According to scripture, the sickness in creation, weeds, thorns, thistles, and presumably all other problems of nature, are indirectly caused by man's fall into sin. God created things good, but we messed up. We can be obedient to God, do our work, clean up, use our blessings wisely, and thus probably have a less harmful effect on the environment around us. But we look at the environment from human eyes... even weeds, plant diseases, or bad weather, or climate change is seen from the perspective of how it affects us. Can we determine whether protecting plants from disease is more caring than allowing fungi to attack the plants? Can we determine to what level it is okay for algae to grow in ponds to provide food for some organisms while denying oxygen to other organisms? Are humans and their food production part of the ecology, or antithetical to ecology?
Ultimately, God controls climate change, and whatever we do to influence it, should be done humbly, recognizing that our perspective is limited to our own perceived benefits.
I believe human beings do not have to apologize for their place in the global ecology. But human beings also should not leave a mess behind them.
As a side note, for those who believe in the evolutionary theory, they should not be too concerned about climate change, since change is what fuels evolution through adaptation, selection, survival of the fittest, etc.
Your seventh recommendation is to embrace both truth and love simultaneously... which is good. But to put it slightly different, without truth, there is no love. And for the christian, to tell the truth without love, is not christian.
To know that Christ died and suffered as a result of God's love, is to understand the depth and breadth of His love. But we often have a very shallow understanding of love. The epistles of John say much more about this.
Who loves more: the mother who says her son in prison for theft and vandalism is a "good boy", or the father who brings his son to the police because he has stolen a car, and trafficked in drugs? God's standards indicate that His love is not a nicey, nicey smiley feeling, but a steadfast faithfulness to his promises and demands. His love for the repentant sinner comes with the expectation of repentance and change. Our love for each other is tied to God's love for us. This is not an unconditional love, but it is a forgiving love. " 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin... 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." "2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. 3 In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, 4 for everyone born of God overcomes the world."
"II John 1: 5 And now, dear lady, I am not writing you a new command but one we have had from the beginning. I ask that we love one another. 6 And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands."
God's love was shown in the Ten commandments (and some other commands) he gave, as well as in the promise of the Messiah. The commandments were the way people were to demonstrate love to each other. Our failures were covered by Messiah's payment. Our desire to follow these commands demonstrates our love for God and each other. Our lack of desire to follow these commands indicates our lack of desire to love one another. Let us walk in the light, and confess our sins, and be purified from unrighteousness, and have fellowship with one another.
You are to be commended for using the latest technology for your energy needs. Much of this technology is also presently being evaluated for use in large livestock barns and working shops on farms. I also had heard that the LED lights from China were almost one third the cost, and seemed to be as good. They needed to be direct ordered; I believe PayPal works for that.
Some churches start each service with the doxology. and why not? Give God the praise at the beginning and at the end, and in between! Let the angels rejoice with the one sinner who repents! Let Jesus smile on his holy children! Let the words of our mouth praise his Name!
In my experience, both reformed and baptists have said that God is sovereign. Both give God the credit for salvation in bringing it and providing it. Both give God the credit for connecting it, one says by determination, the other says by grace and gift of faith. It gets very close to semantics after that. It is in limiting God's choices and God's power, that they sometimes differ. One says God cannot be at the whim of man's choosing, so God determines. The other says that God cannot determine or force someone to love him, so man's voluntary choice is necessary. I say that God is all powerful so He can force someone to love him, if He wants. I also say that if God is all powerful, can He not allow people to make choices, if He wants? In any case, we have to live our lives, not God's life. God calls us to trust and obey, not to debate about whether we have a choice or not.
Edwin, thanks for the apology. So you admit lack of expertise in science… which is good, because even though I work in science, I do not claim to be an expert in all of these things. However, knowledge is constantly changing or enlarging and being refined. What you heard from a biologist about chimpanzees being 97% the same genetically as humans is dramatically wrong, for example. In 1975, they said that the dna sequence that could be compared was 99% identical. However, taking insertions and deletions into account, they share 96% of the sequence. In later work, the genomes were found to be 87% similar (Britten). However, what is not mentioned is that 35 million base pairs differ between the shared portions. In addition, the chimp genome actual size is about 8% larger than the human genome. After taking into account genome size, insertions, deletions, the starting point of 25% random similarity (because of only 4 bases), orthologous proteins, and structural differences, the conclusion is that the genomes are only about 70% similar.
As far as progress through history, I have no arguments that a certain progression takes place. The examples you cite in the old testament, are obviously God working with his people. The events are foretold and they come to pass (Jeremiah, Ezra, Nehemiah). God gave the Torah; it was not somehow randomly and accidentally arrived at. God sent Jesus; He was not a result of accidental mutations, selections and adaptations. So there is a big difference when God actively works with his people and his people respond in obedience, compared to some blind, accidental, random, and survivalist evolutionary progression.
There is no doubt, and I totally agree, that the gospel has a magnificent effect on social, governmental and educational activities in society. I just watched “Amish Grace” yesterday for example which demonstrates this clearly. But this is not a biological evolution. This is a spiritual renewal, a being born again, a dedication to God, and a fulfillment of God’s promise. It is wrong to conflate this with evolution in which God plays no visible role, or in which God cannot intervene.
Yes it is indeed God’s world, but the evolutionists from Darwin to Dawkins, would like to change that.
Edwin, I agree God is in control. Always, everywhere. Evolutionary theory does not agree with this, however. It assumes God does not exist. But the real point is whether God used evolutionary processes to create new species or kinds, or not. The point is not whether God is in control, since we agree on that.
If God used evolution to create, then God used death and destruction long before man came about, and therefore man's sin did not lead to death, nor was any curse on earth a result of man's sin, and nor did God punish mankind for its rebellion the way Genesis indicates. Cain's murder of Abel was a natural result of evolutionary processes rather than a sin meriting God's or man's disapproval. Therefore both the reality and the symbolism of this story is entirely lost. You have not dealt with these points.
I don't think I am emphasizing the negative really. Evolution seems to me to emphasize the negative... the accidental nature of progress, the huge amount of death and destruction required for change to happen, the lack of even attributing value to what happens, ie. the life of an ant, blade of grass, or amoeba is as valuable as the life of a man, in the evolutionary theory. That seems negative to me.
The age of the universe... why is this positive? Why are continental shifts, ice ages, etc., positive? Why is the similarity between humans and primates positive? Does it matter?
Why is it wrong to challenge the prevailing thoughts of the time? Why do you think this is negative, rather than positive? Was Darwin being negative in his time, by challenging the creation story as found in Genesis?
Theistic evolution is a theory trying to meld a theory that ignores God, with a faith in God as omnipotent. This is a tough challenge, but even if we can do it theoretically, it really needs to be verified scientifically.
So, for me, regardless of how I might want to interpret Genesis 1-3, the issue becomes one of looking at nature, and seeing whether there is another way to interpret the evidence of fossils, rock layers, genetics, and natural selection. These nine PhD scientists, and many others, are finding that there is another way to interpret them, and that in fact, the evidence does not consistently fit the theory of evolution. In fact, there are so many problems that evolution becomes an unworkable hypothesis. It doesn't even matter if a six day creation fits the evidence, since we can more and more clearly see that the general theory of evolution does not fit the evidence.
Some real questions: (Positive or negative)
Is it realistic to think that the Grand Canyon was created slowly over time, or quickly by drainage of a huge flooded basin?
Were evolutionary biologists like Haeckel mistaken or lying about the similarity of animal and human foetuses?
Were evolutionary paleontologists mistaken or lying about the categorization of human and "subhuman" fossil species?
If K_AR cannot reasonably accurately give the age of modern volcanic rock, can we still assume that they have made the right assumptions regarding measurements of "older" rock?
If dinosaurs are 65 million years old, can they still have stretchable organic tissue found in their bone fossils?
If layers of sediment represent millions of years of age, is it possible to have polystrate fossils imbedded thru several of these layers?
If mammal fossils or fish fossils are not found in certain rock layers, does that mean they did not exist when these layers were laid down?
These are just some starter questions; there are many more.
I promised to add a last post about the last chapter in "Evolution's Achilles Heels", Edited by Robert Carter, PhD, and published by Creation Book Publishers, of Powder Springs, Georgia, USA. The first seven chapters emphasize what they call fatal arrows in the achilles heel of the evolution theory. This last chapter deals with human response in the context of this theory, in terms of ethics and morality. So, some quotes below.
William Provine said, " ... my views on modern evolutionary biology ... tells us loud and clear, there are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. No life after death... no foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning for life, and no free will for humans, either."
Richard Dawkins: "I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I'm a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics."
"If evolution is true, reasoning is just an epiphenomenon of the brain and the results of the laws of chemistry and random processes."
CS Lewis: If evolution is true and accidental, "... then all our thought processes are mere accidents - the accidental by product of the movement of atoms. ... why should we believe them to be true?"
Dr. Susan Blackmore: "In the end nothing matters. If you really think about evolution and why we human beings are here, you have to come to the conclusion that we are here for absolutely no reason at all."
Jeffrey Dahmer: "I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime."
Matthew Piercy: "Evolution reduces humans to the level of animals, making it just as acceptable to put down a human as put down a dog."
Darwin: "At some future period...the civilized races will almost certainly exterminate and replace, the savage races through the world."
In both world war 1 and 2, Germans (and others) espoused various types of eugenics. A Nazi propoganda film of 1937: "In the last few decades, mankind has sinned frightfully aganist the law of natural selection. We haven't just maintained life unworthy of life, we have even allowed it to multiply!"
Stalin read Darwin's "Origin of Species" when he was thirteen. This book convinced him that God did not exist.
Mao Zedung's two favorite books were by Darwin and Huxley.
The columbine killers were wearing teashirts with "natural selection" printed on the front.
The Finland killer of seven students and teacher had revealed before his crime that "life is just a coincidence... result of long process of evolution and many several factors... ...It is time to put natural selection and survival of the fittest back on track. ...I have evolved higher."
So are all these quotes just accidental random events that mean nothing? or do they indicate something real and true?
Great ideas, Christy! When I was young, our family used to sing songs from the hymn book for a half hour or so after the supper meal on Sunday night. Everyone got to pick one or two favorites, and we started to learn harmony in acapella. Now with our own family we usually follow the practice of singing a couple songs or more after every supper meal, some acapella, and some with piano accompaniment. Guests get to pick a favorite and they usually enjoy it as well. We do this after reading a piece of scripture. The songs include hymns, praise songs, spirituals, or whatever we like that honors God.
Roger, wow... lots of words. I do that too sometimes. You might enjoy some of George MacDonald's books; he influenced CS Lewis quite a bit, and hints at some of what you say in one or two of his fiction novels. He suggests thru one of his characters that when someone is interested in doing good, he is halfway to getting to know God.
Anyway, I wonder if you missed my comment on what Jesus said to the woman who annointed him with oil. He said, "Your faith has saved you." He did not say your good work has saved you. So Jesus is basically saying that faith is evident thu action. It's true he did commend the good samaritan in the parable, by saying to those who claimed to want to serve God should do likewise. However, it seems to be that obedience must be done in faith and trust, not in the works themselves, but in the creator and redeemer. If our good works honor ourselves, they become useless to save. If they honor God, they become evidence of our faith in God ( not faith in our works). Again, remember when Jesus said there will be those who claim God's favor because of their actions, their good works, and God will say, "I never knew you". The reason is that those works were done to make self better, and perhaps proud, and were self-centered, rather than God-centered. Jesus said the first will be last and the last will be first, because of this, or in connection with this thought, I believe.
Also, the apostle Paul also balances faith and works in this way: "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! 16 Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness." Rom 6.
So works without faith are not what God desires. That is not real obedience. Faith without works is dead, and is also not real obedience, and is not pleasing to God. Real faith is inseparable from the obedience and the works that accompany it.
Each age and situation has its own temptations. The temptation to try to earn God's favor simply thru laws and rules, especially by continually making even more rules, is always there. The "teachers of the law" had this, and it was to them that Jesus said they must be obedient by serving and loving neighbors, the less fortunate and less powerful, not just by being "good" religious people. And what Jesus emphasized in fact, was their inability to keep the real law of God. He showed this by mentioning that they used their gifts to church to neglect their parents, and by mentioning that not just murder but hatred, and not just adultery but lust was already breaking the law.
Loving their neighbors and serving the less fortunate would be evidence of their faith in God, rather than faith in themselves and in their own ability to keep the law.
Paul on the other hand was writing to a variety, both those who emphasized God's grace, and those who tried to earn God's grace by works, and those who took advantage of God's grace thru disobedience. Grace through faith, not works. But the disobedient would not inherit. He wanted to strike the right balance, and make the balance clear. James wanted to do the same thing. John also, when he says, those who love God can no longer keep on sinning.
I believe God said, be ye holy as I am holy? Therefore, with minds that are alert and fully sober, set your hope on the grace to be brought to you when Jesus Christ is revealed at his coming. 14 As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. 15 But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; 16 for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.”[a] I Peter 1.
When you talk about grading good works, how do you deal with it? Some say, I hope my good works outweigh my bad. I've never murdered anyone. Is a B+ a pass, while a B- is a fail? How many good works are needed?
Now to comment on your reference to Arminianism. You refer to the universalism, but usually arminianism is referred to in the ability of someone to reject the gospel call. With reference to the universalistic aspect, I heard a preacher in a community church once preach that Jesus came to save everyone, that God loves everyone. Well, that is scriptural, isn't it... John 3:16: God so loved the world, that he gave his son, that whoever believes might be saved. But I said to the preacher (not a CRC), that his sermon might be seen to lack balance, because I knew he was not a universalist. And even John 3:17 says that those who do not believe are condemned already. He agreed, and at his bible study that week he pointed this out. We agreed that Jesus death was sufficient for everyone, but not everyone would benefit. So at a practical level, we must be careful not to overjudge, or to push people into a position not of their own making.
I have heard it said by a reformed that because salvation is a free gift, we have to do nothing to be saved. God does it all. What about believing, I asked. Do we have to believe? The reply was that our believing did not save us, but Jesus saved us thru his work, his choice, his selection. Our belief is because of our salvation, and does not cause it. Well that seems to be true, but it is not balanced, because even scripture clearly says we must believe and have faith to be saved. Gal 2:16, Rom. 10:9-10. This is an example of over- doctrinalizing to the point of contradicting certain statements of scripture. If we are not allowed to say certain things even though scripture does say them, then our doctrines have become the sort of extra rules that Jesus did not approve of from the pharisees and sadducees.
We dont' want to let our semantics kill us do we? But I will say that if someone says he believes on God in spite of God, rather than because of God's spirit working in him, then we know that he is a true hyper-arminianist, who is like the man who enters the wedding feast but refuses to put on the robe of righteousness, because he thinks he is righteous enough already on his own.
Yes, there will always be differences between believers. Some differences will be marginal or traditional, or semantic. Other differences will be serious. We need to discern the difference.
As far as the science question you raise, could someone show evidence why a six day creation would fit the evidence... well, I don't think its perfect proof, but this book I am reading written by 9 PhDs in science attempts to do that. If evolution is discredited, then evolution cannot discredit the possibility of a six day creation... so that is a starting point. But also the actual layering of sediment, formation of valleys, mountains, volcanoes, ice, should fit into the scenario of this six day creation and a catastrophic world wide flood. It may be that we simply don't fully understand the implications of such a flood, but I think we are getting closer to it. I personally have a problem with understanding how light from distant galaxies can travel and fit within that time period, unless it was created in process just like the stars, or the universe expanded very swiftly in the beginning, or light, being created on the first day made the first day somewhat timeless. But given the evidence or lack of it, I have much bigger problems with seeing how evolution could have happened and left no evidence.
Scientists also have their paradigms, and that is why the nine PhD scientists who wrote the book "Evolution's Achilles Heels" would disagree with Richard Dawkins.
Posted in: Sovereignty Matters
According to scripture, the sickness in creation, weeds, thorns, thistles, and presumably all other problems of nature, are indirectly caused by man's fall into sin. God created things good, but we messed up. We can be obedient to God, do our work, clean up, use our blessings wisely, and thus probably have a less harmful effect on the environment around us. But we look at the environment from human eyes... even weeds, plant diseases, or bad weather, or climate change is seen from the perspective of how it affects us. Can we determine whether protecting plants from disease is more caring than allowing fungi to attack the plants? Can we determine to what level it is okay for algae to grow in ponds to provide food for some organisms while denying oxygen to other organisms? Are humans and their food production part of the ecology, or antithetical to ecology?
Ultimately, God controls climate change, and whatever we do to influence it, should be done humbly, recognizing that our perspective is limited to our own perceived benefits.
I believe human beings do not have to apologize for their place in the global ecology. But human beings also should not leave a mess behind them.
As a side note, for those who believe in the evolutionary theory, they should not be too concerned about climate change, since change is what fuels evolution through adaptation, selection, survival of the fittest, etc.
Posted in: Jihad as Studied and Taught in USA Mosques
Your seventh recommendation is to embrace both truth and love simultaneously... which is good. But to put it slightly different, without truth, there is no love. And for the christian, to tell the truth without love, is not christian.
Posted in: God Is Love
To know that Christ died and suffered as a result of God's love, is to understand the depth and breadth of His love. But we often have a very shallow understanding of love. The epistles of John say much more about this.
Who loves more: the mother who says her son in prison for theft and vandalism is a "good boy", or the father who brings his son to the police because he has stolen a car, and trafficked in drugs? God's standards indicate that His love is not a nicey, nicey smiley feeling, but a steadfast faithfulness to his promises and demands. His love for the repentant sinner comes with the expectation of repentance and change. Our love for each other is tied to God's love for us. This is not an unconditional love, but it is a forgiving love. " 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin... 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." "2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. 3 In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, 4 for everyone born of God overcomes the world."
"II John 1: 5 And now, dear lady, I am not writing you a new command but one we have had from the beginning. I ask that we love one another. 6 And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands."
God's love was shown in the Ten commandments (and some other commands) he gave, as well as in the promise of the Messiah. The commandments were the way people were to demonstrate love to each other. Our failures were covered by Messiah's payment. Our desire to follow these commands demonstrates our love for God and each other. Our lack of desire to follow these commands indicates our lack of desire to love one another. Let us walk in the light, and confess our sins, and be purified from unrighteousness, and have fellowship with one another.
Posted in: Creation Care at Meadowlands Fellowship CRC (Ancaster, ON)
You are to be commended for using the latest technology for your energy needs. Much of this technology is also presently being evaluated for use in large livestock barns and working shops on farms. I also had heard that the LED lights from China were almost one third the cost, and seemed to be as good. They needed to be direct ordered; I believe PayPal works for that.
Posted in: What's Happened to the Doxology?
Some churches start each service with the doxology. and why not? Give God the praise at the beginning and at the end, and in between! Let the angels rejoice with the one sinner who repents! Let Jesus smile on his holy children! Let the words of our mouth praise his Name!
Posted in: My Banner Article
In my experience, both reformed and baptists have said that God is sovereign. Both give God the credit for salvation in bringing it and providing it. Both give God the credit for connecting it, one says by determination, the other says by grace and gift of faith. It gets very close to semantics after that. It is in limiting God's choices and God's power, that they sometimes differ. One says God cannot be at the whim of man's choosing, so God determines. The other says that God cannot determine or force someone to love him, so man's voluntary choice is necessary. I say that God is all powerful so He can force someone to love him, if He wants. I also say that if God is all powerful, can He not allow people to make choices, if He wants? In any case, we have to live our lives, not God's life. God calls us to trust and obey, not to debate about whether we have a choice or not.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Edwin, thanks for the apology. So you admit lack of expertise in science… which is good, because even though I work in science, I do not claim to be an expert in all of these things. However, knowledge is constantly changing or enlarging and being refined. What you heard from a biologist about chimpanzees being 97% the same genetically as humans is dramatically wrong, for example. In 1975, they said that the dna sequence that could be compared was 99% identical. However, taking insertions and deletions into account, they share 96% of the sequence. In later work, the genomes were found to be 87% similar (Britten). However, what is not mentioned is that 35 million base pairs differ between the shared portions. In addition, the chimp genome actual size is about 8% larger than the human genome. After taking into account genome size, insertions, deletions, the starting point of 25% random similarity (because of only 4 bases), orthologous proteins, and structural differences, the conclusion is that the genomes are only about 70% similar.
As far as progress through history, I have no arguments that a certain progression takes place. The examples you cite in the old testament, are obviously God working with his people. The events are foretold and they come to pass (Jeremiah, Ezra, Nehemiah). God gave the Torah; it was not somehow randomly and accidentally arrived at. God sent Jesus; He was not a result of accidental mutations, selections and adaptations. So there is a big difference when God actively works with his people and his people respond in obedience, compared to some blind, accidental, random, and survivalist evolutionary progression.
There is no doubt, and I totally agree, that the gospel has a magnificent effect on social, governmental and educational activities in society. I just watched “Amish Grace” yesterday for example which demonstrates this clearly. But this is not a biological evolution. This is a spiritual renewal, a being born again, a dedication to God, and a fulfillment of God’s promise. It is wrong to conflate this with evolution in which God plays no visible role, or in which God cannot intervene.
Yes it is indeed God’s world, but the evolutionists from Darwin to Dawkins, would like to change that.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Edwin, I agree God is in control. Always, everywhere. Evolutionary theory does not agree with this, however. It assumes God does not exist. But the real point is whether God used evolutionary processes to create new species or kinds, or not. The point is not whether God is in control, since we agree on that.
If God used evolution to create, then God used death and destruction long before man came about, and therefore man's sin did not lead to death, nor was any curse on earth a result of man's sin, and nor did God punish mankind for its rebellion the way Genesis indicates. Cain's murder of Abel was a natural result of evolutionary processes rather than a sin meriting God's or man's disapproval. Therefore both the reality and the symbolism of this story is entirely lost. You have not dealt with these points.
I don't think I am emphasizing the negative really. Evolution seems to me to emphasize the negative... the accidental nature of progress, the huge amount of death and destruction required for change to happen, the lack of even attributing value to what happens, ie. the life of an ant, blade of grass, or amoeba is as valuable as the life of a man, in the evolutionary theory. That seems negative to me.
The age of the universe... why is this positive? Why are continental shifts, ice ages, etc., positive? Why is the similarity between humans and primates positive? Does it matter?
Why is it wrong to challenge the prevailing thoughts of the time? Why do you think this is negative, rather than positive? Was Darwin being negative in his time, by challenging the creation story as found in Genesis?
Theistic evolution is a theory trying to meld a theory that ignores God, with a faith in God as omnipotent. This is a tough challenge, but even if we can do it theoretically, it really needs to be verified scientifically.
So, for me, regardless of how I might want to interpret Genesis 1-3, the issue becomes one of looking at nature, and seeing whether there is another way to interpret the evidence of fossils, rock layers, genetics, and natural selection. These nine PhD scientists, and many others, are finding that there is another way to interpret them, and that in fact, the evidence does not consistently fit the theory of evolution. In fact, there are so many problems that evolution becomes an unworkable hypothesis. It doesn't even matter if a six day creation fits the evidence, since we can more and more clearly see that the general theory of evolution does not fit the evidence.
Some real questions: (Positive or negative)
Is it realistic to think that the Grand Canyon was created slowly over time, or quickly by drainage of a huge flooded basin?
Were evolutionary biologists like Haeckel mistaken or lying about the similarity of animal and human foetuses?
Were evolutionary paleontologists mistaken or lying about the categorization of human and "subhuman" fossil species?
If K_AR cannot reasonably accurately give the age of modern volcanic rock, can we still assume that they have made the right assumptions regarding measurements of "older" rock?
If dinosaurs are 65 million years old, can they still have stretchable organic tissue found in their bone fossils?
If layers of sediment represent millions of years of age, is it possible to have polystrate fossils imbedded thru several of these layers?
If mammal fossils or fish fossils are not found in certain rock layers, does that mean they did not exist when these layers were laid down?
These are just some starter questions; there are many more.
Posted in: My Banner Article
I promised to add a last post about the last chapter in "Evolution's Achilles Heels", Edited by Robert Carter, PhD, and published by Creation Book Publishers, of Powder Springs, Georgia, USA. The first seven chapters emphasize what they call fatal arrows in the achilles heel of the evolution theory. This last chapter deals with human response in the context of this theory, in terms of ethics and morality. So, some quotes below.
William Provine said, " ... my views on modern evolutionary biology ... tells us loud and clear, there are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. No life after death... no foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning for life, and no free will for humans, either."
Richard Dawkins: "I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I'm a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics."
"If evolution is true, reasoning is just an epiphenomenon of the brain and the results of the laws of chemistry and random processes."
CS Lewis: If evolution is true and accidental, "... then all our thought processes are mere accidents - the accidental by product of the movement of atoms. ... why should we believe them to be true?"
Dr. Susan Blackmore: "In the end nothing matters. If you really think about evolution and why we human beings are here, you have to come to the conclusion that we are here for absolutely no reason at all."
Jeffrey Dahmer: "I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime."
Matthew Piercy: "Evolution reduces humans to the level of animals, making it just as acceptable to put down a human as put down a dog."
Darwin: "At some future period...the civilized races will almost certainly exterminate and replace, the savage races through the world."
In both world war 1 and 2, Germans (and others) espoused various types of eugenics. A Nazi propoganda film of 1937: "In the last few decades, mankind has sinned frightfully aganist the law of natural selection. We haven't just maintained life unworthy of life, we have even allowed it to multiply!"
Stalin read Darwin's "Origin of Species" when he was thirteen. This book convinced him that God did not exist.
Mao Zedung's two favorite books were by Darwin and Huxley.
The columbine killers were wearing teashirts with "natural selection" printed on the front.
The Finland killer of seven students and teacher had revealed before his crime that "life is just a coincidence... result of long process of evolution and many several factors... ...It is time to put natural selection and survival of the fittest back on track. ...I have evolved higher."
So are all these quotes just accidental random events that mean nothing? or do they indicate something real and true?
Posted in: 4 Ways to Worship God With Songs Every Day
Great ideas, Christy! When I was young, our family used to sing songs from the hymn book for a half hour or so after the supper meal on Sunday night. Everyone got to pick one or two favorites, and we started to learn harmony in acapella. Now with our own family we usually follow the practice of singing a couple songs or more after every supper meal, some acapella, and some with piano accompaniment. Guests get to pick a favorite and they usually enjoy it as well. We do this after reading a piece of scripture. The songs include hymns, praise songs, spirituals, or whatever we like that honors God.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Roger, wow... lots of words. I do that too sometimes. You might enjoy some of George MacDonald's books; he influenced CS Lewis quite a bit, and hints at some of what you say in one or two of his fiction novels. He suggests thru one of his characters that when someone is interested in doing good, he is halfway to getting to know God.
Anyway, I wonder if you missed my comment on what Jesus said to the woman who annointed him with oil. He said, "Your faith has saved you." He did not say your good work has saved you. So Jesus is basically saying that faith is evident thu action. It's true he did commend the good samaritan in the parable, by saying to those who claimed to want to serve God should do likewise. However, it seems to be that obedience must be done in faith and trust, not in the works themselves, but in the creator and redeemer. If our good works honor ourselves, they become useless to save. If they honor God, they become evidence of our faith in God ( not faith in our works). Again, remember when Jesus said there will be those who claim God's favor because of their actions, their good works, and God will say, "I never knew you". The reason is that those works were done to make self better, and perhaps proud, and were self-centered, rather than God-centered. Jesus said the first will be last and the last will be first, because of this, or in connection with this thought, I believe.
Also, the apostle Paul also balances faith and works in this way: "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! 16 Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness." Rom 6.
So works without faith are not what God desires. That is not real obedience. Faith without works is dead, and is also not real obedience, and is not pleasing to God. Real faith is inseparable from the obedience and the works that accompany it.
Each age and situation has its own temptations. The temptation to try to earn God's favor simply thru laws and rules, especially by continually making even more rules, is always there. The "teachers of the law" had this, and it was to them that Jesus said they must be obedient by serving and loving neighbors, the less fortunate and less powerful, not just by being "good" religious people. And what Jesus emphasized in fact, was their inability to keep the real law of God. He showed this by mentioning that they used their gifts to church to neglect their parents, and by mentioning that not just murder but hatred, and not just adultery but lust was already breaking the law.
Loving their neighbors and serving the less fortunate would be evidence of their faith in God, rather than faith in themselves and in their own ability to keep the law.
Paul on the other hand was writing to a variety, both those who emphasized God's grace, and those who tried to earn God's grace by works, and those who took advantage of God's grace thru disobedience. Grace through faith, not works. But the disobedient would not inherit. He wanted to strike the right balance, and make the balance clear. James wanted to do the same thing. John also, when he says, those who love God can no longer keep on sinning.
I believe God said, be ye holy as I am holy? Therefore, with minds that are alert and fully sober, set your hope on the grace to be brought to you when Jesus Christ is revealed at his coming. 14 As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. 15 But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; 16 for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.”[a] I Peter 1.
When you talk about grading good works, how do you deal with it? Some say, I hope my good works outweigh my bad. I've never murdered anyone. Is a B+ a pass, while a B- is a fail? How many good works are needed?
Now to comment on your reference to Arminianism. You refer to the universalism, but usually arminianism is referred to in the ability of someone to reject the gospel call. With reference to the universalistic aspect, I heard a preacher in a community church once preach that Jesus came to save everyone, that God loves everyone. Well, that is scriptural, isn't it... John 3:16: God so loved the world, that he gave his son, that whoever believes might be saved. But I said to the preacher (not a CRC), that his sermon might be seen to lack balance, because I knew he was not a universalist. And even John 3:17 says that those who do not believe are condemned already. He agreed, and at his bible study that week he pointed this out. We agreed that Jesus death was sufficient for everyone, but not everyone would benefit. So at a practical level, we must be careful not to overjudge, or to push people into a position not of their own making.
I have heard it said by a reformed that because salvation is a free gift, we have to do nothing to be saved. God does it all. What about believing, I asked. Do we have to believe? The reply was that our believing did not save us, but Jesus saved us thru his work, his choice, his selection. Our belief is because of our salvation, and does not cause it. Well that seems to be true, but it is not balanced, because even scripture clearly says we must believe and have faith to be saved. Gal 2:16, Rom. 10:9-10. This is an example of over- doctrinalizing to the point of contradicting certain statements of scripture. If we are not allowed to say certain things even though scripture does say them, then our doctrines have become the sort of extra rules that Jesus did not approve of from the pharisees and sadducees.
We dont' want to let our semantics kill us do we? But I will say that if someone says he believes on God in spite of God, rather than because of God's spirit working in him, then we know that he is a true hyper-arminianist, who is like the man who enters the wedding feast but refuses to put on the robe of righteousness, because he thinks he is righteous enough already on his own.
Have a good week.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Yes, there will always be differences between believers. Some differences will be marginal or traditional, or semantic. Other differences will be serious. We need to discern the difference.
As far as the science question you raise, could someone show evidence why a six day creation would fit the evidence... well, I don't think its perfect proof, but this book I am reading written by 9 PhDs in science attempts to do that. If evolution is discredited, then evolution cannot discredit the possibility of a six day creation... so that is a starting point. But also the actual layering of sediment, formation of valleys, mountains, volcanoes, ice, should fit into the scenario of this six day creation and a catastrophic world wide flood. It may be that we simply don't fully understand the implications of such a flood, but I think we are getting closer to it. I personally have a problem with understanding how light from distant galaxies can travel and fit within that time period, unless it was created in process just like the stars, or the universe expanded very swiftly in the beginning, or light, being created on the first day made the first day somewhat timeless. But given the evidence or lack of it, I have much bigger problems with seeing how evolution could have happened and left no evidence.
Scientists also have their paradigms, and that is why the nine PhD scientists who wrote the book "Evolution's Achilles Heels" would disagree with Richard Dawkins.