Flow Chart For Salvation In RCism

On JohnMark's Blog, I originally thought this "flow chart" was made tongue in cheek. Apparently I was wrong. "That is the flowchart from James McCarthy's _The Gospel According to Rome_. Good book. Great flowchart." According to Rhology.

So, if you are Roman Catholic, enjoy figuring this out.

Celebrating Christmas VS. The Lord's Day

It has come to my attention that several Meg-Churches are closing for Christmas. The consumers apparently don't feel the need to celebrate Christ on the Lord's Day, which also happens to be Christmas. Isn't there a big hub-bub about boycotting Target for saying "Happy Holidays"?

We are so worried that the world is taking Christ out of Christmas, we forget to take the plank out of our own eye? I didn't realize that Christmas and the Lord's Day were in competition.

State and Church

On the Laura Ingram show, a debate insued with those who oppose Christianity, in particular those who think Christmas carols should not be sung at school. This is an interesting argument, but simply telling non-Christians they must accept Christmas carols being sung by their children in the public school is absurd.

I have yet to understand why Christians think a non-Christian should have to sing religious songs to get a grade, when the parents are against it. Now Christians could argue that if the majority of people are Christian, then the person who does not want to participate does not have to, but the school may go ahead with a Christmas program. Let's say however that a particular city is atheistic. Should children there be forced to sing Christmas carols when the majority of people are not Christian? I don't think so.

Should the government's worldview be Christian? Yes. Should the government publically advocate Christianity as their worldview? Again, yes. You may say this seems contradictory. It is not. I believe Christians need to persuade their fellow man of the superiority of Christianity. I think we Christians need to make a solid case as to why governments need the Christian worldview. This however is different from forcing people to go to church and believe in Jesus

We as Christians must demonstrate that atheism as a worldview is inconsistent with reality and is not even able to explain the world around us. Atheism has no basis for arguing why laws should be the way they are except from perhaps a pragmatistic view. Even then, that has no basis in sound thought. Atheism's worldview cannot even suppport religious freedom. It simply is impossible for atheism to exist as a coherent and consisten foundation for government.

Some might say that perhaps another religion should be the foundation for America, such as Islam. Again, one only needs to take a quick glance around the world to see Islam is not a consistent worldview and need not apply. The religious persecution that takes place against Christians is too well documented, even in countries that are not seen as "extreme". It is simply not possible to have religious freedom within an Islamic state (or an atheistic one for that matter).

Christianity is the only worldview that is consistent and coherent. It provides for the moral underpinnings that governments need to be God honoring while allowing for relgious freedom. Although religious freedom does not mean a religious free-for-all. It does mean a government based on solid Scriptural teaching can provide a basis for stability among a people of differing views.

It is difficult to maintain order in a society, whose citizens are taught all worldviews are equal. If Christians desire true unity in this great nation, then we must not be ashamed to show from the Bible that God governs both the state and the church, and it does so on separate grounds.

Bible First, Then Philosophy

If I am being misunderstood by everyone, then I accept the blame for not being as clear as I should be. So I will make one more attempt at explaining presuppositional apologetics. Many atheists use the problem of evil against Christians, and many Christians are defeated at different points. The question should however be turned against the atheist. Why should the atheist even ask the question? For there cannot be evil in an atheist world.

Now I realize that several atheist philosophers have made water tight cases for a system of morality. In fact there are philosophers of the past who have made systems of philosophy that absolutely destroy Christianity. Systems that simply can't be beat.

An example of a philosophy was given in a talk by the late Dr. Walter Martin. Years ago I listened to him speak about getting Feuerbach stuffed down his throat in college. He saw that in Feuerbach's system that Christianity had been dealt a death blow, and he searched high and low among Christian philosophers to find an answer. He never found one.

He then went on to explain how he came across a German philosopher, who was known by the name the Pessimist (I believe he was referring to Arthur Schopenhauer). This philosopher did what no one else had done. He refuted Feuerbach. But he did it not by beating the system, for that was solid. He did it by challenging the assumption of Feuerbach's system.

The assumption was that Christians try to make reality based on their inner desires. Once Schopenhauer refuted the starting point that reality is not reality simply because of our desires, Feuerbach's unbeatable system was destroyed. In the same way, the perhaps unassailable morality systems of atheists come crashing down. For their systems must presuppose truth that can be known outside of their own worldview. Their worldview does not start with the presuppositions that are needed to consistently explain what they are arguing for.

This is why they must borrow from the Christian worldview when dealing with Christians on the problem of evil. By simply asking the question about a loving God and the problem of evil, they must assume there is a God, truth, laws of logic, a Creator creature relationship and ect for their question to even be valid.

Christians often respond with terrible logic and poor reasoning. Hence why so many atheists reject Christians. Therefore, if you are an atheist, I challenge you to understand that only the reformed apologetic is able to give a Biblically consistent answer. You may still disagree. But as I have heard some atheists say, if Christianity is true, it must accept the Sovereignty of God as taught not by arminian Christian philosophers, but by reformed theologians who start with the Bible first, then produce their philosophy.

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.

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

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

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.

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.