The rebellion of creation

February 23, 2009 at 4:25 pm | Posted in Christianity | 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I’ve heard many people who talk about the rebellion of creation. They talk about how all of creation rebelled when Adam and Eve sinned against God. In the beginning, God created everything in six 24-hour days about 6,000 years ago. At this time, there was no death, disease, or thorns. All of creation was obedient to God and seen as “very good” by God Himself. Adam and Eve were told that they could eat of any tree except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. When they ate of the tree, they rebelled against God and God’s judgment (which He had told them before) came to pass. Because of the sin, the entire earth was cursed. Some call this the rebellion of creation. All of creation groans because of sin, but it’s not all of creation rebels. As a matter of fact, there is only one aspect of creation that has rebelled against God and that is man.

Even though all of creation has been affected by sin, it still obeys God. The earth still revolves around the sun. It still spins on its axis at just the right angle to host life on the planet. Seasons still happen at their appointed times. Plants still go through their own life cycle as they always have. They are all obedient to the way that God said they should be. Animals still obey God’s plan for them. All of the physical laws of nature still work according to the way that God set them up to work. Because of sin, all of these things are affected and may not work as well as they used to, but they still work in obedience to God.

Man is the only one that doesn’t do this. We are the only ones that rebel against God. We do not operate according to what God says but instead we go our own way. Yes, I understand that our body still works according to the way God made it. But, as an active, moral agent with free will we all go our own way. When man was first created, it was in God’s image. We are NOT little versions of God! We have many of His characteristics. The one part of creation that rebels against God is the one that has been made in His image. We make our own idols instead of worshipping God. Sometimes, these idols are made of wood. Other times, the idols are just in our mind and they represent something different than how God described Himself. We deny the death of Christ on the cross and instead try to work our way to heaven. We put ourselves in charge (not really) and live our lives contrary to His commands and have the unmitigated gall to still ask for His blessing!

There are problems that I see happening if this continues for much longer. I fear for the future. Our children continue to grow up in a world that is drawing them further from God. The fear that I have is that they are not being told about their faith and they are not being taught how to defend it or apply it to their lives. In Exodus 12, the Israelites were told that they were to explain the Passover to their children when they asked about the lamb, the slaughter, and the blood. Many people and churches are doing this and the reason I know this is because it shows. I look at the children coming through the public schools and those coming through the churches and see them unable to defend even the most basic tenets of Christianity. Why? Because their parents and their pastors can’t do it either. They have moved from biblical Christianity and have embraced the entertaining, soft, weak message that many have run to in order that their churches might be filled.

Our nation continues to profess God with its lips while their hearts are far from Him. Many in our nation profess to believe in God and many claim to be Christians. Sadly, many of these people deny that Jesus is the only way to heaven, even though He said so Himself. They claim that there are other ways to heaven when there are not. They live their lives in sin (many openly) and therefore mock the truth of the One they profess to follow. This is evident in the fact that many who go out and witness to others or open-air preach the true gospel often talk about their hardest critics or opponents are those who profess Christ. Many of those who profess Christ while living in sin are doing so more aggressively and vocally leading others to do the same and drawing them away from salvation.

The Bible says that there are many who will stand before the Lord and be turned away from Him because He never knew them. He calls them workers of iniquity. When many stand before God on the Day of Judgment, it will be the first time that they actually believe in Him. They will be on their face before a holy, righteous God who is not going to be bribed by their good works or be moved by tears. They will not be able to tell God their sorry and gain heaven, they will not shake their fist at Him, and they will not “gladly go to hell”. They will not even be able to plead for mercy because it will be too late. Those who think that they will do these things really have no understanding of who God is. They see Him as a doting daddy or as only love and nothing else. These people obviously haven’t read their Bibles. All it takes is a cursory reading of the Bible to see that God is neither of these things. He is not a doting daddy. The Bible says that we can call Him “Abba”, but many people take this in a way that they shouldn’t. He’s also not all loving. He is love, but He’s not just love. If anyone holds either of these views, then they don’t understand the true God and have embraced an idol.

As Christians, we should be warning people of what’s to come. We should be speaking the truth even if people don’t like it. We need to stop watering down the gospel. We need to show people they are rebelling against God and lay out what the consequences are. If we don’t do these things, then we are rebels just like those we’re supposed to reach.

Design of the Week 02/18/09 – Crossover – Circus Chickens

February 18, 2009 at 6:30 am | Posted in Designs of the Week | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

This week’s Crossover Design of the Week is called Circus Chickens. The design has been created by Jan Porterfield Arts and is one of many great designs they offer that make amazing use of color. The color of this design is something that caught my attention. The other is the fact that I’m taking my daughter to the circus at the end of this month.


I love the background in this image and the way that it is subtly used to tie all the other components of the image together. The line style also drew my attention because it varies in weight and gives depth to the design. I also like how the chickens dominate the image and almost make the design look like an action shot.


This design is just one of many great designs from Jan Porterfield Arts. They have many different styles of work and offer many great items. If you are looking for something special and unique, the Circus Chickens is something that I would recommend!

America’s Heritage

February 16, 2009 at 6:30 am | Posted in Christianity | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It’s amazing. You hear it all the time now. America wasn’t founded on Christian principles. The Constitution calls for “separation of church and state”. Most, if not all, of the Founding Fathers were atheists, agnostics, or deists. The Founding Fathers supported slavery, etc. so government based on Christian morals is bad…

Most times, these thoughts come from people who have an issue with Christian morals:

Celebrities – Ashton Kutcher, Bill Maher, Tom Hanks

Atheists/agnostics – Michael Newdow, Dan Barker

Liberal media/public schools

Any time that someone talks about America’s Christian foundation, they receive responses like:

<insert your favorite Founding Father> didn’t even believe in Jesus

America was not founded on Christian ideals

Those who promoted Christianity also promoted slavery

The Constitution calls for a separation of church and state

The FFs were against the inclusion of any type of religion in the government

You’re intolerant/a bigot/narrow-minded for thinking that

Go read some history/do some research

It seems that most people don’t understand that the history they quote has actually been revised to remove any and all references to God and Christianity. At various historic sites around our nation, the evidence around the nation is being removed. While many don’t realize this is happening, many do know that it’s going on. On the floor of the Library of Congress, an image of Moses with the Ten Commandments has been covered with a rug. Plaques on various monuments and exhibits have been changed to deny the Christian aspect of the site. Scriptures on the different monuments and buildings are ignored or covered. Those things that the revisionists can’t cover up are explained away as something else. For instance, in the Supreme Court there is an image of Moses with the Ten Commandments above the bench. Because there is a law that the image cannot be covered up or changed, those giving tours tell the tourists that the image is actually showing the first 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights. Three of the stained glass windows that used to be in Christ Church were removed in 1986 under the pretense of being “cleaned”; they’re still cleaning them. Actually, the windows were put into storage and replaced with clear glass. The windows showed the Founding Fathers praying and calling out to God. Christ Church is the church that George Washington and others attended.

So what is the true history of America? First, we have to understand that history is not what we make it. A true historian can only account for what happened. Historians cannot interpret history. The facts are there for them to report. If they interpret the facts instead of telling what happened, then it is not history it’s a fairy tale. This goes for Biblical history as well. If there is a gap between one point in history and another, the historians can express what they believe may have happened, but they cannot fill in the gaps with their theories and say that it’s what really happened.


Were the Founding Fathers Christians?


It is necessary to determine this because it would quell a lot of the complaints and allow us to understand how they saw their place and their nation. If the Founding Fathers were Christians (not the false converts that many are today), they would have wanted a nation based on what they believed. Many will argue about who believed what, but what did the men say about themselves and other Founding Fathers?

When Jared Sparks was writing his compilation of George Washington’s writings he spent an entire volume (volume 12) focused on Washington’s faith. After spending years compiling and pouring over letters, writings, and correspondences, Sparks concluded:

To say that he [George Washington] was not a Christian would be to impeach his sincerity and honesty. Of all men in the world, Washington was certainly the last whom any one would charge with dissimulation or indirectness [hypocrisies and evasiveness]; and if he was so scrupulous in avoiding even a shadow of these faults in every known act of his life, [regardless of] however unimportant, is it likely, is it credible, that in a matter of the highest and most serious importance [his religious faith, that] he should practice through a long series of years a deliberate deception upon his friends and the public? It is neither credible nor possible.

In the same volume, Sparks also includes a letter from Washington’s granddaughter, Nelly Custis-Lewis. Nelly was more than just Washington’s granddaughter. When her father died, George and Martha Washington adopted both Nelly and her brother George, who were the youngest of the four children John left behind. Nelly and George were already living at Mount Vernon, and Nelly would spend the next 20 years in Washington’s presence. Sparks wrote to Nelly on Washington’s Christianity and received her response within a week. In it, Nelly made it clear that Washington’s faith was vital to him and his character. She ended the letter with a telling thought that condemns all of those who would try to make Washington something other than a devout Christian:

Is it necessary that any one should certify, “General Washington avowed himself to me a believer in Christianity?” As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic, disinterested devotion to his country. His mottos were, “Deeds, not Words”; and, “For God and my Country.”

With sentiments of esteem,

I am, Nelly Custis-Lewis

Those who would question Washington’s faith also question his patriotism and devotion to his country. To Nelly, they were anchored in his faith. This confession of Washington’s faith comes only second to his own:

While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian. (George Washington, The Writings of Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XI, pp. 342-343, General Orders of May 2, 1778.)I now make it my earnest prayer that God would… most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of the mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion. (George Washington, The Last Official Address of His Excellency George Washington to the Legislature of the United States (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1783), p. 12; see also The New Annual Register or General Repository of History, Politics, and Literature, for the Year 1783 (London: G. Robinson, 1784), p. 150.)

Another founding father that is often touted as a deist or worse is Thomas Jefferson. But what did Jefferson say about himself? Did he say anything that might give us reason to believe he was more than a deist?

The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses. (Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Alberty Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XII, p. 315, to James Fishback, September 27, 1809.)I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others. (Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies from the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Grey & Bowen, 1830), Vol. III, p. 506, to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803.)I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ. (Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIV, p. 385, to Charles Thomson on January 9, 1816.)

So, if Jefferson said these things about himself, why would others say that he wasn’t? It is because if there were godly men in our history, then we do have a Christian heritage and our nation has been founded on Christian principles. It means that the men who were involved in the forging of our nation feared God and knew that He will hold us personally and nationally accountable to Him. But what about other founders?

John Adams

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God. (Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIII, p. 292-294. In a letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.)The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost… There is no authority, civil or religious – there can be no legitimate government but what is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words damnation. (Letter from John Adams to Benjamin Rush, from Quincy, Massachusetts, dated December 21, 1809, from the original in our possession.)John Quincy Adams

My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I cannot cavil or quibble away [evade or object to] . . . the whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted and at others countenances [permits] His disciples in asserting that He was God. (John Adams and John Quincy Adams, The Selected Writings of John and John Quincy Adams, Adrienne Koch and William Peden, editors (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1946), p. 292, John Quincy Adams to John Adams, January 3, 1817.)In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity. (John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport at Their Request on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), pp. 5-6.)Samuel Adams

I . . . [rely] upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins. (From the Last Will & Testament of Samuel Adams, attested December 29, 1790; see also Samuel Adams, Life & Public Services of Samuel Adams, William V. Wells, editor (Boston: Little, Brown & Co, 1865), Vol. III, p. 379, Last Will and Testament of Samuel Adams.)Josiah Bartlett

Called on the people of New Hampshire . . .

to confess before God their aggravated transgressions and to implore His pardon and forgiveness through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ . . . [t]hat the knowledge of the Gospel of Jesus Christ may be made known to all nations, pure and undefiled religion universally prevail, and the earth be fill with the glory of the Lord. (Josiah Bartlett, Proclamation for a Day of Fasting and Prayer, March 17, 1792.)Gunning Bedford

To the triune God – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost – be ascribed all honor and dominion, forevermore – Amen. (Gunning Bedford, Funeral Oration Upon the Death of General George Washington (Wilmington: James Wilson, 1800), p. 18, Evans #36922.)Charles Carroll

On the mercy of my Redeemer I rely for salvation and on His merits, not on the works I have done in obedience to His precepts. (From an autograph letter in our possession written by Charles Carroll to Charles W. Wharton, Esq., September 27, 1825.)I, Charles Carroll. . . . give and bequeath my soul to God who gave it, my body to the earth, hoping that through and by the merits, sufferings, and mediation of my only Savior and Jesus Christ, I may be admitted into the Kingdom prepared by God for those who love, fear and truly serve Him. (Kate Mason Rowland, Life of Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1890), Vol. II, pp. 373-374, will of Charles Carroll, Dec. 1, 1718 (later replaced by a subsequent will not containing this phrase, although he reexpressed this sentiment on several subsequent occasions, including repeatedly in the latter years of his life).)John Dickinson

Rendering thanks to my Creator for my existence and station among His works, for my birth in a country enlightened by the Gospel and enjoying freedom, and for all His other kindnesses, to Him I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity. (From the Last Will & Testament of John Dickinson, attested March 25, 1808.)Benjamin Franklin

The body of Benjamin Franklin, printer, like the cover of an old book, its contents torn out and stripped of its lettering and guilding, lies here, food for worms. Yet the work itself shall not be lost; for it will, as he believed, appear once more in a new and more beatiful edition, corrected and amended by the Author. (Benjamin Franklin, Works of the Late Doctor Benjamin Franklin (Dublin: P. Wogan, P. Byrne, J. More, and W. Janes, 1793), p. 149.)Patrick Henry

Being a Christian… is a character which I prize far above all this world has or can boast. (A. G. Arnold, The Life of Patrick Henry of Virginia (Auburn and Buffalo: Miller, Orton and Mulligan, 1854), p. 250.)John Jay

By conveying the Bible to people . . . we certainly do them a most interesting act of kindness. We thereby enable them to learn that man was originally created and placed in a state of happiness, but, becoming disobedient, was subjected to the degradation and evils which he and his posterity have since experienced. The Bible will also inform them that our gracious Creator has provided for us a Redeemer in whom all the nations of the earth should be blessed – that this Redeemer has made atonement “for the sins of the whole world,” and thereby reconciling the Divine justice with the Divine mercy, has opened a way for our redemption and salvation; and that these inestimable benefits are of the free gift and grace of God, not of our deserving, nor in our power to deserve. The Bible will also [encourage] them with many explicit and consoling assurances of the Divine mercy to our fallen race, and with repeated invitations to accept the offers of pardon and reconciliation. . . . They, therefore, who enlist in His service, have the highest encouragement to fulfill the duties assigned to their respective stations; for most certain it is, that those of His followers who [participate in] His conquests will also participate in the transcendent glories and blessings of His Triumph. (John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, 1794-1826, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York: Burt Franklin, 1890), Vol. IV, pp. 494, 498, from his “Address at the Annual Meeting of the American Bible Society,” May 13, 1824.)


–Time after time, the founding fathers were unashamed of the faith and trust that they placed solely in the Lord and His Son. It is something that many don’t know. Unfortunately, many do and are trying to keep this from being related.

A Christian Nation


Logically, it would make sense to think that if the nation’s founders were Christians, then they would want the nation that they formed to be a Christian one. They would strive to build it upon Christian principles and exhort others to follow those principles. When immigrants first came to America, it was because they wanted a haven for Christians, where they could practice their Christian faith without interference from the king and the government. So what did the founders say about America and her foundation?

John Quincy Adams

Charles Carrollton –

Benjamin Franklin

I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service. (Source: James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Max Farrand, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. I, pp. 450-452, June 28, 1787.)

Jedediah Morse

Benjamin Rush

Noah Webster

– The most perfect maxims and examples for regulating your social conduct and domestic economy, as well as the best rules of morality and religion, are to be found in the Bible . . . The moral principles and precepts found in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. These principles and precepts have truth, immutable truth, for their foundation . . . All the evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible . . . For instruction then in social, religious and civil duties resort to the scriptures for the best precepts. (Source: Noah Webster, History of the United States, “Advice to the Young” (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), pp. 338-340, par. 51, 53, 56.) – By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all moral subjects . . . It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever has been published . . . All systems of religion, morals, and government not founded upon it [the Bible] must perish, and how consoling the thought, it will not only survive the wreck of these systems but the world itself. “The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” [Matthew 1:18] (Source: Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951), p. 936, to John Adams, January 23, 1807.) – To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessings, which flow from them, must fall with them. (Source: Jedidiah Morse, A Sermon, Exhibiting the Present Dangers and Consequent Duties of the Citizens of the United States of America (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1799), p. 9.) – I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governments in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that “except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest. Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments. (Source: Bernard C. Steiner, The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry (Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers, 1907), p. 475. In a letter from Charles Carroll to James McHenry of November 4, 1800.) – There are three points of doctrine the belief of which forms the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of God; the second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to disbelieve either of these three articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark. The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy. (Source: John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), pp. 22-23.) Again, we see that our founding fathers stood tall on the moral foundation of Christianity. These quotes are far from exhaustive of the evidence for this, and yet, it’s something that many don’t know about anymore. They are things that have been removed from our history books but not from our history. Our founders were Christian men who not only placed their personal lives in the hands of the living God, they placed the success of their nation and it’s future into His hands as well.



Many say that the founders wholeheartedly supported slavery and because of this, our nation couldn’t have possibly been a Christian nation. The issue of slavery has been a blight on the nation since it was born, but does this mean that the founders supported it?

William Livingston

– I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the anti-slavery society] and . . . I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity . . . May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke. (William Livingston, The Papers of William Livingston, Carl E. Prince, editor (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1988), Vol. V, p. 255)John Quincy Adams

– The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural stepmother country and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction of Jefferson to his dying day. In the Memoir of His Life, written at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the solemn and emphatic warning that the day was not distant when they must hear and adopt the general emancipation of their slaves. “Nothing is more certainly written,” said he, “in the book of fate, than that these people are to be free.” (John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at Their Request, on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 50)James Otis

– “The colonists are by the law of nature freeborn, as indeed all men are, white or black.” (Albert Bushnell Hart, The American Nation: A History (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1906), vol. 16, Slavery and Abolition, 1831-1841, p. 53)George Washington

– I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery]. (Letter to Robert Morris, April 12, 1786, in George Washington: A Collection, ed. W.B. Allen (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1988), p. 319)Charles Carroll

– Why keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil. (Kate Mason Rowland, Life and Correspondence of Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York & London: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1898), Vol. II, p. 321, to Robert Goodloe Harper, April 23, 1820. In Barton, p. 3)Benjamin Rush

– Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity . . . It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men. (Benjamin Rush, Minutes of the Proceedings of a Convention of Delegates from the Abolition Societies Established in Different Parts of the United States Assembled at Philadelphia (Philadelphia: Zachariah Poulson, 1794), p. 24)Noah Webster

– Justice and humanity require it [the end of slavery] – Christianity commands it. Let every benevolent . . . pray for the glorious period when the last slave who fights for freedom shall be restored to the possession of that inestimable right. (Noah Webster, Effect of Slavery on Morals and Industry (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1793), p. 48.)John Adams

– Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States . . . I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in . . . abhorrence. (Adams to Robert J. Evans, June 8, 1819, in Adrienne Koch and William Peden, eds., Selected Writings of John and John Quincy Adams (New York: Knopf, 1946), p. 209.)
My opinion against it [slavery] has always been known. . . . [N]ever in my life did I own a slave. (John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, ed. (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1854), Vol. IX, pp. 92-93, to George Churchman and Jacob Lindley on January 24, 1801.)Benjamin Franklin

– “Slavery is . . . an atrocious debasement of human nature.” (“An Address to the Public from the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery” (1789), in Franklin, Writings (New York: Library of America, 1987), p. 1154)Thomas Jefferson

– He [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere . . . Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. (Benjamin Franklin, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, ed. (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore, and Mason, 1839), Vol. VIII, p. 42, to the Rev. Dean Woodward on April 10, 1773)Slavery has been misportrayed more often than not in American history. Many (if not all) states have always had free blacks that voted and took office. Those who fought in the Revolution gained their freedom in every state except South Carolina and Georgia. Many people don’t realize that the founders were ardently against slavery and that it was King George who kept the practice going. While it’s largely unknown, this (along with religious freedom) was a reason for the colonies declaring their independence. While some people would say that the Constitution is pro-slavery because it doesn’t openly mention anti-slavery sentiments. This is not a strong position at all. It must be remembered that the founding fathers believed that the states should retain the majority of the power in making decisions for it’s people.

Separation of church and state


The idea of church and state being separated is one that is constantly offered whenever people talk about religion and government. Many, many people who hate God and want nothing to do with Him or His rules say that the Constitution calls for a separation of church and state. This is false. There is nothing in the Constitution that mentions the phrase “separation of church and state”. The courts hold this ideal even though it isn’t in the Constitution. The phrase actually comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Dansbury Baptists on January 1st of 1802:not believe. It was the federal government that the Constitution limited and not the American people. Now, our government and many of those who call themselves “leaders” have turned that idea on it’s ear in order to grab more power from the people. The personal letter that Jefferson wrote has only been appealed to twice before 1947. In the earlier case, the court understood Jefferson’s intent and upheld the Constitution. In the 1947 case of Everson vs. Board of Education, the Supreme Court first declared that the First Amendment “erected a wall of separation between church and state”. Ironically, the 1947 case only used Jefferson’s 8 word phrase where the earlier case used the entire letter, including:public expressions of God, public prayer, and use of scriptures. These things were considered traditional religious practices and untouchable by the government. Even more, in the records of the time spent by the founders constructing America’s foundational documents, not once was the idea of “separation of church and state” even mentioned. If it were such a fundamental idea to the founders, why would it be absent from their long discussions?blessing, and protection. They cannot have this and will fight it at any cost. Why? Because to admit that this is true would mean to admit that God is the cause of it and that would mean admitting that God exists. This would then lead to the fact that they would have to be accountable to that God and to His rules. They could no longer live the way that they wanted and they could no longer take the glory and honor for themselves. It would also mean that their actions in removing God from public view would be an attack on God Himself. It would mean that they would be rebels against God (which they already are anyway) and it would mean that they are wrong. It is this last point that may be the biggest reason. If they are wrong, then their pride would be seriously hurt. Their “intellectualism” would be nothing more than fantasies and fairy tales they’ve used to insulate themselves from the truth. Even worse, they would have to admit that Christians who are trying to restore the truth of America’s history are right. They will avoid this at all costs.

Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, and Stephen s. Nelson
A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut.

Washington, January 1, 1802

Gentlemen–The affectionate sentiment of esteem and approbation, which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802

(Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert E. Bergh, ed. (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the United States, 1904), Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282)

The Baptists were concerned that the federal government would try to create a national denomination and determine what America’s people would have to believe:

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen.

(Letter of October 7, 1801, from Danbury (CT) Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson, from the Thomas Jefferson Papers Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C.)

It must be remembered that these men were all Christians who came to the new country to practice Christianity without interference from the state (which King George did both in England and until the states gained their freedom from England). The founders felt that much of the power in the government belonged to the people and the states. It also must be remembered that this was a personal letter between Jefferson and the Dansbury Baptists. It was not any presidential letter or execution of the presidential office. It was also not written in the context that many use it today. The Baptists were also concerned that the current and future government officials might look at the free practice of religion as favors granted by the federal government instead of inalienable rights provided by God. They were afraid that the federal government would become centralized and make an effort to limit religious expression. The Baptists said that this was only right when it caused a man “to work ill to his neighbor”. Thomas Jefferson felt the same way they did. He made it very clear in many different addresses:

[N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Kentucky Resolution, 1798 (The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, John P. Foley, editor (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900), p. 977; see also Documents of American History, Henry S. Cummager, editor (NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1948), p. 179.)In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805 (Annals of the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1852, Eighth Congress, Second Session, p. 78, March 4, 1805; see also James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805.)[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 (Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805.)I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808 (Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), Vol. IV, pp. 103-104, to the Rev. Samuel Millar on January 23, 1808.)According to the authors of the Constitution, each man, woman, and child has been given inalienable rights according to what scripture says God has already given to man. They believed, along with many of their contemporaries that the federal government had no place in determining what Americans could or could

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson’s letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.( Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U. S. 145, 164 (1878).)The Baptists, Jefferson, and many others actually listed many events where the federal government could intervene, but they were specific events and not blanket statements. These events and acts did not include

The reality


There is a very simple set of reasons for why there are people who are trying to revise the history of this nation. If our founders believed devoutly in God like their writings indicate they did, then it would mean that this country was based on Christian principles. Not only that, but it would mean that the Christian God would have been responsible for our nation’s birth,

Our nation was founded on Christian principles and it was founded by Christian men who feared God. They prayed daily, clung to the Scriptures for their guidance and subsistence, and often proclaimed national days of fasting and prayer. These men understood that it was nothing they did that made America what it was. God’s providence and protection is what made it what it was. It would do well for our nation today if those who claim to be leaders would take a look at America’s true history and follow the example of those men who helped to birth our nation. If they would repent of their sins and turn to God, this nation would turn around very quickly. All of the things that we call problems (disease, economic problems, defense issues, education problems, family/marital problems, drugs, murder, etc) are not the real problem. Our nation has one problem and that problem is sin. And there is nothing that we can do to fix our problem. It is only through repentance and faith that we can see that problem dealt with. We must repent individually and corporately before God if we are to see our nation truly turn around. And it must start in the church…


February 9, 2009 at 6:30 am | Posted in Christianity | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This year, many people will be celebrating the 200th anniversary of the birth of a man whose ideas have altered the way many people view the world. On February 12th, 1809, Charles Darwin was born in Shrewsbury, England. Darwin is most famous for his ideas on evolution. While many of the ideas existed for some time before Darwin, it was Darwin’s book Origin of Species that brought things together. Darwin believed that natural processes brought about everything that we see. He believed that this took extremely long periods of time (which he got from Charles Lyell). His views go directly against the idea presented in the Bible. Darwin said that Christianity was a “damnable doctrine” because it meant that many of his unbelieving family members and friends would go to hell. It was also his explanation for death and struggle because Darwin had a problem with an all-powerful God allowing his 10-year-old daughter Annie to die.


When most people hear the word evolution, they think of biology and how man came to be. In reality, evolution is used to explain the origin of all things, including stars and galaxies. It is the idea that everything we see (stars, planets, trees, plants, animals, humans) has come about exclusively through natural means. The main driving factors of evolution are time, chance, mutations, natural selection and death.


While there are numerous scientists that support the idea of evolution, there are many who do not. Many of the people who support evolution are atheists and secular humanists who need an explanation for life that excludes God. Many, like Richard Lewontin, choose to follow evolution even though it is a bunch of “just-so stories” and fails to live up to the promises it is supposed to provide because they start with an apriori assumption of materialism. In other words, they assume from the beginning that the only possibility for the origin of the universe is exclusively naturalistic. They do this because, if they didn’t, they would be allowing “a Divine foot in the door”. Many of those who push the evolutionary idea consistently say that evolution is all about facts. This is far from true. In honesty, evolution is about interpretations of facts that stem from their materialistic bias. Those who push evolution also constantly try to tell the public that they aren’t on about religion like creationists are. That’s not true either. By promoting evolution, they are pushing an atheistic/secular humanist belief that is not founded on anything but assumptions about the past. While they fight to keep critiques (even purely scientific ones) out of the schools, they spend millions of dollars to push their own religious views.


Those who promote evolution would like the public to believe that evolution is a fact and as good as proven. Unfortunately for them, it’s not even close. Evolution is often called a theory. I don’t think that calling evolution a theory is justified. A scientific theory is something that is a well-founded explanation of data. In reality, evolution is just a lot of talk and conjecture that is based on very little evidence. There are a number of issues, both general and specific, that evolution has yet to even begin to provide answers for. Some of the general issues are things like scientists taking the fact that things exist today being proof that evolution got them here the way that they are. They often say that they know that certain things have taken place because we have them today. Another issue is that because of the way that evolution has supposedly taken place, if one of the steps cannot happen, evolution cannot happen. Also, evolutionists claim that their ideas and hypotheses are based on “real” science. In actuality, they’re not. They are based on assumptions that things happened the same in the past as they are happening today. They also assume a number of things that there are absolutely no way of knowing without eyewitnesses who were there to see it. They are talking about the origins of the earth. None of the things that they claim to have happened are testable or repeatable.


One of the big problems with evolution is that there is no real explanation on how things began. Before evolution could take place on Earth, there had to be an earth. Because evolutionists will not allow supernatural events, they must come up with an explanation of how everything came about. Although it seems that it’s popularity is waning, the prevailing view of how things began is called the Big Bang “theory”. The Big Bang supposedly started with an intensely hot and dense point (called a singularity) at some point in the finite past. At another unknown point of time, this singularity exploded and all the energy and space rapidly expanded outward. While the expanding took place, the universe cooled down and some of the energy was supposedly converted into matter. This matter was in the form of hydrogen and helium gas. These gases coalesced to form stars and galaxies. Some of the stars are believed to have created some of the heavier elements in their cores and when they exploded, the heavy elements were spread across the universe. These elements then began to stick together to form planets. While all of this might sound feasible, there is no real evidence for this. Not only that, but there are a number of issues that scientists still haven’t resolved. Things like monopoles, flatness, the amount of matter versus antimatter, and the horizon problem still plague the theory, even though evolutionists will say that they are well on their way to solving them. Unfortunately, the ways that they are claiming to solve them are just as wobbly as (if not more so than) the original theory.


Even if we give evolutionists a pass on how everything got started, there are more problems with the idea of evolution. Another major problem is how life got started on Earth. In evolution, there are a number of hypotheses on how life started on our planet. One of the most common models of life proposed is the “primordial soup” idea. This idea basically says that our primitive earth had a different atmosphere. That atmosphere was made of methane, ammonia, water vapor, and hydrogen. Then, lightning flashed and the energy caused the gases to create the first amino acids. This was shown to be possible through the Miller-Urey experiments, or so they say. But, there are problems with these experiments. First, the entire experiment was supposed to show how the first amino acids could have formed on a primeval earth through random processes. Ironically, the experiment was created by an intelligent scientist who based everything he did on years worth of chemistry studies. It was designed and nothing was random. Next, Miller assumed that the atmosphere of early earth had certain concentrations of each gas used and those gases were just as pure as the ones used in the lab. The problem with this is that no one knows what the concentrations might have been if it actually happened like this. He made the assumption that the atmosphere was a reducing atmosphere (no free oxygen present) because the presence of oxygen would have prevented the amino acids from forming. There is no physical evidence to support the idea that the earth ever had a reducing atmosphere. Also, another problem arises. If there were no oxygen, then ozone wouldn’t be present either. This would mean that there would be no protection from the cosmic radiation. Miller also isolated the amino acids that were made because had they been in water, which would have broken down the amino acids not long after they formed. Another problem with the experiment is the type of amino acids that were created. Amino acids are either right-handed or left-handed. All of the amino acids found in living things are created from exclusively left-handed amino acids. In the experiment, there was a mixture of both types. This is bad for life because the types tend to bond with each other making them useless in creating the building blocks of life. All of this means that the Miller-Urey experiments proved nothing concerning the beginning of life on our planet.


There are other ideas that scientists have presented to explain how life originated on earth including the RNA world hypothesis (RNA was the first molecule of life – not possible because RNA requires proteins to be created and translated) and the clay hypothesis (DNA was created on the “backs” of complex crystals). Another hypothesis is the “bacteria first” idea. This says that bacteria came first, but where did they come from? A professor of biophysics from Yale calculated that the probability to create one E. coli bacterium in the universe by random processes is 1 in 10 –100,000,000,000. It is generally accepted that anything outside 1.0×10-50 is impossible. One newer idea, put forth by Francis Crick (one of the co-discoverers of DNA), is called directed panspermia. This is the idea that aliens came to earth and “seeded” life on our planet. This idea doesn’t resolve the problem; it just moves it to a different location (not to mention that the aliens would have been intelligent life forms…).


The cycle continues as you look at every major stage of evolution. The idea of evolution is riddled with problems. It happens at the boundary between unicellular and multicellular organisms (was it symbiosis, colonies, or cellularization; and where is the proof?). There are a number of ideas on how things “evolved” but none have much evidence to support them and a lot of conjecture to fill in the blanks. There are also problems with the development of plants and animals. How the first plants evolved the traits to overcome gravity, to keep from drying out, and to reproduce on land is unknown. The information on how invertebrates evolved into vertebrates is also a large gap with little evidence to support it. When and how did the internal skeleton and other vertebrate features evolve? This also applies to the transitions between fish and amphibians (skin that helps them breathe, better lungs), amphibians and reptiles (scales so they don’t dry out, even better lungs, an amniotic egg), reptiles and birds (feathers, countercurrent circulation system, different lungs, hollow bones), reptiles and mammals (hair/fur, warm bloodedness, milk production, organ of Corti), and primates and humans (language, logic, DNA differences). Evolutionists start with evolution as fact and then use this as the basis for their assumptions. Since we see things a certain way today, it means that evolution that had to happen, because they exist.


Other Contentions


One familiar contention is that the fossil record proves that evolution has happened. The fossil record supposedly shows a natural progression of transitional forms. The public is told that the fossil record is a history of evolution. What most people don’t realize is that this is far from true. In what is called the “Cambrian Explosion”, the fossil record shows a majority of fossils appearing all at once. These fossils are fully formed examples of animals, some of which still exist today. There are only a handful of disputed examples of transitional forms. Before the Cambrian explosion there are few fossils found. There are no examples of animals with 10% wing – 90% arm, 20%wing – 80% arm, etc. If the fossil record is “full of” examples of transitional fossils, surely there would be some examples of this? Evolutionists claim that similarities between fossils are evidence of a common ancestor, but that’s not the only way to look at similarities.


Another major contention has to do with information. If the evolutionary story is correct, it has no way of showing how the information necessary for life came about. DNA is the molecule that tells our cells who we are. It is a code that describes everything we need to live. If evolution is true, where did the information come from? Because it’s a code, it needs to be translated to be useful. For DNA, this is accomplished by special proteins that unwind the DNA, others that copy it, and still others that wind it back up. But, this presents a problem. The proteins that perform these jobs are encoded on the DNA they are copying. This means that the DNA would have had to be read, copied, translated, and transcribed in order to create the proteins that are doing the reading, copying, translating and transcribing. For what we see DNA doing today to actually work, it all had to exist at the same time. Evolution can’t account for this. Also, as I said above, DNA is a code. We have never seen a code or information come from anything but an intelligent source. Intelligence only comes from intelligence. Evolutionists would point to mutations and natural selection as the process for this, but that’s not possible. It doesn’t explain where the information came from to start with and natural selection and mutations can only work on existing information. In addition, scientists have yet to find a mutation that adds useful information into the genome.


Evolution says for a single cell (which somehow came from non-living matter) to evolve into a human being, it would have had to have millions of information adding mutations take place. The single cell didn’t have any information other than what was necessary for itself. There is absolutely no evidence that any of these mutations actually took place. If there is no way for mutations to add information to the existing information of the single cell (which itself still needs to be explained), then evolution is impossible.


While there are a number of other contentions (“junk” DNA, bad design of things like the eye, vestigial organs, etc…), until evolution can explain how information arises through natural processes and show that information can be added to the genome through mutations (with proof that this actually happened), it is only a fairy tale.


The Biblical View of Origins


According to the Bible, God created everything in six, 24-hour periods of time, about 6,000 years ago. He created things in a specific order and with a specific purpose. He created light and the heavens and the earth. He created plants of different kinds; plants bearing seed and trees bearing fruit. He created the sun, moon, and stars as signs for seasons and times (after the earth and plants…). He created different kinds of birds and marine animals. He created different kinds of land animals (including terrestrial dinosaurs!). And He created man. At the end of the sixth day, God saw that everything He created was “very good” (Genesis 1:31). Some time after creation was finished, the Bible says that man sinned against God by disobeying His command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Because of this sin – thorns, disease, and death were introduced into creation. Death wasn’t part of the creation until this time. About 1700 years after the creation of Adam, God saw the wickedness of man and judged the world with a global flood. This Flood covered the entire world (hence global) and buried a large number of animals and humans through the catastrophes that happened during the year of the Flood. The only animals and people that survived the Flood were those that were sheltered on the ark. God told Noah to build this ark to His specifications. God then brought two of every kind of animal (seven of each clean) to Noah to preserve them through the Flood. Noah and his wife, and his sons and their wives, were the only humans who entered the ark and were preserved through the Flood. After the Flood was over, the ark settled in the mountains of Ararat and everything came off the ark. They began to repopulate the earth and spread out over the new landscape. As this happened, different groups separated from each other and some information for that kind was no longer available to the other groups of that kind. Natural selection (which Biblical creationists have no problem with) acted upon the available information to create various new “sub-kinds” of animals (what evolutionists might call species). These new “sub-kinds” were better suited to their new environments and continued to grow and flourish. This means that the idea that God created “fixed species” is not a Biblical argument (although it is often used as a strawman argument to show that what Christians believe doesn’t follow what science shows…Fixity of species is actually a pagan Greek idea started by Aristotle).


Meanwhile, man also was fruitful and multiplied. They began to grow and flourish, and at this point, they all had the same language. Unfortunately, they chose to rebel against God’s directive to fill the earth and instead stayed in the plain of Shinar. While there, they decided (in pride) to build a tower to heaven in order to make a name for themselves and keep themselves from being “scattered abroad” (which is what God commanded them to do). Because of their rebellion, God came down and confused their languages so that different families couldn’t understand each other anymore. Because of the confusion, the different families (with their different languages) spread out over the earth. Like the animals that came off the ark, the human groups that separated from each other no longer had access to the some of the information in the human kind. Then, natural selection began to work on the information available and caused the different groups of people to adapt to their new environments.


Models based on the Biblical view of origins are still being developed (starting from scripture, instead of changing it), and make sense of much of the information that we gain from the different sciences. Even so, this view does explain many of the things that evolutionists have no evidence for. The Biblical view of origins explains where man came from and why. It explains how all living things came about. It also makes sense of the fossil record. The Flood buried a large number of terrestrial and marine animals very quickly (some were giving birth when they got buried) which prevented them from being eaten or broken down by the elements (contrary to what would have happened over millions of years). This would give us a large number of various fossils that were fully formed and lacked transitional forms in a few layers, which is exactly what we see. It also gives an explanation for the information found in the DNA code. God is infinitely intelligent. Because He created all things, it is only natural that He would be the source for the information found in DNA.


The Problem with the Biblical View


The problem with the Biblical view is not how it explains the evidence that we find in nature. The problem that many who promote evolution have with the Biblical view is something completely different. If the Biblical view is true then those who promote evolution are not only wrong, they are accountable. If the God of the Bible truly created everything in the universe, then He owns everything. Everything that God made belongs to Him and He has the right to say how things should be. This would mean that judgment is true. This would mean that none of us have the right to live our lives the way we want without being a rebel. This would mean that each of us would have to give an account of how we lived our lives and why we rebelled against God. It would mean that sin is real and taking thousands to hell. It would mean that God is angry with sinners. This is something that many people can’t or don’t want to think about.


Sadly, there are many “Christians” who don’t like this either. Some of them say that God used evolution, which disagrees with what the Bible says. A majority of them, however, don’t like the idea of hell and therefore create a different God that is “all-loving” and “all-forgiving”. They make excuses about people who have never heard the gospel, and back peddle to avoid having to think about whether or not they will go to hell. They call themselves “Christians” but deny the exclusivity of Jesus. They water down the truth in order to suit the lifestyle they currently live instead of getting rid of their pride and changing to conform to the Word. Like many of the “Christians” who compromised the truth to accept the current world ideas, these men and women do the same. The problem comes when those current worldviews change again. Will the compromising Christians change to follow the world and how will they explain it? Unfortunately, like the definition of evolution, the definition of Christianity has become plastic to include whatever people want it to mean. When people talk about evolution the definition can mean “changes over time” or “molecules changing into man” or whatever else it needs to be to try and make sense of the newest information available. In the same way, being a “Christian” no longer is strictly defined by the Biblical standard. Instead, being a “Christian” can now mean anything that you want it to mean. It can mean that you believe that there are many ways to get to heaven, even though Jesus said that He is the only way (John 14:6). It can mean that the majority of people are not going to hell because they’re good people, even though the Bible says that we are all sinners (Romans 3:23) and rebels against God and that every one of us deserves hell. It can mean that you can live your life however you want and sin your heart out as long as you ask for “forgiveness”, disregarding the idea that if someone truly loves Christ, they will not willingly commit sins because it would mock the sacrifice of Jesus, show that our words don’t mean anything, and possibly prevent people from truly getting saved. It is because so many think that they are Christians and living in opposition to the truth that many mock and curse God.


The Biblical view of origins is the only one that not only makes sense of how we came about, but it is the only one that gives us hope that we can escape the judgment to come if we will come to God on His terms. There is no other worldview that gives man anything like Christianity does.


One of the things that appalls me is the fact that we just got through the celebration of Jesus’ birth on Christmas and the majority of churches and churchgoers glossed over this in favor of presents and family and events. Many of these same churches and churchgoers will be part of the celebrations of a man who developed an idea that denies God and draws people away from the truth. Those who name the name of Christ should be ashamed for this. We should be telling people the truth, not only about Biblical origins, but about the truth of what’s to come and how they can be sure to escape the wrath of God.

Design of the Week – This I Know

February 4, 2009 at 4:29 pm | Posted in Designs of the Week | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This week’s focused design is called This I Know. This design was actually created by my daughter. It is something that she places her faith in. She knows that Jesus loves her and she stands in confidence that this is the truth. Recently, while doing her Bible study homework on the book of John, one of the questions was: “Would you be willing to die for Jesus?” She answered with a simple “Yes.” While I don’t know that she understands everything that it means, I don’t doubt her answer one bit. It is because she knows that Jesus loves her that she can answer that at all.


The love of Christ isn’t what many people seem to think that it is. It is so much deeper than the shallow representation that it is given by pastors, preachers, and other “Christians”. When most people talk about the love of Christ, they talk about it like a human love. Either it’s the “breathless” eros love (which has no place describing Jesus) or it’s the unbiblical notion of “blind love” that overlooks everything bad and forgoes truth and justice for us. There is no love like this in the Bible.


The love of Christ is contained in two acts. The first is His Incarnation. Think about it for a minute. God the Son gave up His place in heaven to come down and show us God. He became a part of His creation. He poured Himself into a fleshly body in order that He might reveal Himself to us. The second thing that shows Christ’s love is His Passion. He lived a life under human limitations. He allowed Himself to be ridiculed, mocked, spit upon, beaten, scourged, and eventually crucified. He did it all motivated by love. But it wasn’t a love that was focused on Himself. It was a self-sacrificing love that gave all. It was a love that was focused on God and His glory.


Please make sure that you understand the truth about the love of Christ. It is more than what most make of it. A misunderstanding of Christ’s love could result in the belief that someone is saved when they aren’t. It’s not something that you should wait on…

Groundhog Christians

February 2, 2009 at 6:30 am | Posted in Christianity | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

On February 2nd (today) of each year, many Americans will celebrate Groundhog Day. On Groundhog Day, people watch with baited breath as a groundhog comes out of his hole. If the groundhog sees his shadow (how do they know?), he runs back into his hole and there will supposedly be six more weeks of winter. If the groundhog doesn’t see his shadow, then spring is around the corner. In Pennsylvania, they have a special groundhog named Puncsatawny Phil who is something of a celebrity. Forgive me if I am just missing something, but how can whether or not a groundhog sees his shadow determine how long winter will be? It can’t.


Sadly, all this thinking (I had some extra time) got me to thinking about a lot of Christians I’ve seen. Like the groundhogs, they enjoy their comfortable religion and would rather remain there than step out to work for God. It is much easier for them to feel comfortable in “worship” or hearing “preaching” than doing the weightier things. It is estimated that no more than 2 per cent of all Christians share their faith regularly. Many of the preachers who stand before congregations on Sundays rarely preach about sin, hell, and judgment. It is almost impossible to find someone who will say that something is wrong.


If they do come out happen to step out and try to do something more, they shrink back in fear when they meet resistance and run back to their comfort zone. In scripture, Jesus promises us that we will be persecuted, hated, and possibly killed. Jesus said that they would hate our message and us. If they don’t, can we honestly say that we’re preaching the right message? While these Christians run back to their comfortable places, they don’t realize that they are abandoning the lost to the wintry conditions of a life without God and a destiny in hell. They neglect those who are perishing because they’re afraid of rejection and discomfort. Meanwhile, the lost could be born-again and see real change in their lives. In a way, they’re playing God by withholding the only hope man has from those who need Him most…On the other hand, if these Christians actually stand up and preach the truth, those around them will know what it means to be born-again.  They will also be an example of true Christianity.


One major problem many Christians seem to have is a false sense of celebrity. They drop the name of Christ wherever they think that it will bring them attention or an advantage. They use it to license to sin. They wear designer clothes, shoes, etc, and talk about how “blessed” they are. The problem is, no matter how nicely you dress a groundhog; it’s still a giant rodent. They seem to forget that it isn’t about our skill, wisdom, or our idea of Christianity. It’s not about how we have “authority” (Jesus said that all authority was given to Him –Matt. 28:18). It’s not about us being “blessed”. It is the Lord who gives and takes away. When you actually read the Bible, you can easily see that we merit nothing of God’s blessing. Many groundhog Christians act like God owes them something because they’ve accepted Christ! They don’t seem to understand that we don’t accept Christ, He accepts us!


We are not celebrities! We are wretched, filthy sinners who have been rescued from an eternity in hell by a holy, just, merciful God. We are like groundhogs that are afraid of our own shadow. We need to stop living by sight and live by faith instead; spending our time preaching the truth regardless of anything else…

Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: