Even extraordinary claims require only ordinary evidence!

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a post describing how some critics of Christianity use demands for “evidence” as a way of dodging tough questions rather than dealing with them. In that post, I described a hypothetical example of two strangers: one tells me he has a pet dog and the other tells me he has a pet sloth. In these cases, I would be apt to believe the claim to own a dog but be skeptical of the claim to own a sloth.

A few people have tried to point out to me that my heightened suspicion of the claim to own a sloth actually contradicts a point I made later in my post. Carl Sagan made a famous claim that, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” By me being more critical of the claim to own a sloth than a dog, they say I'm engaging in exactly the kind of skepticism Sagan said was necessary before believing an extraordinary claim. I don't think so, but since a few people have accused me of the same thing, I thought I'd use this as an opportunity to expound my earlier point.

First off, Sagan's claim is self-contradicting. If it were true, then where is the evidence for Sagan's claim? I'm not even asking for extraordinary evidence, mind you. I mean any scientific evidence whatsoever to justify the claim that claims require evidence? If Sagan were here and I asked him to present the evidence for his claim, I'm sure he would resort to logic and reason which proves my point. Through logic and reason, we can make judgments about the truthfulness of a claim – even a claim for which there may be no scientific evidence! In my example about the sloth, you will notice that not once did I demand to see the sloth. My point in asking more questions was so that I might judge the truthfulness of the claim using only my skills of logic and reason.

But let's examine that a little but further. What if I were an especially stubborn skeptic and demand to see a picture of the sloth? If he pulled out a photo of him holding his sloth, that really still wouldn't prove anything. How do I know he didn't have that picture taken some exotic petting zoo somewhere? How do I know it's not a Photoshop? Maybe he could take me to his home and show the sloth in person. It's still not enough because, if I were especially bullheaded, I could ask for proof that this was his home. You say he has the deed? So what?! Maybe he's leasing part of his property to someone else who actually owns the sloth! No matter what evidence he shows me, I could sit cross armed and skeptical saying, “That's not enough evidence!”

This is my frustration with many unbelievers. I try to give reasoned arguments and ask they consider them objectively yet they respond only with a demand for more evidence. For some people, I could say that it would take God appearing to them personally to make them believe but I know even that wouldn't be enough because they could still dismiss God's appearance as a hallucination. For someone who truly doesn't want to believe, no amount of evidence – not even extraordinary evidence – is sufficient.

Now back up a minute. Remember about the person claiming to own a dog? If I were just as skeptical of his claim, what evidence might he produce that is different than the evidence that I demanded from the owner of a sloth? In other words, how is the evidence that proves someone owns a dog substantially different than the evidence that proves someone owns a sloth? If I am truly a “blank slate” and will never believe something unless I have evidence for it, then the evidence necessary to prove someone owns a dog need not be any different than the evidence necessary to prove someone owns a sloth.

To prove conclusively a person owns a dog or a sloth or even a stegosaurus, it would take roughly the same evidence: 1) look at his address on his ID, 2) drive to that address, and 3) see if the animal is there. One claim may seem more extraordinary than another, but the evidence to prove any of the claims is rather ordinary. The critic might ask, “what if he doesn't really own the animal? Maybe he's caring for a friend's or relative's pet.” Regardless, whatever could be said of a pet sloth could also be said of a pet dog. The evidence to prove either is still the same.

What if I claimed to own a Big Foot? Simple – drive to my house and see it for yourself. What if I claimed to own a unicorn? Drive to my house and see it for yourself. What if I claimed to have a flying saucer in my backyard? Drive to my house and see if for yourself. What if I claimed to have created a to-scale model of the Grand Canyon in my backyard? Drive to my house and see it for yourself. What is so “extraordinary” about the evidence that could prove any of these extraordinary claims?

Besides the famous quote we've discussed here, Carl Sagan also left us the analogy, The Dragon In My Garage. In that story, he pretended to have dragon in his garage and invited his skeptical friend to see it. Of course, the garage appeared to be empty. Sagan explained the dragon was invisible. The friend thought of ways to see if the dragon was there: spray paint the dragon to make it visible, sprinkle powder on the floor to see its footprints, or use a sensor to detect its flames. One by one, Sagan explained why none of these would work. A subtle irony here is that the skeptic only seems to be looking for ordinary evidence: he wants to see the dragon! Owning a dragon is an extraordinary claim. According to Sagan, it should require extraordinary evidence to substantiate that claim but in this analogy, merely seeing the dragon seems to be enough. So even Sagan, who made this famous quote, seems to understand that the proof for owning a dragon really isn't any different than the proof for owning a dog.

In Isaiah 1:18, God says, “Come now, and let us reason together.” To have the clearest picture of reality requires that we employ our God given gifts of reason and deduction. For someone to set the ridiculously high standard of evidence before believing anything is a guarantee to have a distorted view of reality.

The word “extraordinary” is enormously subjective. It describes more about the person hearing the claim than the nature of the claim itself. When a claim is labeled, “extraordinary,” it means the person hearing the claim has a hard time believing it. Maybe he just doesn't want to believe it. But even extraordinary claims require only ordinary evidence. To say one claim requires “extraordinary” evidence simply means the skeptic is likely to reject most of the evidence you present because of his own incredulity.

Further reading:

When asking for evidence becomes a red herring

Carl Sagan's Invisible Dragon

How many jellybeans are in this jar?

Bill Nye on video lying about evidence!

Answering the 10 Theological Questions That No Young-earth Creationist Can Answer!

I came across an article online titled, 10 Theological Questions No Young-Earth Creationist Can Answer. In the article, the author, Tyler Francke, tries to build a case that many points in young earth creationism are not supported by the Bible.

Headlines like this have always annoyed me. Besides sounding presumptuous, the “questions” asked have usually been answered many times before. What the authors are trying to do is make their argument seem irrefutable merely by claiming their questions can't be answered. It borders on dishonesty. I would rather they used headlines more like, “10 Questions for Creationists.”

As always, I recommend you click the link and read the article for yourself. The author expounds on each question he asks so if you just read the question by itself, you may not appreciate the full scope of what the author means by asking the question.

As he expounds on each point, Francke anticipates what he thinks are the most probable answers from creationists. This is a rather ordinary tactic of most debaters but I don't think Francke is very successful in overcoming the objections he raises. In some cases, his treatment of the criticism is barely more than ridiculing it. Perhaps he is merely attempting to poison the well by raising the possible answers before his critics can.

The questions in this article are somewhat interesting but they're hardly not answerable. I know I always say I'm going to stop writing series but here I am getting ready to start another. I intend to answer the 10 questions. I'm not going to write 10 posts; instead, I'm going to answer 2-3 answers at a time.

I wonder if, when I'm done, the author will retract his headline? Chuckle.

1. What was the point of the tree of life?

Francke's point in asking this question is that, if God had intended people to not die in the original creation, why would He create the Tree of Life whose purpose seems to be granting immortality to anyone who eats from it? In his own words, “why, exactly, did God create a magical tree that grants immortality in a world where every living thing was already immortal?”

First off, I believe we always risk sounding foolish when we begin to ask why God does any certain thing. We simply do not know everything God knows. In asking this question, Francke says the purpose of the Tree of Life is “abundantly clear.” I disagree. If the Tree of Life were pointless in the initial creation where there wasn't any death, then Francke should maybe ask why God also puts the Tree of Life in the new creation (Revelation 22:1-2, 14)? After all, the Bible is perfectly clear there will be no more death (Revelation 21:4) so, according to Francke's logic, God has no reason to put a Tree of Life in the new creation. Yet there it is.

What does seem clear from the text is that the Tree of Life does have a role in a world where there is no death. I admit I'm not completely sure of the purpose of the Tree of Life but, unlike Francke, I will grant that God knows what He's doing.

2. If human sin is the reason animals die, why can’t they be saved?

Let’s recap: young-earth creationists believe all death, even animal death, is a consequence of human sin. Now, ignoring for a moment the fact that the Bible never once actually says animal death is a consequence of human sin

The author dismisses 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, saying it only describes human death. I suspect he would make the same argument about Romans 5:12, even though that verse is a little more compelling. Before I address the animals, I would ask Francke what these verses mean in relation to human death? According to his blog, he believes in a god of evolution which means men have always died. Death was in the world – including death in the supposed homo ancestors – long before there was sin. So while he may claim these verses only describe human death, he doesn't explain exactly how that works in the theistic evolution paradigm.

Of course, we know the Curse wasn't limited to Adam. Genesis 3:17 attests that God cursed even the ground because of Adam's sin. The world would no longer be the paradise He created but that the ground would now bring forth thorns and thistles. Furthermore, Romans 8:22 says, “...the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.” So the notion of a very narrow Curse that is limited to death among men but having no change on anything else is contrary to the clear teaching of the Bible.

The crux of the matter, though, is that man is separate from the animals. We alone are created in the image of God and have a spiritual dimension that is not present in animals. The earth and the animals were created to be our dominion and for our service. Christ died to redeem the descendants of Adam; not the animals. So, no. Animals can't be saved.  Don't get me wrong, though. God has a plan for the creation.  He redeemed us by His own blood and He also will restore the creation. 

Animals are described in Genesis 1 as “living” (nephesh) in the same way people have life. Since there was no death in the initial creation, neither would animals have died. Indeed, prior to the Fall, animals were not carnivorous. Genesis 1:30 says,  

And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

When the curse has ended, so will death among animals end. Isaiah 11:6 is habitually misquoted as, “The lion shall lay down with the lamb.” The verse actually says,

“The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.”

When death began among men, it also began among the animals. When death has ended among men, so will it end among the animals.  The fate of the creation turns upon man's relationship with God. There is no separate salvation for animals.

Read the entire series:
Part 2

Part 3

Part 4
Part 5

Predestination: A Series on Election, Part 2 – The Total Depravity of Man

As I discussed in my last post, the 5 points of Calvinism are summarized with the acronym, TULIP. The letters stand for:

• Total depravity of man
• Unconditional election
• Limited atonement
• Irresistible grace
• Preservation of the saints

Fundamental to Calvinism is the idea that mankind is totally depraved. He is a hopeless sinner who is not only completely unable to do good works but also lacks even the desire to do good. Therefore, a man is totally without any power to even call on God to save him. According to Calvinism, a man lacks the ability or desire to be saved in the same way a dead person lacks the ability or desire to come out of the grave. It's impossible.

There are some verses in the Bible that support this concept:

John 6:63, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing”

Romans 3:10-11, “as it is written, “There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God.” (Paul is paraphrasing Psalm 14)

Jeremiah 17:9, “The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?”

John 6:44, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.”

If I read only these verses and nothing else in the Bible, I would have to agree 100% that a man could not and would not come to God by his own will. However, there are other verses that we must consider.

Joshua 24:15, “If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

1 Kings 18:21, “Elijah came near to all the people and said, “How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.””

Isaiah 1:18, ““Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the Lord, “Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool.”

As clearly as the first passages seemed to say we are unable to come to God, these other passages seem clearly seem to say we have a choice. I admit that it seems to be a dilemma. I think the key to understanding all verses in harmony hinges on the realization that God is sovereign but even the sovereignty of God is a difficult subject to grasp.

My point here is not to establish which verses are “correct.” The fact of the matter is that all the verses are correct. Neither am I trying to suggest what is the more likely understanding. Like I've already said, I only intend to discuss the different points of view. As we can see, Scriptural support for either view can be found. It would be rather narrow minded of us to cling dogmatically to one or the other and “explain away” the opposing verses. A better course of action would be to trust that God is loving, merciful, and just and know that He will always do what is right.

We need to simply trust in Jesus as our Savior without worrying about whether or not we were predestined to do so.

Acts 20:28: The Blood of God or the Blood of His Son? An Argument of Exceptions

“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” Acts 20:28

I was online the other day, discussing this verse. It's one of special, theological importance. A plain reading of this verse shows that God purchased the church, “with His own blood.” Obviously, it was Jesus who shed His blood on the cross so this verse seems to affirm the divinity of Jesus. That is, Jesus is God.

The person with whom I was discussing this verse took exception to that understanding. He resorted to a “mistranslation” argument. I've had dealings with this individual before and his Greek is not really that good. However, in this case, there is a certain amount of ambiguity in the Greek that he was leveraging to bolster his point.

The Greek reads, διὰ (through) τοῦ (the) αἵματος (blood) τοῦ (the) ἰδίου (His own).

The most obvious translation of this verse is the one rendered in most Bibles, “through His own blood.” Another translation, which is a little more awkward in English, is “through the blood which is His own.” But there is still another possibility: “through the blood of His own (Son).”

The latter translation is not the most likely but it is still possible. The question is, which is the intended translation of the three? Since the critic I was conversing with online did not believe Jesus is God, he argued the 3^rd translation, the least likely one, is the correct one. He hooted and cheered that even RKBentley, a conservative Christian, acknowledged that “through the blood of His own” had merit as a possible translation. Of course, he ignored that I said it is the less likely one. As far as he was concerned, it is THE translation because Jesus is not God.

From there, we began discussing some other verses that referred to Jesus as God. Here are a few that I cited – please excuse my frequent use of the word, “clearly,” I was making a point:

In John 20:28, Thomas clearly says to Jesus, “The Lord of me and the God of me.”

John 1:1c clearly says, “the Word was God.”

Titus 2:13 clearly says, “the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ”

2 Peter 1:1 clearly says, “our God and Savior, Jesus Christ”

In John 10:11, Jesus clearly said, “I AM (ἐγὼ εἰμι) the good shepherd” while Psalm 23:1 clearly says, “Jehovah is my shepherd.”

In Matthew 3:3, John the Baptist said he was preparing the way for the Lord (who is clearly Jesus) just like Isaiah said. Isaiah 40:3 clearly said the prophet will prepare the way for Jehovah.

Joel 2:32 clearly says that whoever calls upon the name of Jehovah will be saved. Roman 10:13 clearly says whoever calls upon the name of the Lord (Jesus) will be saved.

Revelation 1:8, we clearly see that God is the Alpha and Omega. In Revelation 1:17, Jesus clearly says He is the first and the last. In Revelation 22:13, we clearly see that the Alpha/Omega and the first/last is the same Person.

In John 5:21, Jesus clearly says He gives life just as the Father gives life.

In John 5:23 Jesus clearly says we should honor Him in the same way we honor the Father

In John 10:30, Jesus clearly said, “I and the Father are one.”

We also have many clear instances of people worshiping Jesus; The man born blind (John 9:38), the magi (Matthew 2:11), the disciples in the boat (Matthew 14:33), et al.

So we see time after time where the Bible clearly identifies Jesus as God. The response from my critic friend online was to cite William Barclay:

But we shall find that on almost every occasion in the New Testament on which Jesus seems to be called God there is a problem either of textual criticism or of a translation. In almost every case we have to discuss which of two readings is to be accepted or which two possible translations is to be accepted.

Note that Barclay said, “almost every occasion.” If the Bible says even once that Jesus is God, then that would clear up the ambiguous verses but never mind that now. What struck me was that the rebuttal I usually hear to seemingly clear references of Jesus' divinity is to say that the Bible doesn't really mean what it clearly seems to be saying.  Each and every time the Bible seems to identify Jesus as God, they say a more obscure translation of the verse is the correct one.

Is that the best they have? Their only response - ever - is to say, “what that really means is....”  We argue rules and they argue exceptions. How odd it would be if God gave us His revelation in code. How are we expected to understand any part of the Bible if the most ordinary meaning of any verse is never the correct one?

1 Chronicles 16:30: Does the Bible Say the Earth Doesn't Move?

A frequent visitor to my blog left a comment where he alluded to biblical passages that speak of the earth not moving (geocentricism). He didn't cite a specific verse but this isn't the first time I've heard that criticism so I'm aware of certain passages which are frequently cited in support of that claim. Perhaps the most frequently cited is 1 Chronicles 16:30:

Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved. (1 Chronicles 16:30)

At first hearing, this criticism seems to have legs (for any Bible critic reading this, I'm using an expression. The criticism doesn't “literally” have legs). The genre of 1 Chronicles is historical narrative – unlike Psalms which is Hebrew poetry. So when we read a passage like 1 Chron 16:30 in the midst of historical narrative, it seems as though the Bible might literally be saying the earth does not move. A quick look at the context, however, quickly dispels that notion.

First off, the passage is clearly introduced as a psalm (i.e. “song” or “prayer”) of David. 1 Chron 16:7 says, “Then on that day David delivered first this psalm to thank the Lord into the hand of Asaph and his brethren.” Like the book of Psalms, the passage uses poetic descriptions to convey spiritual truth – not necessarily literal truth. In the same passage (v. 32-33) David says that the sea “roars,” the fields “rejoice,” and the trees “sing.”

Why don't the same critics who allege this passage endorses geocentricism, also assert the Bible teaches that trees sing? It's because they know that people will immediately recognize trees singing as an obvious use of metaphor. Yet they still quote v. 30 as though it's meant to be a statement of fact. This is a clear case of quote mining where critics cite a passage out of context in order to make it sound like the Bible says something that it clearly does not intend.

Another thing we must be careful to consider is what is meant by the use of the words like “world” and “earth.” Often, when these words are used, they are not referring to the physical earth but the people of the earth. This is demonstrated in the same verse in question. 1 Chron 16:30a says, “Fear before Him all the earth.” Do you think this means the literal “earth” should fear Him or doesn't it more likely mean the people of the earth? It could mean the literal earth in the same sense that the “fields” rejoice. On the other hand, it could also mean the people of the earth. The Bible does use the words “earth” and “world” in that sense; Here are some indisputable examples where this is so:

And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity. (Isaiah 13:11a)

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (Luke 2:1)

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

In these passages, and others, the word “world” clearly means the people who live in the world. No one, for example, could rationally argue that Luke 2:1 means that the literal earth (that is, dirt and rock) is going to be taxed.

We also must ask what is meant by “not moved.” The most ordinary meaning, of course, is that it means “stationary” and that is what the critics who cite this passage claim it means. However, “not moved” can also mean “not moved from its course” or “unpersuaded.” Psalm 21:7 says, “For the king trusteth in the Lord, and through the mercy of the most High he shall not be moved.” I'll ask you: does this passage mean the king is stationary or does it mean that he should not be moved from his trust in the Lord?

In conclusion, remember that this is a psalm. In a poetic passage that says the Lord established the earth that it should not be moved, would it be entirely unreasonable to interpret that to mean the Lord established the ways of the earth (or its people) and it/they will not be moved from the way He established? What is unreasonable is that critics (whether intentionally or by ignorance) ignore the clear context of a passage and assert the correct interpretation of an obvious use of poetry is that it is meant to be literal fact. It's no wonder that critics see the Bible as rife with errors. They obviously have trouble reading.

Revelation 2:17 – What is Our New Name?

To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Revelation 2:17

In spite of the many criticisms I've heard about the Bible, for the most part, the Bible is fairly straightforward and easy to understand. On the other hand, books like Revelation are admittedly a little tougher. Certainly, Revelation is full of symbolism and while it may not be difficult to understand the words, the meanings of the symbols aren't always clear. Revelation 2:17 is an example of difficult symbolism. What does it mean to eat the hidden manna? What is represented by the white stone? What is the new name given to us? I've read many commentaries that talk about these things but, as for the “new name,” I also have a few ideas of my own.

There are some family names that carry a certain impact. Think of the name, Kennedy, for example. Anyone who is called, “a Kennedy” is immediately identified as a person of wealth, power, and influence. The name, Trump, is beginning to have a similar ring. Anyone born into these families inherit a certain reputation simply because of their name. It's not only the names of wealthy families that bring fame. Other families are remembered in infamy, like the Hatfields and McCoys.

These families, of course, are known nationally. However, even in smaller circles, family names sometime give impressions of who we are – even if they don't fairly represent who we are.

In Isaiah 56:5, God said, “I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.” Names like Vanderbilt or Rockefeller might impress people in this world. However, the name Jehovah surpasses them all. In eternity, we will be called His people. That's a family name worth having.

Besides family names, the names of certain individuals carry their own baggage. A person's name is often the equivalent of his character. Abraham Lincoln was renown for his honesty; “Honest Abe” they called him. Other names are notorious. Benedict Arnold was a brilliant general who led his troop to many victories over the British yet now his name is synonymous with traitor. John Wilks Booth was a handsome man and acclaimed actor. Even though he was the Brad Pitt of his day, when people hear his name, they only remember him as an assassin.

God is the perfect Judge. When we stand before Him, our earthly reputations mean nothing. No matter how many good things I may have tried to do here on earth, when I stand in judgment, I will be known only by my sins. I will be called a liar, thief, adulterer, blasphemer, sluggard, and murderer. In Christ, though, I am justified. I won't be remembered forever as the person I am now. I will be called righteous, redeemed, ransomed, reconciled, and loved. I will be called a child of God.

I rejoice that Revelation promises me a new name!

Keeping Your New Year's Resolutions

In my last post, I talked about how New Year's Day is an opportunity to reflect on the glory and mercy of God and to ponder how we might spend the time He has given us in this new year. At this time, many people start out the year telling a great big fat lie called a “new year's resolution.” I call it a lie because the failure rate for these resolutions is staggeringly high. Some statistics that I've read say that only 12 percent of the people who make a resolution ever reach their goal. One third fail before the end of January. Twenty percent fail in the first week!

With so few people actually keeping their resolutions, there has been much discussion about whether or not Christians should even make resolutions. I have my own opinion about this. First, resolutions tend to be things that most people realize they should be doing already. If there is something worthwhile that you should be doing, why not take the opportunity of the New Year to simply do it? Secondly, I believe that many of reasons we fail to keep our resolutions are also the reasons we struggle in so many areas of our spiritual lives. If we examine the reasons why we fail to keep our resolutions, it may help improve our walk with Christ. For these reasons, I see nothing necessarily wrong with a resolution and believe there is actually value in examining why we fail when we make them.

The Bible is certainly the best judge of human nature. From Scriptures, I believe I have identified at least five reasons why people do not keep their resolutions.

I. We don't take our oaths seriously

Matthew 5:33-37 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Jesus talked about the foolishness of making empty oaths. A person might say that he swears by heaven but would still not keep his word. Today, we sometimes swear on a Bible. Jesus reminded us that these oaths are not frivolous. The heaven and earth on not trivial things that we might vainly invoke to add weight to our promise. Instead, we should simply mean what we say. If you say “yes” then mean yes. If you say “no” then mean no.

Perhaps it might benefit people to look up the definition of “resolution.” You are resolving yourself to do something. If you abandon your goal in the first week, it's not very likely you were ever very resolute about it.

If you make a resolution, take it seriously.

II. We don't count the cost

Luke 14:28-30 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.

Sometimes we resolve to do something without fully realizing what all will be involved in keeping it. Some people, for example, might resolve to save 10% of their paycheck every time they get paid. That sounds like a great idea but they continue spending money the way they always have. Before they get their next paycheck, they realize they've spent all of their money and immediately have to dip into their savings. Before starting their resolution, they should have planned what they will give up in order to make their resolution possible.

Included in this category is the vague resolution. Someone might resolve to “be a better person.” Exactly how is that measured? Without some quantitative or measurable standard, one cannot tell if he is keeping his resolution. He could just as vaguely justify that he has - “Well, I feel like I haven't yelled at my kids as much.”

III. We have unrealistic expectations

Some people believe that if they keep their resolution, the world will suddenly become a better place. It's as though they feel if they lost 30 pounds, they would suddenly feel like a teenager again. They feel like if they could save money, then they could travel, have nice things, and pay off their mortgage in a year.

Jesus said, (John 16:33) These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

The old saying is that life is strife. The world will not suddenly become a paradise because you have lost 10 pounds. The things that added stress to your life will still be there. If what you have resolved is worthwhile, don't be discouraged if it doesn't create the Utopia you had imagined.

IV. We labor in the flesh

Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

I've written about Isaiah 64:6 before.  Rags are not necessarily worthless.  We use them for many things like cleaning. But the Bible says our righteousness is like filthy rags. A filthy rage really is worthless. If you tried to clean off your hands with a filthy rag, you will simply get your hands dirtier.

Any attempt we make to clean up our act is doomed to fail if we try to do it on our own. We are simply trying to clean ourselves up with our own righteousness – our own dirty rags. If we're pursuing something worthwhile, we shouldn't rely only on our own abilities to accomplish it. Ask the Lord for strength and guidance.

V. We have misguided motives

James 4:3 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.

When you make a resolution, ask yourself why you want it. Why might we want to lose weight, for example? Is it out of simple vanity? If so, the God might not be interested in helping us keeping our resolution. If we make a commitment to do something that's not really worthwhile, we're certainly going to be more apt to abandon it.

A lot of our resolutions center around the material. That doesn't automatically make them bad but they're not necessarily worthwhile either. Consider if your resolution is truly important. Besides the usual resolutions to lose weight, go to the gym, quit smoking, save money, and payoff bills, consider some of these resolutions:

• I resolve to attend church every week this year
• I resolve to tithe
• I resolve to read the Bible all the way through this year
• I resolve to share the gospel with at least one person per month this year
• I resolve to lead someone to Christ this year

In conclusion

There's a danger in associating our resolutions with the New Year. If we have planned since November that we would lose weight in the New Year, it means we probably ate like a pig since Thanksgiving. Also, if we fail, there is an attitude of, “Oh well, maybe I'll try again next year.” If you fail then just pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and try again.

If you make a resolution, take it seriously, count the cost, have realistic expectations, pray for guidance, and examine your motives. There's no need to wait to do better. Just do it.

The Passion Week: Friday

Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

(Isaiah 53:1-12)

Liberals Have it All Backwards

In my last post, I talked about how liberals think that when the government cuts spending it costs you money. The reality is that since it's our money they're spending, we're truly saving money when they spend less. This got me to thinking; liberals have a backward way of thinking about a lot of issues. Here are a few other examples.

• Nancy Pelosi seems to think that paying people who aren't working will somehow create jobs.

• Louise Slaughter claims that if we don't allow women to kill their babies then we want to kill women.

• Hillary Clinton says that we can't let parents have school vouchers because some parents might send their kids to a white supremacy school but mothers should have the choice to abort their children.

• Liberals want to legalize marijuana and ban salt.

• Liberals want to ban toys from happy meals but give out condoms in schools.

• Liberals think that giving tax breaks to businesses doesn't create jobs but giving them billion dollar bailouts will.

• Politically conservative Mel Gibson made some vulgar comments to his girlfriend while drunk and was fired by his talent agency for being a misogynist. The liberal Roman Polanski drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl yet went on to receive three Academy Awards.

• Republican Trent Lott makes a complimentary comment during Strom Thurman's 100^th birthday and loses his leadership position for being a racist. Democrat Robert Byrd was a recruiter for the KKK and receives a 100% rating from the NAACP.

I could go on but there's no need. These few examples more than prove my point. I'm not a psychiatrist or anything but liberalism seems to be a mental disorder. I'm reminded of Isaiah 5:20, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” I guess Isaiah had liberals even back in his time.

Thus Saith the Lord

Here's a Bible quiz. See if you can identify who is being discussed in this verse:

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. (Mic 5:2)

OK. That was an easy one but how about this:

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. (Isa 53:5)

Still too easy? Here's one more:

For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture. (Psa 22:16-18)

Not stumped yet? Wow, you must be a Bible scholar!

I know. I'm playing it up a little. It's not really hard to identify that it's Jesus who is being discussed in these verses. However, there's something very interesting about these verses that critics of the Bible don't stop to consider. All of these passages are taken from the Old Testament. These passages that so clearly discuss accurate details of His birth, His passion, and His death, were written hundreds of years before the events actually occurred. Furthermore, these are but a few of the hundreds of Old Testament passages that I could have cited.

This is what we sometimes describe as “prophecy.” Before we had the revelation of Scripture, God would give His word to prophets who would proclaim it to the world. Of course, anyone could claim to be speaking God's word. The difference is that whatever was spoken by God would come to pass. If someone claimed to speak in the name of the Lord, but the thing he speaks does not come to pass, he is exposed as a false prophet (see Deuteronomy 18:18, 21-22).

Once the thing that God had proclaimed would come to pass, it revealed the sovereignty and authority of God. When Jesus came and fulfilled the prophecies spoken about Him centuries earlier, it established His status as the Messiah. It proved that God is the sovereign Lord of the universe. It proved the things spoken by the prophets were true. It proved the Bible is the word of God.

Consider the following passage from Isaiah:

Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: (Isa 46:9-10)

To all the critics who read my blog, let me ask you something: do you deny that the Bible is the word of God? You probably do – otherwise you'd likely be a believer. Even still, you have to admit that what the Lord spoke about Jesus centuries in advance, came to pass in exactly in the same way He spoke it. It's proof that He is God and that the Bible is His word. If you're still not convinced, then let me ask you this: when you read the above passages, didn't you think they were talking about Jesus? You can deny it if you'd like but I know you did.

Following Jesus

In His famous calling of His disciples, Jesus said, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men” (Matthew 4:19). Though He said this to His apostles, Jesus has made a similar call to everyone: “And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me” (Mark 8:34). I've always been intrigued by Jesus' choice of the word “follow.” He didn't say, “Sit with me” or anything similar but, instead, chose the word “follow.”

To follow someone necessarily implies that the first person is moving and you are going wherever he goes. By using this word, Jesus is telling us that being a Christian isn't a static experience. Wherever Jesus intends to go, He expects us to be there with Him. He tells us this overtly in John 12:26: “If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be.” After all, how can anyone claim to be a “follower” unless he actually follows?

So where is Jesus going? While on earth, the Bible says that Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom (Matthew 9:35). If we are to follow Jesus, this would likely be a good place to start. His command to the apostles at His ascension was, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen” (Matthew 28:19-20).

I see too many Christians though, who are content to sit. They are like babies; week after week they sit in a Church pew waiting to be fed the word. We nurture babies when they're little because they can't do anything for themselves. As they get older, they start walking and taking care of themselves. Babies are cute but after a while, if they aren't walking or growing it's not cute anymore. If they're not growing then something's wrong. Why is it that some people have been Christians for years yet still seem to be babes in the faith? When are they going to start putting feet to their faith and start following Jesus?

I guess people have a lot of excuses for not following Jesus. In Luke 9:59, Jesus said to one disciple, “Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.” In the account of the rich young ruler, Jesus said, “If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.” But we see that the man went away sorrowfully, “for he had great possessions.” Even true believers sometimes are afraid to show themselves as true believers. At the arrest of Jesus, the Bible says that Peter followed “afar off” (Luke 22:54). Joseph of Arimathea was a believer in Jesus, “but secretly for fear of the Jews” (John 19:38).

Ask yourself honestly: "Am I following or sitting"? If you aren't following then why? No excuse is adequate. Isaiah 40:31 says, “But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.” Did you see that? Believers should walk, run, and fly. It's God Who gives us the ability. We should never be sitting. We need to be following.

The Five D's of Unbelief. A Formulaic Review of Genesis 3

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?" And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. [Genesis 3:1-6]

I've written before that a belief in evolution is an obstacle to coming to a saving faith in Jesus Christ. It's not so much that I believe a person can't be Christian unless he's a creationist. Rather, I believe that when a person begins rejecting the word of God, it is typical that he will also reject God. It occurred to me that we see a sort of formulaic outline of the process occurring right in Genesis 3.

Pastors often use acronyms and similar mnemonic devices to help people remember some particular point. I never was too keen on these types of messages but in this passage, the “Five D's” leaped out at me so strongly that I can't resist using them.

DOUBT

The first step in unbelief occurs when we begin doubting the word of God. In Genesis 3, the serpent begins sowing seeds of doubt in Eve by saying, “Did God actually say...?” It's sad that many people who claim to be Christian have very little understanding of the Bible. Many Christians are unable to answer the simple question: Where did Cain get his wife? Such ignorance opens the door to all sorts of false doctrines. Hosea 4:6 says, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:”

DENY

In Genesis 3:4, the devil said, “You will not surely die.” Of course, this denies the commandment of the LORD in Genesis 2:17: “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” We can assume Eve believed Satan and denied the clear words of God because she eventually ate the fruit apparently believing she would not die.

It's a short step from doubt to denial. When some people have doubts about a difficult passage, rather than study and pray, they opt for the simpler method of denying the truth of the passage. We hear this often when people say things like, “Adam and Eve weren't real people; Genesis is just an allegory.” When the Bible presents something as a fact, we are ill advised to suggest it is not a fact. It is no different than when Satan said, “you will not die.”

DIMINISH

When we deny the truth of what God has said in His word, then we diminish God's authority and make His will subservient to ours. In other words, we elevate our opinion above God's. In Genesis 3:6 says, “the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise.” Eve should have understood that God knew best when He commanded they not eat of the fruit. Nevertheless, she thought of reasons why she should. Romans 1:25 talks about people “Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator.” These foolish people rejected the Creator of the universe and worshiped instead the lesser things of His creation.

DISOBEY

Genesis 3:6 says, “she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” After Eve had denied God's commandment and decided for herself that the food was good to eat, what was left then but to disobey Him? Judges 21:25 says that when there was no king in Israel, “every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” If we do not recognize an authority greater than ourselves, there is no need to abide by that authority. To reject God's word will always lead to disobeying God's word because His ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8-9).

DEATH

Proverbs 14:12 says, “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” Death has always been the punishment for sin (Romans 6:23). When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they were cursed with death. We are descended from Adam and so we have inherited his body of flesh. Because of this first sin, we all die physically (Romans 5:12). However, those who die without Christ face the second death which is the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8).

****

So there you have it – the Five D's of Unbelief. It begins with doubt and ends with death. Again, I'm not saying that people who believe evolution are doomed to hell. I will say that to begin doubting God's word from the very first verse is a dangerous road to be on!

Jesus is Jehovah

A while back, I wrote a brief post discussing the tetragrammaton. Just recently, while I was in a Christian forum which discussed the tetragrammaton, I came across a very interesting post written by a brother who goes by the screen name, Old Shepherd. He listed 26 verses from the OT that use the name YHWH (יהוה) and then paired them with NT verses showing how they are actually references to Jesus. I saved a copy of his post and it's 5 pages long so I won't cite all of the passages here. However, I wanted to share a few of the most significant ones.

Isaiah 40:3, “The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD (יהוה), make straight in the desert a highway for our God.”

Most Christians will immediately recognize this verse as being cited by John the Baptist in Matthew 3:3, “For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.”

As is characteristic of Matthew, he actually cites the book of Isaiah in his gospel so we know without a doubt that was thinking specifically of Isaiah 40:3. Furthermore, it cannot be credibly denied that John the Baptist was sent to prepare the way for Jesus. The conclusion is inescapable that the LORD (יהוה) in Isaiah 40:3 is the Lord Jesus in Matthew 3:3.

Another very compelling example comes from Joel 2:32, “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD (יהוה) shall be delivered:”

Of course, in Romans 10:13 we read, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

From Romans 10:9 we can be certain that the “Lord” in Romans is Jesus. Again the conclusion is inescapable: we are saved by calling on the Lord – who is both Jesus and Jehovah.

The last verse we'll review is Isaiah 45:23, “I (יהוה) have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.”

Now compare this to Romans 14:10-11, “But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” This same point is expressed again in Philippians 2:10-11, “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

Time and time again we see that what is said of the LORD (יהוה) in the OT is also said of Jesus in the NT. Verses that clearly identify Jehovah in the OT are mirrored in the NT when discussing Jesus. Some people go to great lengths to deny the significance of Jesus' “I AM” quote in John 8:58. I have no doubt they will do the same to distinguish the LORD (יהוה) of the OT from the Lord (Jesus) in the NT. In my opinion though, the meanings of these verses are self-evident. A clear reading of the verses in question will reveal just how desperate the critics' arguments are. Jesus is Jehovah!

Further reading: What is the Name of God? A Look at the Tetragrammaton