thilipsis

I am at a lose to respond line per line but let me assure you, if you have committed the unpardonable sin you will never care that it is unforgivable. It's a condition known as perdition, the devil is in this condition and so is everyone who has sold out to sin. When Jesus was talking to his enemies they said he cast out demons by the power of Satan, in effect. They said he cast out demons through the power of Satan. Jesus used a little simple logic, if Satan casts out Satan then his kingdom is finished. The only way to be saved is to be cleansed by the Holy Spirit of promise, there is no other way. When they called the Holy Spirit unclean it revealed an irreparably flaw in the seat of their moral conscience. I think they knew that they were seeing God work in peoples lives and they were simply angry because God had intruded, all sin is at enmity with God. It's like when Jesus called them hypocrites, Jesus was using a term that meant literally, 'one who wears a mask', it was the idea of Grecian theater. The actors would change masks as a part of the performance, Jesus used this image to indicate a religious phony that fooled neither the audience or the actor. They knew they were phony, Jesus knew they were phony and he was telling them there was no escape from that. Jesus talking about Judas said one of you is a devil, not you will become one, but you already are. There are questions whether Judas could have repented but I'm convinced there is no way he ever intended any such thing. No child of perdition has remorse for their blasphemy so if someone utters slanderous things, even about the Holy Spirit, it's not necessarily the same unforgivable sin Jesus is describing. I really don't know, only God can tell the intent, but my guess is if you say something you don't really mean or understand it's simply not the same thing. Grace and peace, Mark

I'm new so bear with me if I'm not formatting the post right. First of all 'evolution' is generally defined as the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. That pretty much makes everyone an evolutionist. The 'theory of evolution' on the other hand is what is otherwise known as Darwinism which is a philosophy of natural history that presupposes exclusively naturalistic causes. We do well to discern the difference. Abiogenesis is largely speculation, the only way anyone has ever seen life emerge is from life. That's actually an easy one. The biggest problem of single cell to multicellurlar life is simply the DNA. Single cell is usually something like bacteria which is a genome in the thousands or millions of DNA base pairs long. You have a genome that is close to three billion base pairs long. What is curious is that there are so many DNA repair mechanisms in the genome but so very few that actual edit or extend the DNA. Now if you mean single cell living populations evolving into plants and animals I have no issues. In Darwinism they presuppose naturalistic processes and ask questions later. Finally with regards to you challenge I would like to pick up the gauntlet. Let me just say, I'm a died in the wool creationist but don't underestimate the fact that they have some pretty formidable arguments. One of the best pieces of advice I have ever gotten is a gentleman who was teaching on the creation/evolution thing that said the first step is to make the strongest possible argument for the opposing view. Don't get me wrong, I believe wholeheartedly that God created life, about 6 thousand years ago. I would simply advise caution when equivocating evolutionary biology with Darwinian naturalistic assumptions. Think about it, Noah's Ark touches down on Ararat some 4,000 years ago and from those samplings of the originally created kinds there are now something like 2 million to 60 million species. My point is simply this, from those small populations you have diversity in all it's vast array. God provided for adaptive evolution, it's Darwinian naturalistic assumptions that are at the heart of the creation/evolution divide. Grace and peace, Mark