions:<br /><br />1. Was Adam directly created from inanimate dust, and Eve from his side, as per Gen.2? <br />2. Did Adam have any animal ancestry?<br />3. Did all other humans, past and present, descend from Adam and Eve?<br />4. Were there human-like (i.e., biologically similar) creatures before Adam? Co-existent with Adam?<br />5. Since evolutionary theory holds that humans evolved from animal ancestors, and that there never was a human population of less than several thousand people, and since this clearly contradicts Scripture, does this not falsify evolutionary theory?<br /><br />Thanks<br />john bylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-41885247101615662572015-03-15T17:57:30.838-07:002015-03-15T17:57:30.838-07:00The overture contains a number of false allegation...The overture contains a number of false allegations about me. See <a href="http://goo.gl/SYtQZG" rel="nofollow">goo.gl/SYtQZG</a> for the details. In addition, one can read the reflections of Rev. Bill De Jong, a delegate at that classis, at <a href="http://goo.gl/6qkyJK" rel="nofollow">goo.gl/6qkyJK</a>.Arnold Sikkemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02914734765194448215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-54501246182627397072015-03-12T11:52:01.234-07:002015-03-12T11:52:01.234-07:00Dr. Byl:
Thank you for posting this news release. ...Dr. Byl:<br />Thank you for posting this news release. I'm sure this will receive much study in the time leading up to the upcoming synods. <br /><br />On first reading it seems to me that nothing is added that does not come from Scripture. The only reference outside of the Bible is that of forebears to Adam; and that is simply refuting an error, not saying anything new. The error has hung around long enough to warrant the refutation.<br /><br />In regard to these two examples of men teaching or promoting theistic evolution, and also Dr. VanBekkum's teaching on Joshua, do I as a member have any obligation to them while they do so? Even if they're office-bearers? Am I not subscribed to Sola Scriptura as a member of the church, and not to men's conclusions and opinions however scholarly they might be? I mean, all they have done it take their respective favourite texts out of the Bible by equating them with their opinions. They have the Bible less three chapters (the RA teachers), or the Bible less one book (Dr. VanBekkum). That's not the whole Bible, so they're disqualified from representing the Bible on behalf of Christ, are they not?<br /><br />Those who wish to introduce theistic evolution while in office, they're really just abrogating their responsibilities to one part of the Bible, and therefore the whole Bible, and thereby disqualifying themselves from their offices. Since we have already in arts. v and vii, it seems to me they are already disqualified. The offices aren't for blazing new trails.<br /><br />But I'm not asking, "Do we really need to amend art. xiv?" It still refutes an error; and my initial response is that I am in agreement with that. I just maintain that the error is that of arbitrarily imposing upon God's Word, and asserting that the plain reading is equally an imposition by men instead of a safety default, instead of a determined refusal to subject God's Word to arbitrary interpretation. <br /><br />Just my initial thoughts. <br />JohnV<br />JohnVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00330406643601471203noreply@blogger.com