methinkshe

Dear Hypathia, I've noticed that this topic is about to fall off the edge of the page. I would dearly love to hear from you an answer to the questions I previously posed. The whole subject of disabilty is very close to me, I live it daily, and I am perturbed by your belief that embryonic stem cell research is an answer. I would really love to continue this debate with you because it is so close to my heart via personal experience. In Jesus, Ruth

No, not true...your contentions. My father was the most godly man and loving Christian father any daughter could hope for. Yet he never experienced speaking in tongues or any other of the empowering gifts of the Spirit. Yet my mother DID receive the gift of tongues but tended to downplay it so as not to cause anxiety between herself and her husband, my father. I know this may sound really silly, but my children were wondering about the gift of tongues and why they hadn't received it, and then went on to listen to a Bible Study by a really gifted teacher of God's Word, and the result was that it set them free to receive. It wasn't that they didn't HAVE the gift of tongues always available, it was more that they had never had the confidence to move into the gift. Oh, that sounds so trite. But I know if for myself that one has to move into the gifts - they don't just plop themselves on your lap. It's faith all over again. Is there a bridge over the ravine? I don't know, but I'll never know for certain until I step out into the unknown and find that, lo and behold, there I am walking on firm ground. Everyone whom I have known who speaks in tongues had at the first instance to step out and risk looking like a complete fool. Who is to say, for instance, that saying wee-wee is not speaking in tongues? Oui, oui, is yes, yes, in French. But somebody is going to say you are just talking toilet rubbish! But as one utters the first word.....wow! Whole sentences follow! Did my father ever seek tongues? No, he didn't. Do I believe that it made him a lesser Christian than my mother? No I do not. I have nine children. Why? Because I believe that God says that children are a blessing. Like the greedy soul I am I decided not to limit God's blessings so I kept 'em coming! Do I believe that a couple who decide to have only two children are deficient Christians? No way! According to your faith be it unto you.....Go for as much or as little and either way it makes no difference. Far more important is that whatever you do you do by faith becaus if it is not of faith then it is sin. Oh dear, I expect I'm talking a load of rubbish again. Just so identified with your post especially when thinking of my dad. Please excuse if I have come accross as either preachy or, worse still, arrogant. I'm only a mother and housewife so I really do not have any laurels to rest upon save knowing Jesus. Blessings in Jesus, Ruth Ruth.................no, that wasn't pointed at you at all, I liked the way you explained it and think thats how all of us should approach differences, with love and understand and trying to be considerate of others beliefs. Please if I offended you or hurt your feelings in any way, accept my humble apology! Dear SilentPrayer, Of course you have not offended! I just love to talk about Jesus and anything to do with God's Word. But I am aware that on occasions I can sound preachy, which is not my intent. I just LOVE the beauty of the truth of God's Word and could ramble on about it forever! And in so doing I am aware that I can often become soullish along with all the attendatant problems of arrogance and wherever that leads. God bless you, dear sister. Oh, Jesus is so glorious, His truth is so wonderful and liberating! May we never diminish the freedom that is in Christ Jesus. In Jesus Ruth

What are these conversations about? Why are the angels there? Are they giving him some sort of message or is it just idle chitchat. I would confront him and ask what the mission of the angels are. I don't believe God would send His angels to someone just to keep them company. And I don't believe He would send His angels as some sort of sign of His existance. Ask him what it all means. What's the worst that could happen? From what I can gather they are mostly rather glib assurances along the lines of : I am with you. Trust me. Rather anodyne expressions, more often than not rather self-congratulatory; keep on doing what you are doing, what a clever man you are type of stuff. But maybe that's just my scepticism putting a slant on the accounts. What bothers me is that it is these so-called angelic encounters that seem to guide him whereas I would have hoped for a sudden revelation of a truth from studying God's Word. I remain unconvinced that these apparent visions of angels are from Jesus. Yet I do not want to hinder his growth in the Lord by suggesting that he could be listening to demons appearing as angels of light, if indeed that is the case, which I have to admit, I strongly suspect. This man has a history of inventing somewhat fantastical lies that he believes will make him acceptable to present company and I have little reason to believe that he is not still pursuing the same objective albeit within a Christian context. Yet he claims to have acknowledged Jesus as saviour and that I do not want to quash. I find myself in a quandary. Who am I to judge whether he has or has not genuininely been born again? Or whether he has just found a more convenient way to perpetuate his Walter-Mittyish type fantasies. At the moment I am reserving judgment and awaiting fruits - I don't know what else I can or should do. Thank you for your consideration. In Jesus, Ruth

No, not true...your contentions. My father was the most godly man and loving Christian father any daughter could hope for. Yet he never experienced speaking in tongues or any other of the empowering gifts of the Spirit. Yet my mother DID receive the gift of tongues but tended to downplay it so as not to cause anxiety between herself and her husband, my father. I know this may sound really silly, but my children were wondering about the gift of tongues and why they hadn't received it, and then went on to listen to a Bible Study by a really gifted teacher of God's Word, and the result was that it set them free to receive. It wasn't that they didn't HAVE the gift of tongues always available, it was more that they had never had the confidence to move into the gift. Oh, that sounds so trite. But I know if for myself that one has to move into the gifts - they don't just plop themselves on your lap. It's faith all over again. Is there a bridge over the ravine? I don't know, but I'll never know for certain until I step out into the unknown and find that, lo and behold, there I am walking on firm ground. Everyone whom I have known who speaks in tongues had at the first instance to step out and risk looking like a complete fool. Who is to say, for instance, that saying wee-wee is not speaking in tongues? Oui, oui, is yes, yes, in French. But somebody is going to say you are just talking toilet rubbish! But as one utters the first word.....wow! Whole sentences follow! Did my father ever seek tongues? No, he didn't. Do I believe that it made him a lesser Christian than my mother? No I do not. I have nine children. Why? Because I believe that God says that children are a blessing. Like the greedy soul I am I decided not to limit God's blessings so I kept 'em coming! Do I believe that a couple who decide to have only two children are deficient Christians? No way! According to your faith be it unto you.....Go for as much or as little and either way it makes no difference. Far more important is that whatever you do you do by faith becaus if it is not of faith then it is sin. Oh dear, I expect I'm talking a load of rubbish again. Just so identified with your post especially when thinking of my dad. Please excuse if I have come accross as either preachy or, worse still, arrogant. I'm only a mother and housewife so I really do not have any laurels to rest upon save knowing Jesus. Blessings in Jesus, Ruth

Thank you all for confirming what the Spirit is witnessing in me. I am deeply troubled as to how to respond to a particular young man who has recently accepted Jesus as Saviour (or so he says) yet who delights in nothing more than recounting the conversations he has with angels who appear to him on and off throughout the day. Now, I have been a Christian for many years and I have to say that I have never seen an angel, and if I have, I must have entertained him unawares. That doesn't make me a rule of thumb. Maybe God does allow some poele to see angels - I don't know. But I am wary of his angelic encounters and just as wary of quashing one so young in the Lord. On the other hand, it would be very deficient of me, would it not, to allow him, without any questioning, to go off on an angel-worshipping tangent. Do I suggest that he may not be seeing angels from the Lord but that he could be seeing demons appearing as angels of light? Or do I just smile sweetly and nod whilst reserving judgment (what I am currently doing but with not a little discomfort). I'm not quite sure how to challenge this young man or even whether I should. What would any of you do? In Jesus, Ruth

Hi Ruth, If you don't mind me asking, how do you know that is was a "baptism" of the Holy Spirit, rather than a time when the Holy Spirit (whom you already had dwelling within you) made His Presence known in a powerful way? Peace, F I don't know - that's the honest truth. With hindsight one tries to reconcile one's experience with Scripture. You could be absolutely correct when you say that the Holy Spirit who was already indewelling was at a certain time in my life given enough space, so to speak, to manifest in a powerful way that I had never before experienced. But in a way, it doesn't really matter how or why or what or when, all that really matters is that at some stage in my life the Holy Spirit powerfully manifested to me and in me and gave me power to witness and to love and to hunger for God's Word that had not previously been the case. Whether one attaches the label "baptism in the Holy Spirit" to such an experience, or not, seems to me to be very secondary and rather unimportant. Call it what you will....all I know is that at a specific moment in time I was empowered spiritually in a way that I had not previously experienced. Praise Jesus! Ruth

Exactly so! Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other (than Jesus): for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Jesus said: I am the way the truth and the life; no man cometh to the Father but by Me. To preach any other means of salvation, (reconciliation with our Creator God) i.e. Mohammed or Buddah or angels, or good living or anything else, is to preach a false gospel, one that leads only to damnation. Let us all earnestly contend for the faith once and for all delivered.... In Jesus, Ruth

I'm not impressed. I'm not trying to fight. God that I read of so far in the OT destroyed a lot of people. And more to come. it will never be forgotten for it is the lesson learned. Also God can do and change whatever he wants. We don't have to understand why. This is the same god we worship. It may appear different, but to me our God sounds no different than Islams God. Hey, Justaguy, Stop looking for a god, just look for truth. And truth is (and you can challenge me on this definition, if you like) a 100% accurate record of all existence and all events. See where a search for truth leads you. Meanwhile, Allah says 70 virgins await you in paradise. Sorry, but that's not what the Creator God revealed in the Bible says. That's just a rather trivial difference between Allah and God our Creator and Father of all spirits. There are a whole lot more. But if you honestly and earnestly seek the truth you will surely find all the other differences, too. Blessings in Jesus, Ruth

Very simple as scripture has already been posted to verify this, and Thy Word is TruthJohn:17'17 And where may these supernatural manisfestations that accompany the baptism of the Holy Spirit be?? I don't see any such words. However, the Book of Acts is an account of the Acts of the original apostles and disciples, the the gift of tongues was given to spread the Gospel of Christ throughout the area in other languanges, which is what tongues is, in this case. Tongues cannot and is not the initial evidence of the Holy Spirit, because it is not a sign of believers, but to unbelievers as Paul specificly writes in 1 Corinthians 14:22! For those who teach this, all I have to say is what Paul said. 1 Corinth. 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not. So, you see, as scripture records, tongues is not a sign of being baptized in the Holy Spirit!! Also, take careful note of 1 Corinthians 12:27-30 where the apostle Paul asks rhetorical questions. He asks, 'are all apostles?' No is the obvious answer. 'Are all prophets?' No. 'Are all teachers?' No. 'Are all workers of miracles?' No. 'Do all have the gifts of healing?' No. 'Do all speak with tongues?' NO! This means that not all believers speak in tongues. Again, tongues could not be a sign of the receipt of the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit is given to everyone who sincerely repents and is born again, but not everyone has the gift of tongues. So this one text alone rebukes the teaching that it is a sign of the receipt of the"baptism of the Holy Spirit." The first recorded instance where tongues were spoken is in Acts 2. Here, the term 'tongues' means "a known language". Tongues here is not unknown tongues, or ecstatic speech, because everybody understood what was being said in their own language as Acts 2:6-11 clearly points out. This was a sign to the unbelievers; that God accepted these nations

Is anyone else troubled by the numerous reports of people seeing angels, talking to them, and generally having an angel as their next best friend? It seems to me that not only is there is a New Age cultish angel worship but also that in some Christian circles angels are taking the focus away from Jesus. Also, we do know that Satan and his fallen angels can appear as angels of light. It seems that every other day I meet Christians who say such things as: ooh, I can see your angel - he's quite small. Or, an angel came and spoke to me today and told me to ....... Am I just being a sceptical/unbelieving so and so or am I rightly suspicious of this sudden interest in angels? I have to say that when one of my children ordered a Christian music CD entitled "Trusting the Angels" it did not sit well with my spirit. I trust the Lord Jesus and although I believe that the angels minister to us, the heirs of salvation, I do not put my trust in them. "Trusting the angels" seemed like a subtle shift of focus away from Jesus. Perhaps I'm just being old fogeyish, though. What does anyone else think? Ruth

Yes but no but.... Those who believed in John's baptism of repentance were the same as all old testament saints who were saved by faith in the Messiah who was to come - witness Abraham whose FAITH was counted to Him as righteousness. The whole Levitical Law and the Tabernacle and the Ark of the Covenant was but a pictorial demonstration of Jesus - that same Jesus who created the world (John 1) and who walked and talked with Adam and Eve in the Grden of Eden. So it was not that they that were not believers in Jesus (the Messiah) but that they had not received the Holy Spirit, the Power from on High that Jesus sent when he asceneded into heaven. At least, that's my understanding. Blessings Ruth

Shalom Butero, Actually not. Ovedya posted the accurate reading of this verse in the other thread. I'll go and find it and copy it. The men were not believers in Jesus and were not filled (baptized) with and in the Holy Spirit until they were believers in Jesus. It is difficult to deny experience. I know for myself that I recieved Jesus as my Saviour many years before I was baptised in the Holy Spirit and experienced a supernatural indwelling and empowerment of the Spirit. Now, I can either say that my initial belief in Jesus Christ was inadequate or meaningless and that I was not born again until many years later when I received this supernatural experience, or I could say that I believed in the Lord Jesus but did not come nto the fullness of the Holy Spirit until many years later; or I could just deny my experience and try to align myself with some purportedly doctrinally correct interpretation. Or I could explore the possibility of having been led astray by an other spirit that is not from God. But then why was my baptism in the Spirit marked by an overwhelming thirst for God's Word, an irrepressible desire to communicate to others the Gospel of Jesus, and a love for one' fellow man that was so overwhelming (and so definitely not of my own crabby self)? I also know that wonderful Christians like my father, who is now safe in the arms of Jesus, never experienced this baptism of the Spirit in terms of receiving the gift of tongues and moving out in power. And I don't believe that it made him a lesser Christian for that. When I get confused by different testimonies concerning baptism of the Holy Spirit and whether it is a first or second blessing or whatever, I find my mind straying back to the old hymn: I know not why God's wondrous grace To me hath been made known Nor why, unworthy as I am He claimed me for His own But I know whom I have believed And am persuaded that He is able To keep that which I've committed Unto Him against that day I know not how this saving faith To me He did impart Or how believing in His word Wrought peace within my heart I know not how the Spirit moves Convincing men of sin Revealing Jesus through the word Creating faith in Him I know not what of good or ill May be reserved for me Of weary ways or golden days Before His face I see I know not when my Lord may come I know not how, nor where If I shall pass the vale of death Or 'meet Him in the air' I KNOW NOT......... Yay! May Jesus have His way. Blessings in Jesus Ruth

God is Spirit and therefore cannot be known save by His character, i.e. what He says and what He does. It is not a matter of worshipping an entity by the name of God (which could be anything from a chocolate mousse to Molech) but of KNOWING the character of God through His revealed words and actions and THEN worshipping Him. If you consider it is just a matter of semantics, you are very mistaken and perhaps a little naive. Blessings in Jesus. Ruth

Hello, Ovedya, I'm not sure that it is a second baptism that is needed so much as a fuller revelation of what is available through Jesus. I do know that I and many others whom I know had a head assent type conversion followed (sometimes many years later) by a very supernatural spiritual event that included the gift of tongues. Am I saying that this is a necessity for salvation? By no means! My father who was a truly born again believer never experienced the gift of tongues, but I never felt that in any way he was deficient in his spiritual walk with Jesus. I think that the following verses may go some way to explaining. What think you? "While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?" "John's baptism," they replied. Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all." Acts 19:1-7 I can only speak from experience and it does seem to me that there is available an infilling of the Holy Spirit that is for all believers but which may not have occurred at the first moment of belief. And if I have rightly read the above passage, it would seem to confirm it. But, hey, I do not want to make this a doctrine.......! BTW, Thank you so much FA and ...Gal something...sorry I don't know how to go back and check your name without losing this reply - I'm really very stupid at using computers. Anyway, just wanted to thank you both for your encouraging words and for your love in Jesus. Ruth

God bless you, Ruth! I believe that when I am in prayer and/or worship, and I speak in tongues, I am connecting in a way that precludes any interference of the enemy. Even without tongues, the devil is far from you when ypou are connecting to the throne room! So, when I speak to God in tongues, I am confounding the enemy and thwarting any of his tactics. Be free in Jesus, and exercise your gift! The devil hates it, but he has won some ground if he has convinced anyone not to use that gift. Thank you, FA. I have one further difficulty. A very new Christian with NO biblical background whatsoever and with a good dose of occult influence in his past, has recently acknowledged Jesus as his saviour. This man has a history of Walter-Mittyish type fantasies. He was my daughter's boyfriend but when she came to the Lord she wanted to cut off all immoral ties with him and thus they have parted company, even though he had made a confession of faith. However, he has confessed to her some HUGE lies and not just white lies, I mean lies of the fantastical variety. He is now seeing and communicating with angels (but still recounts visitations from evil spirits) and is speaking in tongues that do not witness to the Spirit of Jesus in her nor to some other discerning Christians. Although, there are others in the fellowship who prophesy that he is going to be a great man of God etc etc. Far be it from me to quash the Holy Spirit in any new believer, but I do retain doubts about the source of this man's angelic visions and conversations and his tongues. What does one do? I firmly believe that as Christians we MUST judge/discern and must not judge/condemn. How does one even begin to approach the idea that this man may not be speaking through the Holy Spirit? Ruth

Dear brothers and sisters, I gave an honest reply to the initial question re what was it like when one first spoke in tongues. I also explained how I had let the gift lapse - I became so concerned about the possibility of counterfeit and being led by another spirit than the Holy Spirit. I was fearful, in other words. Yet I still retained the ability to speak in tongues at will. It was never an emotional response that had to be drummed up through hours of singing repetitive worship songs, for instance. It was just another language (or two) that seemed to come readily to my tongue IF I CHOSE to exercise the gift. It has always been under my control, so much that I ceased to exercise it for 25 years because I was so concerned about the potential for counterfeit. I still am, to be honest, and rarely speak in tongues other than in private prayer. But I am beginnning to understand that there is the potential for chucking the baby out with the bathwater when guarding against other spirits. My children are now speaking in tongues and far be it from me to cast any aspersions....I need to encourage them, I believe. I'd really be pleased to hear how other members of the body overcome this dichotomy - the very real potential for counterfeit (and all good forgeries are necessarily very convincing) versus the genuine gift of tongues. Believe me, reticence is my problem, not a necessity to be shut up. In Jesus Ruth

Physical death is not the penalty for sin. Jesus' physical death does not save us from physical death. Jesus' sacrifice saves us from spiritual death. He descended to Hades and defeated it. Not necessarily. Suppose God only holds accountable those creatures who can fathom morality. Under such a scenario there would be a moment when a creature existed that could fathom morality who had no ancestors who were able to do the same thing. Accountability would come suddenly. Under the above scenario, the first sin would be committed by the first creature who could undertake moral reasoning. God judged that man a sinner because that man could reason about morality. God did not judge the man's ancestors for their sins because they could not understand morality. Consider the following simplified way of looking at things. Suppose you could rate a creature's intelligence on a scale of 1 to 100. Any creature with an intelligence of 50 or over would be held accountable for his sins. Now you could have creatures gradually gradually evolve more intelligence. The moment that a parent with an intelligence of 49 gives birth to offspring with an intelligence of 50 accountability begins. This is the "instant" change from beast to man you allude to. There are fish alive today that have varying appendages or limbs that allow them to scuttle along on the bottom of a body of water. Remember, they don't have to be the best fit for every environment, just one environment. Insulation and/or wind-protection. Genesis 2:17 "...........for in the day that you eat of it DYING YOU SHALL DIE" (literal translation). i.e. dying spiritually through being cut-off from the source of both spiritual and physical life - God - you will also die physically. Physical death, as well as spiritual death is most definitely the penalty for sin. And Jesus' death DOES save us from physical death....let me explain. Through believing in Jesus Christ we are born again of the Spirit, we become a new creation. However, we do not receive our new resurrection bodies until after our spiritually dead bodies have also perished physically. As Paul says, "we count ourselves as dead" - why - because we know we are going to die and that in me dwells no good thing. It is important to realise that we are BORN AGAIN and are NEW CREATIONS and that Jesus death did not just minister metaphorical sticking plasters. But we also know that we will see God in our flesh. Job 19:26 "yet in my flesh will I see God.." Also, Jesus invited Thomas to touch the nail marks on His hands. He ate with His disciples following His resurrection. In other words He was demonstrating that He was flesh and not just a spiritual apparition. Since Christ is the firstfruit, then we, too, shall have resurrection bodies like His - physical. Thus we are given a new life in the Spirit AND in the flesh (physical) and both are imperishable, immortal and incorruptible. So we can truly say that Jesus' death has conquered spiritual death AND physical death. Re accountability: "..........there would be a moment when a creature existed that could fathom morality who had no ancestors who were able to do the same thing. Accountability would come suddenly." A child - fully human - does not suddenly "fathom morality" - they grow into an understanding. I cannot believe that a proto-human would suddenly fathom morality such that at one point in time he was unaccaountable to God and at the next point in time he was accountable, and therefore so were all his progeny. What about if his female partner hadn't experienced this sudden revelation of morality, yet continued to be the mother of the children of this enlightened man. Would their children be accountable. Occam's razor comes to mind. "Consider the following simplified way of looking at things. Suppose you could rate a creature's intelligence on a scale of 1 to 100. Any creature with an intelligence of 50 or over would be held accountable for his sins. Now you could have creatures gradually gradually evolve more intelligence. The moment that a parent with an intelligence of 49 gives birth to offspring with an intelligence of 50 accountability begins. This is the "instant" change from beast to man you allude to." Occam's Razor, again - since I guess you must be a great admirer of scientific devices. However, let me tell you why I love the simplicity of the gospel of Jesus Christ ( the Occam's Razor of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, if you like). You know how Jesus said that unless you come as little children you cannot see the kingdom of heaven? It is one of the most mysterious and beautiful truths of the gospel of Jesus that it is as available to a child as it is to a professor with a yard of initials after his name. More particularly, it is as available to my daughter with severe learning difficulties (the modern euphemism for mentally retarded, but you know what I mean) as it is to any of my other children with full mental and physical faculties.. She knows Jesus with a very simple, childlike faith. She understands that God created the world and all that is in it. She understands the concept of sin and is able to grasp, at some level, the Fall. But how on earth would I go about explaining the idea of a gradually evolving intelligence that gradually became accountable to God? As for the value of proto-limbs - well that's another discussion and I really shouldn't have introduced it here because what I really wanted to understand is how people synthesise evolution and Christianity. I wish I could set out these replies as neatly as you have. I keep fiddling with the quote button but all I get is a mess, so I apologise for my poor formatting and having to resport to the old fashioned "...." quotation marks.

You are correct that the evolutionist believes that death preceded the first sin of man. However, I don't think you can make a logical argument that that fact necessitates the conclusion that Jesus' death cannot pay the penalty for sin. In other words, the mere fact that pre-human species died before any sin occurred cannot prevent God from raising the dead to eternal life. If I commit a crime for which the penalty is 20 years imprisonment, and if it were allowed by society's rules for one man to serve the penalty due to another, then that redeemer, to meet the requirements of society's rules, would have to serve 20 years imprisonment on my behalf. But if the penalty for my crime was a fine of

add another no to answer your question. Let God Himself answer your question through the inspired words of Paul to the Romans. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. " Romans 1:18 - 23 Now if God Himself says there is no excuse for man to deny His existence since it is evident (clearly seen) through what He has made, then there really IS no excuse for unbelief. Personally I find the Creation to be compelling evidence for the existence of God. The order, the beauty, the consistency, everything about this universe and this world is miraculous and clear evidence of God's existence and perfect character. Blessings in Jesus, Ruth

In Luke 1:31 the angel said to Mary: "And behold you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son and shall call His name Jesus." The question arises: was Jesus conceived as the Messiah or did He become the Messiah at some later stage of gestation? Hypathia, would you advocate that Jesus as an embryo could rightly be used for stem-cell research? If not, why not? And that to withhold Jesus the embryo as a means of forwarding stem-cell research would be tantamount to killing disabled and diseased children which is what you have accused those of who reject embryonic stem-cell research. If yes, why? Doesn't God's purpose for an individual come into the equation somewhere, especially vis-a-vis "chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world"? And if you acknowledge that God DOES have a purpose for individuals, does His pupose only commence at an arbitrary post-conception date? Bearing in mind that the individual is genetically determined at the moment of conception. If this were not the case then every child born to the same married couple would be indentical. When I look at my children I ask myself, now which one would I choose to have sacrificed as an embryo for the sake of stem-cell research? And you know what? Not one of them could I ever have sacrificed - not even the child who has cerebral palsy, especially not her, to be honest. You may argue that such a choice is irrelevant because the embryo is not personally known by the parents. I would beg to differ. No matter, it makes no difference either way, because the embryonic individual IS known by God. In Christ Jesus, Ruth Edit = P.S. Hypathia, if it isn't too personal a question, may I ask why you are so in favour of embryonic stem-cell research? I am new to this board so I don't really know you. Do you, for instance, have a degenerative condition yourself? Does someone you love as much as your own life have such a condition? Or is your pov guided merely by philosophy? If this question is intrusive, please dismiss it instantly. I seek only to know from where your ardent support of stem-cell research emanates so that I can better understand your pov. I do not subscribe to it, and you have not yet convinced me of its validity, nevertheless I would very much like to continue this discussion at the foot of Jesus if you so desire. Your sister in Jesus, Ruth

Tubal-Cain: But death is not what perpetuates a species, reproduction is what perpetuates a species. I think you have failed in depicting death as a reward. My argument wasn't very good, I agree. I'll try again. Btw, I have only just realised that I incorrectly titled this thread. It should have read: Evolution and CHRISTIANITY are antithetical.... As it stands it is a statement of the obvious. I apologise for that mistake - careless of me. Back to death....... Let me quote Charles Darwin from the very last paragraph of "The Origin of Species". "Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely the production of the higher animals [i.e. man] directly follows." If death is part of the creative process, then death is beneficial to continued existence and could therefore be described as the reward of living. Which, I agree, and previously stated, stands reason on its head. Not to mention intuition. I doubt there is anyone who doesn't agree that death is a scourge. But that's not what evolution says. According to Darwin, death is the creator of "the most exalted object we are capable of conceiving...." I am not a logician so if my statement "if death is creative and a reward, then life must be destructive and a punishment" is false logic, I hold up my hands. I was dealing in simple opposites, that's all. Tubal-Cain: But since everyone sins before they die then the punishment is not before the crime. It is simply inevitable is it not? What about original sin or inherited sin? "As in Adam all die......" (1 Corinthians 15: 22) Has a 24 week old foetus sinned before it is ripped from its mother's womb and killed? The Bible teaches original sin, that mankind is conceived in sin and born with a sinful nature. He doesn't have to commit personal sin, Adam's sin is imputed to all men. Tubal-Cain: Again, this conclusion is not required by the premise you laid out. Although it does lead one to ask whether anyone before Jesus' crucifixion had eternal life. If yes (which is my belief) then in some sense salvation did precede the atoning death of Christ. God knows His plans so I can understand why such righteousness could be imputed before Jesus' death (though I don't have any firm opinion on imputed sin or imputed righteousness). Forget it, then. Just where my personal thoughts led me. Far more important is this: The Bible teaches that it was man's sin that brought death into the world, which in turn brought Jesus to pay the penalty in our place. The death of Christ was made necessary because of man's sin. If, however, it was not man's sin that brought death into the world (which is what evolution says) and death was just a natural occurrence and not the penalty for sin, then Jesus death cannot pay the penalty for sin. Ruth

Hi, Tubal-Cain, I hope that the following makes sense - I find that as I get older I find it harder and harder to construct good arguments - I don't seem to have the ability I once had to pull togther various trains of thought in a coherent manner. Salvation makes no sense if death precedes sin. If humanity is the end result of a process of natural selection whereby through chance man has evolved from an amoeba through the random action of death (extinction) for the weakest, survival (continuity) for the fittest, then death is the arbiter of the existence of an Adamic ancestral representative of humanity, a man capable of choosing FOR or AGAINST God. This is to elevate death to a position that it is not accorded by Scripture. One could summarise and say that: by death came Adam, (the first intelligent human, if you like) if evolution were true. Thus, death becomes not only creative, it also becomes a reward - perpetuation of the species - get rid of the weaker/less well adapted so that the stronger/better adapted survive. Logically, if death is creative and a reward, then life must be destructive and a punishment. Reason is stood on its head. The Bible says that through Adam sin entered the world, and through sin, death. Romans 5:12 "Therefore just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin and thus death spread to all men......" And, "the wages of sin is death." Adam's sinful nature was inherited by all men and with the coming of the law, his sin was imputed to all men. Therefore all men must die. "....through one Man's righteous act, the free gift (eternal life) came to all men.." Romans 5:18. Through belief in Jesus Christ the believer is born again of the Spirit thus solving the problem of inherited sin, forgiven his sins, thus solving the problem of imputed sin, and imputed Christ's righteousness, thus making the believer acceptable to the Father who is absolute righteousness. Thus, one man's (Adam's) sin, imputed to all, and for which the penalty is death, is trumped by one Man's (Jesus') righteousness, imputed to all who believe, for whom the reward is eternal life. Thus salvation is a perfect mirror image of the Fall. Now if death precedes sin, judgement and punishment have preceded the crime, so to speak. The wages of sin (death) are imputed to all of humanity BEFORE the Fall and the giving of the law. (This is what evolution says). If this were the case then Salvation would require that eternal life (the reward of righteousness) should precede the atonement. Rightousness should be imputed before "the righteous act of one Man" (Jesus obedience to the Father through His death on the cross), and eternal life - the mirror of death - should precede the resurrection of Jesus. That makes a nonsense of Jesus' death, for if eternal life and imputed righteousness precede the atonement, why and for what did Jesus die on the cross? In Christ Jesus, Ruth

Sorry I didn't make myself clear. The latter - already forgiven - as Wordsower amplifies. Ruth

I believe Jesus is the atonement for all sin but I have no opinion on whether Christ's righteousness is imputed on us or not. Just wanted to let you know that I have not deserted this discussion - I just need some time to gather together the threads of my argument and present them coherently. The imputation of sin, and its corollary, the imputation of righteousness through Jesus Christ is essential to any argument about evolution v creation, imo. I am not talking about adaptation, BTW, I speak of evolution from a big bang, then microscopic organisms, then fish, etc etc right up to human life. Would you be kind enough to bear with me? It is quite easy to give instant answers but on this occasion I need to spend some time - I'm not a gifted teacher of the Word, nor a biological scientists, just a fairly ordinary housewife/mother. In Christ jesus, Ruth