I have written before in opposition to the idea that God loves everybody, without discrimination, from Romans 9:13 and Psalm 5:5, or that we are commanded to do so, from Psalm 139:21. It is that latter theme which has come up in my own personal Bible study.
As I am reading through II Chronicles, I have reached the story of King Jehoshaphat of Judah. In chapter 18, he formed an alliance with the wicked King Ahab of Israel. In II Chronicles 19:2, we see the reaction of God to that alliance: "Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him and said to King Jehoshaphat, 'Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord? Because of this, wrath has gone out against you from the Lord.'"
That is a judgment that should send alarms through the souls of all the latitudinarian evangelicals in America. Not only are unequal relationships tolerated, but even promoted, with some blubbery admonition to "love ever'body"! Friendships with unbelievers, business and political alliances, even marriages, in violation of such Scriptures as II Corinthians 6:14-15 and Revelation 18:4.
Holiness takes thought, discernment, not sentiment. No doubt, someone reading this, is saying, "But the Bible says not to judge!" Really? My Bible contains John 7:24: "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment." And the story of Jehoshaphat demonstrates that God takes that standard very seriously!
Friday, December 27, 2013
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Psalm 119:99-100, the Explanation for Why Evolutionary "Scientists" Don't Have a Clue
"I have more understanding than all my teachers, for Your testimonies are my meditation. I understand more than the aged, for I keep Your precepts."
With these words, the anonymous author of Psalm 119 reveals what is at the heart of the continuous controversy over the question of ultimate origins.
As are all men, unbelieving scientists (and their representatives in education and the popular media) are fallen; they are sinners. Thus, their moral natures are corrupted. However, they continue to be men, so they have the ability to reason. It isn't their ability to reason which is misaligned, but rather their worldview, which is built on erroneous premises.
As a rational human being, a scientist, a bureaucrat, or an educator, has the ability to study and describe the relationships among living things, such as between a plant and its pollinator, or between a carnivore and its prey. Where they fail is their inability to acknowledge the relationship of each creature or species to its Creator. Only a believer can recognize that.
The Apostle Paul describes this contrast in I Corinthians 2:14, "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."
This is the problem with court decisions which have banned the discussion of biblical creation, on the basis of "religious neutrality." Secularism isn't "spiritually-neutral." It is a contrary spiritual worldview, a view which has been given legal preference over orthodox Christianity.
With these words, the anonymous author of Psalm 119 reveals what is at the heart of the continuous controversy over the question of ultimate origins.
As are all men, unbelieving scientists (and their representatives in education and the popular media) are fallen; they are sinners. Thus, their moral natures are corrupted. However, they continue to be men, so they have the ability to reason. It isn't their ability to reason which is misaligned, but rather their worldview, which is built on erroneous premises.
As a rational human being, a scientist, a bureaucrat, or an educator, has the ability to study and describe the relationships among living things, such as between a plant and its pollinator, or between a carnivore and its prey. Where they fail is their inability to acknowledge the relationship of each creature or species to its Creator. Only a believer can recognize that.
The Apostle Paul describes this contrast in I Corinthians 2:14, "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."
This is the problem with court decisions which have banned the discussion of biblical creation, on the basis of "religious neutrality." Secularism isn't "spiritually-neutral." It is a contrary spiritual worldview, a view which has been given legal preference over orthodox Christianity.
Sunday, December 8, 2013
The Answer of Genesis to the Question of Stellar Distances, Light, and a Young-Earth Creation
In the conflict between the belief in a young-earth creation and evolutionism (whether atheistic or theistic), the evolutionist side often refers to the distance to some light sources as proof of an old earth, even billions of years old. Their argument is that, since it takes millions, or even billions, of years for light to reach the earth from some intergalactic sources, then the universe must be at least that old.
Some creationists have claimed that non-Euclidean geometry removes the necessity that light must take that long to get here. And that may be true. I simply don't have the mathematical knowledge to express an opinion on the matter. Fortunately for me, such knowledge isn't necessary, because biblical creationism doesn't require that system.
Rather, I believe that the book of Genesis already includes sufficient information to provide the answer.
In Genesis 1: 2-5, the Bible tells us that God created light on the first day of the creation week. That is, He created light as a thing in itself, not simply as the derivative effect of distant light sources. Those light sources appear independently as His handiwork on the fourth day. Why is that important? Because it indicates that light was already in transit between the newly-created light source in the distance and its being seen here on earth. In other words, those light sources were not created as the initiators of the light we see, but rather as the sources of continuous resupply of that light. Thus, for example, Adam saw light from the direction of Alpha Centauri for 4.3 years before he saw the first light actually produced by Alpha Centauri. In the same way, we will be seeing light from the direction of Andromeda for an eon before we see the first light produced by that neighboring galaxy.
So, I suggest that simple logic indicates that the vast stellar distance pose no issue for the belief in the biblical, young-earth creation. The revelation from God of His actions remains sufficient, unchallenged, and unadulterated.
Some creationists have claimed that non-Euclidean geometry removes the necessity that light must take that long to get here. And that may be true. I simply don't have the mathematical knowledge to express an opinion on the matter. Fortunately for me, such knowledge isn't necessary, because biblical creationism doesn't require that system.
Rather, I believe that the book of Genesis already includes sufficient information to provide the answer.
In Genesis 1: 2-5, the Bible tells us that God created light on the first day of the creation week. That is, He created light as a thing in itself, not simply as the derivative effect of distant light sources. Those light sources appear independently as His handiwork on the fourth day. Why is that important? Because it indicates that light was already in transit between the newly-created light source in the distance and its being seen here on earth. In other words, those light sources were not created as the initiators of the light we see, but rather as the sources of continuous resupply of that light. Thus, for example, Adam saw light from the direction of Alpha Centauri for 4.3 years before he saw the first light actually produced by Alpha Centauri. In the same way, we will be seeing light from the direction of Andromeda for an eon before we see the first light produced by that neighboring galaxy.
So, I suggest that simple logic indicates that the vast stellar distance pose no issue for the belief in the biblical, young-earth creation. The revelation from God of His actions remains sufficient, unchallenged, and unadulterated.
Monday, December 2, 2013
II Kings 24:4, When Will America Pay the Price for Innocent Bood?
I am outspoken both in my support for capital punishment and opposition to legalized infanticide (euphemistically called "abortion"). I am frequently told that those two positions are inconsistent, since both involve killing people. I find that objection offensive and egregious, because it fails to distinguish between guilty life and innocent life.
I have written before about the parallel between abortion in our society and Molech worship in the Old Testament. But it is on my heart to speak on it again.
At the end of II Kings, the writer relates the account of the final destruction of the Kingdom of Judah by Babylon in 586 BC. The coming of the Babylonians during the reign of King Jehoiakim was God's judgment on the apostasy of the King's grandfather, King Manasseh, "for the innocent blood that he had shed, for he had filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and the Lord would not pardon" (II Kings 24:4).
We Americans have killed an estimated 52 million unborn (more accurately, preborn) children, just since the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973 (some states, including my own North Carolina, had legal abortion prior to that time). That river of blood makes Manasseh look like Mother Theresa! I can't help but weep.
If Manasseh's murder of scores of children in his time brought about the destruction of his nation, what judgment has been earned by the blood of 52 million helpless and innocent babies? And what judgment awaits the American church, which has mostly stood quietly while that holocaust has continued? We rightly condemn the German church for its silence as the Jews were trucked away to the gas chambers. Do we not see the parallel to our own passivity as children are being ripped apart and flushed away?
I have written before about the parallel between abortion in our society and Molech worship in the Old Testament. But it is on my heart to speak on it again.
At the end of II Kings, the writer relates the account of the final destruction of the Kingdom of Judah by Babylon in 586 BC. The coming of the Babylonians during the reign of King Jehoiakim was God's judgment on the apostasy of the King's grandfather, King Manasseh, "for the innocent blood that he had shed, for he had filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and the Lord would not pardon" (II Kings 24:4).
We Americans have killed an estimated 52 million unborn (more accurately, preborn) children, just since the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973 (some states, including my own North Carolina, had legal abortion prior to that time). That river of blood makes Manasseh look like Mother Theresa! I can't help but weep.
If Manasseh's murder of scores of children in his time brought about the destruction of his nation, what judgment has been earned by the blood of 52 million helpless and innocent babies? And what judgment awaits the American church, which has mostly stood quietly while that holocaust has continued? We rightly condemn the German church for its silence as the Jews were trucked away to the gas chambers. Do we not see the parallel to our own passivity as children are being ripped apart and flushed away?
