Tuesday, May 12, 2009

We May Be Surprised At Those We Meet in Heaven: A Lesson from the Life of Charles Darwin

Charles Darwin, born February 12, 1809, is considered the father of the evolutionary theory. As such, he is widely condemned by Christian authors, preachers and religious scholars as the anti-thesis of everything Christian. His view of common ancestry, the belief that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, has become the predominent scientific belief regarding the origins of man.

However, what few if any realize is that Darwin, from 1867 until his death in 1882, contributed annually to the work of the South American Missionary Society for the propogation of the gospel to the natives of South America. Sir James Sullivan, vice president of the Society, had sailed with Darwin on the Beagle in 1831. Sullivan, a compassionate and devout Christian man, was shocked by the state of the natives of Tierra del Fuego, a people Sullivan believed to be the basest and lowest of all civilizations in the world. Charles Darwin agreed and told Sullivan that it would be utterly useless to send missionaries to Tierra del Fuego.

Sullivan ignored his friend's advice and led the South American Missionary Society to send Christian missionaries to Tierra Del Fuego. The missionaries had astonishing success among the natives. Christian churches were planted, the natives were taught how to farm and cultivate, a written language was created for the people, and civilization among the natives prospered. It would be three decades after Darwin's initial voyage to Tierra del Fuego that he would be compelled to call the progress among the natives there "most wonderful" and confess to Sullivan that the advancement among the people "charms (or shames) me . . . It is a grand success." He then made it known that he would be proud to be elected "an honorary member of the South American Missionary Society" - a request which SAMS honored.

Darwin's love for missions, nor his service to the board of mission society, nor his finacial contributions to support missionaries in Tierra del Fuego, nor his burial in Westminster Abbey proves that Darwin was a Christian. But most peoples' lack of knowledge about these events in Darwin's life and the unwillingness of the modern world to point out these facts, may be just another indication that when Jesus enters the stage of human history again and closes the curtain on the world as we know it, we may all wind up being suprised to discover those whom Jesus has called unto Himself.

Nobody is beyond His reach.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson


Bennett Willis said...

Please don't throw garbage on Darwin's "Theory" because it is “only a theory.” Theories are as good as it gets in science. Theories started as hypotheses and as data accumulated that supported them, they “moved up” to theories. Theories make an effort to explain how/why things happen. Laws on the other hand simply are the expression of what is always observed. Laws make no effort to explain.

Bennett Willis

Man of the West said...

No doubt we will all encounter some surprising faces in the Kingdom; however, on balance, I believe the evidence strongly indicates that Mr. Darwin will not be one of them.

It's tragic; all such cases are, of course. From time to time, I find myself thinking of others whose lives have produced something of value or beauty, yet who will not be there. Some of them have produced something that has become so much a part of my life that, though I've never met them, knowing that they won't be there makes me feel almost as though I've lost a friend.

It's late and I'm tired. I hope I didn't ramble.

Caleb said...

Nope, nope, Darwin was a heathen sinner unworthy of redemption.

Oh wait. . . I am too.

Ron said...

I don’t know enough about Darwin to say whether he will be in heaven or not. I would like to follow up on Bennett Willis’ statement that we should not throw garbage on Darwin’s theory because it is only a theory. I am not sure what that means but I will agree with his statement that theories make an effort to explain how/why things happen. They make an effort but not all efforts lead to the truth and many may not prove to be true when more data is accumulated. When we get to evolution, there is a difficulty in deciding what is meant by evolution. No one disputes that changes occur in species. To state that man evolved from other species is a jump of faith that is not scientific or based on what is observed. Even laws based on what has been always observed can change because we might not have observed every possible situation. The latest issue of National Geographic has an article on Darwin stating that his genius is proved but we are finding his errors also. I notice Bennett is a chemistry teacher. I am a mathematics teacher so we may look at proof from different stand points. Questioning Darwin’s theories is not necessarily throwing garbage on them. Looking for truth is never wrong.
Ron West

missshunary said...

"From time to time, I find myself thinking of others whose lives have produced something of value or beauty, yet who will not be there."

I can't help but think about people like Mother Teresa and Billy Graham fitting this bill.

It's hard to imagine people who have worked so tirelessly, yet they are NOT in heaven.

And yet it's also hard to imagine people who state there are many ways to heaven other than Jesus, and they actually ARE in heaven.

It really gives weight to the truth that only God can judge the heart properly.

Just thinking out loud...

William said...

Darwin had great difficulty with the idea that an omnipotent God would create some of the creatures that have such brutal life practices. He also used the term "agnostic" to describe himself.

His apocryphal death bed coversion story has been thoroughly debunked.

Only God knows.

Joe Blackmon said...

Wow, Ah've dun seen th' lie't.

Of course, it all makes sense now. It doesn't matter what anybody believes. Everyone is going to be in heaven. Wm Paul was right after all in the Shack. Everyone is going to be saved and it doesn't matter if they trust Christ, Muhamed, or the god of our many understandings.

Thank you for clearing that up.

Debbie Kaufman said...

Joe: My blood pressure is up, why do you think that is? :)

misshunary: I believe Mother Theresa to be in heaven, and Billy Graham isn't there...yet...he's still alive.

Just thinking out loud. :)

cwbswmo said...

Joe said, "Everyone is going to be in heaven."


You KNOW no one has said or implied any such thing, yet you attribute it to this post just to stir up STRIFE.

If you, me, or any other person believes we can KNOW the heart of all people - we are mistaken.

If you believe you can tell exactly who will be joining you in heaven.....well, the BEST that could be implied is that you are mistaken. Otherwise, it would just be pure arrogance.

Charles Brazeale
Neosho, MO

Anonymous said...

"Joe: My blood pressure is up, why do you think that is? :)"

Now Debbie, if you intend to enter the SBC pastorate you know you have to be one who is slow to anger.


Anonymous said...

1 John 5:13

« 1 Jn 4 | 1 Jn 5 | 2 Jn 1 »
That You May Know

13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.

From the ESV Study Bible Online

I think God was pretty clear in His word.

From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters

Anonymous said...

Debbie Kaufman,
What evidence do you have that indicates that Mother Theresa trusted in Christ Alone for Salvation.
Read John MacArthurs interview with her!

From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters

sameoldstruggles said...


I certainly pray that you have a long and healthy life so that I kick the bucket before you and get into Heaven before you get there and try to weld the pearly gates shut. As a Christian I don't think there is anything wrong with being hopeful of someone's salvation, especially when we do not know all of the details of their life. I realize that Darwin did some pretty atrocious things to hurt the faith and I am not saying either way how his soul ended up because Darwin was not beyond the reach of God's grace if he ultimately accepted Him. I do happen to remember this guy named Saul who did some pretty despicable things and was granted a pardon by God's grace. We can be hopeful of one's salvation without getting anywhere near universalism.


Tim Marsh said...

Albert Schweitzer's work on the so-called "Historical Jesus" ended with a call to missions in Africa.

Manuel Noriega, the former Panamanian dictator, was baptized in 1992 by a baptist minister.

Mitsuo Fuchida, the Japanese squadran leader who led the Pearl Harbor Bombing, accepted Christ. He was later united with Jake DeShazer, who participated in the Jimmy Doolittle Raid on Japan, also accepted Christ. Their story is linked from my blog, Dec. 7 post. Both served in missions.

It is amazing to see God work through the most unlikely people! Praise God for grace!

Anonymous said...

When we addressed our concerns about Mother Teresa in past TBC articles and columns, we received numerous letters objecting to our "attacking such a godly woman who loves Jesus." Simply put, the Jesus whom Mother Teresa professed to love is not the biblical Jesus. John MacArthur discerned that clearly when he visited her in Calcutta. Surrounded by images of Hindu deities hanging on the walls of her facility for ministering to the sick and dying, she signed a Bible for MacArthur that reflected her deep yet erroneous Catholic beliefs: "May you enter into the heart of Jesus through the Virgin Mary…."

The Catholic Virgin Mary is the doorway to the Catholic Jesus. This "Jesus" is reduced to an infant when appearing in Marian apparitions, a Jesus who did not pay the full penalty for the sins of mankind, who continues to be sacrificed daily upon millions of Catholic altars, whose body, soul, and divinity are transubstantiated into a piece of bread (which is then ingested by more than a billion Catholic faithful in order for them to grow in holiness and merit heaven), a Jesus who is worshiped as a fragment of bread at Eucharistic Holy Hour ceremonies. These are only a few of the teachings that characterize the Jesus of the Church of Rome as clearly "another Jesus" (2 Corinthians 11:4). Mother Teresa’s beliefs also reject the words of the biblical Jesus, who said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John 14:6).

On the contrary, she said:

“We never try to convert to Christianity those who receive our help, but in our work we bear witness to the love of God’s presence and if Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, or agnostics become for this better men-simply better-we will be satisfied. (Life in the Spirit: Reflections, Meditations and Prayers, pp. 81-82)
If in coming face to face with God we accept Him in our lives, then we are converting. We become a better Hindu, a better Muslim, a better Catholic, a better whatever we are….What God is in your mind you must accept.” (Mother Teresa: Her People and Her Work, p. 156)

This is from John MacArthur as quoted on this Blog.


From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters

Christiane said...

Good Morning Everyone,

It's me, L's

JOE, your remark was cute. I was laughing at the satire. You should try satire more often: very effective stuff, funny, too.
I left you a 'thank you' on the last post. I'm sorry that they did not help you more with the pain from your eye procedure. Are you out of pain now? I hope so.

How is everything? I envy your wonderful opportunity to study and to spend time discussing scripture with your mentors and co-workers.
For you, it will all be a labor of love and I know you will enjoy your studies.

I wanted to share some thoughts about Darwin.
Most people who are in 'opposition' to his theories, do not understand the theories as he proposed them. They are complex and integrated and difficult for even those with a science background to comprehend totally.

His reticence to believe that God created the more 'vicious' creatures (survival of the fittest) was even reflected in a famous poem of his time:
I think it is by Wm. Blake

'Tiger, tiger, burning bright
In the forest of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry'

And then comes this verse of faith:

'Little lamb, little lamb,
Who made thee?
Little lamb, little lamb,
God made thee"

So the controversy raged in Darwin's time and entered into many debating societies and even into the literature of the day.

Where Darwin seems to have lost it, is that he does not see God's involvement in the process of natural selection. That is, that a species will 'evolve' along lines that eliminate the weak and propagate the stronger, more resilient members to breed successfully.

All I can say is that science, for me, is a testament of God as the Creator and Ruler of the Natural World and as such, is given the title 'Master of the Universe' by the Jews of ancient times.

Perhaps one big hurdle is that some interpret PARTS of scripture
totally literally, whereas others do not. There are always attempts to find a way to
RECONCILE these two points of view.
as in the scholarly works of Dr. Gerald Shroeder, whom I admire.

Strangely, many who literally interpret the Genesis account of Creation will see many words of Christ in a symbolic way in the Gospels.

If a person believes that God is also the God of the Natural World, then the accurate study of science and medicine can only bring a reverent awe for the Creator of our material world.

The more I know of science, the more my faith increases. Love, L's

Christiane said...

My dear ROBERT,

It's me, L's

Maybe 'Christian witness' is more than just 'talk'. Maybe the loving care of a dying person by a nun in India wearing a visible cross is a great testament of Christ's love for them.

Robert, we plant 'seeds' of faith.
It is the Holy Spirit who brings these seeds into fruition. It is the Holy Spirit that does the 'converting'. Mother Theresa was a tiny little woman. She had no clout in this world to change anything, no money, no position of power.

What did she have? A faith that told her to go to work for those who suffered and died in the streets. How could that tiny nun do so much in THIS world, but for the leading of the Holy Spirit?

We ourselves are fragile children of the Most High God. If we have strength in this life, it is from Him and should be used to do good in His Name.

Some use His Name to do evil.
Theresa did not.

BTW, you know you have a Baptist Saint. A REAL one? Yes, you have Blessed Lottie Moon. I knew she was a saint the minute I read that she died because she gave her food to others so that they could live.

The Body of Christ. Don't think it doesn't exist, Robert. It's not just words on a page in the Bible. Not at all.

BTW, I do not know where you get your info on my faith, but you might benefit from talking to a priest or a nun about my religion, because there is much 'out there' that is inaccurate about my faith.

Also, if you want to 'experience' a Catholic environment: spend a week or so at a Benedictine Monastery. Just go, knock on the door, and tell them you are there to spend some time in prayer. They are, in faith, bound to welcome you, and all strangers, as though you were Christ Himself.
And so you can pray in peace in place of quiet reverence and visit with the monks, if you like. They will feed you, too. :) If you can't pay for your keep, they will work around that.
It has been said, that Baptists who visit with the monks come out better Baptists. Go figure!

Sounds to me like you could use some quiet time with the Lord, Robert. So could we all.
Much love, L's

Unknown said...

Come one everyone… we all know Darwin’s supposed death bed conversion is just an urban myth, and being a philanthropist does not get anyone into heaven.

No, the real question about Darwin being in heaven is; “Did Darwin drink wine?” If so then he’s in Hell for sure! Just ask that I am guy…


Grace Always,

Debbie Kaufman said...

Robert: How do I know you are going to be in heaven?

Anonymous said...

Wade is a saint!
Anybody who has experienced the miracle of regeneration is a saint.
Are you a saint and why do believe if your answer is in the affirmative?

from the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters

missshunary said...

Good one Debbie. You got me. Bless Billy, he is ill (I think?) but holding on still.

All I meant was to point out that it is hard to imagine Teresa and Billy not going to (or in) heaven now after what they have done on earth.

But at the same time, both Teresa and Billy have said that Jesus is NOT the only way.

Is someone who says Jesus is NOT the only way really going to be in heaven?

It just makes me wonder...which is why I said "just thinking out loud."

Teresa would make an interesting blog topic. Especially in light of her writings that are now surfacing and causing controversy all in the news. Google it.

The only down side to this form of discussion is that people start using scripture out of context and talking about how we aren't supposed to judge others (Matt 7) yada, yada, yada.

I'll scream the loudest that only God knows the heart, but that is not what Matt 7 is addressing.

That's why the homosexuals, atheists, heretics, and Larry King throw that verse around so much. They love it. It gives them relief (they think) from the position they find themselves in when they read what the bible has to say about their beliefs, lifestyle, or desires.

Matt 7 doesn't mean to walk around blindly and say "I'm okay, your okay" to everyone we meet.

Not only do all of us judge others everyday, but we are to judge according to scripture.

However, Matt 7 demands that we know that the standard we use to judge others(the Bible) is the same standard we are going to be judged against (the Bible).

I can judge someone by stating they are not going to heaven if they say there are many ways to heaven other than Jesus. But I need to know that this same judgement applies to me.

Jesus is the only way to heaven. (See the entire Bible)

I can't help but think about Teresa (sorry, but she's not my mother) fitting this bill here.

As a Catholic, Teresa obviously had theological problems. But what's less obvious is that she had problems with principle. These new documents from her pen are facinating.

She was asked if she ever converted people (or did she only feed the hungry and poor, etc...) and she replied, "Of course I convert. I convert you to be a better Hindu or a better Muslim or a better Protestant. Once you've found God, it's up to you to decide how to worship him."

Wrong answer Teresa! That is heresy. Furthermore, no real Christian believes that.
Only a Catholic.

These same letters to various confessors of the past 50 years reveals her emptiness. The last half-century of her life she felt "no presence of God whatsoever, neither in her heart or in the eucharist."

Teresa expressed her "anguish, doubts, and fears" writing about the "dryness", "darkness",
"loneliness", and "torture" she was undergoing.

Note the quotes as they are from Teresa herself.

She compares her experiences to hell and at one point says it "has driven her to doubt the existence of heaven and even of God."

In one letter she wrote, "Where is my Faith? Even deep down right in there is nothing but emptiness & darkness. My God how painful is this unknown pain. I have no faith."

This was expressed by a woman who is on track to becoming a saint? Wow! Now, I am "only" a Baptist but I have never had a similar experience in over 30 years of being a Christian. Some down times for sure. Some rough treks, no doubt.

But in those times, Christ is my Rock, not someone I begin to doubt. Not someone that leaves me "empty" and "lonely". I don't feel "tortured". My faith doesn't grow weaker. It grows STRONGER!!!

She lived in darkness all her life and cried, "If there be no God, there can be no soul. If there is no Soul then Jesus, You also are not true."

Again, I can't imagine being in heaven without Teresa there next to me. Especially if works are counted as righteousness.

But since they aren't, and it's only Christ...

it causes me to think out loud.

Anonymous said...

Debbie Kaufman,
I know that I will be in heaven because I have trusted in Christ and his completed work on the cross to satisfy the wrath of God.
Trust in Christ alone!

Robert from Geneva

Lydia said...

Hebrews 10

26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The LORD will judge His people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Christiane said...

Oh ROBERT, I am such a 'work in progress'.

That word 'regeneration' must mean the experience of rebirth in the water and in the Spirit.

Everytime I go into my Church, there is a baptismal font filled with blessed water (holy water).
We dip our fingers into the water and make the sign of the cross: a remembrance of our Baptism into Christ and His Death and His Resurrection.

"Saint" for me, with capital, is any blessed person who gives all they have for the love of God.

I'm sort of there with Caleb.
I weep for my sins.
I seek God's mercy.
I ask for Christ to change me so that I will no longer be unkind to people. I'm a work in progress, Robert. Some days are better than others. :)
Pray for me, dear one. Love, L's

John Fariss said...

I don't know where Charles Darwin is today. Then again, neither does Jim, Robert, or anyone else this side of the grave. I would never have pegged the thief on the cross as a candidate for paradise, given the contents of his life, but Jesus said otherwise. God said in Hosea 2:23, "I will say to those called 'Not my people,' 'You are my people'." And yes, I know the context was different, but I would suggest that just as He was Lord of the Sabbath, God is also Lord of Scripture. Period, end of paragraph.


Ramesh said...

missshunary said...

These same letters to various confessors of the past 50 years reveals her emptiness. The last half-century of her life she felt "no presence of God whatsoever, neither in her heart or in the eucharist."

Teresa expressed her "anguish, doubts, and fears" writing about the "dryness", "darkness",
"loneliness", and "torture" she was undergoing.

Note the quotes as they are from Teresa herself.

She compares her experiences to hell and at one point says it "has driven her to doubt the existence of heaven and even of God."

In one letter she wrote, "Where is my Faith? Even deep down right in there is nothing but emptiness & darkness. My God how painful is this unknown pain. I have no faith"
Dark Night of the Soul (Spanish: La noche oscura de la alma) is a treatise written by Spanish poet and Roman Catholic mystic Saint John of the Cross. It has become an expression used to describe a phase in a person's spiritual life, a metaphor for a certain loneliness and desolation. It is referenced by spiritual traditions throughout the world.

History and description

The phrase "dark night of the soul" emerged from the writings of Saint John of the Cross, a Carmelite priest in the 16th century. Dark Night of the Soul, the name of a poem and its theological commentary, are among the Carmelite priest's most well-known writings. The texts tell of the saint's mystical development and the stages he is subjected to on his journey towards union with God.

The Dark Night of the Soul is divided into two books that reflect the two phases of the dark night. The first is a purification of the senses. The second and more intense of the two stages is that of the spirit, which is the less common of the two. Dark Night of the Soul further describes the ten steps on the ladder of mystical love, previously described by Saint Thomas Aquinas and in part by Aristotle. The text was written while John of the Cross was imprisoned by his Carmelite brothers, who opposed his reformations to the Order.

Saint Thérèse of Lisieux, a 19th-century French Carmelite, underwent similar experience. Centering on doubts about the afterlife, she reportedly told her fellow nuns, "If you only knew what darkness I am plunged into." [1]

While this crisis is assured to be temporary in nature, it may be extended. The "dark night" of Saint Paul of the Cross in the 18th century lasted 45 years, from which he ultimately recovered. Mother Teresa of Calcutta, according to letters released in 2007, "may be the most extensive such case on record", lasting from 1948 almost up until her death in 1997, with only brief interludes of relief between [2]. Franciscan Friar Father Benedict Groeschel, a friend of Mother Teresa for a large part of her life, claims that "the darkness left" towards the end of her life [3].

The "dark night" might clinically or secularly be described as the letting go of one's ego as it holds back the psyche, thus making room for some form of transformation, perhaps in one's way of defining oneself or one's relationship to God. This interim period can be frightening, hence the perceived "darkness."

In the Christian tradition, one who has developed a strong prayer life and consistent devotion to God suddenly finds traditional prayer extremely difficult and unrewarding for an extended period of time during this "dark night." The individual may feel as though God has suddenly abandoned them or that his or her prayer life has collapsed. In the most pronounced cases, belief is lost in the very existence of God and/or validity of religion, rendering the individual an atheist, even if they bravely continue with the outward expressions of faith.

Rather than resulting in devastation, however, the dark night is perceived by mystics and others to be a blessing in disguise, whereby the individual is stripped (in the dark night of the senses) of the spiritual ecstacy associated with acts of virtue. Although the individual may for a time seem to outwardly decline in their practices of virtue, they in reality become more virtuous, as they are being virtuous less for the spiritual rewards (ecstasies in the cases of the first night) obtained and more out of a true love for God. It is this purgatory, a purgation of the soul, that brings purity and union with God

Source: Wiki: Dark Night of the Soul.
The Dark Night by St. John of the Cross.
An explanation of the stanzas describing a soul's conduct along the spiritual road that leads to the perfect union with God through love, insofar as it is attainable in this life. A description also of the characteristics of one who has reached this perfection.

In this book we will first cite the entire poem, then each stanza will be repeated separately and explained, and finally we will do the same thing with the individual verses. The first two stanzas describe the effects of the two kinds of spiritual purgation that take place in a person: one, a purification of the sensory part; the other, a purification of the spiritual part. The remaining six stanzas speak of some of the marvelous results obtained from spiritual illumination and union with God through love
One Dark Night.
St. John of the Cross

One dark night
Fired with love's urgent longings
Ah the sheer grace
In the darkness
I went out unseen
My house being all now still

In the darkness
Secured by love's secret ladder
Disguised oh the sheer grace
In the darkness
And in my concealment
My house being all now still

On that glad night
In the secret. for no one saw me
Nor did I see any other thing at all
With no other light to guide me
Than the Light burning in my heart

And this Light guided me more surely
Than the light of the noon
To where He lay waiting for me, waiting for me
Him I knew so well
In a place where no one else appeared

Oh guiding night
A Light more lovely than the dawn
A night that has united
Ever now the Lover now with His beloved
Transforming two now into one

Upon my flowering breast
There He lay sleeping
Which I kept for Him alone
And I embraced Him
And I caressed Him
In a breeze blowing from the forest

And when this breeze blew in from the forest
Blowing back our hair
He wounded my soul with His gentle hand
Suspending all my senses
And I abandoned. forgetting myself
Laying my face on my Beloved
All things ceasing
I went out from myself
To leave my cares forgotten
With the lilies of the field

Byroniac said...


Debbie asked you a great question, "How do I know you are going to be in heaven?" Not to put words in her mouth, but I don't think her principle concern was to question your salvation, or even to get you to question your own salvation. You basically answered a question she did not ask by answering how you know you will be in heaven.

But that's not what she asked, which is, how does she know you will be in heaven? I think by extension we could ask, how do we know for sure anyone is going to heaven, except for ourselves? I've read testimonies of ex-Christians who were fervent believers, devout, even some who "believed all the right things" yet now are completely void of faith and apostate. I even know a few of these personally. Yet at one time, some of them could have echoed your response. I think the key thought is humility and grace in faith, thanking God in Christ for our own belief and salvation.

Having said that, I don't think Christianity should be construed as doctrinally ambivalent and superficially loving (in a sloppy agape way). "How to win friends and influence people" isn't a religious text. But I don't think we should go the other extreme either, and write a book titled, "How to burn heretics and rebuke the less devout." Just follow Christ, hold fast to doctrine that you know is true, and extend grace and mercy and charity in all that you do, and I think you will come out ahead.

Anonymous said...

I would simply say that those people who fell away from the "Faith"...simply did not have Saving Faith.They might have given mental assent to"Faith" but they did not know(gunosko..sp)Him.
You might know EE and the chair illustration! You have to sit in the chair to "have faith".

Again reference that I John 5:13 passage and many other passages that says we can "know" we have eternal life.

Anonymous said...


We know that we have faith because the Spirit testifies with our spirit. That is only way. There will be many in heaven who never said a "sinner's prayer" nor walked an aisle. We know that we know Him because the Spirit convicts us daily of our sins. We know that we know Him because always we get peace and comfort as a result of our doubts and pain. We know that we know Him because it is inconsistent with God's character to save us and not tell us.

We do not know that we know Him by anything that we have done.

Does anyone here believe that satan does not have the power to lead sinners to a knowledge of the supernatural Jesus, and to lead them to do good works? Of course he does. But that believing and doing does not come with the power of the Spirit of God. Buyer beware!

Anonymous said...

I was not the one who asked that question!
I could still ask you the question that byroniac asked me.
You cant empirically know...that why it is faith.

Rob Masters

Anonymous said...

But you answered.

And I did not like your answer.

So I corrected you.


bapticus hereticus said...

Burleson: Darwin ... is widely condemned by Christian authors, preachers and religious scholars as the anti-thesis of everything Christian.

bapticus hereticus: hugely, hugely over-stated, but likely the case for many preferring fundamentalist religion.

B Nettles said...

Bennet Willis,
I looked for an email address for you but couldn't find one. I teach at Union and my brother-in-law pastors the Lighthouse in Lake Jackson. Small world.

Steve Young said...

Interesting quote from Darwin two years before his death in a reply to a letter:
"I am sorry to inform you that I
do not believe in the Bible as a
divine revelation, & therefore
not in Jesus as the Son of God."
Unless there is evidence of a radical change of conviction and belief in his last two years of life it would be hard to find proof of salvation.

Steve Young

Joe Blackmon said...

Now Steve,

You're narrowing your parameters too much. It's important that we reject such separationist ideology. (Tongue planted firmly in cheek).

Oh, on a serious note, I hope that God did work saving faith in Darwin's heart. Further, I have no idea whether He did or not.

Frank (or Chip) said...

I wish I had a nickel for every time someone has asked about a loved one who died suddenly and could they have cried out in their last breath or even a flash of mental prayer for God to save them. While I believe that the answer is "Yes," my experience is that only a small percentage of those who make a foxhole prayer and survive, actually go on to live for Jesus.

I guess what touched me in this post is that the real surprise will be who we do not meet in heaven. I am reminded of Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

I think that we may be more surprised than we can imagine.

Frank Lamca
IMB on Leave of Absence

Christiane said...

We are told in the Gospels the criteria by which Jesus will judge us on the Day of the Lord.
I am going to take Him at His Word on this and trust Him:

From St. Matthew 25

"31 ‘When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory.

32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats,

33 and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left.

34 Then the king will say to those at his right hand,

“Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;

35 for I was hungry and you gave me food,

I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink,

I was a stranger and you welcomed me,

36 I was naked and you gave me clothing,

I was sick and you took care of me,

I was in prison and you visited me.”

37 Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink?

38 And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing?

39 And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?”

40 And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family,* you did it to me.”

41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, “You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;

42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,

43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.”

44 Then they also will answer, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?”

45 Then he will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.”

46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.’ "

So, we know.

People who will 'be there' are the ones who seek to help their fallen, broken, helpless, and suffering brothers and sisters. In doing so, they have reached out in love to the Lord Christ and He will remember them on the Last Day. Meaningless 'good works"?
Not to those whose suffering we alleviate. It matters greatly to them. And therein lies the Lord's blessing.

No surprises. We were told.
Love, L's

Aussie John said...


So, Australia isn't the only place where there is a plethora of would be emperors who don't understand their nakedness!

Jon L. Estes said...

Frank -

You beat me to the punch as I was thinking the same thing.

Glad you are stateside and remember, if you are ever in NC, lets get together and I will let you challenge our people in missions.

Planning a second trip to Altoona this August for a mission trip. Just trying to work out the logistics with DP.

Anonymous said...

You believe in works based salvation!...You said so re L,s and her conclusions. I will take Christ alone any day.

Robert from Geneva

I did not realize you were into Popery!

bapticus hereticus said...

bapticus hereticus: Salon has an interesting article on Stuart Kauffman, a biologist that perceives some shortcomings in Darwin's conceptualization, but in general a supporter, nonetheless. While he seems to prefer pantheism over panentheism, he makes some very good points that could especially be appreciated by those given to process theology and also those growing restless with fundamentalism.

Christiane said...


What is 'works-based salvation'?

Love, L's

Elizabeth Prata said...

Bennett Willis said...No doubt we will all encounter some surprising faces in the Kingdom; however, on balance, I believe the evidence strongly indicates that Mr. Darwin will not be one of them.

It's tragic; all such cases are, of course. From time to time, I find myself thinking of others whose lives have produced something of value or beauty, yet who will not be there. Some of them have produced something that has become so much a part of my life that, though I've never met them, knowing that they won't be there makes me feel almost as though I've lost a friend.

It's late and I'm tired. I hope I didn't ramble.
no, that was beautiful. You encapsulated what I feel but couldn't articulate it as well.

Ramesh said...

Wiki > Charles Darwin's views on religion.
Charles Darwin's views on religion have been the subject of much interest. His work which was pivotal in the development of modern biology and evolution theory played a prominent part in debates about religion and science at the time, then in the early twentieth century became a focus of the creation-evolution controversy in the United States.

Charles Darwin had a non-conformist background, but attended a Church of England school.[1] With the aim of becoming a clergyman he went to the University of Cambridge for the required BA degree, which included studies of Anglican theology. He took great interest in natural history and become filled with zeal for science as defined by John Herschel, based on the natural theology of William Paley which presented the argument from divine design in nature to explain adaptation as God acting through laws of nature.[2][3] On the voyage of the Beagle he remained orthodox and looked for "centres of creation" to explain distribution, but towards the end of the voyage began to doubt that species were fixed.[4][5] By this time he was critical of the Bible as history, and wondered why all religions should not be equally valid. Following his return in October 1836, he developed his novel ideas of geology while speculating about transmutation of species and thinking about religion.[6]

Following Darwin's marriage to Emma in January 1839, they shared discussions about Christianity for several years.[7] The theodicy of Paley and Thomas Malthus vindicated evils such as starvation as a result of a benevolent creator's laws which had an overall good effect. To Darwin, Natural selection produced the good of adaptation but removed the need for design,[8] and he could not see the work of an omnipotent deity in all the pain and suffering such as the ichneumon wasp paralysing caterpillars as live food for its eggs.[9] He still viewed organisms as perfectly adapted, and On the Origin of Species reflects theological views. Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver,[10][11] and later recollected that at the time he was convinced of the existence of God as a First Cause and deserved to be called a theist. This view subsequently fluctuated,[12] and he continued to explore conscientious doubts, without forming fixed opinions on certain religious matters.[7]

Darwin continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the local church,[13] but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church.[14] Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."[7] He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."[15]

Wiki > Charles Darwin.

Charles Darwin's Books [Google Book result].

Debbie Kaufman said...

But that's not what she asked, which is, how does she know you will be in heaven?You got it Byron.

Byroniac said...

Robert, all of what you said is good, and I agree, but none of it interacts with what I said before. Please see Debbie Kaufman's comment at 10:55 PM. The question is not, what is salvation, or even, how do you know you are saved, but, how do *I* know you (or anyone else for that matter) is saved? This is not the same question as, how are people saved, either. Truthfully, I have not the faintest knowledge whether you or anyone else on this blog is saved, even including Wade Burleson. I cannot know what is known only to God. I even believe that some saints do not have assurance for a greater portion of their lives (perhaps all of their lives), which could be due to faulty theology. But they are still living trees, putting forth fruit in Christ. And that is one of the ways we judge what constitutes possible evidence for salvation in others.

Jim Paslay said...

As long as Darwin's Theory is taught as theory, but we know full well in textbooks, high school classrooms and college campuses, Darwin's theory is taught as fact. There's my beef!

I may have had some relatives who swung from trees because of their Christian convictions, but I am convinced I don't have any who swung from trees because they were apes.

Anonymous said...

Would you not agree that is what I was saying in my comment to Kevin......that we cant empirically know ...that is why it is called faith.

Also I am leary of saying good fruit is the result of a regenerated person!
They might appear to have good fruit to you and I but they heart can still be black with sin because they mask it.
Mother Theresa is one example....she seemed to have all kinds of wonderful fruit but when she was asked for the hope that lies within she named all kinds of idols...not Christ Alone.

Byroniac said...

Robert, I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean by salvation not being known empirically. I understand salvation cannot be measured, or quantified, if that's what you mean. It's certainly not a matter of doing X, Y, and Z, and poof, you're saved. We are who we are by the faith given us by God, which we cannot lose or fall away from according to our shared soteriology (which I think Kevin also shares). But I think it is also true that God's Spirit testifies with our spirit concerning our salvation.

And yes, about the fruit of the tree, I called it "possible evidence." Lord knows it certainly isn't foolproof, as I can testify from a painfully personal perspective in my life concerning lost friends who seemed to believe all the right things, give all the right confessions, and do all the right things. But it proved they didn't have the true, living faith you speak of towards God. They simply revealed what they really are and were all along in the process of time, before this life ended (unless of course, they truly are regenerated and born again later, which I cannot predict, or if they return to faith because they are regenerated and just went through a serious season of doubt). I said a lot in the parentheses because this is what I am struggling with in my life currently. I have NO way of knowing who is or isn't born again, or who has or has not fallen finally away from the faith, because I can't "see" that faith, which I think was Debbie's point, and is certainly mine.

I want to end with this, I have just not been able to deal emotionally with apostasy that well at all when it becomes personal. It is a frightening concept all by itself, but to tell the truth, I never paid any attention or had any concern about it until now. I heard such things happened, and I callously thought, oh well, I don't know those people, so I don't care anyway. God forbid I should continue to be so hardhearted!

greg.w.h said...

Scientists also taught that ether filled the universe. Yet the Bible clearly claims that God created from nothingness. The teaching regarding ether was later proven wrong by scientists.

To a certain extent, science is an "under the sun" discipline. It is of no value for religionists dictate what it's conclusions are. That's how you get death threats for doing silly things like proclaiming the earth isn't the center of the solar system much less the universe.

The effort to denounce evolution shows a tremendous amount of insecurity and lack of faith in my opinion. And it is more likely to diminish the kingdom than it is to spread it. Simply acknowledge that scientists are doing the best they can with the materialistic viewpoint that they work within (i.e. that the universe is essentially material because we cannot directly and repeatedly observe the interaction between spirit and matter except in conditions where a human is the source of the spiritual interaction.)

I think it's fine at that point to say from a faith viewpoint the perspective isn't precisely the same. It even gives you the opportunity to have an engaging conversation with materialists regarding an invisible God and you can even use Ecclesiastes to introduce the difference between the "under the sun" perspective and the perspective where we believe there's something more than what we can see and touch and measure.

Most scientists are sympathetic to a kind of philosophical divide between science and faith. A few try to use science to attack faith, but our faith is worthless if it cannot essentially stand for itself. We act as if Satan is going to win unless we "do something". Trust me...he isn't.

Greg Harvey

Anonymous said...


I have wrestled some with the idea of the converse of Matthew 7:16,20 being true. "them" is referring back to "false prophets" of verse 15. Now we have stuck in the middle a pair of verses whose analogy would seem to brush the idea that true prophets (a healthy tree) will bear good fruit. But the passage does not specifically say that we can know the true prophets by their good fruit. The main point of the passage is that we will clearly be able to tell the false prophets by their "bad fruit."

Now I have not read any commentary work on this passage thus I cannot tell you how other theologians have addressed this. But I always hear a snippet from verses 16 and 20 used as prooftext for salvation of one who produces good fruit. I tend to take issue with that use of the passage. Am I splitting hairs? Have you or others read other theologians’ opinions on such uses of the passage or do you (anyone) have a response to my criticism of the typical prooftexting of the passage regarding someone's salvation?

Just Curious K :)

Byroniac said...

Kevin, I have never heard that before. I had to read this passage for myself, and it makes perfect sense. Thanks.

Christiane said...

I found this for you, KEVIN, to do with St. Matthew 7:21

"Verse 21: Not every one that says to me. Christ clearly describes the fruit of a good tree, i.e., of a. good Christian will do the will of our Father, that in truth you shouldst not only believe in Him and in His law as set forth by Christ, but that you should in deed, and in all things, fulfil the same (S. Augustine).
St. John Chrysostem: Where He seems to touch the Jews chiefly who placed everything in dogmas; as Paul accuses then, If you are called a Jew, and rest in the Law. (Gal 3:11)

St. Augustine: But it may create a difficulty how this is to he reconciled with St. Paul, No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:3).
Paul uses the word 'say' in this passage to express the will and understanding of him that says it. But the Lord uses the word in its ordinary sense, for he seems to say who neither wishes nor understands what he says.
St. Jerome; For Scripture uses to take words for deeds; according to which the Apostle declares, 'They make confession that they know God, but in works deny him. "
(Titus 1:21)

Does this help? Love, L's

P.S. The previous verses (17) have reference to 'prophets only' and the 'fruits' referred to are said to be the 'doctrines' of these prophets, according to the source I found. (Source says passage is very controversial.)

Anonymous said...


Thank you. I think all of Matthew 7 can be controversial which is a shame for it is one of the greatest and most hope filled passages recording the words of our Lord. But sadly it is also contains many phrases which are prooftexted to death. The passage, indeed the entire Sermon on the Mount is a unifies literary unit. Context is key. We then further do damage to the passage by making bible stories and cute songs out of verses 24-27 when in essence Jesus is simply saying, "Now, do these things which I have just spoken, thus saith the Lord."

The further we detach verses from their context the more in danger we are of misinterpreting them. The Bible is not full of hidden secrets. We need not reply on chapter/verse divisions nor our clever uses of the ellipses to get our point across. There is always a main point to a passage and we do well to cling to that main point.

I am off to my second interview at St. John's. May the Lord's will be done.

Lydia said...

Per Dr. Paul Martin of Wellspring, of the 210 verses that refer to false prophets, priests, elders and Pharisees, here is a summary of their content:

99 verses (47%) concern Behavior

66 verses (31%) concern Fruit

24 verses (12%) concern Motive

21 verses (*ONLY 10%*) concern Doctrine

Jeff said...

Kevin, In my Bible it tells me we can know them by their fruit. A good tree produces good fruit, and a bad tree bad fruit.

Christiane said...

Good Morning KEVIN and LYDIA,

it's me, L's

KEVIN: I hope St. John's hires you for their sake, too: you would be a great asset there. But you are right: let the Lord's Will be done. Trusting Him in all things is the wisest, most comforting way to live those moments of our lives where our own wishes are 'on the line' and we hope for our own way. He knows our needs, and he directs our path for good, even though we don't see that far ahead to understand His choices for us.

God provides. St. John's would benefit. You would be in a healthy environment, close to the Seminary. Most Catholic hospitals and medical centers also have dog-gone good cafeterias, too: so you could grab a nutritious meal. :)
And a chapel, for quiet prayer, during your 'break'. I am very hopeful that this works out for you, but I also know there are many out of work who seek that position. God's blessing on you, Kevin. Love, L's


I have been thinking a lot about the 'adversarial' positions people take against 'science' as something that might 'threaten' faith. But I cannot see it. I was thinking that God planted within us something that seeks to know about the world around us AND something that seeks to reach up to Him. I cannot see how these two are in conflict. For me, the studies of biology and zoology, are testaments to the magnificence of Creation. And yet, for me the 'Creationist' or 'Intelligent Design' movements belittle both science AND the Creator.
Do you have any perspective on the 'fears' that people of faith have concerning science that you can share with me ? I always have valued your opinion and knowledge of Scripture. Love, L's

Ramesh said...

ABP > Opinion: On becoming an ordinary Christian By Benjamin Cole.

Ethics Daily > Editorial: Anti-Muslim Immigration Video Spreads Fear, Distorts Truth By Robert Parham.

John Fariss said...

Hey Greg!

Your comment at 1:02 AM was (IMHO) right on target. It seems to me that too many of "us" look for God in the dark corners of science. When science cannot explain something (and sometimes when we just cannot understand the explanation or don't like it) we exclaim, "Aha! God must be there!"

There are problems with that. One, what is "dark" to science today may become crystal-clear tomorrow. That has happened before. In the early 1800s, scientists calculated the energy output of the sun, and found that using the most volitive energy source known (I believe it was then coal), it would have burned out in a couple of thousand years, far less than in Bishop Ussher's Biblical calculation of the age of the universe. It was a "dark corner" of science, and there were preachers then who proudly pointed at that and proclaimed it as "proof" of God. But within a hundred years (+/-), radioactivity had been discovered, Einstein had calculated the relationship between matter and energy, and Schrodinder had identified the mechanism by which hydrogen is converted to helium within the sun to produce an energy source lasting hundreds of millions of years--and that dark corner was lit up! Today, many look at either the so-called "gaps" in the evolutionary record or the lack of understanding how biological processes can mutate genes in a beneficial way to produce new species, and in effect, they say, "Aha! That's a dark corner of science, so God must be there!" But if in a hundred years (or 50, or 20, or next week), science is able to explain that--those who based their faith on the "dark corner" will be left worse than they were before. They will be somewhat like what we see in Luke 11: 24-26, "When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, 'I will return to the house I left.' When it arrives, it finds the house swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and takes seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first."

The other problem in seeking God in the dark corners of science are philosophical, involving the necessary presuppositions and restrictions it requires. Whenever one seeks God that way, they are, by definition, setting science as the yardstick, the measuring device by which "God" is quantified. In other words, it is using Science as the arbitor of faith: when one says, "If science cannot explain it, God can," we are looking to science first, and "judging" all else--including the presence of God--by that. I am immediately reminded of Exodus 20:3, "You shall have no other gods before me."

The tragedy is that it is unnecessary. I think that a positrive and healthy attitude relating science and faith can be as simple as, "However we got here, is how God intended us to get here; however the universe works, is how God intended for it to work." That, it seems to me, makes science subservient to faith, but does so without dictating the results (which forces one to choose between science and faith, much like the Inquisition did).


B Nettles said...

Greg and John,
I appreciate and agree with the thrust of your comments. Unfortunately, the phrase "science and faith" is getting cluttered, much like "faith and learning" did back in the 90's. Y'all have done a good job with your thoughts.

I've thought about a "structure" of creation which has a physical creation totally within a spiritual creation (like a subset in a Venn diagram) with God being the creator existing independently of and yet actively maintaining the universe. The scientific method allows us to probe around in the physical creation, but not outside that subset of creation. The problems arise when, as you say, we make science a god, thinking it shows all of reality.

BTW, Greg, there is a little something that bothers me in your first paragraph: Scientists also taught that ether filled the universe. Yet the Bible clearly claims that God created from nothingness. The teaching regarding ether was later proven wrong by scientists.1) The idea of ether was postulated because most scientists thought of light as a wave. They also thought waves must have a medium, hence "ether." Now we know that light isn't a wave requiring a medium.

2) I don't understand what connection the idea of an ether has with "created from nothingness." No one ever proposed the ether as pre-existent.

3) We have no experimental evidence that an ether exists,we've developed explanations that don't require it, and we have no method for detecting it. Scientifically, it's an unneeded physical construct. So, yeah, the previous teaching about physically-necessary ether was wrong.


Christiane said...

I found this wherein my Church reconciles the study of science with faith, without compromising the integrity of either one. It is worth taking a look at, I think.
Love, L's

"...methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God.

The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."

The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.

These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers....

The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences.

It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin....

Lydia said...

"Do you have any perspective on the 'fears' that people of faith have concerning science that you can share with me ?"

Hi L's,

I am afraid I am quite ignorant on the subject of science. Growing up, I listened to many a debate between my mom and her rocket scientist brother on YEC/OEC when we were visiting him at Cape C on summer vacation. He was always dabbling in the theories and of course, brought a wealth of knowledge, but my mom was not moved from a literal interpretation of Creation despite her lack of PhD's. :o)

greg.w.h said...


I don't disagree with your comments. My point...however poorly formed...was that scientific concepts that could possibly conflict with biblical presentations not only do occur, but also can change radically very quickly. My example, as you pointed out, was off-the-cuff and therefore poorly thought out and explained. Mea culpa.

But your explanation of ether actually does make the point I was trying to get across. Some scientific explanations SEEM necessary and even supportable and for a period of time--until the next paradigm shift--they are the best explanations and treated as "fact" not just as theory. Given that the mathematical description is in some ways only a model of the reality, there is always room for either the model to be improved or even discarded in favor of another model. The next paradigm shift refines or replaces the previous model. That is the scientific process.

That's why I said we should treat science as an "under the sun" discipline. It needs room as a epistemological process--i.e. a discovery process centered on coordinating evidence and explanation--to consider explanations that may or may not be easily harmonized with Scripture in order for the process to simply "function".

Sorry for the big word. It's the only good descriptive of the point I was getting at. Hopefully the additional explanation is adequate for the casual reader to understand why I used that piece of philosophical jargon.

Greg Harvey

Anonymous said...

For those who like to read, I recommend the PCA's position paper on the subject of creation.


linda said...

Rejoice with us!

There will be one more in Heaven!

Today, while discussing the before she was born death of her greatgrandma, my granddaughter was full of questions about the afterlife.

I explained Heaven, Hell, salvation, etc gently to this little child. It became evident very quickly she wanted to "nail down" her eternal destiny.

So, praying after grandma, she confessed her wrongdoings and sinful state, asked His forgiveness, and placed her faith in Jesus only for salvation.

And that is what it is all about--not the debating, the opinions, the fussing and discussing, but salvation. All--and I do mean ALL--else is tertiary.

Already this little one we feared had no empathy or conscience is showing fruit: genuine sorrow if she bumps someone, and genuine shame if she loses her temper.

Of course she will nurturing and discipling in the faith. Of course she needs to grow and mature.

But rejoice with us, for she has been born again.

John Fariss said...


"For those who like to read" is an understatement! I thought I had one convoluted, boring professor of historical theology when I worked on my doctorate, but now I appreciate him. I think you, me, Bill Nettles, Greg W.H., Christine (L's), and maybe one or two others could have come up with something that said at least as much in a lot less space.


Ramesh said...

As per Blogger Buzz > MAY 05, 2009
Thanks for the feedback so far!
, any one can subscribe to any blogger blog's comment feed even if the owner of the blog has not turned it on. This is enabled by default to all the blogger blogs.

This is only for folks who wish to subscribe to comments feed, which they can peruse in say Google Reader. And this will funnel ALL the comments going through a blog.

This is a lazy person's way to read all the comments. The updates are not frequent.

This may or may not be meaningful to all people.

Feeds for Comments
This feed is also available now, with the following URL:

Example: http://adsense.blogspot.com/feeds/comments/default

PastorWade's blog comments feed. Please right click this link, copy link and subscribe to the feed in say Google Reader or any other RSS reader.

The above comment is best viewed in a "post mode" and not in a "comment entry mode".

Ramesh said...

One more: The above comment feeds are updated every 3 hours.

Ramesh said...

Steps for Anon users to get a google/blogger account:

- Get a google gmail account.
- Go to blogger.
- Sign in using your gmail account. This is also your google account.
- Create a display name.
- and follow the steps ...

Later when you are at blogger.com and you are logged in, on the top left hand side where it says Dashboard, click on Edit Profile, check only the following:
- Check Share my profile.
- Make sure the Display Name, is the one you want. You can also change it here.
- In the bottom, click on Save Profile.

That's it. You can select other options in the blogger profile, if you wish to be less anonymous.

Also this from NASS (New BBC Open Forum): You don't need to set up a Gmail address. You can use your existing e-mail address to create a Blogger account.

Bryan Riley said...

Great post, Wade. The post isn't so much about Darwin as it is what you wrote in closing - Nobody is beyond His reach. How precious it is to know that is true.

Someone today wrote to me that they are done with desiring anything except God's grace. That's where we all should be.

flboy said...


We will never know until we get to heaven about Darwin. However, the most important words in this whole blog are the last few at the end of your post, "Nobody is beyond His (God's) reach." that is all that counts. Amen and Amen.


gopher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.