Sermon Sunday – Jonathon Edwards

May 15, 2011 at 6:30 am | Posted in Sermon Sunday | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God


 Jonathan Edwards

Preached July 8th, 1741

“In due time their foot will slip”–Deut. 32:35

Transcription update copyright © Tony Capoccia, 2007

In this verse the vengeance of God is threatened upon the wicked unbelieving Israelites, who were God’s chosen people, and who lived under the means of grace; but who, despite all of God’s wonderful works towards them, remained without sense, having no discernment in them (Deut. 32:28). After all the cultivations of Heaven, they brought forth bitter and poisonous fruit; as shown in verses 32 and 33. The verse that I have chosen for my text, “In due time their foot will slide,” seems to imply the following things, relating to the punishment and destruction to which these wicked Israelites were exposed. Continue Reading Sermon Sunday – Jonathon Edwards…

What has Jesus done for me? (long)

April 22, 2011 at 11:08 am | Posted in Christianity | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It seems that more and more these days people are asking one simple question. It may take a few different forms, but at it’s root, it’s all the same: “What has Jesus done for me?”. Sometimes it comes out in the attitudes, sometimes in actual words but it’s there none the less. Man’s pride puts himself at the top of the pyramid with everything else beneath him. Even family and friends are often under self. Some that ask this question, do so because they can’t see how Jesus has done anything for them. They think that they are responsible for their own success. Ironically, they always seem to blame God for their failures. Continue Reading What has Jesus done for me? (long)…

Why do you go to church?

December 15, 2010 at 1:26 pm | Posted in Christianity | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I have been thinking about something and anyone who reads this blog knows that it means trouble….

Over the past year, I’ve been looking for a church. I have been to a few churches and they’ve been full of nice people, and yet, I’ve not been able to find a church that has what I am looking for in a church. Let me state again, the churches that I’ve been to are full of very nice people, but it’s not enough. My search is especially frustrating because I live in the “Bible belt” of the United States. Here, there is a church on every street corner (this is almost literal). Here, going to church is a regular part of life. But, as I’ve studied scripture, I’ve noticed that the reason we go is very important. Even more important is what goes on there. Continue Reading Why do you go to church?…

Genesis 4:1-7

December 7, 2010 at 11:49 am | Posted in Bible Study | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, “I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD.” Again, she gave birth to his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of flocks, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the LORD of the fruit of the ground. Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and for his offering; but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard. So Cain became very angry and his countenance fell. Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? “If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.”

This week, we begin to see what happens after the Fall. We see how quickly the sinful nature takes hold of what was once a perfect creation. If you recall, Adam and Eve have been ousted from the garden of Eden because they disobeyed God and ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They’ve returned to where Adam was made and have settled there. Imagine for a minute being the only two people on the entire planet. It was always this way, but now, things are different. Now, you don’t have fellowship with God like you used to. Now, sin and death have entered the world and everything is a little more ominous. And yet, in all of this there is hope brought about by the promise given by God.

Eventually, Adam and Eve have a child and name him Cain. When Cain is born, she says, “I have gotten a manchild with the help of the Lord”. There is something interesting here though. In many Bibles, the phrase “the help of” is in italics. That means that this phrase isn’t found in the original writings. That would make Eve’s original quote, “I have gotten a manchild with the Lord”. The implication here is that the promise was going to be fulfilled in Cain. While she was wrong about that, it does show that Eve held on to the promise that God gave her. After Cain’s birth follows Abel’s. We don’t have any idea how much time passed from the expulsion of Adam and Eve to Cain’s birth or between Cain’s birth and Abel’s but, we do know that Adam was 130 years old when Seth (the third son) was born. This means that the Fall, expulsion, birth of Cain, birth of Abel, murder of Abel, and birth of Seth all happened within 130 years of the creation.

 Again, we aren’t given any indication of what happened as the boys grew other than the jobs they took on. Abel was a tender of the flocks and Cain was a tiller of the ground. The Bible says that “in the course of time” Cain brought an offering from the fruit of the ground. For his offering, Abel brought of the first born of his flock and their fat portions. Many people gloss over this (if not the entirety of chapters 4 and 5) but it’s important. Here we see that Cain and Abel both recognize that they are to give offerings to the Lord. This must have been something that Adam and Eve taught them to do. This in turn means that it is something that Adam and Eve did. From the beginning, man has been giving offerings to the Lord. Not only that, but it shows what type of offerings they were bringing. In the next few verses, we see that the Lord regarded Abel’s sacrifice, but He didn’t regard (accept) Cain’s. Why? If Cain was a tiller of the ground and God knew that, why would He disregard his offering? The reason is simple and it points to a basic problem that man will have until Christ returns. Man wants to do things his own way instead of doing them God’s way.

How do I know this? Well, from personal experience, from seeing it happen in others, and from what God says to Cain when he gets angry. God reminds Cain that if he “does well” his countenance will be lifted up. This implies that Cain knew that he was to bring a blood sacrifice. This is what Abel brought. I would suppose that this is because of what God did when man first sinned against him in the garden. Do you remember? God killed two animals to make clothes for Adam and Eve. Abel offers a blood sacrifice in remembrance of that. Cain does not. But, there is more to it then that. When God talks to Cain, He says that if Cain does well, his countenance will be lifted up. Cain was angry and crestfallen because God didn’t accept the sacrifice that he decided to bring to him. But, God says that if he “does well” he will be lifted up again. I can’t say with certainty because scripture doesn’t say for sure, but I believe that God was showing Cain that all he had to do was offer up a blood sacrifice. I believe that if Cain would have talked to Abel and asked for or traded for a sheep or goat, Abel would have given it. Cain could have sacrificed the way that God required and Abel’s death would not have taken place.

How often do we try to manipulate things or do things our way and hope that God blesses them? We do all that we can to work and get things set up just so, and when God refuses to bless something that wasn’t the way He wanted it done, we get mad and sin against Him and others. God warns Cain (and us) that if we are angry, sin crouches at our door and waits for us, desiring us to let it in. How many times have you heard on the news about some tragedy that has taken place just because someone got angry over something? It happens all the time and usually it is for the stupidest reasons. God warns us that if we will “do well” and make sure that we do things the way that He wants us to, we will have our countenances lifted up and we will master sin!

Will you be like Abel or like Cain? In the book of 1 John, John reminds us that we are not to love one another like Cain loved Abel. Cain didn’t really love Abel. If he did, he wouldn’t have killed him. When we get angry at others for walking according to scripture and in obedience to God, do we really love them? John says that the message that we’ve heard from the beginning is to love one another. The word that John uses for love in that verse is the Greek word agape. It is the God kind of love. Many people know this and can tell you this, but can they describe it? What does agape love really look like? The greatest example of agape love is the death of Jesus on the cross for sinful mankind. He was spotless and without sin and yet, He went through the ridicule, the mocking, the scourging, the crucifixion, and the wrath of God for those who hate Him. He hung on the cross and forgave those who put Him there. This is agape love and it’s the way that Christians are supposed to love others.

As we end this week, let me ask you: Do you love with agape love? Are you prepared to die for someone else? Someone that isn’t in your family? Someone that hates you? Someone that you don’t like? This is agape

As always, comments, questions, suggestions, and complaints are welcome. Just leave them below and I’ll try to get to them as soon as I can. Next week we continue with the murder of Abel. See you then!

Genesis 1:1-5

August 23, 2010 at 9:10 pm | Posted in Bible Study | 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

With us beginning a new schedule for our blog and adding a Bible study, we believe that the best place to start at is the book of Genesis. This book is one of the most controversial of all those in the Bible. The book of Genesis provides the foundation of so many different doctrines that an understanding of this book is essential to anyone wanting to know the origin of Christian beliefs. In the book of Genesis, we find the Creation, the Fall, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. The history in Genesis spans about 2,200 years of history. It includes a number of things that will be followed throughout the rest of scripture. Continue Reading Genesis 1:1-5…

Two Kingdoms

July 26, 2010 at 8:16 pm | Posted in Christianity | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Growing up, I always loved the stories of knights and dragons and damsels. It was a great thing to imagine being a warrior defending the kingdom from evil; whether that evil was an ogre, a greedy courtesan, or a marauding band of mercenaries. To go out and save a princess was always a promising quest. As I’ve grown up, I’ve realized that there aren’t any dragons (anymore), that ogres don’t exist (at least not the fairy tale ones), and that most “princesses” today are in the “towers” they’re in because they want to be there and really don’t want to be rescued. There is however a wisp of my childhood imaginations that still lingers. I am a citizen of a kingdom and so are you. As a matter of fact, there are only two kingdoms in existence and you are part of one or the other. Continue Reading Two Kingdoms…


February 15, 2010 at 1:59 pm | Posted in Christianity | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

When you take a look at the world today, much of what goes on is based on image. How things look dictate a lot of how we live our lives. What the weather looks like determines what we wear, where we go, and what we do. What a person looks like often causes us to make a  quick, all-inclusive judgment as to the person’s demeanor, their lifestyle, and possibly even their childhood. A large majority of the items that we buy today are bought based on their image. Ad companies try to make everything from clothes to cars to cigarettes more appealing by giving them an image that will draw people in, regardless of whether the product is really as good as they say it is (which is seldom the case). Movies, TV shows, magazines, and music are all given a special image that the producers hope will cause millions of people to part with either time or money for that product. They strive to make each image unique so that it “stands out” from the rest of the products. Continue Reading Image…


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.

Next Page »

Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: