There is no such thing as secular, since all the universe belongs to its Creator God. Everything was created by Him for His glory. And all we have; the strength of flesh and spirit, and every breath comes from His hand.
Even our sins are not secular because they are committed against God who alone can forgive our sin and remove our guilt through the sacrifice of His Son, Jesus Christ.
Someone might say now, "Wait a minute. Those were the Pharisees, Jesus' critics, who said only God can forgive sin". But be that as it may, they were correct. Only God can forgive sin.
This is because He is the only real plaintiff in cases of sin. This is because sin is committed against Him. What the Pharisees got wrong was that they failed to recognize that Jesus is the Son of God, equal with the Father.
When we forgive sin, we are only agreeing with Jesus, or leaving the case up to Him to judge.
So there is truly nothing secular. Everything belongs to "the Lord, the God of the spirits of all flesh" (Numbers 27:16). And all things will be judged by Him.
Psalm 24:1, Hebrews 11:3, Numbers 27:16, James 1:17, Mark 2:5-12, John 1:29, Colossians 1:13-14.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Saturday, May 11, 2013
More Than an Ancient Text
As humans, I think we all like to put things into human terms. I know that I do. And so I find it appealing to think of the origins debate as a conflict between Darwin and Moses.
But though the discussion may be framed in such a way, it is important to remember that it is more than just a matter of Moses vs. Darwin. It is a conflict between the word of God and the word of men.
Moses was a man. And Genesis was written by Moses. But Moses was a prophet of God, and he wrote down what God spoke to him (Numbers 12:5-8, John 5:46, 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21).
An old friend of mine used to refer to the Bible as "an ancient text", as if to lessen its authority. And theistic evolutionist, Peter Enns has made the statement that "an ancient text give us ancient science, not modern".
But these speak wrongly about God's word. God's word is not antiquated, nor is it static. God's word is living and vibrant. It is more than just an ancient text. It keeps on being true (Psalm 119, John 17:17, Hebrews 4:12-13).
There can be no greater authority on science and origins than the One who created the universe and all that exists (Genesis 1:1, John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16-17).
Some try to reinterpret what God clearly tells us about our origins. But the only reason for such theories as the day/age, or the gap theory is to attempt to harmonize God's word with the word of men.
And those men who first developed the doctrines of deep time, and evolutionism (Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Erasmus Darwin, Charles Darwin, Charles Lyell and others), were attempting to explain the universe, and life without God.
These individuals interpreted the data under the assumption that Genesis is not true, and that no supernatural/Divine hand was or is involved. Thus, evolutionism is rooted in a rejection of belief in God.
Once a person acknowledges the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; it becomes wholly, completely, entirely unnecessary to accept evolutionism.
God created the heavens and the earth. And He did it in six literal, 24 hour days, just as He has says that He did. This is a certainty because there was no death before sin entered the world by on person (Romans 5:12, 1 Corinthians 15:21-26).
Material written by trained scientists, who affirm biblical creation, can be read at the following sites:
www.answersingenesis.org
www.icr.org
http://creation.com/
But though the discussion may be framed in such a way, it is important to remember that it is more than just a matter of Moses vs. Darwin. It is a conflict between the word of God and the word of men.
Moses was a man. And Genesis was written by Moses. But Moses was a prophet of God, and he wrote down what God spoke to him (Numbers 12:5-8, John 5:46, 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21).
An old friend of mine used to refer to the Bible as "an ancient text", as if to lessen its authority. And theistic evolutionist, Peter Enns has made the statement that "an ancient text give us ancient science, not modern".
But these speak wrongly about God's word. God's word is not antiquated, nor is it static. God's word is living and vibrant. It is more than just an ancient text. It keeps on being true (Psalm 119, John 17:17, Hebrews 4:12-13).
There can be no greater authority on science and origins than the One who created the universe and all that exists (Genesis 1:1, John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16-17).
Some try to reinterpret what God clearly tells us about our origins. But the only reason for such theories as the day/age, or the gap theory is to attempt to harmonize God's word with the word of men.
And those men who first developed the doctrines of deep time, and evolutionism (Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Erasmus Darwin, Charles Darwin, Charles Lyell and others), were attempting to explain the universe, and life without God.
These individuals interpreted the data under the assumption that Genesis is not true, and that no supernatural/Divine hand was or is involved. Thus, evolutionism is rooted in a rejection of belief in God.
Once a person acknowledges the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; it becomes wholly, completely, entirely unnecessary to accept evolutionism.
God created the heavens and the earth. And He did it in six literal, 24 hour days, just as He has says that He did. This is a certainty because there was no death before sin entered the world by on person (Romans 5:12, 1 Corinthians 15:21-26).
Material written by trained scientists, who affirm biblical creation, can be read at the following sites:
www.answersingenesis.org
www.icr.org
http://creation.com/
Saturday, May 4, 2013
The Head and the Heart
Suppose two people are debating which part of the body is most important. Imagine that one of them insists the head is the most important part, while the other firmly defends the heart as being the most important. But isn't it true that the body must have both a head and a heart to live, and can not dispense with either one?
The literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus the Messiah is the heart of Christian doctrine and apologia, and the Genesis creation/fall is the head. It hardly seems reasonable to believe the one and not the other.
And actually, the resurrection is a validation of the history recorded in Genesis. Jesus constantly made statements that validate both the Divine inspiration and the historicity of the Old Testament narrative. (For examples, see John 5:46, John 8:56, Luke 24:25-27, Mark 10:6, Matthew 5:18, Matthew 23:31-35, and Matthew 26:52-56). And His resurrection gives assurance that Jesus is the Son of God, so that His statements possess Divine authority.
But Jesus' resurrection from the dead was not merely to prove that He is the Son of God. Jesus arose from the dead to conquer death. God considers death to be an enemy to be destroyed (1st Corinthians 15:21-26). Death is not a part of the original created order. It was introduced into the world by sin. (Romans 5:12).
For theistic evolutionism to be true, there would have to be billions of years of death, disease, and suffering before humans even appeared on the earth.
If the sedimentary rock layers of the geological column were laid down slowly over 4.5 billion years, the fossils inside them would show this to be the case. Death would be a part of the original created order. And so it would be silly for God to view death as an enemy to be destroyed.
However, if the rock layers were laid down slowly, there would be no fossils in them. Those organic things would have decayed in open air, being reduced to dust before the sediment could cover them. This is especially obvious in the case of polystrate fossils.
Those layers were laid down after the Genesis fall. And they were laid down swiftly, by the flood that God sent to judge sin during Noah's lifetime. And truly, all scientific data can be best interpreted and understood within the framework of the Genesis creation/fall/flood scenario.
When Paul the apostle addressed a pagan audience at the Areopagus in Athens, he gave a message that centered on creation (Acts 17:24-30). Note the sweet affirmation that all nations are descended from one man (verse 26). So far, Paul's audience listened.
It's a rum thing because at the end of his speech he mentioned the resurrection of Jesus the Messiah. And it was at that part that some in his audience mocked him (verses 31 & 32). This is the opposite of what often happens in contemporary Christian apologetics.
Nowadays, it is common for people to believe in the resurrection and yet scoff at Genesis. It is as though Paul's generation viewed the head as the most important part, and saw no use for the heart. And the current generation views the heart as most important, and sees no use for the head.
Visit:
www.answersingenesis.org
www.icr.org
and http://creation.com/
The literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus the Messiah is the heart of Christian doctrine and apologia, and the Genesis creation/fall is the head. It hardly seems reasonable to believe the one and not the other.
And actually, the resurrection is a validation of the history recorded in Genesis. Jesus constantly made statements that validate both the Divine inspiration and the historicity of the Old Testament narrative. (For examples, see John 5:46, John 8:56, Luke 24:25-27, Mark 10:6, Matthew 5:18, Matthew 23:31-35, and Matthew 26:52-56). And His resurrection gives assurance that Jesus is the Son of God, so that His statements possess Divine authority.
But Jesus' resurrection from the dead was not merely to prove that He is the Son of God. Jesus arose from the dead to conquer death. God considers death to be an enemy to be destroyed (1st Corinthians 15:21-26). Death is not a part of the original created order. It was introduced into the world by sin. (Romans 5:12).
For theistic evolutionism to be true, there would have to be billions of years of death, disease, and suffering before humans even appeared on the earth.
If the sedimentary rock layers of the geological column were laid down slowly over 4.5 billion years, the fossils inside them would show this to be the case. Death would be a part of the original created order. And so it would be silly for God to view death as an enemy to be destroyed.
However, if the rock layers were laid down slowly, there would be no fossils in them. Those organic things would have decayed in open air, being reduced to dust before the sediment could cover them. This is especially obvious in the case of polystrate fossils.
Those layers were laid down after the Genesis fall. And they were laid down swiftly, by the flood that God sent to judge sin during Noah's lifetime. And truly, all scientific data can be best interpreted and understood within the framework of the Genesis creation/fall/flood scenario.
When Paul the apostle addressed a pagan audience at the Areopagus in Athens, he gave a message that centered on creation (Acts 17:24-30). Note the sweet affirmation that all nations are descended from one man (verse 26). So far, Paul's audience listened.
It's a rum thing because at the end of his speech he mentioned the resurrection of Jesus the Messiah. And it was at that part that some in his audience mocked him (verses 31 & 32). This is the opposite of what often happens in contemporary Christian apologetics.
Nowadays, it is common for people to believe in the resurrection and yet scoff at Genesis. It is as though Paul's generation viewed the head as the most important part, and saw no use for the heart. And the current generation views the heart as most important, and sees no use for the head.
Visit:
www.answersingenesis.org
www.icr.org
and http://creation.com/
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
C.S. Lewis, Evolutionism, And Christian Apologetics
In 1999, when I was sixteen, the writings of C.S. Lewis awoke my interest in Christian apologetics. I have found his works very helpful to growing in understanding of the Christian faith. To this day I appreciate Lewis for both his apologetical and fiction writings.
The interesting thing is that while I defend biblical creation, C.S. Lewis started out his Christian life as a theistic evolutionist. His early theological works reflect a belief in evolutionism.
At least at one point in Mere Christianity, Lewis made use of the evolutionary myth to try to illustrate what spiritual growth in Christ is like.
The Problem of Pain is a good read. The book was written to answer the question of why there is suffering in the world, and Lewis made a lot of very helpful points. But there is a weakness in the book.
If theistic evolutionism were true, that would mean that there was suffering, disease, and death in the world before humans existed and sinned. That is an irreconcilable contradiction to God's word, which says
"So, in the same way that sin entered the world through one person, and death came though sin, so death spread to all human being with the result that all sinned" (Romans 5:12 Common English Bible).
Lewis seems to have tried to get around this by mixing evolutionism and creation in an inconsistent kind of mash-up (see chapter five of The Problem of Pain). It seems he was already showing a growing disbelief in evolutionism.
It does make me glad that as Lewis grew in knowledge and understanding, his writings did begin to reflect a departure from theistic evolutionism. He began to show a leaning toward biblical creation.
He came to reject what he called "universal evolutionism"; apparently referring to macro-evolution as opposed to micro-evolution. Though for clarity, it is better to refer to micro-evolution as speciation within the biblical, created "kinds" (Genesis 1:11, 21, 24-25).
Lewis wrote, "You remember the old puzzle as to whether the owl came from the egg or the egg from the owl...universal evolutionism is a kind of optical illusion, produced by attending exclusively to the owl's emergence from the egg" (see link).
So Lewis eventually came to recognize the fallacy of evolutionism. And that is good because holding to biblical creation makes for stronger apologetics. Conversely, the old-earth-evolutionary compromise is a weakness in the arguments made by many of the current leading Christian apologists. There is simply no reason for it.
Evolutionism just does not mesh with the gospel. To defend the historicity of Matthew-Acts, but not that of Genesis is simply inconsistent. Believing in the events recorded in the Gospels and Act, there is simply no reason to disbelieve the events recorded in Genesis. In fact, the significance of the restorative works, atoning death, and redemptive resurrection of Jesus the Messiah is wholly predicated on Genesis.
In a debate with a Christian who accepts evolutionism, an atheist can mockingly say "You don't even believe the Bible, and you're trying to convince me!" The pastor at my church told of such an exchange that took place during a debate that he attended.
And evolutionism is not a scientific fact. Evolutionism is an interpretation of scientific data, just as creation is also an interpretation of scientific data. Not only is this so, but evolutionism, at its core, is a naturalistic, atheistic explanation of the universe, life, and origins.
www.answersingenesis.org
www.icr.org
http://creation.com/
The interesting thing is that while I defend biblical creation, C.S. Lewis started out his Christian life as a theistic evolutionist. His early theological works reflect a belief in evolutionism.
At least at one point in Mere Christianity, Lewis made use of the evolutionary myth to try to illustrate what spiritual growth in Christ is like.
The Problem of Pain is a good read. The book was written to answer the question of why there is suffering in the world, and Lewis made a lot of very helpful points. But there is a weakness in the book.
If theistic evolutionism were true, that would mean that there was suffering, disease, and death in the world before humans existed and sinned. That is an irreconcilable contradiction to God's word, which says
"So, in the same way that sin entered the world through one person, and death came though sin, so death spread to all human being with the result that all sinned" (Romans 5:12 Common English Bible).
Lewis seems to have tried to get around this by mixing evolutionism and creation in an inconsistent kind of mash-up (see chapter five of The Problem of Pain). It seems he was already showing a growing disbelief in evolutionism.
It does make me glad that as Lewis grew in knowledge and understanding, his writings did begin to reflect a departure from theistic evolutionism. He began to show a leaning toward biblical creation.
He came to reject what he called "universal evolutionism"; apparently referring to macro-evolution as opposed to micro-evolution. Though for clarity, it is better to refer to micro-evolution as speciation within the biblical, created "kinds" (Genesis 1:11, 21, 24-25).
Lewis wrote, "You remember the old puzzle as to whether the owl came from the egg or the egg from the owl...universal evolutionism is a kind of optical illusion, produced by attending exclusively to the owl's emergence from the egg" (see link).
So Lewis eventually came to recognize the fallacy of evolutionism. And that is good because holding to biblical creation makes for stronger apologetics. Conversely, the old-earth-evolutionary compromise is a weakness in the arguments made by many of the current leading Christian apologists. There is simply no reason for it.
Evolutionism just does not mesh with the gospel. To defend the historicity of Matthew-Acts, but not that of Genesis is simply inconsistent. Believing in the events recorded in the Gospels and Act, there is simply no reason to disbelieve the events recorded in Genesis. In fact, the significance of the restorative works, atoning death, and redemptive resurrection of Jesus the Messiah is wholly predicated on Genesis.
In a debate with a Christian who accepts evolutionism, an atheist can mockingly say "You don't even believe the Bible, and you're trying to convince me!" The pastor at my church told of such an exchange that took place during a debate that he attended.
And evolutionism is not a scientific fact. Evolutionism is an interpretation of scientific data, just as creation is also an interpretation of scientific data. Not only is this so, but evolutionism, at its core, is a naturalistic, atheistic explanation of the universe, life, and origins.
Recommended sites:
www.answersingenesis.org
www.icr.org
http://creation.com/
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Galileo vs. Darwin - the Psalms vs. Genesis
Introduction
Often times, supporters of evolutionism will call to our remembrance the trial of Galileo. To the evolutionist this is an illustration of the more contemporary debate between creation and evolutionism. But there are two key differences between these two controversies.
Galileo vs. Darwin
One key difference is that Galileo made use of observational science to show that the solar system is heliocentric instead of geocentric. His finding was not interpretive, it was based on observable facts.
In contrast, Charles Darwin's work was interpretive. His view of origins is based on deductive reasoning, not science.
Darwin wrote: "No other work of mine was begun in so deductive a spirit as this; for the whole theory was thought out on the west coast of South America, before I had seen a true coral reef."
Operational science is characterized by inductive observation, not deductive reasoning.
Operational science is characterized by inductive observation, not deductive reasoning.
Darwin also wrote "In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won't fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling."
Darwin never observed humans evolving from molecules. He imagined that scenario before hand. And than he, and others since him, interpreted the data within that preconceived framework.
The evolutionary worldview is not science. It is not an observed fact. It involves the use of patently naturalistic, atheistic assumptions about the past to interpret scientific data in the present.
The Psalms vs. Genesis
Another key difference is that those who controverted Galileo relied on a verse from the book of Psalms to argue their case.
Psalm 104:5 reads: "You who laid the foundations of the earth, so that it should not be moved forever."
However, the book of Psalms is admittedly a collection of poetic literature. And the cited verse is not meant to describe the earth as being fixed in space. It is meant to describe the earth as being a generally stable place for its inhabitants to live.
In contrast, we who controvert Darwin point to scientific data, interpreted within the framework of the book of Genesis.
Genesis is very clearly written to be understood as a literal historical narrative. It belongs to a completely different class of literature from the Psalms.
The genealogical passages in Genesis clearly place the named persons and related events in the context of human history. And the genealogies of Jesus, recorded in Matthew and Luke, further connect the history of Genesis to New Testament history.
So not only do we consider Genesis by itself, but also its relation to the rest of Scripture. This includes the gospel of salvation by grace, through faith in the death, and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah.
Genesis is very clearly written to be understood as a literal historical narrative. It belongs to a completely different class of literature from the Psalms.
The genealogical passages in Genesis clearly place the named persons and related events in the context of human history. And the genealogies of Jesus, recorded in Matthew and Luke, further connect the history of Genesis to New Testament history.
So not only do we consider Genesis by itself, but also its relation to the rest of Scripture. This includes the gospel of salvation by grace, through faith in the death, and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah.
To interpret the narrative of Genesis as non-literal is to completely disregard the context of the Scriptures as a whole. If Genesis were not a literal historical narrative, then the literal life, death, and resurrection Jesus the Messiah would have been completely unnecessary.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
The Wives of Cain and Seth
"Where did Cain and Seth find their wives?" This is a question that is sometimes asked concerning the book of Genesis. (Seth was born to Adam and Eve after Cain murdered Abel).
It seems distasteful to think that the sons of Adam and Eve were married to the daughters of Adam and Eve. Yet the Scriptures teach very clearly that all humanity is descended from one man and one woman - Adam and Eve (Acts 17:26, Genesis 3:20).
It seems distasteful to think that the sons of Adam and Eve were married to the daughters of Adam and Eve. Yet the Scriptures teach very clearly that all humanity is descended from one man and one woman - Adam and Eve (Acts 17:26, Genesis 3:20).
There is a reason why it was acceptable in those early times for the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve to marry. Contrary to evolutionary dogma, God created human beings in perfection. And in the earliest days of human history, the human gene pool was in a more pristine condition.
The reason that marriage between close relatives is unacceptable in our time is because the human genome has degenerated since the creation and fall of humanity. In our time, if close relatives marry and reproduce together, there is a greater risk of mutated genes gaining dominance in their offspring. These genetic mutations then result in physical and mental birth defects.
We live in a broken world in which genes are susceptible to corruption. According to evolutionary dogma it has always been that way. But in truth, God created a perfect world in the beginning. Genetic mutations were not as significant in the earliest centuries of human history. And there were zero mutations in the genome prior to the Fall.
Even as late as the time of Abraham there was an acceptance of marriage between close relatives. Sarah was Abraham's wife, but she was also his half sister (Genesis 20:12). And Isaac was married to Rebekah, his cousin. Jacob too, was married to his cousins, Leah and Rachel.
It should be noted, as an aside, that God merely tolerated polygamous unions like that of Jacob to Leah and Rachel in the past. "But from the beginning of creation" marriage was intended by God to be a lifelong, monogamous union between a man and a woman (see Jesus' words in Mark 10:5-9).
By the time of Christ, polygamy had become antiquated in Israel. And in this Messianic age, God "commands all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30-31).
It was not until Moses' time that marriage between close relatives was abolished by God. One of the six hundred and some laws of Moses is a ban on close relatives being married (Leviticus 18:6-18). So it is quite unacceptable in the eyes of God, due to the corruption of the human genome, for close relatives to marry anymore.
For these reasons, and because marriage between close relatives has become unnecessary due to the increase in the human population; it also has become socially unacceptable, weird, and gross for close relatives to marry.
For these reasons, and because marriage between close relatives has become unnecessary due to the increase in the human population; it also has become socially unacceptable, weird, and gross for close relatives to marry.
Saturday, April 20, 2013
God Omnipotent
There are some who scoff at the Christian faith, saying that it is impossible for an omnipotent God to exist. The one who makes this claim will typically ask some variation of the question, "Can God make a rock too heavy for Himself to move?"
When one answers "No", the mocker will say "Oh? Why not? He is all-powerful, isn't He?" And if one answers "Yes" the mocker says "Well than He's not omnipotent, if He creates a rock and then is not able to move it".
C.S. Lewis was very charitable to give an answer to this question. He said that "nonsense is still nonsense". He explained that God is all-powerful, but He is also logical. He is Logic and the source of logic. That is why He created a logical universe, and logical beings in His own image.
Nothing God does will defy logic. He can command nature, and nature obeys Him. But that does not defy logic any more than a teacher giving an assignment defies logic. He made the laws of nature and has the power to intervene in nature - to perform what we call miracles.
For example, Jesus commanded the wind and the waves to be still, and they obeyed His command (Luke 8:22-25). But that is not the same as if He commanded the wind and the waves to be still but not still, both at the same time.
Poets may talk of being still while not being still; but when they do, they actually mean something like "I'm physically still, but emotionally turbulent". That is a paradoxical statement, but not a contradictory statement.
The Bible has paradoxes in it. But paradoxes can be reasoned out logically, and reconciled. That is why they are paradoxes and not out-right contradictions. They only seem contradictory on the surface.
So here is the problem with the question "Can God make a rock too heavy for Himself to move?". The question suggests that in order to be omnipotent, God has to also be not omnipotent. And that is nonsense. God does not have to be not omnipotent in order to be omnipotent.
God is omnipotent. And because He is omnipotent, He can make a rock of any size and any weight; and is also able to move it.
When one answers "No", the mocker will say "Oh? Why not? He is all-powerful, isn't He?" And if one answers "Yes" the mocker says "Well than He's not omnipotent, if He creates a rock and then is not able to move it".
C.S. Lewis was very charitable to give an answer to this question. He said that "nonsense is still nonsense". He explained that God is all-powerful, but He is also logical. He is Logic and the source of logic. That is why He created a logical universe, and logical beings in His own image.
Nothing God does will defy logic. He can command nature, and nature obeys Him. But that does not defy logic any more than a teacher giving an assignment defies logic. He made the laws of nature and has the power to intervene in nature - to perform what we call miracles.
For example, Jesus commanded the wind and the waves to be still, and they obeyed His command (Luke 8:22-25). But that is not the same as if He commanded the wind and the waves to be still but not still, both at the same time.
Poets may talk of being still while not being still; but when they do, they actually mean something like "I'm physically still, but emotionally turbulent". That is a paradoxical statement, but not a contradictory statement.
The Bible has paradoxes in it. But paradoxes can be reasoned out logically, and reconciled. That is why they are paradoxes and not out-right contradictions. They only seem contradictory on the surface.
So here is the problem with the question "Can God make a rock too heavy for Himself to move?". The question suggests that in order to be omnipotent, God has to also be not omnipotent. And that is nonsense. God does not have to be not omnipotent in order to be omnipotent.
God is omnipotent. And because He is omnipotent, He can make a rock of any size and any weight; and is also able to move it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)