Category Archives: Uncategorized
I ran across an interesting article today and found myself nodding because I’ve heard several of the things she mentions myself. I am in complete agreement with her, so I thought it was time to write my first blog on why my wife and I have decided to adopt.
When we first got married over fourteen years ago, we decided not to have children. “They’re a drain,” we said. “They rob people of their lives,” we mumbled. In our view there was nothing sadder than a parent who had all the potential in the world but was reduced to living vicariously through his or her child. We always noticed how parents were never free to just go and do things.
So we made the conscious decision to not have kids and just enjoy our lives for many reasons. At the time I wanted to open my own business and Jamie wanted to be a professor and we knew we couldn’t do those things while having children. A few years into our marriage my wife was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis which put a ‘cease and desist order’ on any ambition, no matter how minute it may have been, to have children. But we never appreciated the other aspects of parenthood, only the detractors. Whenever I was out in public I would notice children running around everywhere – uncontrolled, screaming, pitching fits, and oblivious to the world around them. How can you punish children in this day and age for being unruly when our society has grown to shun the very idea of discipline? So even if you have kids you can’t punish them to keep them in line. They go to school and pick up all sorts of horrific behaviors, attitudes, and teachings. We thought even trying to raise a child was futile. The world was messed up enough and wasn’t showing any signs of getting any better. How could we legitimize bringing a new life into this this world in its current state? Time would tell.
After some years of being DINKs (double income, no kids) we’ve finally come around to the idea that kids aren’t all that bad. As a matter of fact they are quite the opposite of how we initially perceived them. But this isn’t a product of getting older and feeling lonely or empty as some might expect; it’s a product of growth in Christ.
A while back my wife, Jamie, authored an article titled “Pure and Undefiled Religion.” Do you see that beautiful family on the page? They are friends of ours and occupy a very special place in our hearts. Those two little girls have forever changed my mentality about children. They are the sweetest, most adorable duo and were too much for my hardened Grinch heart to ignore.
When we would interact with the mother, the children, at first, would be a side effect . Over time my impression changed. Now, whenever I see them, my heart is lightened with gladness. They always make me smile and give the best, most sincere hugs in the world. They are an absolute joy to be around.
I don’t know exactly how my heart changed or why other than God’s providence. He knew the hardened spot needed to be cracked up so I could deal with what He had in store for us. Call it another step in the process of sanctification.
As my wife notes in her piece, “we are charged with their care no fewer than 25 times in the Bible.” 25 times? That must mean it is very important. This piece involved months of Jamie’s work life and seeped into mine as well as God revealed His perfect plan to us: adopt. After all, the spirit of salvation is that of adoption! We are adopted into the family of God by faith through the blood of Christ and nothing else. God has prepared us adequately for the adventure He has planned. As believers we are called to give and not just to give money, but give of our selves. I cannot think of a better way to serve God than to care for a few of the more than 2.1 million orphans in this world.
To that end we’ve decided to open our home to the local foster care system through Bethany Christian Services. Their classes have been very enlightening and we have learned a great deal through them. Though I’m sure we’ll learn tons more through the process of raising the children God has already planned to be in our home.
Additionally Nye showed his philosophical inconsistency by stating God was not knowable (agnosticism) and that he was okay with that, but rejected that same philosophy when it came to pinpointing the age of the earth and stars. This is inconsistent – why is it okay to be agnostic in one and not the other? Nye went further and chided Ham for accepting God’s word about the age of the earth (calling Ham’s viewpoint “unsettling”), seeing that as an agnostic or ignorant viewpoint. It is never ignorant to take God at His word.
Bill Nye made some comments concerning evolutionthat have since gone viral.
There are a lot of questionable claims in Nye’s comments. He believes that the “denial of evolution” is a “world view” that not only will “harm young people” but “hamper scientific progress.”
The first problem is that Nye never defines for us what he means by “evolution.” He does note that, “Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology,” but again, he does not define what this idea is. He also lists a string of entities he apparently thinks evolution includes, pointing out that, “Here are these ancient dinosaur bones or fossils, here is radioactivity, here are distant stars.” Virtually no one rejects the existence of dinosaur bones or fossils, radioactivity, or distant stars. Perhaps Nye means to say that the “idea of deep time” or “billions of years” is the
View original post 1,259 more words
Recently I’ve had what I will refer to as a spiritual butt whooping. It sounds funny, but I certainly mean it in all seriousness. I’ve had a problem for a long time about which I would rather not divulge the details, but the experience is something that may prove helpful for someone else out there.
God has been steadily bringing me under conviction for a while, but the past several days have been more so than usual. It all finally came to a head and I realized I am guilty. Guilty of dishonoring the spirit which I was gifted. Guilty of all sorts of depravity. Guilty of repeating the same sins from which I had been freed long ago. I have fed the flesh instead of the spirit and while, thankfully, it hasn’t knowingly affected my earthly life it has had a devastating impact upon my spiritual life.
It all started with a little slackness. I skipped the morning’s time with God – I’m was late for work and/or I too busy. That goes on for a little while, seemingly with no consequences. Then another thing gets dropped, and then another, and then another, until one day I realized I was almost completely removed from God. He’s been handing me over little by little to my fleshly desires until they consumed me as they did before I accepted Him as Savior. Then I began to wonder if these verses applied to me:
“…for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved. 20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. 22 It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A dog returns to its own vomit,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.”” – 2 Peter 2:19-22
Whew, that’s harsh! But it is true, and had I not been absolutely confirmed in my salvation I would have thought it was lost again, for once these verses sunk in I felt a heavier burden than ever before. I began to think “am I like Ananias? Have I so wronged God that He would kill me?”
“I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” – 1 Corinthians 5:5 (note that this verse is not about Ananias, but another offending believer)
The verse is in the context of dealing with people in the church who have been admonished and refuse to repent. They should be kicked out, thereby separating them from God’s people and preventing their sin from permeating the rest of the body. The person may then realize his condition and come back to God begging for his mercy. And this is what has happened to me. I didn’t get kicked out of the church, for my sin was not perceivable except to God and perhaps the most discerning of the saints. But God had kicked me out of His fellowship and gave me a stark reminder of that “…Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.” (1 Peter 5:8)
The term “destruction” in 1 Corinthians 5:5 is our translation of the Greek word “olethros” meaning:
ruin, destroy, death
for the destruction of the flesh, said of the external ills and troubles by which the lusts of the flesh are subdued and destroyed http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G3639&t=NASB
So this death is initially the metaphysical death of the flesh, but if left unattended to can become physical (see here for clarification and further explanation – http://www.gty.org/resources/bible-qna/BQ7811/handed-over-to-satan). Now, don’t take this lightly – this is incredibly serious! God rebuked me, as I’m sure He has done countless times for others, and to me it felt like I was going to die where I stood. I am not being hyperbolic, I sincerely felt that way; I wanted to throw up. I had a real, honest to goodness, ‘come to Jesus meeting’ and it was certainly no fun at all.
I know my salvation is secure, and so is yours if you have it. However, at times when we are not careful we can still fit the descriptions of those in the Bible who are heading for eternal damnation. And with this condemnation from my Lord I started wondering how I should be restored and here it is:
“If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death…” – 1 John 5:16
“Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted. 2 Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ.” – Galatians 6:1–2
Confess to a friend, one you trust, and have him make an intercession for you. I did just that, and I am so blessed to have a friend (even though I have never met him because of the digital age) whom I trust in his character and relationship with Christ. I gave him the verse I was guilty of and asked him to pray for me, which I am convinced he did almost immediately, for soon thereafter the weight was lifted as if Jesus was saying to me “I think you have learned your lesson today.” Afterwards I felt like a child who had just gotten a serious spanking. The panic and emotion were unreal and something I wouldn’t wish on anyone.
But just like my father told me as a child after it was all over, “son, I don’t do this to hurt you. I do it because I love you.” And here I am with God doing the same thing to me all because He loves me with an undying love. Had it not been for my dad I don’t know that I would understand this now. I praise God for my earthly father who set me straight time and time again when I was young and gave me the ability to process this emotion.
“…“MY SON, DO NOT REGARD LIGHTLY THE DISCIPLINE OF THE LORD,
NOR FAINT WHEN YOU ARE REPROVED BY HIM;
6FOR THOSE WHOM THE LORD LOVES HE DISCIPLINES,
AND HE SCOURGES EVERY SON WHOM HE RECEIVES.”
7It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. 9Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? 10For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness. 11All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.” – Hebrews 12:5-11
I can personally attest to the truth of this passage several times over. Now, to move forward, and remember what I have learned, and to keep the Lord’s commandments so that I may not fall into the devil’s traps. God bless.
These two famous pastors taught the gospel with considerably different opinions on salvation. Yet while Spurgeon had no love for the Arminian viewpoint, he believed John Wesley to be one who lived his life according to the word of God.
What caused Spurgeon to admire Wesley in this manner? In Spurgeon’s autobiography he writes:
“I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley. The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one ‘of whom the world was not worthy'” (Vol. I: The Early Years, p. 173).
Can you believe that? Pretty high praise for someone whose doctrine he detested. But Spurgeon was certainly no fool, and he saw in Wesley what he wished he saw in every Christian – the character of God. So we are at an impasse. On one hand, we have the head knowledge of proper and sound doctrine. On the other hand, we have the heart knowledge of the life to which it should lead. Hence, it seems to me that we should strive with all of our being to be like them both, not shun one or the other.
So believe the right doctrine of salvation—that it is a one-time deal and you have been forever redeemed by the Savior by whom you have eternal security. But live like the Arminian claims you must – always fighting to keep it as if you had stolen it and it is under constant threat of being taken away! Has your faith not been worked out in a while? Is God using you constantly or hardly ever? If you are, I have found a wonderful article that will get you back on track:
It is commonplace today to hear a Christian say “I chose the Jesus” when they talk about the day they became His child. But I find that most people, myself included until recently, have no real grasp on how it is that they came to make that so-called decision. You see, there is a prevailing idea in the world that has only come into dominance over the past couple hundred years or so, and that is the idea of free will. That idea, which is inherently false, gives way to another idea that one is free to accept or reject God.
First off, let’s deal with the idea of free will in the context of salvation. Merriam-Webster defines the term free will as this:
1: voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>
2: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention (emphasis mine)
Now look at the second definition closely – the choice must be made without prior cause or divine intervention. As Christians we know this cannot be. There are two primary external forces influencing the mind – God and the devil. We know this through both our own personal experiences and through biblical scriptures. Who was it that tempted Judas to betray Jesus? Who tempted David to take a census? Who tempted Eve to take and eat the forbidden fruit? Add to that the prior cause,
which is sin resulting in a corrupt and depraved nature, and we now have a startling impossibility.
Every temptation Christians face is from the devil (see the book of Job) and these temptations oftentimes come into our minds in the form of a thought, which is why “…we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ…” (2 Corinthians 10:5).
Do you not remember the struggle you had with salvation? What was warring within you was your own flesh teamed up with the devil, against the power of the Holy Spirit who prevailed, thankfully, for none can resist Him! You fought hard against that conversion, didn’t you? I know I did, which means the choice also wasn’t voluntary, at least not by the flesh – strike three! Months and months went by with God patiently knocking, until one glorious day He invited Himself in and my response at that instant was immediate – to bow down before Him, confess my sins, and repent of my ways! The Spirit had won, amen, and He will always win “… because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world. “ (1 John 4:4)
Not enough? Consider the conversion of Paul:
Acts [9:3] As he was traveling, it happened that he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him;  and he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”  And he said, “Who are You, Lord?” And He said, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting,  but get up and enter the city, and it will be told you what you must do.”  The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.  Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; and leading him by the hand, they brought him into Damascus.
Did Saul pray the sinner’s prayer? No. Did Saul ask Jesus to come into his heart? No. God came in against Saul’s will, which was quite set against God as evidenced by the saints he had killed, and God prevailed. Saul did not decide – God did. And He did it long before Saul or anyone else was ever born.
Now you say “my conversion was not like Saul’s, so it wasn’t the same with me.” Was it not? How did you come to the Lord? You say “I heard the gospel and responded” and you most certainly did. But what about all the other times you heard the gospel and did not respond? Was it not God who opened your ears to hear and opened your eyes to see? Were you not led to Him or did you get there all by yourself with no help from Him whatsoever? What made the time you responded different from all the others?
Isaiah 35:5 Then the eyes of the blind will be opened
And the ears of the deaf will be unstopped.
So, you see, we are all influenced by external forces. God chose you and the devil warred against Him to spoil the prize. But God’s will cannot be subverted, amen. Had our salvation been left up to us we would be hopelessly lost for we would never choose God; we much prefer the darkness and naturally despise His authority on the basest level because of our sinful nature.
Before we “chose” God were we not brought so low in our lives that we had no other choice than Him? I remember my desperation. I felt alone, though I wasn’t. I felt a great weight upon my shoulders for God had made Himself known to me, but my rebellion was fashioned hard against Him. The conviction of the Holy Spirit grew and grew and I could bear it no more! I had no other choice than God! What other choice is there? Sin? Depravation? Hell? Those are not choices; they are condemnations in which we already exist!
We currently treat the gift of salvation like we do the choice between desserts or food from a menu. We think it a choice in order to please ourselves and our ill-conceived notion of having authority over our circumstances and lives. But you do not choose a gift. Think about the Christmas present. Some you like, some you don’t, but they are all yours because they were given regardless of whether or not you asked for it.
God is in control, not us. We are bound to sin by chains that were not forged by human hands. They are the sentence of God for our transgressions. There is only one Chain Breaker, the Lord Jesus Christ, and He freely gives the gift of salvation! He paid for it by the shedding of His innocent blood to satisfy God’s wrath against us for our transgressions of His law. Jesus broke the chains of sin and bought us as the slaves we are in order to spare us the most painful agony of hell.
We cannot choose against Him, for how can a slave choose against the master that owns him? He raised me from the dead – to choose against Him is to choose death. Before I was a slave to sin, but now, praise God, I am a slave to Him! I was never free, even though I fancied it so. I am
free from the bondage and penalty of sin, but not of the servitude of my Master, for “Jesus paid it all, all to Him I owe.” I incorrectly refer to myself as a
slave - Jesus has something better:
“No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is
doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.
“You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you. John 15:15-16
Sinner, be reconciled to God this day. Be done with the flesh – obey the Holy Spirit and bow down before Him, confess your sins to Him, repent, acknowledge that Jesus is Lord, and you, too, will be saved. Do not wait! There never was and never will be a saint who said “I’m glad I put it off as long as I did.” No, on the contrary their only regret is that they didn’t do it sooner!
***Note – I want to reiterate again that my arguments against free will and free choice in this context do not lead to hard determinism as some might say. In the overall argument there is just cause to think that some things are predetermined while others are not. However, in the area of salvation it is quite clear that our statuses as saints was predetermined long before we were ever born. Jesus’ death was ordained before the world was even formed. He knew each one of His children then just like He knows them now and there are no accidents or mistakes. God will accomplish what He set out to do from the beginning. Amen.
For quite some time, I have been perplexed by the concept of free will. It started early in my walk with Christ, but I’m happy to report it is starting to clear up. My first thought on the matter was, If God is omniscient, He already knows what choices I am going to make. Does that make my fate determined? If God already knows the end it seems as though we’re living out the manuscript. Well, that blew the old canoodle, and it took me a while to recover. For a while, I settled for the de facto free will stance—that I made the choice to trust Jesus of my own free will and secured my salvation. This is a widely accepted view, but I have come to understand that it is incorrect.
Today, we tend to flippantly use terms and phrases, and many times we have only a vague concept of what the word means as a result. But if we bothered to examine its definition, we would realize just how we’ve misused it…or that it isn’t even a word at all! The phrase that comes to mind is “I could care less.” People misuse this one all the time to express how much they don’t care, but the correct phrase is actually “I couldn’t care less.” The former means “I care and it is possible I could care less than I do” while the latter properly expresses what a person is trying to say—“I couldn’t possibly care any less than I do right now.” Still confused? Consult the handy infographic below!
I have come to realize that the term “free will” is one of those terms. Some folks refer to it as their “chooser.” First of all, let’s deal with the primary argument used to naysay the non-existence of free will. Typically, Calvinists and Arminians clash on this subject, but the term itself is misunderstood, probably due to decades of improper use. People who argue for the existence of free will often say of the opposition, “If man doesn’t have free will, then man has no control over his own actions and cannot be held responsible by God for them since he never had the free will to do anything but what was pre-ordained.” I completely agree with the objection, but the problem is the misunderstanding of what the will actually is. This leads to a mischaracterization of the stance against free will, resulting in a straw man argument, a logical fallacy.
I was watching a documentary called Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead the other day. When one of the men being featured in it spoke of dieting, he mentioned something that stuck in my mind. He said, “I don’t have the willpower.” Hmmm, let’s unpack that a bit. What is he actually saying here? Most of us have used that phrase, and I do believe it is at the core of our misunderstanding of free will. What we are expressing with this simple sentence is that we know in our minds that we need to diet but lack the desire to do so. Because our mind and desire are at odds with one another, we give in to the stronger of the two—in this case the desire to eat a yummy, clog-your-arteries cheeseburger draped in bacon and doused with barbeque sauce that’s paired with a huge helping of fries and a diet soda to wash it all down with. (The cola is pointless of course, but it makes us feel not so wretched about our dietary discretion…or lack thereof.)
Notice there are two other key players here: the desire and mind. (Granted, there are other underlying forces such as motive and nature, but for now let’s keep it simple.) Desire says one thing, the mind says another, and the result is a lack of willpower, or lack of will. When we say “will,” we actually mean “willpower” but leave off the “power” because it is understood. Think of it this way, when you see a child running around a playground screaming like a banshee, you tell your friend, “Wow, that kid is hyper.” You leave off the word “active” (hyperactive) because it is understood. The man in the dietary documentary could have just as easily said, “I don’t have the will to do it,” and his assertion would have meant the same thing.
The will is a power, or faculty, of the mind. What if we change the circumstances? Imagine something you really desired and made up your mind to obtain. What was the result? Oftentimes, you succeeded because your will (power) was strong. The desire and mind were in concert with one another resulting in a strong will (power). What if the desire is strong, but the mind is tougher? Then the mind wins, but the will (power) is vastly weakened by the conflict and becomes susceptible to temptation.
So the will is the power of the mind to control actions and thoughts, hence the term “willpower” But we’ve grown accustomed to dropping the second part of the term due to assumptive language, and as a result, our understanding of the term has been altered.
Well, does that mean we are not free? Certainly we are. But the mind is free, not the will. Freedom can belong to an agent, but not a faculty. To use the term “free will” is like saying your hands and feet are free when we all know they are completely controlled by the brain. We can freely think both in concrete and abstract terms. We can imagine, dream, problem solve, plot, and scheme, but that is not done by the will. These acts, as well as the act of decision making, are all functions of the mind, not the will. Once the mind is made up, the will follows; the mind wields the will in order to fully realize the decision it has made.
For further in-depth study of this topic, I highly recommend the works of great thinkers like Sir Francis Bacon and John Locke, especially the latter’s masterpiece, “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.”
Many atheists use the existence of evil as a method to prove God does not exist. However, since the knowledge of good and evil is self-evident, the atheist then must try to prove morality is a product of evolution. It is very clear that morality, in many cases, directly conflicts with survival of the fittest (SoF), a tenet of evolution. Survival of the fittest is the primary means of evolution and is the way supporters of evolution try to explain its process. The idea is that multiple sets of traits can evolve simultaneously and the ones contributing to survival remain. This revolves around another unseen quality of life – the desire to survive, which drives everything with life. This is the primary source of the most rudimentary of survival instincts, fight or flight. Living things are amazingly aware of their mortality, which also drives the need and desire for procreation.
Enter morality, which at times directly conflicts with SoF. How so, you ask? When faced with a fight in which a person’s life is threatened it is morally okay for the victim to take the life of the perpetrator. No one seems to question this need to preserve one’s own life. In a court of law it is called self-defense – the moral right to defend one’s own life by the taking of another when given no other choice but to kill or be killed. Yet, in almost any other situation, murder is morally wrong. The taking of a human life is considered to be one of the worst atrocities a person can commit, yet we are absolved in court in this one circumstance. It is morally right to act out of self-preservation.
However, why do we consider someone who sacrifices him/herself to protect others to be morally superior? Because of selflessness. So how do we come to the decision that selflessness is more important than the natural inclination of self-preservation? This is in direct conflict with SoF. A soldier dives on a grenade and sacrifices himself in order to save a helpless civilian or civilians. He goes against his natural instinct of self-preservation and survival, but what is his possible motive? He’s dead when the grenade explodes, and he benefits in no way from this act. It goes against nature, the very system through which we are made. This is contradictory to evolution! Self-preservation and survival are thrown out the window for the sake of moral superiority.
Enter the law of non-contradiction, which states that two things cannot be simultaneously true about the same circumstances. The circumstance here is about the nature of life and evolution. If self-preservation and SoF are true, then it cannot be morally superior to sacrifice one’s self for another unless something else is in play. Enter dualism – dualism is the idea that the mind and the body are not identical, that though they are part of the same entity, they are two different parts that make up the whole. Plato and Aristotle were two of the largest contributors to this philosophy. In the previous example, we see an obvious conflict between morality and survival in the same person. There is nature, which says that survival is our primary goal, and then there is a morality, which says that there is a greater good to be served. They both cannot be simultaneously true since this would violate the law of non-contradiction. They also cannot both be simultaneously true about morality for the same reason. Hence, nature cannot be responsible for producing morality or it would be self-contradictory. This does not defeat evolution (nor is it intended to) but it does prove that evolution and nature cannot give rise to morality. However, if we are products of material and immaterial alike (i.e. soul and flesh are separate pieces making up the person and they are two different natures) then our dilemma is satisfactorily explained. Dualism does the best job of explaining why we have morals and why we often times act against them. Dualism explains our simultaneous greed and admiration of altruism. It explains why we can be cold and recalcitrant and also be moved to tears by the plight of a homeless person. Simply put – man is simultaneously material (flesh) and immaterial (soul/mind).
So dualism makes morality a possibility and gives us the ability to know what evil is. If it were not for the immaterial mind that gives us the ability to know good and evil, there would be no morality – good, bad, or indifferent. Without morality, we have no method by which to judge something good or evil, and we have no foundation for law. Without law, there is no order, and without order, barbarism rules. Mankind would be like other members of the animal kingdom wherein each animal lives or dies by its own will and the will of others. This is the true definition of survival of the fittest – a world where survival is the only goal and morality does not exist.
Therefore, man has a soul and mind that is not a product of the natural world, so what is our responsibility now that we have that knowledge?
Luke 8:5-15 5 “The sower went out to sow his seed; and as he sowed, some fell beside the road, and it was trampled under foot and the birds of the air ate it up. 6 Other seed fell on rocky soil, and as soon as it grew up, it withered away, because it had no moisture. 7 Other seed fell among the thorns; and the thorns grew up with it and choked it out. 8 Other seed fell into the good soil, and grew up, and produced a crop a hundred times as great.” As He said these things, He would call out, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”
9 His disciples began questioning Him as to what this parable meant. 10 And He said, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is in parables, so that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.
11 “Now the parable is this: the seed is the word of God. 12 Those beside the road are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved. 13 Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away. 14 The seed which fell among the thorns, these are the ones who have heard, and as they go on their way they are choked with worries and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to maturity. 15 But the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance.
I am a great many things. Some might use the phrase ‘jack of all trades, master of none’ to describe me. I grew up on a farm that my family still owns to this day. I am a Systems Administrator by trade, but I’m also a farmer, a plumber, a musician, a beekeeper, and I know enough about mechanics, HVAC, electrical, and general construction that I don’t need to worry about calling someone out to service my home.
With that being said I would like to offer some insight into this parable as a farmer. There aren’t many farmers around today so some folks might just gloss over this parable without truly considering it. I think there is an important part left out of this parable – and that is soil preparation. As a farmer and hunter I have planted a few things in my day, but one thing I have learned is that soil preparation is key when you are planting seeds. The soil here is synonymous with the heart – it must be properly prepared to receive the seed of faith that is Christ Jesus so that it may yield up a fruit-bearing regenerated spirit. Try witnessing to an atheist and see how that goes if you want to understand what hard heartedness is.
So we see that the heart is hard like soil in a fallow field – it is only good for growing weeds. If we sow seeds in a fallow field they may sprout, but they’ll immediately be choked out by the competing weeds. This is certainly not good. You have wasted valuable time in sowing seeds and money in the purchase of the seeds. How do we remedy this? By preparing the soil first and here’s how.
When we speak of the things of God this is often met with resentment by the unbeliever which is a symptom of heard heartedness. We must break through and soften the heart (soil) by using apologetics (plow) as a way to soften the heart. Christianity is the only religion that makes sense of the entire world, universe, and our place in it and it is logically defendable. We must be able to defend and reason our faith to anyone at any time – this is the responsibility of the follower of Christ.
I read somewhere that the average number of times a person gets witnessed to before they become saved is eight. That’s a bit odd to me because in order to convert a fallow field into a fruitful one it can take eight or more trips to make it usable for production.
Step #1 – Treat the field with a fire. Just like confronting the defenses of an unbeliever this step removes unwanted vegetation growing in the field, or heart. This step may take several applications.
Jeremiah 23:29 ““Is not My word like fire?” declares the LORD, “and like a hammer which shatters a rock?”
Step #2 – Once the vegetation has died off plow up the field. Using the word of God we tell them who God is. This chisels away at the hard heart and soil, breaking up the rocks and turning over the soil. This also aerates the soil and produces new growth.
Step #3 – Apply the fire again. Why? Because those previous weeds have had a long time to produce seeds in that field and there is now a seed bank where all those seeds have settled. You’ve broken the soil up and disturbed the seed bank which causes the dormant seeds to germinate. We need to deal with those, too.
Proverbs 26:11 “Like a dog that returns to its vomit Is a fool who repeats his folly.”
Step #4 – Now we apply fertilizer (knowledge) which adds nutrients to the soil needed for growth and lime removes the harsh acidity from the soil so the seeds can absorb the nutrients efficiently.
Luke 13:8 “And he answered and said to him, ‘Let it alone, sir, for this year too, until I dig around it and put in fertilizer;…”
Step #5 – Time for the lime (love of Christ – understand that I draw this comparison based on the agricultural purpose of lime instead of Biblical context). This sweetens the soil by neutralizing the pH level. Acidic soils germinate more weeds and most desirable plants cannot tolerate harsh soil; applying lime helps to inhibit new weed growth and germination. It also allows the plants to more readily absorb the nutrients of the fertilizer contained in the soil.
Step #6 – Now we plow again. This mixes in the new nutrients and lime into the soil so that it is spread evenly and effectively throughout the soil. This will almost completely ensure that wherever the seed falls it will have a chance to germinate.
Step #7 – Now we plant. The seed of faith is the Word of God. Plant it firmly into the heart and soil of the unbeliever. Cover it with a light dragging of the soil. Seeds buried too deeply don’t germinate. Seeds left lying on the surface are eaten by birds. When you cover them with just a little soil and then pack it down gently you have given that seed every chance possible for germination. Seeds require good contact with the soil which is why the drag and roller are needed to cover and bed them down.
Step #8 – Water! Prayer and the Holy Spirit will handle this part. You have done everything you can – it is up to God to do the rest.
James 5:18 “Then he prayed again, and the sky poured rain and the earth produced its fruit.”
When the seed receives proper watering it opens up and yields new life. Because you have thoroughly prepared the soil you have increased the chances of a successful germination. In all likelihood that plant will grow and thrive and turn into an awesome fruit-bearing plant that will give you and God great joy.
You may not be the person to apply all these steps. It is not uncommon for eight or more people to participate independently of each other in this process. So if you do participate be sure to do your portion correctly and make it so the next believer doesn’t have to correct anything you did before he can proceed. Sometimes God does the preparation for us and sometimes He asks us to do it. No matter the point in the process where the unbeliever is always be ready to step in and pick up where the last brother in Christ left off. remember one thing, though, and that is that none of this work is done properly without the Holy Spirit guiding the way.
A fellow Christian posted a blog titled “Answering Common Young Earth Creationist Arguments” located here: http://jwwartick.com/2012/06/11/yec-args/. Please read his article first, and if you like, pull this one up in a parallel page. I will answer each of his attacks on the YEC position in order under a heading with the same name. I’m sure the author has the best of intentions, but there are many problems with this particular blog entry and point of view I would like to address.
First off, the author makes this claim:
“This post is not going to argue against young earth creationism specifically. Rather, I hope that it can be a resource for both young earth and old earth proponents in order to avoid faulty reasoning.”
A noble cause and worthy endeavor, but the author fails his own claims by only outing the YEC arguments as faulty and then offering the OEC arguments as an unchallenged substitute. I read the entire blog thinking I would see the problems with arguments on both sides of the fence, but alas, I was disappointed to find absolutely zero criticism of the OEC arguments. This is alarming to me that someone could make a blog with a specific claim and then fail to meet that claim altogether. So let’s give the other side to this delightful debate, shall we?
Perspicuity of Scripture
This is, at best, a straw-man argument. I know of no one, YEC, OEC, or other that claims to be able to understand all of the scriptures in the Bible. Anyone who is honest with you will tell you that one time they understand the scriptures one way and later on they’ll see another aspect of the same scripture. This new aspect doesn’t change the meaning, but it does add more perspective and enlightenment. Also, the plan for salvation is not necessarily clear to an unsaved reader. Just think about how many times you’ve heard someone preach salvation through works and that notion is blown out of the water.
Now for the real problem of this argument; he has claimed that the text isn’t clear and precise. Well, read the text and see for yourself:
Genesis 1:1-5 NASB In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
The first time we see the word “day” it is in a sentence that defines it – “And there was evening and there was morning, one day.” Pretty perspicuous if you ask me! We have our timetables set and the first time we see day (yowm in the original Hebrew) comes directly after this description “And there was evening and there was morning…”
The Meaning of Day
The author is correct in that the word “yowm” has several meanings in regards to time. However, according to www.blueletterbible.org you’ll see this breakdown of how often the word is used with other meanings:
Wow! Of the 2,287 times “yowm” is used in the Bible, 2008 times it is used as the meaning for the literal 24 hour period. That’s almost 88% of the time which means that alternate meanings of the word are rare. What’s more is that their alternate meanings are made clear by the surrounding text. For example:
Genesis 3:17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.
Here we see this phrased directly translated from this text “kol yowm chay” which translates as “(kol) of it all (yowm) the days (chay) of your life.” We can see clearly through the text that yowm means something other than a 24 hour period. This is not the case in Genesis 1:5.
Day is not a long period of time
This is an excellent observation by the author. However, he fails to see the change in context around the word “yowm”. Please see previous point about the usage of “yowm” and its context.
That’s Just Poetry
Poetry in the Bible certainly is relevant, but only in revealing spiritual truths, not historic ones. Psalm 94 is another way of saying the Lord is timeless, eternal; He never ages and never changes. This is obviously a spiritual truth, not a historical one. Nowhere does the Bible use poetry to convey historical truth. Also, the sentence structure of Hebrew poetry and historical narratives are completely different. In short the syntax of the factual statement follows the form of conjunction–verb-subject-object, whereas the poetic form is constructed subject-verb-object. Genesis and the account of the creation are written in the former, not the latter. If you have any issues with whether or not Genesis is poetry or historical, please see here: http://www.ldolphin.org/genmyth.html, here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v5/n1/semantic, and here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/literary-forms-biblical-interpretation
Appearance of Age
More straw-man arguments. I’ve never heard any serious YECer use these arguments. Old appearance has nothing to do with God’s creation and how it may appear. This stance is also unsupported scripturally, hence it is blatantly flawed. So, if you are a YECer and you used this argument, stop it! 😉
Another notion has to do with testing the age of plants and the earth. The author claims Psalm 19 infers that we cannot infallibly search reality, though I’m not sure how he sees that in the Psalm. The fact is that tree rings, carbon dating, radiometric dating, ice core dating, etc. all have flaws and are all suspect to whether or not they are capable of properly observing the age of the materials tested. Many assumptions are made before calibrating the instruments and in making assumptions you make a lot of room for error. The bottom line is these methods are unreliable at best.
“The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such ‘confirmation’ may be shortlived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man.”
Frederic B. Jueneman, “Secular Catastrophism,” Industrial Research and Development, Vol. 24 (June 1982), p. 21
“It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock’.”
William D. Stansfield, The Science of Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 84.
These two quotes from Evolutionists are damming to the idea that our current dating methods work properly. When this is taken into consideration the entire age of the earth is in question, as well as the theories based on its old age, specifically evolution. Furthermore, if a plant was grown instantly you could not age it based on standard methods since its introduction into this world was not one which has ever been observed.
The author is correct here. To presuppose naturalism is to rule out God’s existence from the start and OECers do not go that far. But they do assert that God used naturalism as the method to manage the creation of the earth and universe. Since, in their minds, God created naturalism it is OK to say that He used it to create the earth and heavens instead of doing it supernaturally. But then we come back to Genesis chapter 1 and we see that the better fit with the creation account is a supernatural one as opposed to the semi-naturalistic one.
See my section above about dating methods. These apply just as much to geologists as anyone else, if not more so. Also, see this link: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v6/n1/fossilized-organic-materials for a good understanding of C14 dating, a primary tool of geologists, and its limitations.
Look, it’s what the Bible says
We’re finally getting to the greatest point of contention – this argument states that the Bible is inaccurate and as such flawed (“the genealogies are incomplete”). This goes against the premise that the Bible is the holy, inspired, infallible, written Word of God. If it is those things it cannot simultaneously be missing parts such as historic genealogies. This also flies in the face of the proven historical accuracy of the Bible and undermines its entire nature. If the Bible is flawed in this area and not true, then how can we trust its message of salvation? See here for a proper defense of the genealogies in Genesis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/gaps-in-genesis-genealogies
Another point is this – man’s fallible ideas. I’ll put it as it was once put to me when I believed this abomination of the truth – where did you get the idea of an old earth – from the Bible or from man?
You weren’t there!
Again, the author is partially correct. None of us were there at the beginning, just like none of us were there at Christ’s burial and resurrection. Yet we both believe in the event and the power of the resurrection based on the historical accounts given in the text! Let’s nonsensically apply the “poetic” translation of the OECer’s version of Genesis to the Gospels. What happens? They become undermined and the entire event that Christianity stands upon is smashed to pieces! The historical account of Genesis is just as accurate as the historical account of the Gospels and both lend themselves to a purely exegetical reading. There is no need to embellish, suggest, read into, or any other such nonsense. The accounts are complete and satisfactorily so.
Well, now; those are interesting points. Let’s see what the Bible says about death and when it started, shall we? Well, first off I looked up the term “very good” in the original text. It transliterates as “m@`od towb.” “m@`od” is an adverb meaning exceedingly or much. “towb” is an adjective meaning
1) good, pleasant, agreeable
a) pleasant, agreeable (to the senses)
b) pleasant (to the higher nature)
c) good, excellent (of its kind)
d) good, rich, valuable in estimation
e) good, appropriate, becoming
f) better (comparative)
g) glad, happy, prosperous (of man’s sensuous nature)
h) good understanding (of man’s intellectual nature)
i) good, kind, benign
j) good, right (ethical)
These definitions were provided by http://www.blueletterbible.org. Furthermore we do not see death recorded before the fall of Adam and Eve. This make the OECer’s position an assumption that is predicated upon semi-naturalism. Have you ever watched a nature video where a lioness takes down her prey and then watch her eat it? Turns your stomach, doesn’t it? I would call that NOT GOOD. It involves pain and misery, being eaten alive. How can this possibly be good? If the definitions above stand there would be no need for that kind of behavior as animals would have everything they need. Also the entire work of Christ is that of restoration. Not only of humans, but God’s entire creation that was separated by the fall of man. This is why we see in the book of Isaiah 11:6-9
And the wolf will dwell with the lamb,
And the leopard will lie down with the young goat,
And the calf and the young lion [a]and the fatling together;
And a little boy will lead them.
Also the cow and the bear will graze,
Their young will lie down together,
And the lion will eat straw like the ox.
The nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra,
And the weaned child will put his hand on the viper’s den.
They will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain,
For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord
As the waters cover the sea.
God lost more than man on the day Adam and Eve sinned, for man subjected the entire work of creation to sin and death by his deed. Man was already given dominion over the earth and all things in it. As such his punishment affected his entire domain until the day when Christ returns to restore it all. Amen.
And it does not say that the whole earth was like the Garden of Eden, but it does say that “God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.” – Genesis 1:31 NASB. So His judgment over what He created was not specific to the Garden of Eden, but, rather, to the entirety of creation!
Unfortunately the YECer’s assessment of the situation is correct. Again I ask where does one get this idea – from man or from the Bible? An OEC position does exactly what the YECer has proposed – it allows the “Christian” to modify the Bible to fit into the current world view of secular science. It’s been said to me before that “the world will determine your Biblical view or the Bible will determine your world view.” This is a classic case of the world determining how one interprets the Bible. The only thing I have to say against the YECer in this case is that we should never rule out texts based on authorship. We should read them, give them a fair evaluation, and make our assessment at that point.
Plain and Obvious Meaning- or “I don’t need to twist the text.”
One doesn’t interpret an historical narrative, which is precisely what Genesis is. You simply read it and pull facts from it. If you desire to dive further into the linguistic and stylistic differences of the Bible please see my previous point under That’s Just Poetry.
The YEC is the classic viewpoint and the OEC is the challenging viewpoint. It is up to the OECer to prove his view and substantiate his claims. As for now, www.ansersingenesis.org and www.icr.org sufficiently address the faulty charges of an old earth.
You’re Using Science to Change the Meaning of Scripture
I disagree with the first part of the argument. For reasons stated above I believe this is not true. Next I ask whose reality is the church supposed to line itself up with, science’s view or God’s? Science changes all the time while God’s Truth remains the same. Why would the Christian side with science when it clearly doesn’t have all the answers? Most likely this is to keep from being singled out and persecuted for one’s identity in Christ.
As far as the heliocentrism vs. geocentrism is concerned, this is a blatant straw-man argument rife with error. See here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/galileo-geocentrism and read up.
The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it
Simply put the answer is on the pages of Genesis. It accurately and completely accounts the days of the creation, the days of Adam and Eve, and the days all the way to the flood. Not only does it do all of this, but it does so with specific detail on who begat so and so and how old so and so’s father was when the begetting took place! There is too much incredibly specific detail to be poetic or erred. Again, see here for a proper defense of the genealogies: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/gaps-in-genesis-genealogies
Man’s Fallible Ideas
First off, not a single shred of credible extra-biblical evidence contradicts the Bible. Period. As a matter of fact, the Bible is the most accurate and most tested historical document we have today.
Here we go again with this interpretation jargon again. Let me reiterate, you don’t interpret historical narratives. You interpret poetry, allegories, and parables. When you try to interpret historical narratives you can effectually rewrite history on a whim. This is an absurd notion and the roadmap leads you off the deep end never to return. And furthermore, when you do interpret scripture, you interpret it using the guidance of the Holy Spirit, not your own wisdom. Man’s wisdom is inherently flawed and cannot be trusted. God is the source of all Truth, Wisdom, and Knowledge.
Again I ask why it is necessary to believe in an old earth? Is either viewpoint necessary for salvation? In a word, no. But a proper understanding of scripture is necessary for a healthy understanding of God’s authorship of the universe and of man as well as God’s nature. Folks, be careful when reading the Bible. Do not put words into God’s mouth – He will surely spit them back out at you. Listen for His guidance and His direction. Take Him at His Word. Trust Him, He’s good for it.
Anyone who knows me is well aware of the fact I love to talk. I do have things on my mind, and rather than let them stay bottled up any longer, it’s my hope that I can use this blog space to express those things a little more clearly. Come by early and often for new posts, and subscribe using the widget on the right so you can get to the madness first thing when it’s freshly minted!