Monday, June 15, 2015

Are We Really 99% Chimp? Atheistic Source Says "No"

See the bottom part of this blog for Christian resources. This first video is Non-Christian.

Are We Really 99% Chimp?

Are We 99% Chimps?

Christian Materials on Human Origins from an Old Earth Creationist Perspective

Evidence from Molecular Anthropology for an Historical Adam and Eve [An Introduction]
- Fazale Rana, PhD

MANY MORE in-depth materials on human origins by Fazale Rana:
Resources at RTB Relating to Human Origins

short url:


  1. Elsewhere you wrote: "But the OSAS/ET version coupled with Arminianism's view of God's universal love can lead people to take Christ (Him, His salvation and His love) for granted and therefore be sloppy in persevering. If you really believed in both, why feel the pressure to study Scripture and theology? This is especially true of those who also subscribe to Non-Lordship Salvation. These three things make people ripe for apostasy because it makes people even more susceptible to the objections of the world, the sinful doubts of the flesh, and the lies of the devil."

    Why do you feel pressure to study Scripture and theology?

    1. I don't "feel pressure" to study Scripture and theology. I enjoy it. Like I don't normally feel pressured to eat food. It's natural for me to do so. It's only when I'm sick that I don't want to eat food. Similarly, it's only when I'm seriously sick spiritually that I'm inclined not to hear/read/meditate/study/memorize Scripture. But that's in cases of extreme spiritual sickness. Usually, even when I'm spiritually sick, there's still some desire.

      Prefer Anonymity, why do you ask? Since you're anonymous, you can be completely honest with me here and we can discuss what's really on your mind. Or what may be troubling you. I'm no expert or spiritual giant, but (by God's grace) I have enough compassion to be willing to address people's serious theological and/or spiritual concerns.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. I suppose your question is in response to my statement where I wrote: "why feel the pressure to study Scripture and theology?"

      By "pressure" I meant a number of different things. The "pressure" of God's command to persevere in the faith (and all that that entails). The "pressure" of obeying God in general since the flesh and the spirit are constantly warring with each other in the believer. The "pressure" of the warnings in Scripture not to apostatize. Different Calvinists have different (sometimes opposing) views on the doctrine of Assurance. I'm not going to give a full blown explanation of my views on Perseverance and Assurance here. But suffice it to say that I believe 1. we can have Scriptural warrant for assurance based on the promises of God and our faith. 2. Additional confirmatory assurance based on our lifestyle. 3. Additional (though not necessary or essential) assurance that's supernaturally given by the Holy Spirit (this is tied to my views on continuationism, though even cessationistic Calvinists have spoken in similar terms).

      There's a difference between Assurance and Security. Assurance has to do with subjective psychology. Security has to do with either objective theology or objective ontology. One can have genuine assurance or false assurance. A genuine Christian may or may not have assurance. A false Christian can have (a false) assurance. Security has to do with the theology of perseverance or with whether one is actually in a gracious state. If one is in a gracious state, does that necessarily entail one will certainly persevere or not? Arminians say "no." Calvinists say, "yes." Though, I'm not completely satisfied with the standard Calvinistic answer. I think it's more complicated than that. I could say more, but I'll leave it at that.

      Having said the above about assurance, security and perseverance, it's also possible to deceive oneself. Scripture commands us to examine ourselves to see whether we're really in the faith (2 Cor. 13:5) and to make our calling and election sure (2 Pet. 1:10). Most Calvinists are willing to admit that God uses the warning passages in Scripture as a means to actually cause the elect to persevere. So, there's "pressure" to persevere. Though, that can be misconstrued as a form of works salvation, which it isn't. See for example, the Marrow Controversy. Sinclair Ferguson addressed the controversy in his 3 lecture on the topic HERE.

  2. {{Prefer Anonymity, why do you ask?}}

    Sounded like you were saying if you believed in eternal security, you wouldn’t be motivated to study theology and Scripture. Thanks for the clarification.

    1. There's a difference between the "eternal security" taught in 1. Calvinism and its doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints and 2. the "eternal security" taught in the Dispensational doctrine of Eternal Security or Once Saved Always Saved. Though, the latter (#2) has spread outside of self-identifying Dispensationalists.

      The former has a rich doctrine of striving and putting forth effort by the grace of God. It takes seriously the command to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13-14). In that sense both Calvinism and CLASSIC (5 Point) Arminianism are in agreement. Both affirm the necessity to strive and the importance of sanctification, even though they disagree as to whether a genuine Christian can permanently fall away or not.

      The Dispensational doctrine of Eternal Security or Once Saved Always Saved does not have a rich doctrine of perseverance or of sanctification. Those who also hold to Non-Lordship Salvation even make sanctification virtually optional. Some even go so far as to teach faith/belief is optional (!!!!). Meaning, there are some Non-Lordship Salvationists who believe a person can believe the gospel, be justified, and then later apostatize and become an atheists and still be saved since (they reason) justification is a permanent judicial forensic verdict and standing. They take a true premise and make a false conclusion.

      While it's true that justification is permanent (etc.), for the Calvinist all those whom God justifies He also never fails to sanctify and cause to persevere in faith. As 1 Pet. 1:5 states, "kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation..." For the Classic Arminian justification can be lost. That's why in Calvinism and Classic Arminianism sanctification and perseverance is NOT optional.

      All who hold to NLS also hold to ET/OSAS. But the reverse isn't true. Not all those who hold to ET/OSAS also hold to NLS.

      Also, most proponents of NLS reject Unconditional Election and hold to Conditional Election (usually laymen). But some proponents of NLS do affirm Unconditional Election (usually seminary trained individuals like Charles Ryrie).

      So, to wrap it up, I do think that ET/OSAS does lessen the motivation to study theology and Scripture. That's especially true if one also holds to NLS in addition to ET/OSAS. They can make one sloppy and apathetic. They can (though not necessarily) foster a false assurance. While it's true that justification is by faith alone (sola fide), it's not by mere intellectual assent alone. That's the same error Sandemanians make.

      The Classic Reformation definition of faith includes Notitia (knowledge), Assensus (assent) and Fiducia (trust). In classic Reformation theology God HAS saved us (past tense) from the penalty of sin in justification; IS saving us (present tense) from the power of sin in sanctification; and WILL save us (future tense) from the presence of sin altogether in glorification. ET/OSAS focuses on justification in salvation to the near exclusion of sanctification.

  3. Thanks for the feedback. I am familiar with the differences you are outlining.

    {{Meaning, there are some Non-Lordship Salvationists who believe a person can believe the gospel, be justified, and then later apostatize and become an atheists and still be saved…}

    Yes, having read Stegall’s 9-part series on the subject, I’m familiar with some of the arguments. Aren’t there Calvinists who would say that a person can backslide (or become apostate or an atheist) but later come back to the faith (perhaps moments before death)? For example, can one conclude dogmatically that Sudduth is not now regenerate but horribly deceived?

  4. Yes, Calvinistic theology teaches that it's possible for a genuinely elect and regenerate person to backslide. I take that to mean (rightly or wrongly interpreting Calvinism) that such backsliding can be so severe that it appears from all human perspectives (even in the eyes of the person in question himself) that the person has ceased to be a believer.

    So, I do wish and pray people like Michael Sudduth, John Loftus (et al.) would return to a professing faith in Christ and the true Gospel. For all we know some of them may actually be regenerate all along and will one day return to Christ. Though, the longer they remain backslidden, the more unlikely that's the case. It's also logically possible that some of them are elect but were never regenerated during their time of professing to be a Christian, but that they will be regenerated sometime in the future before their deaths. A professing Christian may be sincere (in some sense) and yet may still not be a possessing Christian.

    See chapter 17 section 3 on the topic Of the Perseverance of the Saints in both the Westminster Confession of Faith and the London Baptist Confession of Faith. Especially the LBCF's longer ending of section 3.

    A tabular comparison can be viewed here:

    1. Although, the WCF, the LBCF and the SDFO do say in chapter 18 something that might contradict my above interpretation (which is also my person view). On the topic Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation the WCF states, "...yet are they never utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of faith, that love of Christ and the brethren, that sincerity of heart and conscience of duty, out of which, by the operation of the Spirit, this assurance may in due time be revived, and by the which, in the meantime, they are supported from utter despair." [bold added by me, AP]. The LBCF and the SDFO say something similar with minor variation.

      The phrase "...yet are they never utterly destitute of...[the] life of faith" would seem to contradict my interpretation. I think that's just an inconsistency in the confessions themselves since there are many testimonies from (presumably) genuinely regenerate Christians who admit that they have had times of doubt where from their own psychological perspective they ceased being self-professing Christians during that period of time. The Puritans dealt with such cases in their pastoral books and counseling.

    2. Reading the first page of the first part of Tom Stegall's series, he seems to confuse the epistemological and psychological issue of assurance with the ontological and theological issue of security or being in a state of grace.

      Stegall wrote: If these elements are not present in your Christian life, then according to their theology, you are not truly saved.

      In Calvinism, works, fruit, faithfulness (etc.) are NOT conditions FOR salvation. They aren't necessary to be justified, but they are "necessary" as evidences of one being in a state of grace/salvation. They aren't necessary as a GROUNDS for justification (i.e. judicial/forensic acceptance by God). To be justified is to be "saved," but salvation is not limited to justification. The process of salvation includes regeneration, adoption, sanctification, glorification (etc.) and not just/merely justification. There is a sense in which we can say a justified person is "saved," but in another sense the person is not yet saved till glorification. A child doesn't need to eat in order to be his parents offspring. However, if the child is alive and truly its parents offspring, it will eat since it is the nature of humans to want to eat. Whereas automatons and android would not need or desire to eat. At regeneration a person is changed into a new creature/creation. All things are passed away, and all things have become new. A genuinely regenerate person has a new nature that wants to do good and is in constant battle with the flesh that wants to do evil.

      Nevertheless, the new nature is such that there must be some signs of regeneration. Otherwise, there's no epistemological reason (for humans) to believe the person is truly regenerate. Stegall doesn't do well in distinguishing between perception and reality. That is, epistemological warrant for believing someone is saved and the reality of whether someone is actually saved or not. Nor does he do well in understanding two senses of "necessity." Fruit is not necessary for justification. But fruit is necessary as evidences of being justified. Or as Reformation theology has historically taught, "Justification is by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone."

      See for example this video by John Gerstner

    3. I apologize for the repetition. I just want to make clear what I believe and what I believe Calvinism teaches because I don't know what your theological point of view is. For all I know you're an atheist, or Catholic, or Arminian or even a fellow Calvinist. I'm a Calvinist, but I'm willing to deviate from Calvinism on minor issues if I think the Bible teaches otherwise. So, I'm open for correction or teaching.