Can a person lose his salvation? Conclusion

This is the last post in my series about how a person cannot lose his salvation. I encourage everyone to read the entire series but I'm going to recap my points briefly. I've talked about how salvation is described as a fundamental change in our nature – how we are “born again” and “pass from death unto life.” The Bible continuously describes our salvation using words of permanency like, “everlasting life” and “they shall never perish.” Furthermore, the Bible attests in many places that it is God who secures us in our salvation and we are kept by His power, not by our own works. Finally, I talked about how the majority of verses critics cite are “negative arguments” where they point to a conditional statement and argue the opposite. For example, in Revelation 3:5, God promises to not blot from the Book of Life the name of the soul that overcomes; critics argue that means God could blot the name from the Book of Life if the person fails to overcome.

There are a few verses, however, that critics cite which are not negative arguments. It's my opinion that in every one of these cases, the people being described are not – and have never been – Christians. Following are a few examples.

Perhaps the most cited passage is Matthew 7:21, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.” This verse is cited as proof that a confession of faith alone is not enough to guarantee salvation but, rather, confession must be followed by good works (that is, “doing the will of My Father”). In the context of the entire passage, however, Jesus makes it clear that these are people who only claimed to be Christians but never had a personal relationship with Him. Consider verse 23, “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’” I've written before about the emphatic force used in this passage in the Greek. Jesus is saying He, never knew these people – not even ever! They are not people who knew Him then became lost. They are people who never knew Him but thought they were saved because of the good works they did in His name.

Another passage sometimes offered is Hebrews 10:38, Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. The argument is made that this means if a believer should turn away from the faith (that is, “draw back”), then God will no longer have any pleasure in him. I don't believe that interpretation is valid when the verse is considered in context. Verse 39 says, But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. The epistle writer is clearly intending to exclude himself and his readers from the group that could “draw back.” He instead identifies the Hebrew audience as those who believe unto salvation. It is only lost people who hear the gospel and draw back that displease God.

There are other passages people cite and providing an exhaustive list would be too long for this series. The passages above are just example of how some passages used to argue that a person can lose his salvation really are talking about people who were never Christians. 1 John 2:19 says, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” In this simple statement, John makes clear that people who “leave” the faith were really never of the faith. I'm not sure how much more overtly this could be stated.

In the parable of the sower (Matthew 13), the seeds that falls on the stony ground or among the thorns represent people who seem to accept the gospel but later turn away when faced with trials. Only the seeds that falls in the good soil, the ones that produce fruit, are Christians. Time after time, Jesus tells us that we can judge a Christian by his fruit. We may not be able to look at a person's face and know if he's a Christian but we should be able to tell by judging his actions. There have been – and will always be – people who claim to be Christians but really aren't. Maybe they even genuinely believe they are. But at the end of the day, they had never really become a sheep.

2 Peter talks about this same thing. Some people hear the gospel and enter into fellowship with believers. Later, they return to their former ways but are worse for it because they have heard the truth. Peter quotes Proverbs, describing them as dogs who return to their own vomit or pigs that return to wallowing in the mire. They never became lambs; that is, they never experienced the life changing transformation of being born again. They remained dogs and pigs and, eventually, returned to acting like dogs and pigs.

Ultimately, of course, God is the judge of who is saved and who is lost. We may form opinions based on men's actions but God sees their hearts and He knows who are the sheep and who are the goats. Even Christians sin. I've sometimes said that a sheep might get dirty but a pig wallows in the mud. Christians will also be judged for their sins. 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 talks about the time every Christian will face, when his works will be judged by fire:

For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

My sin has consequences – not just in this life but eternally. Every moment I spend on worldly things is time wasted building a house of wood and straw. It is time I could have spent pursuing things that will last eternally. When other saints are casting their crowns at the feet of Jesus (Revelation 4:10), I could be standing there empty-handed knowing I had squandered my reward. But regardless of whatever loss sin might cause us to suffer, Corinthians is clear that it cannot cost us our salvation.

Read the entire series

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Five Reasons Why I Reject Theistic Evolution: Part 2

2) It diminishes the character of God

I used to have a frequent visitor to my blog who went by the screen name, The Paleobabbler (let's call him, PB). PB had his own blog and described himself as a theistic evolutionist. In one post, when commenting on John 12:24, he said this about theistic evolution:

Jesus describes a process of change, the bringing about of something new. This can be applied to Christ himself, where his death on the cross changed everything and brought about new life - this alone should be ample reading for seeing the death in the John verse as intended. Evolution by natural selection is a process which involves death, but it does not stop there. The death is instrumental in bringing about change, in bringing about new life. It is an act of redemption, which is small in scale compared to Christ on the cross, yet large in scale with regards to cosmic history. Many scientifically minded theologians have noted that evolution is a cruciform process. It redeems death into new life. What better way for Christ to create?

According to PB, death is good. Death brings life. Death was the best way God could have used to create us. Unbelievable!

Do people really see beauty in death? Perhaps. Proverbs 8:36 says that all who hate God love death. If they love death, the theory of evolution has it in abundance. Evolution, of course, is a very slow, cruel process. Richard Dawkins describes nature this way:

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives whimpering with fear, others are slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there is ever a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored.

An often spoken criticism used by atheists is, if God is good, why do bad things happen? To believe in evolution is to believe God intended the world to be full of death, disease, and suffering. It is saying that bad things happen because God wants them to happen and the bleak picture Dawkins paints of nature is exactly how God planned things to be. It would be a very capricious god who would waste billions of years of pain and extinction only to look back on everything he had made and describe it all as “very good” (Genesis 1:34). What's more, God would pause at the end of each day, look at what He had done, and each time would say it was good. So God describes creation as good, good, good, then very good. Theistic evolution says the creation was a billions-of-years long process of bad, bad, and more bad leading up to the moment where God says everything He had created was “very good.”

There is also the fact that God said He made everything in six days. Theistic evolutionists often claim God simply explained the creation in terms that an unscientific people could understand. In other words, God is a liar and an imbecile, who couldn't figure out how to explain “billions” to uneducated readers so He just said, “six days.”

To say God used evolution to create us in an insult to who God is. I believe in the all-powerful, all-knowing, loving God of the Bible who spoke the universe into existence. How dare people make Him into the clumsy, cruel, and deceitful god of evolution!

Part 1

Part 3

Part 4
Part 5

Happy Mother's Day!

Do not forsake the teachings of your mother!

Proverbs 6:20

I Demand A Plan From Hollywood!

I'm not exactly sure why the majority of celebrities are liberal but I have a few theories.

First, liberalism goes hand in hand with elitism. Since celebrities receive adoration from the masses, they tend to think they're important people which is only a small step away from thinking they're better than everyone else. They quickly develop the belief that everything they say is wise and often use their celebrity status as a platform to tell everyone else what is best.

Second, I believe people derive satisfaction from hard work. Since celebrities don't really work hard, they often engage in charitable causes in order to feel they're doing something worthwhile. However, instead of serving (like most people do when they help with a charity) celebrities feel they need to tell other people what to do. As I said above, their attitude of self importance makes celebrities think they know what's best for everybody and their idea of benevolence is to force everyone else to "be good."

The problem is that liberalism is hopelessly intertwined with hypocrisy. To be a liberal is to be a hypocrite and celebrities are no exception.

Liberals think that guns cause gun violence and they believe that if we can just restrict more people from having guns, it will reduce the violence. They don't seem to take into consideration the “disregard for life” mentality held by the people who commit crimes with guns. What inspires a person to pick up a gun and kill someone? Such an idea is anathema to Christians who believe that we are created in God's image and murder is literally a crime against God. On the other hand, the Bible says that people who hate God love death (Proverbs 8:36). Perhaps the root of the problem isn't guns but is a violent culture that rejects God and glorifies killing in movies and video games.

In the wake of the Sandy Hook (and other mass shootings), several liberal celebrities have lent their celebrity status to promote a video called, “Demand a Plan” where they call on their fans (i.e. “the masses”) to demand that legislators pass more gun laws. By appearing in the video, I suppose the celebrities hope their fame will move people to action. I guess it's not unreasonable to think a celebrity can induce people to act since businesses pay celebrities millions of dollars to advertise their products. But if these celebrities think their appearance in a video can influence people to lobby against guns, why don't they also see that, by starring in movies where they use guns, their fame and influence might be promoting the same violent culture they're trying to combat?!

Here's a hilarious video where images of celebrities shooting and killing people are added in between the same celebrities' calls for more laws restricting guns. I don't need to explain why the video is so powerful. The hypocrisy of the liberals who profit from gun violence - and even use guns themselves - while they claim to want to end gun violence is plain to see.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not asking for laws that restrict the use of guns in movies. There is the First Amendment, of course, and I recognize that people have the right to make offensive movies. I'm for liberty and wouldn't have it any other way. Celebrities, too, usually cloak themselves in the First Amendment to hide the shame and guilt of the trash movies they star in. I wish that they would champion the Second Amendment like they do the First.

What I am calling on is a little self control from Hollywood. Why don't they lead the charge and start making films that edify instead of dehumanize? I'm not even saying all movies have to be G-rated; just cut out some of the wanton, gratuitous stuff.  Instead of using their fame to call for gun control, these celebrities should tell movie producers they're not going to star in films as murderers who shoot people with guns.

I demand a plan from Hollywood!

The War on Poverty? It's a War on the Poor!

In 1964, President Johnson declared a War on Poverty.  In a special message to congress, he said, “for the first time in our history, it is possible to conquer poverty.” It sounds well intentioned but how has it worked out?  When he spoke those words, 10.5% of Americans between 18-64 lived in poverty. After 50 years and $15 trillion spent in the war on poverty, we've driven the number of impoverished Americans in that same demographic down to... 10.1%.

Wow! All that time and money wasted and it barely made a dent.

If that doesn't demonstrate the utter failure of the war on poverty, here's an even more alarming statistic: according to the Senate Budget Committee, "If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011" (source).

Why is it that we're spending all this money yet still not ending poverty? There's a very simple reason that liberals just can't grasp. Here it is: you don't help poor people by just giving them things! It's really that simple.

Just recently, a tourist snapped photo of a police officer giving socks and boots to a homeless man then posted it on Facebook. It quickly turned into an icon of charitable giving and the well meaning police officer became an instant celebrity. For the last couple of days, I've hardly been able to turn on the news or surf the net without hearing liberals gushing over what they consider to be a heroic act of kindness.

Of course, we've since learned this particular “homeless” person might not be a good example of the typical poor person. The ultimate cause of his poverty is more likely mental illness rather than a lack of means. But never mind that for a moment. Let's say that everything we had assumed about the poor fellow when we saw him barefoot on the street, turned out to be true. How exactly would the friendly police officer's kind gesture have helped him? He still would have been homeless. He still would have had to beg. At best, he would have simply been a little more comfortable as he lived on the streets, begging.  It sounds about as charitable as giving him a new cardboard box to live in.

There's an old Chinese saying: If you give a man a fish, you've fed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you've fed him for his lifetime. There's not usually a lot I would recommend we learn from the Chinese but, in this case, I think they're on to something. Giving somebody a bite to eat doesn't solve their lack of food problem; it merely sustains them until they're hungry again.

The liberal solution to poverty is to give every poor person a fish each day. Such a solution doesn't do anything to eliminate poverty - it only perpetuates poverty. Giving able bodied people food stamps doesn't make them able to provide for themselves – it only makes them dependent on the food stamps. What's worst is that it robs people of their dignity. We are treating grown men and women like infants who must be cared for – and many of them learn to expect it! Some people actually think they deserve charity.  It's known as the "entitlement" mentality.

The way to help the poor is to stop perpetuating their poverty. Stop treating people like infants by giving them everything. Good parents teach their kids to feed themselves. They teach their kids to poop in the toilet. They teach their kids to tie their own shoes and dress themselves. When children learn these lessons, they can stop wearing diapers and start learning how to become adults themselves someday. Only cruel parents do everything for their kids. As a result, they raise brats.

The ultimate cure for poverty is work. Duh! Proverbs 6:6 says, “Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise.” If a person is able-bodied, he should work. If he works, he can provide for himself. He can feed himself. He can shelter himself. If a person can take care of himself, he doesn't need to be taken care of. He will no longer need welfare, or food stamps, or section 8 housing, or government assistance of any kind. He can stop being infantile and start having dignity.

Jesus said we would always have poor people among us (Matthew 26:11) so we can never completely eliminate poverty but if we want to reduce poverty, we need to get people to work. We need to stop punishing employers with higher taxes and more regulations, and create an environment that encourages industry. We need to start giving people the skills that make them attractive to employers. And above everything else, we need to stop subsidizing poverty.

The war on poverty is actually a war on the poor and the recipients of government subsidies are victims. I know why liberals have declared war on poor people. It's because they're despots and can only stay in power by oppressing the masses. They want to bring back the caste system so they can reign over a society of peasants. Liberals don't really care for the poor. There's no way. They hate poor people so much that they make them beg!

I Guess Obama Would Rather Have Big Bird

I didn't hear it in the VP debate last night – the funny line about Big Bird. I was a little surprised because ever since the Presidential debate, it's been a favorite “gotcha” of the Democrats: “thank goodness someone is finally getting tough on Big Bird.” Yes, Mr. President, that's funny. Ha ha.

Perhaps I should remind the administration that we have a $1 trillion annual deficit. That means that each year, we're adding 1 trillion more dollars to the $16 trillion debt we already owe. I've talked about budgets on my blog before (here) but let me remind you a little of what I said then. A budget is a sort of list of priorities. We can't afford everything we want so we have to decide which things we're going to spend our money on.

Proverbs 22:7 says that the borrower is the servant of the lender. When we borrow money, we are giving away our liberty. In the case of our national debt, much of what we're borrowing is loaned to us from China. It's sad. What's worse is that we owe far more than can be repaid in our lifetimes so we are literally making our children, grandchildren, and even our great grandchildren slaves who will spend all of their lives and most of their paychecks paying back what we're spending today. And what do we have to show for it? Sesame Street? Curious George? We're turning our kids into slaves so that our kids can watch Barney! Oh yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

We're financing PBS to the tune of $400 million per year. That's almost half a billion dollars. It's a lot of money but it's only about 10% of PBS's annual revenue. If we stopped funding PBS, they might miss the money but they will continue. They'll just have to learn do it without tax payer subsidies like companies have to do it in the real world.

For the next four years, we need a President who can make the tough decisions. President Obama can't seem to find anything to cut. How strange. We can't afford to keep borrowing so some things have to go. We need a President who is able to decide what our priorities are. We need to provide employers incentives to hire more people. We need a strong military and good intelligence to fight the war on terror. There are dozens other things that I think would come before funding PBS but I guess Mr. Obama would rather have Big Bird.

Keep laughing, Mr. President. We'll see who's laughing in November.

A Bible Study in Discernment

Recently, my Sunday School class has been studying the book of Job. Much of the book details the conversations Job had with his three friends who had come to “comfort” him but actually spend more time accusing him. As you read through the conversations, though, in many places we find that the friends weren't too far off from sound doctrine. In many cases, their only error was attributing Job's tragedy to some unconfessed sin of Job. Much of what they said was correct but a little bit was garbage.

As we live our lives day to day, there is no shortage of opinions we hear about God and the Bible. Some of what we hear is correct but some of it is garbage. As Christians, it is our responsibility to identify what is right and what is wrong. The Bible refers to this as “discernment.” 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 says, "But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil."

For some people, discernment is a spiritual gift. When discussing gifts of the Spirit, Paul said, “to some [are given] the discerning of spirits” (1 Corinthians 12:10). For others, it must be learned. Job says that wisdom and understanding comes with age (Job 12:12). Even so, I believe there are six steps we can follow to help us gain discernment.

TRUST THE BIBLE

The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. (Psalms 19:7)

We don't have to be geniuses or scholars. Psalms tells us that with the Bible, even the simple become wise. If we base our thinking on the Bible, we can never be very wrong on any subject.

STUDY THE BIBLE

Even if you sincerely trust the Bible, what good does it do if you don't know what the Bible says? What if someone said, “I believe the Bible when it says, 'The Lord helps those that help themselves'”? Do you say, “Amen!”? Nothing resembling that verse appears in the Bible but you can't know that if you don't study the Bible.

I worked in a bank for many years. Before the Federal Reserve issued any new currency, we would get detailed descriptions of what the new bills would look like. The best way to spot a fake bill is to know what the real bill looks like. Likewise, we can easily spot false doctrine if we know what correct doctrine is.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)

Let's look at this passage in reverse: This passage says we need to study to show ourselves approved. So what does it mean if we don't study? Obviously it must mean we aren't approved. Furthermore, if we don't study, we should be ashamed. Finally, if we don't study, we will not be able rightly divide the word of truth.

SEEK THE ADVICE OF OTHERS

Most people have heard the expression, “Two heads are better than one.” This is based on a sound, biblical doctrine.

Where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety. (Proverbs 11:14)

There are abundant resources available today that Christians can turn to to find answers to tough questions. Also, a Christian can seek the advice of godly men or women.

BE SKEPTICAL

Though we should seek the advice of others, we must never mistake their opinions for Scriptures. In your study Bible, the notes written in the margin are not part of the text. You need to compare whatever advice you receive to the Scriptures to make sure it is sound.

Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Acts 17:11

Paul is normally someone whose opinion I would trust. Yet the Bereans were even skeptical of him. As he preached the gospel, they compared his words to the Scriptures to confirm what he was saying was true. We should do the same.

BE OPEN MINDED

There's a difference between being skeptical and refusing to believe. Sometimes, we are wrong in something we believe and we need to be available to the truth. The Bible uses the term “stiff-necked” to describe certain, stubborn people who won't listen to the truth.

But they hearkened not, neither inclined their ear, but made their neck stiff, that they might not hear, and might not receive instruction. (Jeremiah 17:23)

BE PRAYERFUL

Finally, we should always remember to seek understanding from God.

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. (James 1:5)

Loving God with our Minds: A Series in Logic. Part 1

In Matthew 7:24-26, Jesus gives us a parable of two men: one man hears the words of Jesus and heeds them. Jesus says he is a like a wise man who builds his house upon a rock and it is able to stand against the wind and floods. The other man is a foolish man who does not heed the teachings of Jesus. He is like a man who builds his house upon the sand. When the rains come and the winds blow, the house cannot stand because it is built on sand.

As Christians, we are commanded to always be ready to give an answer to those who ask about our faith (1 Peter 3:15). While we do this, we must keep in mind who we are dealing with – foolish people. We are dealing with people who have built a worldview upon sand and their arguments cannot stand up to scrutiny. Over the many years that I've engaged critics of the Bible, I've consistently found that nearly all of them resort to some logical fallacy in their arguments. It's unavoidable, really. When one's worldview begins with a premise that there is no God, he stands in stark contrast with reality. Every other belief he builds upon that faulty foundation is simply another brick he adds to the house he's built on sand. It won't stand.

The word translated as answer in 1 Peter 3:15 KJV is the Greek word “apologia” (ἀπολογία). This is where we derive the English term, apologetics. Like many Greek words, it's a compound word. “Apo” is a preposition of separation. It means away or from. We see it in the English word apostrophe, which is a mark that sets a letter apart from the rest of the word. “Logia” is derived from the Greek word “logos” which is usually translated as word. It's used in John 1:1, “In the beginning was the word....” When we talk about something like “the Word of God,” we're not referring to any single word but rather to everything God said. It's the entire body of thought. This is where we get the common suffix -ology as in biology or anthropology. From logos we also have the English word logic. Apologetics, therefore, literally means, “from words” or “from logic.” We are to give the critic a logical and reasonable defense of the Faith.

As we debate nonbelievers, we must always be careful of the arguments we are using and be alert to the arguments they are using. Remember that we have a house built on a rock while theirs is upon the sand. If we are not careful, we can get caught up in their foolish arguments and become removed from our strong foundation. Proverbs 26:4-5 warn us that we should not answer a fool by acting like a fool. Instead, we need to show him how foolish he is.

Studying formal logic is one of those things that intimidates a lot of people. Because of this, many people avoid it all together. It's really a shame, too, because the Bible says that we should love God with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind (Mark 12:30). Since we are commanded by God to give a reasonable defense of our faith, we owe it to Him to engage in a little mental exercise and study logic.

I don't know if I can say that God invented logic. God Himself is logical therefore logic has existed for as long as God has existed. Since nature reveals the glory of God, we see some of His logical nature revealed in His creation. Logic, is also absolute. It exists as certainly as anything exists. One cannot credibly argue that logic does not exist because he could not logically defend such a position. Any argument the critic could articulate must presuppose that logic exists. Therefore, any argument against logic only proves that logic is real!

Since God is logical, Christians have a rational basis to use and apply logic. However, an atheistic worldview has no rational reason to believe there should be uniform laws of logic. If the universe is without purpose, there is no reason to expect order or uniformity. Of course, this doesn't stop atheists from appealing to logic to defend their beliefs. Such a tactic is demonstrative of their irrationality. If atheists were consistent with their worldview, they would have no foundation on which to base a logical argument. Logic exists only because God is real yet they appeal to logic to argue that God doesn't exist! In his book, The Ultimate Proof of Creation, Dr. Jason Lisle uses the analogy of a man who argues against the existence of air. It is only because there is air moving past his vocal cords that he can form words. It is only because there is air to carry the sound waves that his argument can be heard. The more someone argues against air, the more he proves there is air. Yet this is what a fool does.

I thought it would be a good investment of time to do a short series on logical arguments and logical fallacies. Over the years, I've heard evolutionists and atheists use nearly every logical fallacy you could imagine. A Christian can hardly discuss anything with a critic without hearing some logical fallacy. Therefore, I have many real life comments that I can use for examples. I'm not sure how long this series will be but please check in often.

Further Reading

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

The Evolutionist's Empty Demand For Evidence

I've discussed the nature of evidence more than a few times. In a nutshell, evidence is neutral. It's doesn't “tell” us anything and it doesn't endorse any theory. Instead, theories are created to help make sense of the evidence. It's a classic example of circular reasoning when evolutionists invent a theory to explain the evidence then claim the evidence supports their theory but I'm not here to talk about that right now. Rather, I'm going to explain why the evolutionists' demands for “evidence” are nothing more than special pleading.

Since most physical evidence is neutral, whenever an evolutionist asks for “evidence” for creation, he can only be asking for the creationists' explanation of the evidence. After all, I live in the same world as he so I have all the same evidence that he does. But we already know that the evolutionist rejects the creation theory in advance because he has already accepted his own theory as the explanation for the evidence. When he rejects our “evidence,” he is merely restating his preexisting acceptance of the evolutionary explanation of the same evidence. For example, if a creationists suggests that rock layers are evidence for a global flood, the evolutionist rejects this “evidence” because of his own understanding of how the rock layers were formed. In other words, it's yet another example of circular reasoning where the evolutionist says, “These rock layers were not created by Noah's Flood because they were created by gradual processes over millions of years.” He might as well say, “Creation is false because I already know evolution is true.”

Now, there's more going on here than a demand for evidence. Within the evolutionist's demand, there is an assumption that knowledge can be gained only by evidence and observation. This is a philosophical worldview known as empiricism. However, such a worldview is self-refuting. How, for example, can the empiricist prove by his worldview that truth can only be attained via evidence and observation? Such a principle cannot be observed! Thus, when they claim they only consider “scientific evidence” they are contradicting themselves because they have begun with a presupposition that was itself not derived by scientific evidence.

Of course, a clever empiricist might say, “OK. Maybe I'm starting with a philosophical assumption about evidence but even so, you're still required to have evidence for your theory.” At this point, the evolutionists has become arbitrary. He claims on one hand that he is only persuaded by the evidence yet he contradicts himself on the other hand by admitting he has made a philosophical assumption that cannot be supported by the evidence and yet still seeks to place the burden on the creationist to provide “scientific” evidence for creation! Hence I said it is special pleading.

Creationists might be asking at this point if I'm saying we don't need evidence to believe creation. In fact, I do believe there is evidence for creation. Even considering all “scientific” evidence, I believe the strongest evidence for creation is the Bible. If the evolutionist doesn't consider that as evidence, that's his problem. Now he is being arbitrary in how he chooses what will be considered as “evidence.”

Evolutionists are irrational for supposing that knowledge can be only by observation. Even if that were true, they could not really know anything because they cannot observe everything. However, our belief is rational because we have the revelation of the One who does know everything. He told us how He did it. He told us about the creation. He told us about the Fall. He told us about the Flood. To me it makes far more sense to trust in the One who knows everything than to quibble with an irrational person who, by his own reasoning, cannot ever really know anything.

Finally, a very clever evolutionist might be one who claims to believe in God and evolution (a theistic evolutionist). Such a person might state that he believes in an omniscient God but that science has shown that the creation account in Genesis cannot be taken literally. This is still an irrational argument that faces the same dilemma faced by the unbelieving empiricist. The theistic evolutionist is still making the assumption that knowledge ultimately comes from the evidence so he is being inconsistent in his worldview. Perhaps without realizing it, the theistic evolutionist is placing the limited knowledge we gain from observation above the revealed word of the God who, we all agree, knows everything.

We need not be intimidated by irrational arguments. Dr. Jason Lisle gave this analogy: what if an evolutionist said that we had to defend our theory without using words? How silly would we be if we proceeded to act out our argument in charades? Don't limit yourself to the evolutionists' rules. If I may paraphrase Proverbs 26:4-5, don't answer a fool by acting like a fool. Instead, we need to show him how foolish his argument is.

Further reading

The Cool Thing about Christianity

The Funny Thing about Science

The Science of Right and Wrong

Rising College Tuition Rates: Economics 101

My daughter graduates high school this year and is making plans to go to college. She will begin studying anthropology which I believe is fantastic since we need more scientists who are also young-earth creationists but that's the subject of another post. Anyway, she did well in high school (3.97 GPA) and is currently 19^th in her class of over 400 students so she will qualify for some scholarships. Even so, we're still going to probably have to help with some of the costs and she may even have to take out some student loans.

In case you haven't heard, college is becoming more expensive every year. In a Wikipedia article that includes a break down of inflation rates between 1978 and 2008, we find the following information:

Cost of living increased roughly 2.5-fold during this time; medical costs inflated roughly 6-fold; but college tuition and fees inflation approached 10-fold. Another way to say this is that whereas medical costs inflated at twice the rate of cost-of-living, college tuition and fees inflated at four times the rate of cost-of-living inflation. Thus, even after controlling for the effects of general inflation, 2008 college tuition and fees posed three times the burden as in 1978.

So how does a middle class family like mine afford to send a kid to college? It seems more and more impossible every year and so there are constant calls for increased government assistance to help students pay for college. In the 2009-2010 school year, more that $154 billion in financial aid was awarded to undergraduate students. Yet the cost of college is rising as fast as the money comes available. Any guesses why?

It just so happens that I too am a college graduate only my major was in business. In my opinion, most politicians in Washington would benefit from a refresher course in economics. There's a very simple principle they teach in Econ101 – see if you remember it: When there is a surplus in the money supply, the cost of goods rises. Hello!! It's called inflation. Ring any bells?

I know it's been a while but we have had some recent periods of economic boom. Every time the economy starts to heat up, the Federal Reserve tries to put the brakes on by raising the Federal discount rate. Why? Because too much money in the economy drives up costs. Even in our current, economic woes, you might have heard that inflation is becoming a concern because the US is simply printing money. More money equals higher prices. Always! Like I said, it's Econ101. Every time the government opens it checkbook (actually, it's our checkbook) to help pay for rising college tuition, they are actually helping to drive up the cost! I don't care if the Feds made $50K per year available for every kid to go to college; in no time at all the cost of 1 year of college will rise to $60K.

If any elected official heeds my advice to brush up on economics, he might also remind himself of the meaning of the term “free market.” If we let the free market do its job, college costs will stabilize at a rate most people can afford. Not only do government subsidies artificially inflate the cost of college, we are doing it at a time when the nation can least afford it. We're leaving a huge public debt that the next generation will have to repay plus we're burdening them with higher tuition costs that many kids have to finance as well. Future graduates will not only have to start repaying huge student loans but will also face enormous tax rates. It's inevitable.

Proverbs 13:22 says that a good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children. What do you call a nation that leaves it's children $20 trillion in debt?

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!

What is "Presuppositional Apologetics"?

Answers in Genesis has a brief and precise article that wonderfully explains presuppositional apologetics. You can read the original article by clicking here but I have reprinted it below:

When explaining their beliefs, Christians often feel they must first prove the Bible or prove the existence of God. This approach reveals that they do not yet understand the Bible’s approach, known as presuppositional apologetics.

Presuppositions are simply beliefs that everyone has that affect how they think, view the world, interpret evidence, and read the Bible. Apologetics is a reasoned defense of beliefs. So presuppositional apologetics is a reasoned defense of Christian beliefs based on recognizing our presuppositions.

For instance, my presupposition is that God exists and He has given us His Word (the Bible) that is absolute truth. So I use the Bible as the basis for how to think, interpret evidence, explain the world around me, and read the Bible. An atheist’s presupposition will most likely be that there is no God and that truth is relative. An atheist believes that man decides truth, and so he thinks, interprets evidence, and views the world and Bible accordingly.

If we start off believing the Bible is the Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16; Psalm 18:30; Proverbs 30:5), then we use it as our axiom. An axiom (often used in logic) is a proposition that is not susceptible to proof or disproof; its truth is assumed. The Bible takes this stance, assuming God’s existence to be true and not something to be proven (Genesis 1:1; Exodus 3:14; Revelation 1:8).

The battle is not over evidence but over philosophical starting points: presuppositions. As Christians, we should never put away our axiom—the Bible—when discussing truth with others. This would be like a soldier going into battle without any armor or weapons. Asking a Christian to abandon the Bible for the sake of discussion is like asking an atheist to prove there is no God by using only the Bible. You would be asking the atheist to give up his axiom.

The prophets and the apostles never tried to prove God’s existence. They started by assuming God’s existence, and they always reasoned from Scripture (Acts 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19). By using the Word of God, we are actually pitting the unbeliever against God and not our own fallible thinking.

Happy Mother's Day

Proverbs 6:20-23

My son, keep thy father's commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother:
Bind them continually upon thine heart, and tie them about thy neck.
When thou goest, it shall lead thee; when thou sleepest, it shall keep thee; and when thou awakest, it shall talk with thee. For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life.

Misquoted Bible Verses

Several years back, during the 2000 Presidential debates, Vice President Al Gore made the following statement:

"And I'm a grandfather now. I want to be able to tell my grandson, when I'm in my later years, that I didn't turn away from the evidence that showed that we were doing some serious harm. In my faith tradition, it is written in the book of Matthew, 'Where your heart is, there's your treasure also.' And I believe that we ought to recognize the value to our children and grandchildren of taking steps that preserve the environment in a way that's good for them."

The fact of the matter is that Mr. Gore quoted the verse backwards. The passage from Matthew 6:21 actually says: “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” In the context of the passage, Jesus points out that we tend to be concerned about our treasure; Jesus was saying we should be concerned about our eternal treasure in heaven rather than the temporary treasures of earth. In Mr. Gore’s misquote, he gave the impression that Jesus was telling us we should invest our treasure in the things our hearts desire.

But Mr. Gore is not alone in misquoting the Bible. I’ve noticed there are many misunderstood verses that have made their way into common vernacular. In this post we’ll talk about some of the most common ones.

“Money is the root of all evil.”

The passage from 1 Timothy 6:10 actually says, “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” You see, it’s not money that is the problem; it’s the greed of people who covet money.

“Judge not, that ye be not judged.”

OK, so this verse from Matthew 7:1 may not typically be “misquoted.” Rather, this verse tends to be quoted out of context to mean we should never judge anyone. The Bible doesn’t tell us we shouldn’t judge anyone (or anything). Indeed, 1 Corinthians 2:15 says the exact opposite: “But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.” These verses don’t contradict each other – the complement each other. Matthew 7 is talking about hypocrites who are guilty of worse things than what they condemn others for. 1 Corinthians points out that a spiritual judge is one who correctly judges yet is himself innocent.

In addition to misquotes, there are also some common paraphrases that we use:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

The “verse”, commonly called the Golden Rule, is a paraphrase of Matthew 7:12, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” In the case, the meaning between the misquote and the correct verse is very close but the commonly quoted words are still incorrect. Also, the Bible itself doesn’t identify this text as “The Golden Rule.”

[Editor's note - after posting this, a very kind reader pointed out to me that Luke 6:31 in the NIV translation reads: "Do to others as you would have them do to you," which is extremely close to the popular paraphrase]

“Spare the rod and spoil the child.”

This must be a reference to Proverbs 13:24, “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.” I guess it’s not a terrible paraphrase but it doesn’t convey exactly the same meaning. In the paraphrase, it almost sounds like a command to beat your children lest they spoil. The actual quote from the Bible explains that a loving parent doesn’t withhold discipline from his child when it’s appropriate.

“The lion shall lay down with the lamb.”

I don’t know if I should call this a misquote or something else. These words don’t appear in the Bible. There are 2 passages that are close:

“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.” Isaiah 11:6.

or

“The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.” Isaiah 65:25.

How the misquote gained such popularity is a mystery. The actually verses seem to convey a similar message but they’re not really even close to the misquoted line.

"Pride goeth before a fall."

Younger people might not hear this as much but this is an extremely well known proverb among my generation. For having been so often quoted, I'm surprised that so few people know it's a misquote. Proverbs 16:18 actually reads, "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall".

“The Lord helps those that help themselves.”
“The Lord works in mysterious ways.”

These last two “verses” are not found in the Bible. They’re not even close. The first one can only be described as bad doctrine. I believe the latter one is a line from an old hymn written William Cowper (1731-1800):

God moves in a mysterious way
His wonders to perform;
He plants His footsteps in the sea
And rides upon the storm.

So if you’re in a conversation and someone quotes a favorite verse to you, I suggest you not take his word for it. Go to the Bible and see for yourself. The Truth might surprise you!

Further reading: Popular Misconceptions about the Nativity

Matthew 5:27-28: A Lesson in Grammar: The Power of Participles

ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη· οὐ μοιχεύσεις. ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ βλέπων γυναῖκα πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτὴν ἤδη ἐμοίχευσεν αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ.

“You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery. But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
Matthew 5:27-28

In the King James Version of the Bible, verbs that end in “th,” like “looketh,” (βλέπων) are participles. In English, participles are verbs that end in “ing” (like walking, sleeping, standing, flying, etc). Participles (in both Greek and English) don’t act like a normal verb but act like adjectives or adverbs. If there is a room full of men, and I want to identify a certain man, I might say, “Do you see that man standing by the door?” My emphasis then is not necessarily on what he is doing, I’m just using that as an adjective to describe which man I’m talking about.

A good example of this is seen in John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth (ὁ πιστεύων) in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” “Believeth” is a participle (in this case an adjective) describing who will be saved – the one believing in Jesus.

So, when we look at Matthew 5:27-28 above, we gain a little more insight into who Jesus was talking about. The word “looketh” doesn’t exactly emphasize what the person is doing, it's describing who the person is: He is the person looking (ὁ βλέπων) at women to lust after them. When he commits adultery, the act doesn’t make him an adulterer. Jesus makes it very clear that he’s already an adulterer even before he commits the act. When he does commit the act, he’s just doing what adulterers do!

Proverbs 23:7 says, “For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he.” Therefore, the ones who hate are murderers, the ones who envy are thieves, etc. We’re not sinners because of the sins we commit. We’re sinners and so we commit sins. Some people think they’re OK because they haven’t committed a “major” sin. They need to understand that they need Jesus nonetheless.

Proverbs 26:4-5: To Answer or Not Answer

Critics sometimes cite supposed "contradictions" in the Bible as evidence against inspiration. They must feel that, if they can discredit a particular part of the Bible, then none of the Bible can be trusted.

One example of a "contradiction" often cited by critics is Proverbs 26:4-5

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

At first glance, these two verses seem to say exactly opposite things. One might wonder, "Do I answer a fool according to his folly or not?" But with a little thought, it's not difficult to reconcile these seeming conflicting verses.

I spend a lot of time discussing evolution online. I'm a staunch YEC (young-earth-creationist). While debating people who believe evolution, I sometimes encounter logically flawed arguments. If I'm not careful, it's easy to get caught up in these types of arguments. Let me give you an example:

Some evolutionists use the appeal to authority argument. They might say something like, "I'm a biologist and have studied evolution first hand. I also teach evolutionary biology at the college level. Evolution is real. You simply don't understand evolution and so you don't believe in it." Now, nothing in that statement proves evolution is true. He's implying that evolution is true because he's a biologist and so I should believe him. If I get into a debate about his qualifications to discuss evolution, I am answering a fool according to his folly - that is, I'm engaging in a debate around a flawed premise. If I do this, I'm actually giving the impression his argument has merit and I end up sounding like the fool.

Instead, I have found it useful to point out the flaw in the logic. So I answer a fool according to his folly - that is I show him why his argument has no merit. Hopefully, he will no longer continue using his fallacious argument nor "be wise in his own conceit."

In other words, don't answer a fool by sounding like him. Instead, try to show him how foolish he's being.