Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Scientific Method

Is the scientific method really scientific? In presuppositional apologetics, I must challenge the assumption that the "scientific method" is really scientific. Are things truly only known by observations that are repeatable? I believe evolutionists start with a presupposition that is unproven.

Now most people recognize this. It is like saying that there is no absolute truth except for the absolute truth that there is not absolute truth. This is just silly. But we have to start somewhere. I submit we start with a whole lot more in our hidden bags than just the "scientific method".

Atheists often say something to the effect that we can only know the physical world. The supernatural is by definition outside of science. I, however, do not accept this definition of science. By what authority do atheists get to determine the rules of science? Their own worldview cannot even account for morality, laws of logic and ect..

We watch science all the time tell us about people we have never even seen. Archaeologists spend much of their time digging up remains of pottery and finding all kinds of trash societies of the past have left for us. It is always amazing to me how much one can learn about a person from their garbage. Forensic sciences are telling us about dead bodies that are found. They can tell if they were murdered. If a person was discovered to have been murdered, they even discover if it was a crime of passion. Imagine that! Motives of a crime can even be determined by scientists who only have a decayed body and possibly some other circumstantial evidence. (So much for the scientific method!)

Atheism starts off by having certain presuppositions that cannot fully explain on a consistent basis the philosophy it adheres to. It is always convenient for atheists to borrow from the Christian worldview when arguing with Christians. For instance, many atheists will challenge Christians with the problem of a loving omnipotent God and evil in the world. For the question by the atheist to even be asked presumes the Christian Worldview to be true. Therefore, the atheist secretly uses Christian assumptions against them, all the while claiming to be morally superior.

Part of the problem is that most evanjellycals are embarrassed to speak about the God of Scripture or wrath against sin or the curse on creation by God. If evanjellycals will not set aside their Traditions of "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life theology", then atheism will simply die a slow death to post-modernism, not because of compelling Christian thought and arguments.

In an era when atheism is dying, I most certainly want to help drive in the last nails into its coffin. Please keep in mind though, that evolutionism will not simply die and go away just because atheism does. Evolutionism did not gets its foundations from atheism but from eastern religions. I believe Dr. Walter Martin was absolutely correct when predicting the rise of the New Age Movement in the Post-Modern Era.

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Evolutionists Are Not Open-Minded

Professor Mirecki is a professor at Kansas University. He, like Scott City's local New York Times Editor, is quite open minded. In a letter (as reported in the article referred to below) that he wrote to some atheists he stated:

"The fundies (fundamentalists) want it all taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category mythology."

Please keep in mind that these atheists that he is writing to are a part of a group called the Society of Open-Minded Atheists. I wish to challenge the open-mindedness of atheism and the local New Times Editor.

Why is it that in astronomy, we can use scientific methods to scan the skies for coded information by using giant radio telescopes? What are we looking for? Any series of codes that may be picked up would only show that some cosmic accident made something "look" like information. Therefore having an intelligent signal from outer space can't happen. Yet, we are still looking. The reason is evolutionary scientists recognize that there is a difference in random sequences and information. Yet when looking at themselves, they apparently see no intelligent design (of which I agree, there is no intelligent ...).

When the same standards of philosophical assumptions are applied to biology, evolutionists are very quick to make all kinds of various arguments against looking for information and intelligent design. Is this being open-minded? Is it open-minded to start from the outset that there can ONLY be a naturalistc explanation for why things are the way they are?

I have to ask, "What if the other explanations (other than purely naturalistic ones) give a better understanding of the scientific evidence?" Should we discard alternative explanations simply because we assume the "scientific method" is the only way to see the world? To assume the "scientific method", as being by definition the greatest explanatory power, is to close off any other methods at the outset. How is this being "open-minded"?

Let me offer an example of their thinking. Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology stated:

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."

The real reason for the "Open-Minded" society to be so closed minded at the start is obvious. Ideas have consequences. They know full well that Americans may turn back to God, and thereby becoming the greatest and freest people on earth, the envy of the Nations.

Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord.

Soli Deo Gloria

We Don't Have To Take IT Anymore

Since I agreed that it is a waste of time to warn Christians that non-Christians may behave like...well...non-Christians at Christmas time, I thought I would tackle a subject much nearer to my heart...the subject of origins. In the Thanksgiving Day Scott County Record, our local New York Times Editor for the third week in a row has again decided to take a shot at creationists and Intelligent Designers. He sarcastically (as is his usual method) states:

"I'm thankful the Kansas Board of Education has decided to no longer burden our young people with all this fairy tale stuff about evolution. Many of us want to return to a time when life was less hectic and complicated and our State Board is determined to get us there...Somewhere around the 13th century."

So there you have it. Those who believe God and His account of the history of the world are somehow backwards and stuck in the days when chickens weigh the same as witches (yes, I enjoy Monty Python movies). Mr. New York Times Editor is so convinced that Creationism is so irrelevant to education, he has spent 3 editorials making comments about it. It reminds me of the woman growing up in the atheistic Soviet Union, who wondered why the government spent so much time fighting a God that didn't exist.

Apparently he is not the only one. A Kansas University professor was forced to apologize for calling creationists "fundies". He was planning on teaching a class that links mythologies with Biblical creationism. Part of the article states:

The department faculty approved the course Monday but changed its title. The course, originally called "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationisms and other Religious Mythologies," will instead be called "Intelligent Design and Creationism."

So now a professor of the religious studies department is going to bash Christians and IDers. Please notice that he is chairman of the Religious Studies Dept.. There is a reason for this. The theory of evolution didn't come about because of science. Charles Darwin didn't discover anything new. What Darwin did was give scientific credibility to a philosophical movement already in full swing. In other words, evolution and creationism are philosophically and theologically (or lack of theology) driven.

College and University professors and local New York Times Editors seem to feel the need to marginalize their opposition. Their feelings are well founded. More and more people are becoming educated on how the subject of origins can turn whole nations towards God or away from Him. More and more people are seeing that the subject of origins affects the laws of the land. I now firmly believe that most Americans are tired of the left in this country. They are tried of their screwy reasoning and siding with terrorists and being anti-American in general. We are tired of being told we are stupid.

Only in colleges and newspapers is the consumer told he is wrong and stupid. That is now changing. The left no longer has the monopoly in the media. We simply don't have to take their nonsense, and unproven and empty philosophies anymore. Instead, let us take all thoughts captive and submit them to Christ.

Soli Deo Gloria

Monday, November 28, 2005

World Is Anit-Christian...Since When?

Pastor Lynne (my pastor) was right on when he spoke about not fearing when the world perverts Christmas to the point that it isn't Christmas anymore. He was correct in arguing that the world has been anti-Christmas since Jesus showed up. So when the ACLU or anyone else decides they don't want Christmas in Christmas, should we be surprised?

We Christian conservatives act so surprised when we send our children off to secular colleges or even liberal Christian colleges when they come home not believing in the inerrancy of Scripture. We are surprised when a secular company might try to make a profit during the Christmas season. We seem surprised when non-Christians act like non-christians. This should not be the case. Jesus tells us in the parable of the wheat and tares that both good and evil must grow up together until the end of this evil age.

When Christians complain about the world without looking at themselves is when we should be a little concerned. I received and email from the American Family Association asking to boycott certain companies for their stance against Christmas. Tom Ascol's Blog concludes with similar comments from my pastor.

Isn't it interesting where we evangelicals often choose to draw battle lines with the world? We take personal offense when retailers make marketing decisions that have absolutely nothing to do with biblical standards of morality and yet heartily support them when they blatantly violate biblical standards. The Bible says nothing about Christmas--either as a special day to be observed or a term to be included in marketing (for the record, I do celebrate Christmas, but not because I think I am biblically obliged to do so). So, why should Christians be exercised when retailers don't advertize "Christmas" specials?

On the other hand, the Bible does teach that one day in seven should be set aside for special observance in recognition that God is the Creator and we are His creatures. Yet, many (most?) Christians have no qualms about going to the mall on Sunday or treating it as no different from any other day of the week. Even conservative Southern Baptists reduced the Baptist Faith and Message in 2000 on the observance of the Lord's Day. I have always been confounded by those (like AFA) who argue loudly for the public display of the 10 Commandments and yet who do not seem to care that those commandments are virtually unknown and largely unregarded in our evangelical churches.

So count me out of the boycott. I will save my bullets for the real war.

I agree.

Merry Christmas

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Children and Magic of Holidays

Once again, having children gives the Holidays far more meaning. I remember back in my early Air Force days and even in High School celebrating Christmas and Thanksgiving with friends. There was a sense of "outer darkness" or a feeling that there simply is no meaning to all of this. The Holidays were obviously meant to cheer people, instead they pointed out the obvious that life really had no meaning.

Having my worldview turned upsidedown at the age of 22 may have given me a new outlook on life, but Christmas still seemed somewhat empty. Don't take me wrong, I loved my new wife and my new family. Christmas with them was more meaningful. But that sappy sentimentality just never accompanied the Holidays. I just was not a very emotional person.

Over the years, my wife has had an affect on me in more ways than she may know. She loves history, and her love is infectious. When Steven was six months old, we drove all night to Washington D.C. for Veteran's Day Weekend. We walked through D.C. till our legs literally could not take another step. During that walk I began to be impressed with our Nation's history. Reading quotes by Lincoln at his memorial, watching the changing of the guard at the National Cememtery and seeing Washington's monument were quite moving. She even read to me a book about John Adams. A book of personal letters between John and his wife Abigail was a fascinating read.

Having a knoweldge of history can help give a man a sense of who he is. Having faith in Christ gives a man new life. Having children perhaps may be one of the greatest means of grace that God uses to bring a man to love Himself. Children remind us of why we are here. Children remind us just how fragile life truly is. Children often remind us that the meaning of life is not bigger homes or faster cars or more powerful computers or being able to earn more money or the miriad other things one could come up with.

My children have helped me to see the face of God. When their eyes glow with the "magic" of Christmas or giving thanks for our child that they have never seen, I get the sense of "Awe" that I lost so long ago.

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

It's Official

It is now official. Yes, my wife is pregnant, and I have permmission to tell the world. Her due date is July 28th. So we have plenty of time to get started all over again since we got rid of most of our baby stuff. We just weren't planning another one.

The only draw back is that our trip to Massachusetts will have to be postponed. Hopefully a trip to Horn Creek is possible. Then again, staying home and just trying to adjust to having a fifth person in the house may be plenty to do.

Anyway, hope this news excites you as it does me.

Saturday, November 19, 2005

Thanksgiving At SCCS

Last night the Scott City Christian School had their annual Thanksgiving Dinner. The kids did a great job performing. Who knew Steven could play the trumpet? At one point he bobbled a note and gave a Gonzo look (if you remember, Gonzo's bong never actually bonged, and it drove him crazy.)

Giving thanks in the Tradition of the Pilgrims is something we take seriously here. We firmly believe as they did, it is by God's Providence and purpose that we have the many blessings that we do. God could have destroyed all of man. Instead, God sees that what He originally made was good and has decided to redeem and restore all things in Christ.

Anyway, here are a couple of pictures.

Friday, November 18, 2005

Christian Movie Makers Stuck On An Island

Art is an interesting topic, especially for Christians. What is appropriate, and what is not? Is there a Christian horror genre? Fantasy movies like the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe verses Harry Potter can lead to quite a debate. Debates are good things, and the discussions on the White Horse Inn several weeks ago were even better.

Listen to Michael Horton interview Scott Derrickson about a movie by "Sony Pictures, The Exorcism of Emily Rose." Michael Horton also does a two-part interview with another screen writer Brian Godawa. Click here for part one and part two.

I first realized just how many movies that are made that never make it to the wider general public when Focus On The Family interviewed Mel Gibson. I hope that instead of the really bad movies like Left Behind (I know I went on a limb saying that), we will instead get movies like Signs and other more gospel oriented movies that could actually be considered art (yes, I realize Signs was not a movie particularly about the gospel). Perhaps another movie about Tom Hanks being stuck on an island would be better than some of the Christian stuff that is out there.

I agree with the point that Christians, who make movies, should not feel the need to be stuck to the idea that in order for a movie to be Christian, somebody has to pray the "sinner's prayer" underneath some golden tree. Perhaps those movies have their place, but Christian art should cover more than the fundamentalist island they are stranded on.

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Adrian Rogers Dies

World Net Daily is reporting via Florida Baptist Witness that Adrian Rogers has passed away this morning. Adrian Rogers was a pastor within the Southern Baptist denomination He was also President of the SBC Convention for 3 terms. He was founder of Love Worth Finding Ministries.

The SBC conservative resurgence was lead by several ministers including Dr. Rogers. History will judge just how big that movement was, and if it will be sustained. But Dr. Rogers saw it for what it was at the time it happened. Although to compare it to the Council of Nicea may be a bit of a stretch, it was indeed historic.

I personally have benefitted from Dr. Rogers over the years despite his anti-Calvinistic preaching at the end of his ministry. When I first heard his preaching years ago, I was moved at his ability to communicate God's truth to me. He was a great man of God and will be sorely missed.

Saturday, November 12, 2005

Preaching As a Means of Grace To Persevere

I have often thought about preaching as the means by which God calls sinners to His Son’s Kingdom. I have often thought of preaching as the means of “awakening” God’s church. I even thought of preaching as a means by which God’s people are encouraged. John Piper adds another thought:
“Gravity in preaching is appropriate because preaching is God’s appointed means for the conversion of sinners, the awakening of the church, and the preservation of the saints.”
And again:
“It [preaching] is God’s appointed means of keeping them secure….He calls effectually by the Word and He keeps effectually by the Word.”
I have never quite thought of preaching that way. I agree that the doctrine of justification is a past action that is fully complete. Because of its completeness, I am fully justified today. In the same way, preaching was the means by which I was saved, but it is also God’s Word, which keeps me.

We as God’s people need to hear the called man of God preach the Word of God. It is the means of Grace by which God has chosen to save and preserve His people. Tomorrow morning, I will look forward to Lynne’s message with a whole new enthusiasm. I expect to hear God call me to persevere. It is His means of preserving me.

Sunday, November 06, 2005

After many years of struggle and a horrendous loss a year ago, my brother and his wife finally brought home Joshua and Lillian. The one Danni is holding is Joshua (I think), and the other is Lillian. God has been good, and He finally brought home a family.

Friday, November 04, 2005

Who Is Really Being Consistent?

Before I offer a critique of our Local New Times Editorialist's weekly left-wing editorial, I want to weigh in quickly on the 9th Circus' ruling. Yes, we all know by now that they ruled the government has the right to educate your children the way they see fit. We should not be surprised by that. They are a bunch of left-wing nut cases.

What really bothers me is that everyone misses the obvious. What else is a State run school supposed to do? If the foundation for the modern public school system is that the State is the Almighty and that parents do not have a God-given right and command to educate their children, what other conclusion could they possibly have come to?

Let me put it another way. When the Rod Haxtons of Scott City grow up with the idea that only the State can possibly give an education to every person, when the State has taxing power so that the people have no real choice, when the left wing intellectual snobs assume that its citizens must be stupid since they didn't vote for them, when left wing social engineers believe only they should have the power to educate, why are we so surprised when the public schools act the way they do?

Ninety-nine percent of school related cases that appear before the Supreme Court usually have to do with some separation of Church and State conflict. Why do you think this is? The answer is obvious. Anyone with an ounce of thought should see that whoever controls education, controls the religious beliefs of its people.

So many children believe in God and at the same time behave as if he doesn't exist. Have you ever thought why? So many people today think in contradictory terms. Have you ever thought why? I believe that Americans may be the most schizophrenic people in the world.

We need to get back to a God centered world view. If we do not repent and change how we think, we may very well see the day our children perish for lack of Biblical knowledge. Truth is, the left in this country are being more consistent than Christians. In fact, this decision by the Ninth Circus may be the most thoughtful decision to come down from any left-wing court.

Power of the Son To Save?

Since I mentioned that 2 Peter 3:9 speaks of God’s will in salvation, I thought I would go to an even clearer text. John gives us one of the most wonderful assurance passages in all of Scripture, that being John chapter 6:37-40. This passage takes salvation out of man’s control in every way and places salvation squarely in God’s hands.

The text reads:

“All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."
Jesus speaks of the Father’s will. He defines what He means by will in these particular verses. The will of the Father is that everyone that He gives to the Son will be raised up on the last day. In other words, everyone that the Father gives to the Son will be saved.

So Jesus comes into the World to save these people. This is not some cosmic accident. It is not just some mere happenstance that men come to Christ. Christ came to save the people that come to Him.

Why do men come to Christ? They come because the Father gave them to the Son. They do not come against their will as some malign Calvinists as believing. They come because the Father has given them. Therefore, Jesus never turns away a man or woman that comes to Him because it is God’s will that He save them.

This passage is so simple and compelling I am always amazed at how men turn it on its head. Philosophical traditions become very powerful at this point. When the Dr. Norman Geislers and Adrianne Rogers are able to interpret this passage in the same fashion that my high school students do in order to avoid the painfully obvious, a clear sign of Tradition clouds the eyes.

Some conclusions must be drawn from a discourse of Jesus’ such as this, if we are going to follow modern evangelicalism. Either (a) Jesus saves everyone if everyone is given by the Father to the Son, or (b) Jesus fails to save millions of men whom the Father has given (if in fact the Father has given everyone), or (c) those who come of their own free-will are the ones given by the Father.

If (a), then you are a universalist. Everyone will be saved. This leads to far more questions than answers. If (b), then you must deny the power of the Son of God to fulfill the will of the Father. Jesus’ death falls to the ground due to the almighty will of man. This is what most evangelicals believe without realizing it.

Or perhaps (c) is your conclusion. This conclusion violates simple grammar. It also places salvation back into the hands of men. This denies the overall clear statements of Christ. It also robs any assurance whatsoever. If I can come to Christ by my own free will, what is to keep me from ever losing salvation? You may respond by saying once we come to Christ “we would never go back” as someone once said to me. My question is why? Those are just the words of men. How do you know?

This leads to another question. After the Coming of Christ and His Kingdom is established, what prevents sin from ever coming back? Is there no free-will in heaven’s Kingdom?

We should be willing to consider the obvious. The Father has given a people to the Son. The Son has all the power needed to accomplish the will of God.

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Mohler Verse Patterson

I guess I should check my email just a little more often. I just read that Al Mohler (President of SBTS) and Paige Petterson will be debating Calvinism at the SBC Pastors conference. I can't imagine Patterson even stepping in the room with Mohler in a debate format. Mohler could convince a mouse he is really an elephant. Then again, will Mohler just be a nice guy and not call Patterson on the matt for the ridiculous things he has said. Perhaps this is just some kind of discussion of "Can't we just get along?" I guess we'll see. When I get more information, I'll post it here.

Soli Deo Gloria

God Is Patient

Since I have started an overall topic of the anti-Calvinism crusade among Southern Baptist Church leaders, I figured I'll just keep going. The Dividing Line was playing some clips of Adrianne Rogers speaking to a college group about the dangers of Calvinism. The idea that God wants to save every person ever, but He just can't because man has a "will" which is assumed to be free (Rogers uses 2 Peter 3:9). The moment someone attempts to debunk this man-made, philosophical idea, he is immediately charged with making God to be a mean and evil tyrant, who is unloving at best.

Emotionalism begins to take over many conversations when dealing with God's Sovereignty. I remember several years ago a pastor and his wife used the 2 Peter 3:9 argument to show that God desires every person ever to be saved and is waiting and hoping for us to come. When I used the text itself and showed what the text really meant, I was seen as a mean Calvinist that doesn't want to share the love of God. So in essence, personal, emotional, man-made philosophies and traditions took over the conversation.

It is true that God commands men everywhere to repent and believe in Jesus. This is God's will of command. Dr. Rogers uses emotionally driven examples of rape being against God's will. Therefore men have the ability to resist God's Will. Therefore God's will can be frustrated. Is 2 Peter 3:9 really about God commanding men?

I suggest that the text itself argues against that point. In fact, if you simply follow the pronouns "us" verses "them", you will see that this is not God hoping men will be saved, but God actually being patient with His people. This is showing that God uses means to bring about the salvation of His people, and this takes time.

It also shows that God has people from every generation, from every language, from every nation and tribe and people that He desires to save. He will not fail to do so. I thank God He was patient with me. Perhaps He may be patient with many we are praying for as well.

God accomplishes everything He sets out to do. That is His Will. Do men resist His will of command? Yes. Do men resist His secret purposes? No. Did God command men to murder His Son? No, He did not. Was it His secret will that the Cross should happen? Yes, it was. So the Adrianne Rogers of the SBC need to be a little more careful before they go emotionalizing texts. God is the Creator of everything, including every event in history. That is His Will.

Soli Deo Gloria

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

We Got Cousins!

Well, those of you who know about my brother's great loss of the Triplets last year will be blessed to know that he now has twins. Joshua and Lilian were born this afternoon. Joshua was 6 pounds 4 oz, and Lillian weighed 6 pounds 1 oz.. Both are 20 inches tall.

So the Fishers in Massachusetts and the Fishers in Kansas are celebrating the Lord's goodness and mercy. We have been praying a long time for these two. It will truly be great to see the Lord deliver them all the way home.

Soli Deo Gloria