How Should We Then Live? By Francis A. Schaeffer

There are a handful of philosopher-theologians who have contributed immensely to the development of a Christian world view. Some of these are much earlier then we are living at this time. They produced a basis of how Christians view the world around them. During the last 50 years or so none has had such a major impact on how we should live our faith then Francis A. Schaeffer. He openly professed loyalty to the scriptures above all else. It is my intention to use his book as a series of studies. These will be found at Why Baptist Blog and also at Listen to God this is meant as a review and is in no way meant as an extensive analysis. The word of God is above else to be taken as the only authority in all maters of faith and practice (Sola Scriptura). “Few Christians have had greater impact during the last half of the twentieth century then Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer (Schaeffer, Francis A., 9). I am drawing as a theme statement that we are seeing a “growing disintegration and decline of truth and morality throughout our world (Schaeffer, 9). This includes both a historical perspective as well as a theological basis.

Every facet of our lives as Christians has been impacted by a growing, but extremely “devastating impact” of both the post immerging church movement and the “post Christian consensus” (Schaeffer, 9). Christians as a whole in our times are living without any kind of world view let alone a Christian world view. In fact one of our current (Christian) church leaders is now suggesting that we have a new reformation. It is suggested that we still follow the original reformation statements of truth, but have added a practical reformation. This implies as well as means that the Reformation was not sufficient or even might have been wrong. A practical reformation is actually a denial of the scriptures that gave us the protestant reformation. So what will it be the Word of God or the Word of Man, the choice can only be one of these. Which will you choose to follow.

Not only has the Christian message been impacted by the modern form of humanism, but so has “art, music, drama, theology and the mass media”.  This has left “people with no basis for meaning, or truth, or hope in life…two impoverished values of ‘personal peace and affluence'”(Schaeffer, 10). This is indeed a personal question to each of us “How should we then live” (Schaeffer, 11)? Should it be by the changing whims of situation ethics? What about atheistic communism, does it have a sufficient basis for living? Should it be by atheistic evolution? As for me I choose to live by the Word of the living God and this only “Sola Scriptura”.

Just a nagging question?

What did evolutionists think was going to happen to society when they took the Bible and God out of it. Did they honestly think they were going to create a better society? Did they really think that this brave new world they envisioned would be a morally pure one? Did they even take into consideration the empact of leaving the Ten Commandments out would make men good?

The end of the road is now clearly in site of where we stand. Certainly God does have much to say about what we are doing today, but the real question is do we really care?

If you do not want to believe in God and be a through going athiest, then evolution is exactly what you want. It takes God completely out of the equation the net result is a Godless society with no real meaningful rules. No one to tell us we should not be acting this way or not. I am not alone in saying that you asked for a society with no moral rules, except those you like, this is exactly what you earned. No rules mean school shootings, skyrocketing crime rates, divorce at an all time high rate and of course then there is always the question of the moral morase brought to us by excepting homosexuals as just a different life style as opposed to being an abomination to God. These things have brought us to a cross roads of sorts, will we keep going down this road or can we change directions before it is eternally to late. You should have listened to one of your own prophets and taken a moment to meditate before you took this step.

PROFESSOR ADUOUS HUXLEY
“I have always been strongly in favor of secular education without theology, but I must confess that I have been no less seriously perplexed to know by what practical measures the religious feeling, which is the essential basis of moral conduct, is to be kept up in the present utterly chaotic state of opinion on these matters without the use of the Bible.”

Hear No Creation, See No Creation, Speak No Creation

Just like the three monkeys, see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil goes the adherents of the Darwinian religion. I found this comment after seeing “Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed” and have chosen to make a response to this comment. This kind of intellectual bias is now rampant in this country. It has invaded every area of our society. I believe it is time to confront this ungodly and unrigthteous belief. This comment was seen at: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/usercomments,

**Note I am going to be making a few changes and additions to this post. I have decided to go ahead and post this before this movie disappears.

“Author: trigger_happy_411 from United Kingdom”

“There was already great controversy about this film before its release. I have to admit, I was expecting a slightly more objective film than what I found in the theatre.

Yes, there is controversy, but not so much over the film, but over the two axioms that control the philosophies behind evolution and creation. Creation and evolution, both look at the same facts, but through different pairs of glass’s. As to being objective one only needs to attend any number of classrooms studying biology or science to find out that evolutionary science is hardly objective. Not being able to ask questions that challenge conclusions is intellectual bigotry and bias.

Intellectually what is the starting points for both sides of this argument. There are certain factors that feed into both sides of this controversy. The Primary Axiom of evolution is that man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection (Sanford, v). The Primary Axiom of creation is that God accomplished the creation of the world in six literal 24 hour days. Both of these axioms must by necessity start with certain givens. The Primary Axiom of evolution is dependent on a chance meeting of all the right elements resulting in the creation of life. This with a long period of time allowing for the development of species as we now know it. The Primary Axiom of creation necessitates God being everything that the scriptures reveal about Him, these things being absolutely true necessitates that creation will also be as the Scriptures has revealed it. The Puritan Catechism in the section having to do with What is God has this to say, with the scriptures that support this belief.

4 Q What is God?

A God is Spirit, # Joh 4:24 infinite, # Job 11:7 eternal, # Ps 90:2 1Ti 1:17, and unchangeable, # Jas 1:17, in his being, # Ex 3:14, wisdom, power, # Ps 147:5, holiness, # Re 4:8, justice, goodness and truth. # Ex 34:6,7 (Puritan Catecism)

So this is not something new to me, but has been the message of historical Christian faith for a lot longer then the fledgling Darwin church. The thing that is really baffling is that when cornered by the errors that Darwin made most evolutionary biologists will start distancing themselves from some of his ideas.

God is everything that the Scriptures say and more, His power is way beyond human understanding. The Psalmist, declares about God:

(Psa 19:1) <To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.> The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
(Psa 19:2) Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
(Psa 19:3) There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
(Psa 19:4) Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
(Psa 19:5) Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
(Psa 19:6) His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

What I would like you to notice is the bold type above, the psalmist says that to view the expanse of the heavens is to look at God’s work. The heavens are so awsome, that every nation and language has had writtings about them. We are talking about human creation here, but if God is big enough to create the heavens, then He certainly is big enough to create man. At the very end of this Psalm is a prayer to God to not let this fact of God’s power be so presumed that it lets the servant constantly depend on it. It is sin to presume that God will do something, without first asking Him.

I am spending this much time on this point here, because the author of this comment spent so much time attacking those of us who believe in God as creator of all things. Those who hold to evolution by necessity link themselves to Darwin, since he is their would be prophet. He is held in some places with such reverence and esteem, that you might even call it worship, that it even approaches God like qualities, but in the end he was just a man, very deluded, but man none the less.

This commenter seems to imply or outright believes that anyone who believes in Creation is not objective. Then all those people who believe in evolution or Darwinism, if you would, are objective? Instead of using labels about creationists he just sinks to an out right slanderous statement, that creationists are ignorant. The problem is that regardless of labels what we are looking at in Darwinism or evolution is a dogma that is worshipped as a religion, including a priesthood that guards the holy grail of biology, that is the Primary Axiom “random mutations plus natural selection “. Those who even dare contradict the Primary Axiom are excommunicated from the Church of Darwin. So just who is being objective? I took science in high school and I have had science in college, I have studied these issues for a number of years. These terms did not stump me it seems like the perspective was a good one. Of course those who hold to Darwinian evolution, must resort to some sort of smoke screen (“I now half expect us to start referring to Gravitational theory as “Newtonism” and people who believe in gravity as “Newtonists”.)

“Any objectivity that the film pretends to have goes out the window when it decides to forgo usual labels like ‘scientists’ and ‘theory of evolution’ in exchange for ‘Darwinists’ and ‘Darwinism’. Anyone with a fairly decent grasp of the many various areas of science from High school will be stumped by these bizarre labels. I now half expect us to start referring to Gravitational theory as “Newtonism” and people who believe in gravity as “Newtonists”. It’s dishonest and misleading, trying to make people forget that evolution is a science and think that its some sort of indoctrinated belief worshipping Darwin.”

This commentator must be blind or did not listen to what was said, but only caught the points contradicting his bias in favor of evolution. Tell me something, isn’t worship giving honor unto some one or something? If worship is giving honor, then most certainly the doctrine of evolution is being worshiped in the person of Darwin. I guess I am disgusting then, because I believe in creation and make no bones about it.

“This is what is so disgustting about the adherents to this theory, when they are forced to look at facts that show the falacies in the theory evolution, rather then take a good look at the proofs they turn to calling us names and belittleing.”

The reason that we see the fallacies is they are there! Maybe you can accept something without looking at mistakes, but I find it very hard to believe in something, when those who promote it fail to correct mistakes. We are all looking at the same facts, but we come up with a different interpretation of the facts. I believe I have taken a good look at the proofs, but I find it impossible to see those proofs as supporting a chemical to man type of evolution. They actually tell me something entirely different. I also find the majority of the evolutionary scientists to be intellectually bankrupt. As for calling Darwinists names and belittling I for one have not used a belittling name yet. Cringe at what? The picturing of Darwinists as being unable to accept criticism of their darlings? I noticed that in this film the testimony was that evolutionary science needs to be more open and ready to re-exam their evidence. If a D.A prosecuted a case with the flimsy evidence that comes from evolutionary science, their case would get thrown out of court. What might I ask is a “healthy understanding of science”?

“If you have a healthy understanding of science, this film will make you cringe and sometimes gasp in outrage. If you believe God created us all as we are today, this film will pander to you, though I’d naturally warn against taking anything in this film seriously.”

Sure I could go with that, I will not take anything seriously from this film, but first let’s stop taking anything serious that comes out of the minds of Evolutionary Darwinists. If that is not possible, then perhaps we are at an impasse. Darwinists do not have all the answers, but their fervor for atheism has tainted there objectiveness in science. How can I possibly trust them, when they are this biased? I would like to take just one little statement out of his comment that is totally inaccurate, “If you believe God created us all as we are today…” No where do I know of anyone that is a creationist that claims that God created us as we are today. Most certainly we are not now today as God created us 6,000 years ago. Much has happened since then and the genome has degraded immensely since then. For those who do not know what a genome is I give this definition: “An Organism’s genome is the sum total of all its genetic parts, including all its chromosomes, genes and nucleotides” (Sanford, 1)4. Linking Darwinian evolution to the holocaust is a mater of fact, but do facts really mater anymore? This commentator seems to think that Darwinianism is not linked to the holocaust, inspite of the evidence, not to the contrary.

“Perhaps the most shocking thing about this film is its blatant attempt to link evolution to the holocaust and the Nazis. Let’s set aside for a moment the fact that eugenics and the tactics the Nazis employed were more reminiscent of selective breeding, something humans have been doing with domesticated animals and plants for many, many centuries, long before proper understanding of the mechanisms behind selective breeding came to light in the 19th century when Wallace and Darwin introduced theories of evolution via natural selection.”

This statement that tries to distance Darwin from Eugenics won’t work, “In his book The Descent of Man, Darwin went further, and contended that there is a need for superior races (i.e. the white race) to replace the ‘inferior races’ (Sanford, 116)” This person should really do his homework and read what Darwin said. He should also catch up with what is now being said among Geneticists. The whole subject of eugenics is unfortunately on the minds of some researchers according to Sanford, but to attempt this kind of planning requires “a ruthless world wide authoritarian ‘power elite’ (Sanford, 117)” There are those out there who would like to cut off those parts of the genome, that are not producing the kinds of information that fit their axiom demands. We are getting less and less information, not more and more. The thought is that by cutting off some of the mutations that are bad, it will allow better mutations to flourish. Problem is that the end result is a down grading of the size of the population, but no improvement in the information for mankind. Hitler was trying to produce the super human German and to do that he had to eliminate anything that would corrupt it. Unchecked selective breeding has brought us to this point, if you start messing with it, then it will destroy itself. What I am saying is that the human race is in a downward spirial and it will never correct itself. It is the philosophy that accompanies the theory of Darwinian evolution that is the culpret, that philosophy says no to God. In order to be a scientific theory that is credible, it would need to have something to show from the past in the way of primary evidence to support it. The only information available is right here and now.

“This attempt to link evolution to the holocaust begs the question: WHAT on earth does this have to do with evolution as a valid scientific theory? If people misuse gravity to throw people off tall buildings with the intent to kill them, does this mean gravity itself should be rejected as science? It’s merely a cheap tactic to sour people to evolution, and to see this and know that some people will be completely taken in by such shallow, emotional manipulation really disappoints me.”

You see the problem with evolution as valid scientific theory is that all the evidence exists in present time. Gravity on the other hand can be demonstrated by experiment today. Cheap tactic, I call the firing of scientists who have forsaken Darwinism, just because the buck the program a cheap tactic. The most shallow thing that I have seen and heard of during my 61 years is the shallowness of the arguments from evolutionists. Expecting us to bow down and accept their findings just because they say so. If this movie had been designed (no pun intended), to make fun of creationist beliefs, this commentator would have no problem with it. Everything for this generation needs to be well polished and slick. Anything but fancy gets rejected by this generation.

“As for the style of documentary itself, it doesn’t make up for its incredibly poor content. It’s obviously taking after Michael Moore, but I find Moore’s work obnoxious and manipulative, and Expelled parroting his style is even more dismal.”

Let’s face it this question has now been before us for better then 200 years and given that time we still have die hard evolutionists espousing the same message. We have on the other side of this creationists, we are made to feel unwelcome and like fools by present day science. We are not allowed to say a single word in defence of creation. If a scientist with an earned degree in biology and the full spread of graduate degrees that goes with it comes out in favor of creationism, then that scholar looses everything, job and degrees included.

“I could do without every interview with a scientist being punctuated by stock footage of Nazis and the soviet union. As for Ben Stein – his monotonous drone is not good for a documentary, and obviously I didn’t find his sarcastic voice overs particularly funny since its hard to find such blatant ignorance dressed up as rebellion anything but sad.”

I would like to make just one comment here. Ignorance comes in many disguiesses these days, it just so happens that Darwinism is also a blatant ignorance. Why stoop to such a low characture of Ben Stein, it almost sounds to me like he is using that old rotten to the core attitude of antisemetism against Ben Stein. I will resist stooping to the same level of comment, although a few choice ones do come to mind.

“So, only a 3 from me. It’s a dishonest, manipulative film. Creationists will eat it up, the rest of us will bluster angrily at the nonsense and the lies, but invariably I don’t think this will change much. It’s preaching to the choir of miffed creationists who are reeling from repeated defeats in court over trying to inject religion into science classrooms.”

I give this movie a strong 9, but not because I do not agree with the conclusions, but that I do believe in creation and feel it deserves a better show in a theater, in a classroom and in our nations courts. A movie theater is nice, but it fails to stop the biggotry going on in the science community.

“I will be sad if it converts anyone who is on the fence, so there should definitely be a follow up film that shows the controversy accurately, to compensate for the deceit and propaganda that Expelled spread. It’s a shame though that creationists would likely boycott it.”

I will agree with the last statement, it probably would not convert anyone, but is not the point? Conversion, necessitates that the conservor is converted from a religion. Is not this an admission that Darwinanity is a religion? One held to such fervor that this commentator is convinced of its truth even though there is plenty of evidence against Darwinanity. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Creator and the day is coming soon when all will have to face Him. What about you are you ready for His return? I urge you to now come to Him and be converted. He is offering open arms to you?

All of the resources for this article are found on the Bibliography page.

Darwinianity or Christianity

The state church in American is now Darwinianity and anyone that attempts to preach anything else is locked out of the house. This religion is incidious, that is it is now well installed in the USA and there is no way to remove it from its place of power. A whole generation of American biologist have been taught not to make waves and have faith in the Prime Axiom. The Primary Axiom is that man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection. This doctrine has lead to the concept that man is just a bag of genes. It has degraded a high view of life, to a none existent view of life. This whole axiom is repeated again and again on college campuses across America that are supposed to be religion free.