Bill Nye, the Religious Guy

I find it very ironic that many have rushed to claim victory for Nye in his debate against Answers In Genesis Ministries CEO, Ken Ham.  However, Bill Nye’s underlying worldview is fatally flawed, and that was demonstrated by Nye’s unscientific and painfully inconsistent and dishonest remarks. I’m sure the Internet will be filled by much better written articles that can address issues such as the evidence presented, among others, than this one, so I thought I’d try to keep it brief and to the point.  I would like to list several statements by Nye and show how they expose the fatal flaw of naturalism.  If you are a Christian reading this, you don’t need to be intimidated by the content of Nye’s presentation.  Go to the root of his worldview, locate the rotting point, and start hacking away.

~~~

  • “I’m not a theologian, but…”

    Then don’t ask a theological question or make a theological comment/statement.  This was particularly revealing of Nye’s utter ignorance of the Bible when he presented the Telephone Game objection, the debunked belief that the Bible was transmitted unilaterally, that is, it went from one scribe to the next, and to the next, and so forth, the end result being a highly adulterated and modified Bible.
    If you’re an unbeliever and you’re going to debate a Bible-believing person, at least have the honesty to study how the Bible was transmitted, put yourself in the Christian’s shoes (same goes for you Christian, put yourself in the Mormon’s, Jehovah’s Witness, atheist, scientologist, etc’s shoes).  Christians, teach unbelievers to stop using the Telephone Game objection. It’s long been debunked.  Here is a presentation by Dr. James White on the reliability of the New Testament text and how the Bible was actually translated and passed down through history:

  • “There’s many religious people who don’t agree with your position, what becomes of them?  We in the scientific community…”

    What becomes of Bill Nye, I wonder, given that the same could be said of him?  First of all, Nye painted with a very broad brush, equating all religions in his map to Ham’s and then assuming he must be in their same group for his belief to count.
    Secondly, there are many in the “scientific community” who have disagreed and disagree with Nye.  What becomes, then, of Nye?  Is Nye’s position, therefore, on shaky ground because he does not conform with everyone in the “scientific community”?
    The underlying assumption is that the scientific community is a group who is in agreement with and share Nye’s naturalistic/materialistic/empiricist worldview.  This is an arrogant claim indeed, since it is quite obvious this is not the case. This also demonstrates the false dichotomy of pitting science against religion or viceversa.  As Ken Ham rightly pointed out in the debate,

    “The word science has been hijacked by secularists in teaching evolution to force the religion of naturalism on generations of kids.” – Ken Ham

    It also makes the false assumption that “religious” people are outside of the category of “scientist.”  I will let my friend Tom address this point (and actually several of my other points on this blog) further.  I highly recommend you watch his video and the one below:

  • “When I look at the night sky I wanna know what it is!”

    Remember, Nye is a materialist, a naturalist, a person who claims he will only accept empirical evidence to accept any given thing.  So we must ask the question: Why?  Based on what standard?  Why should you?  Who says you want to know?  Furthermore, can you prove that statement?  Can you prove that desire?  Can you bring me a jar full of “desire” to know what the night sky is?

  • “We can predict, but you can’t….There’s a reason why i don’t accept Ken Ham’s creation model, it has no predictive ability”

    Once again, why should we want to predict anything?  Why should we want to know where we came from?  Why should we want to predict anything if we have no transcendent purpose?  Who cares? Also just because something happens repeatedly (sunrise, sunset, etc.) doesn’t mean you can therefore predict the sun will rise or set tomorrow (think forecast news and how accurate those are).

  • “This is what gets us up to go to work every day, to know where all came from.”

    Why? I thought it was random atoms hitting each other or chemical processes in the brain that wake us up to go to work every day.  After all, why should we know where all came from if there is nothing more after death?  Who cares?  As Nye himself said about death,

    “It’s very hard to accept for many of us that when you die, it’s over.”

    Here’s the dilemma: Based on Nye’s underlying naturalistic, empiricist, materialistic worldview, which does not allow the supernatural or the metaphysical, Nye cannot be allowed to jump from empiricism to philosophical or metaphysical arguments and he should be called out on it.
    The moment Nye says that the desire to know the workings of the universe, or the desire to answer the “where did all come from” question is what gets us up every day to go to work, he is jumping from empiricism to philosophy, and as Christians we must call this out (and we can say “must” because it is commanded to us in 2 Cor. 10:5, among other Scriptures; that is, because “there is a book out there” [I need to get a shirt with that quote by Ham] that is unique and objective and is the foundation for everything in life).

  • “Unthinkable…untenable…troubling…is it reasonable?”

    Unthinkable: Why?  On what basis?  Everyone’s interpretation of what we can observe? (Nye repeatedly appealed to the audience’s observations of the universe, not realizing that,

    “All scientists have the same experimental or observational science.  It doesn’t matter whether you’re a creationist or an evolutionist, you can be a great scientist.” – Ken Ham

  • Untenable: Why?  On what basis?
  • Troubling: Why?  On what basis?  Can you bring me a jar of worry?
  • Is it reasonable?  First of, based on your naturalistic/materialistic/empiricist worldview, why should things be reasonable?  Why shouldn’t they be unreasonable?  Who determined that?  You?  The “scientific community”?  Whose reason?  Whose interpretation of what is reasonable?  It rather seems to me that what Nye really means is “does it fit within my presuppositions and biases?”  Is his “joy of discovery” “reasonable”?
  • “The scientific community believes in evolution”

    An extremely demeaning and arrogant statement.  It basically excludes creationists or non-macro evolutionists (notice I said macro evolutionists) from being considered a part of the “scientific community.”  It is the tyrannical push of the religion of macro evolution of non-macro evolutionists from science.
    In the debate Nye said many religious people didn’t share Nye’s view; the same applies to Nye: not all scientists share the theory (yes, theory) of macro evolution.  Therefore, unless Nye will admit to the dogmas of the religion of macro evolution in excluding those who disagree, it is clear that this statement is easily refuted.
    Thinking science belongs in evolution and can’t fit in a Biblical worldview is an amazingly ignorant statement to make from this otherwise very learned man.  Now, it is true that Nye did say he does not see religion conflicting with science, but in reality the dichotomy still stands in Nye’s worldview, and it is illogical, if not downright stupid. Ham presented videos of many professing creationists being highly respected and qualified scientists who have contributed much to “the scientific community.”  Contrary to Nye’s demeaning remarks against the people of Kentucky, Ham rightly pointed out,

    “Molecules-to-man evolution belief has nothing to do with developing technology.” – Ken Ham

  • Wonderful, charming, compelling, The joy of discovery, that’s what drives us…

    Why?  In the name of “science,” Nye, why? Where do you get your standard for what is wonderful, what is charming, what is compelling?  Where do you get joy from?  Christians, we already addressed this same line of reasoning.  Do you notice once again the convenient inconsistency of jumping from empiricism to philosophy and non-materialistic issues here?
    The best Nye could and can do is appeal to human observation to prove something.  Can Nye reach a consensus with the audience on what is wonderful, charming and compelling?  Even if he could, could he now bring those results to a lab and test them out?  Could anyone else from “the scientific community” do so?  Again, and Ham pointed this out too, Nye must borrow (I would say steal) from the Christian worldview in order to even be able to say these things, much less live by them daily.  Remember that, empiricists do not live according to their professed worldview.

  • “It’s way inside of us [the joy of discovery]”

    Once again, how do you know? Can you prove that? Can you observe that?  I know Ham had to be selective on what arguments to address and which not to, so what I’ll say is that this would have been a good thing to challenge to prove.  If Nye does not know where consciousness came from (at what point of our evolution it was generated), how can he know that this abstract, philosophical idea of the joy of discovery is “way inside of us” and is “what drives us to wake up every day and go to work”?  Oh, if Nye could understand the only reason he has any joy of discovery is because God has created man to know and glorify Him through learning about him through what He has made!  The foolishness and inconsistency of unbelief!

  • “I don’t know where consciousness comes from, but we wanna find out”

    Why do you want to find out?  Can desire be scientifically proven?

  • “If anyone brings a new thing, we’ll adopt it!”

    This is an outright lie.  Does the documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed by Ben Stein ring a bell anyone?  Those who do not embrace the religion of Darwin are disowned, not adopted.  Furthermore, if it’s true that you in “the scientific community” are so open minded, will you even look at the Bible then?  Or is that “unthinkable, untenable, unreasonable, troubling” even before you look at it objectively?

  • “Ham, you want us to take your word for it, your interpretation of a book than what all of us here can observe”

    INCONSISTENCY ALERT!  So you want us to take the countless different interpretations here in the room, including your own, but somehow Ham’s “and his followers” don’t count?

  • Bible interpretation: Ham took the time to explain to Nye the difference between right hermeneutics and wrong hermeneutics.  Nye completely misrepresented what Ham said and dismissed Ham’s explanation as buffet hermeneutics: We choose what to interpret literally and what to allegorize as poems (assuming that allegories carry no certain or objective meaning).  Nye further showed his utter ignorance of the Bible, and therefore his hypocrisy and dishonesty, by using the old Telephone Game objection (see above).
  • Nye mentioned “mediocre” versus “good” designs of nature in his macro evolutionist model.  On what standard do you determine “mediocrity” and “goodness” Mr. Nye?  Certainly not yours.
  • Where do laws of logic come from based on a naturalistic worldview? Why should we trust them? Who’s to say they’ll be the same tomorrow as they were today?
  • “When you’re in love, you wanna tell the world”

    So you are “in love” with what you call science?  Can you please bring me a jar of love?

  • Speaking of the universe, Nye said, “It’s astonishing to me” Why not horrifying?  Ultimately, in a naturalistic/materialistic worldview, is there such a thing as “astonishing” or “horrifying”?
  • “We are driven to pursue that, where we came from” 

    Based on a naturalistic worldview, why?  Can you prove that empirically?  Can you bring me a box of that?  It is true that man desires to know that, but only the Christian worldview can provide an objective basis for that.  Furthermore, if there is nothing after death, why should we want to know where we came from?

  • “Here’s my concern: what keeps the United States ahead, what makes the US a world leader is our technology, our new ideas, our innovations. If we continue to eschew science, eschew the process and try to divide science into observational science and historic science, we are not gonna move forward, we will not embrace natural laws, we will not make discoveries, we will not invent and stay ahead”

    Why should you want to be patriotic, Nye?  Why should we want to move forward?  Why should we embrace “natural laws”?  Why should we make discoveries?  Why should we invent and stay ahead?  All of these are non-material issues that cannot survive the empirical testing Nye so strongly calls Ham to do.  It is once again the convenient jumping from empiricism to philosophy.
    Also, to eschew something assumes an objective standard, so where do you get that from?  Furthermore, Nye dismissed what Ham rightly pointed out, that macro evolutionist scientists do engage in observational and historic science.  They are every bit as religious as anyone else.  When it comes to what came before the Big Bang, where consciousness came from, the age of the Earth, etc., Nye is a religious guy.

~~~

I will close with a quote by the late Gordon Clark, a renowned Christian philosopher, and a quote by Ken Ham that summarizes very well the religion of naturalism/materialism/empiricism/macro evolution/secularism,

“Not only do Empiricists fail in justifying the classification of things into common nouns, they fail equally and earlier in justifying the perception of a single thing.  In Empiricism there is no reason for choosing six or eight sensations out of the fifty or a hundred we have at any one time and combining these six into the perception of a thing….Experience, therefore, can neither explain nor justify the perception of things.” – Gordon H. Clark 1

“Public school textbooks are using the same word science for observational and historical science. They arbitrarily define science as naturalism and outlaw the supernatural. They present molecules-to-man evolution as fact. They are imposing the religion of naturalism/atheism on generations of students.” – Ken Ham

~~~

1. Clark, Gordon H. “Secular Philosophy.” The Works of Gordon Haddon Clark. Vol. 4. Unicoi: Trinity Foundation, 2004. 280. Print. Christian Philosophy.

Advertisements

Drawn to Jesus by the Father – by Chris Zambada

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.   And I will raise him up on the last day.”  – John 6:44

In the last few months, I was led to read the scriptures and make a commitment to God that I would believe and practice what the scriptures teach, even if it goes against what my church or any men teach.

That being said, let’s look at the above verse and see what Jesus is saying.  Jesus is speaking to a crowd of people who had come out to hear him teach.  Jesus told them that unless they ate His flesh and drank His blood, they had no part with Him.  Jesus preached to them saying that He came down from heaven and was the bread of life.  Many of the Jews questioned Jesus, saying,

“Isn’t this Jesus, the song of Joseph and Mary? How does he say that he has come down from heaven?”

Jesus saw that many of them did not believe, and this is when He said,

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”

I think that at times some people make the mistake to say that we are the ones that choose to come to Jesus. They portray Jesus as a beggar who is walking around asking that people please choose Him because He loves them and wants to come into their lives.  I really have an issue with this point of view because it not only is unbiblical, but it takes away from God’s glorious person.

Who are we that God should have to beg us to come to Him? Who are we to boast and say that we chose to give him a chance?  No, let it be far from us! We know that God is Holy and we are not (Ps. 18; Rom. 5).  We are desperately wicked and totally depraved (Is. 6:33; Rom. 1).  God would be just in condemning us all and casting us into hell forever (Rom. 9).  Let’s sit and really think about this: How can we who are blind and dead in our trespasses (Eph. 2:1; Col. 2:13) have the ability to turn to Christ on our own efforts (John 6;44-49)?

In this verse we see Jesus clearly teaching us that only God can draw us to Him, and the salvation He has given us is all of Him, not of man.

As Paul tells us in Romans:

“Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.  For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then He has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.” – Romans 8:13-18.

“And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” – Acts 13:48.

“For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” – Romans 8:29-30.

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.”  – Ephesians 2:8.

God alone is the one who convicts us of our sinful lifestyle.  God alone is the one who brings us to hear the Gospel.  God alone is the one who works in our lives to repent and place our faith on Christ (Phil. 2:13).  God alone, yes, not man (Eph. 2:5). When we go on and claim that we chose God, we are denying the work of God in our lives and therefore taking credit for something God has done (Eph. 2:8-10).  Even the faith which we place on Him has been given to us (Eph. 2:8-10; Rom. 9:16).  Let it be clear, our salvation, is 110 % of God, you had NOTHING to do with it.

I would plead with you, Christian, that you would see this verse and give God all of the glory for your salvation, for unless he had predestined you from the very beginning, and unless he drew you to Jesus, you would still be lost in your sins and headed to an eternity in hell, in which you would rightfully be judged.  I would also plead with you that you  search the scriptures which God has given you and obey what God has clearly taught us.  Let’s remember that our commitment is with Christ, not with a church organization or man.  If we see our church teaching a doctrine different to what the scriptures tell us, this is a red flag and an indicator that we should seek a church that teaches what the scriptures teach.

JESUS MAKES ALL THINGS NEW!

Chris Zambada

Building Bridges, Adorning the Gospel

For years I rejected the idea that before sharing the Gospel as Christians we should nurture relationships and build bridges with people we see on a regular fashion before sharing the Gospel of free grace.  Neighbors, friends, schoolmates, family or workmates, they must all hear the Gospel the very first time you see them.  After all, you never know when they will die.  They could die the very night you first met or saw them without the Lord, and their blood will be demanded from your hands.  The Lord is powerless to use anyone or anything but you in sharing the cross with them.

That is the position I used to take very dogmatically.  Now, I don’t mean to say with this that there should be no sense of urgency in reaching the lost or that I am minimizing in any way the gravity of the issue.  Even those close to you or that you see on a regular fashion, there may be circumstances in which you might have to share the Gospel with them right away.  I am speaking, however, of our day-to-day routines.  There are people we see everyday who do not believe in Christ.  It is to these people, to whom you are an open letter, to whom your life is exposed to day after day, who are watching you to see whether you really possess what you confess.  It is of these that I am talking about.

I have a schoolmate who is a Roman Catholic.  She helped me with some resources for the program we are studying in school, very valuable stuff for me.  I wanted to reach out to her, since I had previously discussed the issue of abortion with another classmate, and she heard our exchange.  It was then that I realized she is a Roman Catholic.  I decided the best way to start what I hope will flourish into a great opportunity for sharing the Gospel later this year was to give her a book, a book that would help her see the Christ of Scripture rather than the Christ of Rome.  She replied back by not only accepting the book graciously, but by giving me one as well.  That book is written by a “former” Christian, more particularly, a Calvinist (from what I perceive), which I think will only add richness to the discussions I hope to have with her in the future.  Why is that?  Because that author formerly held to the Five Solas of the Reformation.  What a more perfect way to introduce the Gospel, God willing, than through the history of the Reformation?

More to the point of this post, if the Lord does not will for us to have a discussion and all I was able to give her was that book, praise the Lord.  In the words of the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:5-9 (NASB),

“What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one.  I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth.  So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth.  Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor.  For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.”

God is sovereign, and I trust He will use me in whatever way He sees fit.  If He wills for me to have a discussion with her in which I will firmly and graciously share the cross, great!  If He doesn’t, great!  He may use someone else to do it, but He may certainly use the book to get her mind thinking.

My point is this:  God is sovereign.  He will save His sheep (John 6, John 10, John 17).  If one of the means He uses for that purpose is my speaking to her, that would be an honor for me.  If He doesn’t, He is gracious and good in not doing so.  We cannot live our lives thinking that we have to be repeating the message of the Gospel every second of every day to every single person, no matter how honest and noble the intention, because we would then be neglecting the other commandments, duties, and blessings God has given to His people.

My friends at the Santa Monica promenade have an open mic session every Saturday afternoon.  They don’t repeat the message of the Gospel every second.  It certainly is a part of the session, but they open the mic for people to ask any question they want.  In those sessions there is discussion on apologetics, gospel-preaching, politics, finances, theology, science, philosophy, among many other subjects.  It does not have to be only Gospel-preaching all the time.  Some people choose to do that, and that’s fine, but some don’t, and that’s also fine.

So before you think that you have to repeat the Gospel every second, pause for a moment and read what I said before again: God is sovereign in salvation, not man.  I believe that is partly the reason why I rejected the idea of nurturing relationships and dismissed it and generalized it as part of the “social evangelism” movement.

By “social evangelism” I mean that prevalent movement that espouses things like the misquote by St. Francis of Assisi, “Preach the gospel, and if necessary, use words,” which is ridiculous because it is impossible to preach the Gospel without using words, much less the right words.  I mean the movement that shares a watered down gospel in order to be politically correct and “sensitive.”  I mean the movement that seeks to make God subservient to man rather than man subservient to God.

What do I mean, then, by building bridges before sharing the Gospel with someone?  In the words of the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith,

“Good works are only such as God hath commanded in his Holy Word, and not such as without the warrant thereof are devised by men out of blind zeal, or upon any pretence of good intentions.   These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith; and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that having their fruit unto holiness they may have the end eternal life.” Art. 16:1-2

Good works include those things that add to the beauty the Gospel already has, that makes it beautiful to those who listen to it, even if it is foolishness and an aroma of death to them (1 Cor. 1:18; 2 Cor. 2:16).  They are those things that make people say what was said of Daniel in Daniel 6:4-5,

“Then the commissioners and satraps began trying to find a ground of accusation against Daniel in regard to government affairs; but they could find no ground of accusation or evidence of corruption, inasmuch as he was faithful, and no negligence or corruption was to be found in him.  Then these men said, “We will not find any ground of accusation against this Daniel unless we find it against him with regard to the law of his God.”

Is it possible that many times we are just trying to share the Gospel with people without intending to create any sort of relationship with them, many times in a very unbecoming way?  Is it possible to be in a “share frenzy” while at the same time neglecting to obey God in the way we handle our finances, our temper, our responsibilities?  Can it be that in many ways we are enabling people to slander the gospel by the way we act towards them or to our own duties?  Shouldn’t we of all people be the most gracious, the most loving, the kindest, the most ready to serve, and the most patient people of all?  How can unbelievers glorify God through our Christ-likeness?  When they see us, who are supposed to follow in the footsteps of Christ and the Apostles, and they see that very thing, they will see that our profession matches our expression of that message, and they will thus glorify God.  For what good will the message of the gospel do to the mind of an unbeliever if we are not showing any evidence of change?  What worth will they see in Christ if we act exactly like the unbelievers do?

No, we will not be perfect, we will fail.  But that in no way takes away from our duty to live our lives for the glory of God and the benefit of our fellow man.

This was meant to be a short Facebook post, but let me now say the short statement I wanted to from the beginning:  Want to share the Gospel with that family member you see everyday?  Bring them some food, a glass of water, show yourself a servant to him or her.  Want to reach out to that classmate or workmate you see everyday?  Invite them over to your house for dinner, show yourself a servant to them.  Want your neighbor to hear the Gospel?  Invite them over to dinner, bring them food, help them in their distress (illness, someone they know suffering, etc.), help them move that box to the garage, show yourself a servant to them.  Win the right to share the Gospel with that person.  Build a bridge that you may cross later to share the Gospel, if God so wills.  Don’t burn bridges before you have even built them.

The Gospel is already offensive enough (to the unbeliever):  God created man upright and gave him a law that would have been unto life had he kept it (Genesis 2:15-17).  Man represented all of mankind, so when he sinned, we sinned in him and have inherited his guilt and corruption (Romans 5).  We are born sinners, hating God and man, in rebellion to the King of the universe (Romans 3).  The just retribution for our rebellion is eternal, conscious suffering in hell, away from the presence and grace of the Lamb (Matthew 10:28; Luke 16:24; Jude 12-13; Revelation 14:11; Revelation 19:20, etc.).  Man cannot save himself by anything he does because every action of his is polluted and tainted by sin (Romans 3).  God is holy and righteous, and He cannot accept anything corrupted by sin.  God requires perfection, and no man can be perfect (Matthew 5:48).  God does not lower His standard because we are unable to fulfill His law, however.  God cannot demand anything less than what he is: thrice holy and just (Isaiah 6).  Our only hope of perfect righteousness would have to be extra nos (outside of us).  It would have to be a man because he would have to represent men, not dogs or horses.  He would have to be God as well because no man can perfectly and satisfactorily propitiate the wrath of God on behalf of sinners.  Jesus Christ, our only mediator and surety, perfectly fulfilled the law and bore the wrath of the Father on behalf of his people.  He was raised three days after His death (1 Corinthians 15), thus proving that the Father accepted His mediation, and now sits at the right hand of Majesty in heaven interceding for His people (Hebrews 8:1).  He came once as a meek lamb, but He will return to judge the living and the dead in fiery and swift judgment (1 Thessalonians 1).  The only way to escape the just wrath of God “against those who disobey the gospel” (2 Thessalonians 1:8) is by grace through faith in Christ’s work alone, “and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-10).  You must, therefore, repent and believe the gospel, Christ offered in the place of sinners, Christ the only way, the only truth, and the only life (John 14:6); Christ, the only mediator (1 Timothy 2:5), God and Savior (Titus 2:13).  You can’t save yourself (Galatians 3:10-12; James 2:8-12; Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:20).  You are not good (Romans 3).  You are doomed unless you appropriate Christ through God-given faith.  Repent, renounce your sins and come to Christ.

To the carnal mind, that is the most offensive and enraging message that can ever be preached.  God decided to use this that to unbelievers is foolishness to exalt himself and put man in his place (1 Corinthians 1:26-31).  Don’t make the Gospel more offensive than it already is.  Build bridges, nurture relationships, and then graciously share and contend for the truth in love, firmly and without wavering, but with charity (Jude 3; 1 Peter 3:15).  When they hear you they may reject it, but they will know you are living proof of the grace of God, and that it shows through your life.

Pray for God to give you opportunities to share the Gospel and move as you pray, but also study the Word of God, spend time in prayer, spend time with your family, enjoy the blessings of God, and live in the knowledge of the providence of God.  Don’t neglect the whole of Christianity for one thing.  Let everything be Gospel-centered, but don’t become a broken record.  Let your life be a living witness of the renewing, saving grace of God.

I will finish with the words of the Apostle Peter in 2 Peter 1:1-11,

Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,

To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence.  For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.  

Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love.

For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.  For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins.

Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble; for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.”

Soli Deo Gloria

Rachael Slick’s Apostasy: My Response – by Chris Gautreau

This blog post was written by my friend and dear brother in Christ, Chris.  You can visit his YouTube channel here.  He’s got a lot of great stuff there.

Flipping on through Facebook a few days ago, something I have not done in some time, I came across an article written by the daughter of Matt Slick. Some of you may not know him by name but might know about his website/ministry, C.A.R.M (Christian Apologetics Research Ministry).

The article written by his daughter was one that, on some level, seemed to announce her apostasy from the faith. In this article she gave some details about her upbringing  and ultimately got to the point where she explained why it is she is no longer one who professes faith in Christ.

I could relate to this story which is why it ‘struck home’ for me. I have an 18 year old son whom I raised entirely on my own. He was brought up in a Christian home, going to church, reading the bible, etc.  He professed the faith, though I was never convinced. Shortly after turning 18, before graduation, he moved out of my home and moved in with his girlfriend. Now, he hasn’t verbally denied the faith, but he most certainly has by his actions. This is quite heartbreaking for a Christian parent to deal with. Sins of the father, I presume.

Reading through this article it was apparent that it was not one simple issue that led her to apostasy but rather it was something of a process. Nevertheless, she pointed to one particular “problem” that ‘sealed the deal’ for her. The following are her words:

“This changed one day during a conversation with my friend Alex. I had a habit of bouncing theological questions off him, and one particular day, I asked him this: If God was absolutely moral, because morality was absolute, and if the nature of “right” and “wrong” surpassed space, time, and existence, and if it was as much a fundamental property of reality as math, then why were some things a sin in the Old Testament but not a sin in the New Testament?

Alex had no answer — and I realized I didn’t either. Everyone had always explained this problem away using the principle that Jesus’ sacrifice meant we wouldn’t have to follow those ancient laws.

But that wasn’t an answer. In fact, by the very nature of the problem, there was no possible answer that would align with Christianity.” (emphasis hers)

Allow me to quote again the specific portion I wish to address.

“If God was absolutely moral, because morality was absolute, and if the nature of “right” and “wrong” surpassed space, time, and existence, and if it was as much a fundamental property of reality as math, then why were some things a sin in the Old Testament but not a sin in the New Testament?”

She carries a small suitcase but there is much to unpack.

In a sense, she is so vague in her statements that it’s almost a waste of time responding, simply for the reason that I can only respond by assuming I understand precisely what she means.

For instance, she says God is “absolutely moral” yet she fails to define morality. Is she operating from a Christian perspective when she speaks of morality or from an atheistic perspective? I assume a Christian perspective due to the “timing” of this question she asked her friend. Nevertheless, the implications abound.

What is moral? Is it an absolute moral to abstain from fornication? Is it an absolute moral to say “excuse me” after burping? Is it an absolute moral to keep the Sabbath? Is it immoral to kill a black widow? Is it immoral to use cuss words? I don’t know.  She doesn’t define morality.

How does morality apply to God? Is stealing immoral? How can stealing apply to God when He owns everything? Is it an absolute moral to obey ones parents? Does God have parents who need to be obeyed?

Next, she seems to imply that morality, whatever this thing is, stands outside of God. Notice her words,

“If God was absolutely moral, because morality was absolute…”

God is moral BECAUSE morality is absolute? The next line seems to further establish my conclusion. She writes,

“if the nature of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ surpassed space, time, and existence…”

If morality surpasses each of these things, then it would seem that such a “thing” is eternal and self sufficient, especially since, according to her, this thing called morality doesn’t seem to find its source in God.

Where, then, does morality come from? Is it eternal and self sufficient? Does this make morality a God? If so, how can there be two Gods? If there are two Gods, how is it that one can rule over the other?

Does this God called morality know it exist? Since moral LAW implies a Lawgiver, can this God enforce its laws? If It cannot enforce its laws, how can its laws bind the other God? If Jehovah God can disregard Moral Gods laws, would this not make Jehovah God the absolute moral objectifier (I think I just made this word up), thus nullifying Moral Gods existence?

I believe I made my point clear. Rachael never really thought things through. Her main problem is that she assumed things she should never have assumed. Faulty assumptions lead to faulty reasoning which leads to faulty conclusions.

Why does she assume all laws are moral in nature? Why does she assume all laws are eternal and unchanging? Where did she get such an idea? Certainly not from the bible. As a matter of fact, NO WHERE in the bible will you find the phrase “moral law.”

For me, the fact that Gods laws clearly do change tells me that one should never assume that laws are necessarily eternal and unchanging; this would seem obvious. The fact that Gods laws do change proves that her understanding, that is, what she assumed to be true, was in error.

I bring this up because I’m not sure why she didn’t simply question her assumptions rather than question Gods existence. In other words, it never crossed her mind that she might be wrong in her understanding; it HAD to be the bibles fault.

At this point I could simply stop because her entire premise was faulty to begin with, thus, her conclusions are without foundation. She assumed things that simply are not taught in scripture. Scripture was not her problem, her own ignorance was.

I’m not finished, however. I would still like to address the question which flowed from her faulty premises. Lets look at that once more: “…why were some things a sin in the Old Testament but not a sin in the New Testament?”

I’m going to attempt to keep this as short and as simple as I can. Keep in mind, “short and simple” are relative terms. There is so much that can be included in this discussion but I simply do not have the time nor do you have the patience.

(I was asked to keep this very simple. Dumbed down, if you will)

Before presenting my argument it must be pointed out that various theologians and various schools of thought will differ with me on some points. This will not hinder the thrust or strength of the argument because there is nevertheless a general consensus on this issue. It’s only some relatively minor points or variations that separate us.

How can something be a sin ‘here’ but not ‘there?’ How can Gods laws change?

The first thing we must do, or not do, is, we cannot begin with assumptions. We must allow the scriptures to form our understanding. This goes for the Christian and atheist alike. If we are to be fair with the words of anyone we must let them say what they say and mean what they mean. This seems obvious but is rarely done.

I’m going to give a very brief and simplistic sketch of history. Be sure to read as this is a necessary outline that will help us understand this issue.

In the beginning, God created man. He gave them one simple law, “don’t eat from that tree.” Adam disobeyed. Man began making babies. These children grew up and eventually we get to Noah. God saw that mans wickedness (wickedness implies broken laws) was great and decided to flood the world. Noah and his family were spared and they were the ones who repopulated the earth.

Up until this point, God did not have “a people;” that is, a specific people in a special relationship with Him, until He called Abram (Abraham). It is with Abraham that God decided to make a people. However, God would create two different peoples from this one man Abraham. One would be his physical descendants who would eventually consist of the physical nation of Israel, the other peoples would consists of his spiritual descendants (anyone who shared the same faith in God as Abraham) who would make up the spiritual kingdom (the Church).

God made a covenant with Abraham and gave him a law…. “circumcise your offspring.” God then made a different covenant with Abraham’s physical descendants through Moses. God gave Moses and the Israelites a whole bunch of laws, over 600. This may seem excessive but they were given for the purpose of running an entire nation (keep this in mind). Finally God created a new covenant established by Christ. Christ and the apostles then gave new laws pertaining to that new covenant.

Why this brief history lesson? Different time periods, different, people, different covenants, different laws. In other words, the reason the laws changed is because the circumstances changed. Obviously laws given to the nation of Israel for the purpose of running a nation have no value under the new covenant with the Church which is not a physical nation. Nor would laws concerning the nation of Israel have any value or purpose before that nation existed.

To be sure, not every law given to Israel was “civil” in nature. For instance, there were laws regarding animal sacrifices (though this is nevertheless a “national thing” Leviticus 16). Why have those laws changed? Why don’t Christians sacrifice animals?

These types of laws (animal sacrifices) were given for a few reasons. The most important one is that they typified or foreshadowed the sacrifice of Christ. They were forward looking and were awaiting fulfillment. When Christ gave His life as a ransom He fulfilled what those animal sacrifices pointed to. Why does this matter? Because, once fulfillment has taken place there is no longer any need for those things which foreshadowed the fulfillment. Hence, the word “fulfilled” (Matthew 5). Thus, laws pertaining to animal sacrifices are no longer binding or in force. As a matter of fact, it would be blasphemous for Christians to sacrifice animals now that Christ has come.

Two different covenants. Two different peoples. Two different sets of laws.

These are just a few examples.

So where does the idea of unchanging moral law come from? All Christians agree, there are laws given by God that seem to reflect His unchanging nature and character. However, such laws are not always easy to discern. The reason for this, as stated above, is that the bible never calls any law “moral.”

For me, and many like me, I look for two main things in scripture to guide my understanding on this.

  1. Are there any laws/sins that appear to transcend time, people, and covenant?
  2. Are there any laws that appear to flow directly from aspects of Gods nature or character?

What do I mean “transcend time, people, and covenant?” Remember the history lesson. God had no people. Then God called Abraham. God then had a people called Israel. Lastly, God now has a people called the church. Are there any laws that existed prior to God having a people (Adam to Abraham), while God had a people (the Israelites), and when God changed His people (the Church)? In other words, are there any laws which always were and still remain?

This is important because when God makes a covenant with specific people, the laws which govern that covenant are only given to that specific people (there is a qualification here), they are not binding on anyone else. However (here’s the qualification), if certain laws existed PRIOR to God having “a people,” and we also find these same laws in every covenant, then these laws would transcend time, people, and covenants. These would be the “moral” and unchanging laws. Here are a list of sins given prior to God having “a people.”

Covetousness (Gen. 3:6); false worship (Gen. 4:5); murder (4:8-11); adultery/sexual profligacy (Gen. 6:1-7 19:4); evil thinking (Gen. 6:5); dishonor to parents (Gen. 9:22-25); pride and selfishness (Gen. 11:4); lying deceit (Gen. 27) false gods and idolatry (Exodus 12:12, Romans 1:25

(Thanks to Fred Zaspel for the list above)

Here is another way to see if any laws/sins are specifically connected to something about the nature of God. Two examples should suffice. 1) God cannot lie. Lying is something that is ‘against His nature.’ Since we are also commanded not to lie, this command seems to flow from Gods nature and would therefore be an eternal, unchanging, “moral” law. 2) Murder. Scripture tells us that murder is wrong because man is created in the “image of God.” It seems obvious that such a law against murder is somehow tied to the very nature of God; thus making it an eternal,  unchanging, “moral” law.

It’s no coincidence that both lying and murder are at least 2 of the laws that transcend time, people, and covenant. Murder was condemned before Moses, during Moses, and after Moses. Further evidence of their unchanging nature.

Allow me to explain this another way. I will utilize Dr. Robert Morey’s argument given in his 4 part lecture entitled “How The Old and New Testaments Relate To Each Other.”

Dr. Morey speaks about “directives” and “directions.” The directives are the eternal, unchanging, “moral” laws of God. The directions are are the specific applications of HOW various people, at various times, under various covenants are to follow the directives. The directives remain the same (unchanging) while the directions change. Let me provide an example.

“Worship God.” This is a directive. All people of all time, regardless of covenantal status, are obligated to worship God. Now this is a wonderful law, however, it doesn’t provide us with anything useful. How do I worship God? Where do I worship God? When do I worship God? This is where the directions come into play.

The worship of God is something that both covenant Israel had to obey and it is likewise a law the Church must obey. However, the directions are different. The Church does not worship God in precisely the same way Israel did. Israel offered animal sacrifices as part of their worship; the Church does not; we offer spiritual sacrifices. Israel was commanded to give a tithe; the Church is not. The Church goes through Christ in order to worship the Father (Christ is the mediator); Israel went through Moses and the various priest (they were the mediators).

Please keep in mind, contrary to Rachael’s understanding, there are no laws outside of God. In other words, laws do not exist independent of God. God is not bound by some external standard of right and wrong. God IS the standard. Any laws which have an eternal and unchanging nature do so only because they are rooted in God Himself.

Rachael’s apostasy took place because she failed to understand some very basic theological issues. This failure did not result from some error, whether theological or philosophical, in scripture. This error of hers was the result of biblical ignorance.

Lets keep our brother Matt Slick and his family in our prayers and ask Gods mercy and grace upon Rachael. We all have loved ones, even children, who are on the fast track to eternal conscience torment.

Christ was born, lived, died, and was raised that we might me justified. To trust in Him and His atoning sacrifice is the only means by which we can be saved from breaking Gods laws; whatever time period or covenant one comes from.

Now bow your heads and repeat this prayer….

Just kidding!!!!

Chris

YouTube Joins the Homosexual Debacle

20130702-211214 After the U.S. Supreme Court declared DOMA to be unconstitutional, YouTube joined the debacle by taking sides with the homosexual movement.  Personally, I am not surprised, I don’t expect any different from a God-hating society.  It is simply a sign of judgment perfectly consistent with Romans 1.

Furthermore, I don’t believe it is the government’s business to define marriage.  They have no authority or foundation upon which to do that.  So I disagree with both those who advocate that government should allow only heterosexual marriage and pass legislation banning any others, and with those who advocate that the government should allow homosexual unions.  I realize that will be controversial to some of my brothers and sisters in Christ, but why do I say this?  Because both sides start from a flawed foundation: They believe the government has or should have the authority to regulate a God-given institution.  Where in Scripture do we see that?  As soon as you give that power to the government, why be surprised when it revokes DOMA, for example?  If you give that away to the government, it may or it may not do what you wanted them to do.  If you are a Christian advocating the government’s involvement with the institution of marriage, keep in mind that your starting point is the word of God, the government’s is not.  And you should not and cannot expect unbelievers to act consistently with their God-given conscience, yet polluted with sin. 1

So why am I writing this?  The problem is in the caption:

We believe that everyone has the right to love and be loved.”

“What, why, who are you proud to love?”

Let’s start with the first caption.  Consistent with the statement underneath this one, this statement really admits more than probably the LGBT community is willing to accept.  As soon as you destroy the meaning of marriage, as soon as you do away with all concept of a God-honoring, lifelong covenant with a person of the opposite sex for the glory of God, the doors are flung wide open for this very statement: Be it a man or a woman, men or women, boy(s) and girl(s),  brother(s) and sister(s), dog(s) or cat(s), cow(s) or horse(s), a boat (2), or even yourself (3), you should be proud to “love” whatever and whoever you want, right?  The liberal agenda is not really looking to be included in marriage, but to destroy the notion of it completely, to obliterate all objectivity and meaning to the words “husband” and “wife.” 4  Listen to the words of LGBT activist, Masha Gessen in the following video:

Now, let’s go back to our point.  Why do I say consistent?  Because of the caption underneath, which is the statement of faith of the religion of our day:

We believe that everyone has the right to love and be loved.”

Of course, by “love” we understand YouTube not to mean the love human beings have toward parents and siblings, but the desire to engage in sexual immorality with whoever and whatever people want to do this with under the guise of “loving, committed relationships for life.”

Many objections can be raised to the above.  It is not my intent to address those in this post, as I already have in a previous post.  There is one unanswerable objection that I have raised and will do so again in this post, which we will deal with in the rest of the caption.

“We believe that everyone has the right to love and be loved.”

The main inconsistency often found in liberal rhetoric is that of failure to define terminology.  The priests of the liberal movement, both in so-called Christian circles and secular, preach tolerance, love, and condemn “hate speech,” and intolerance.  Of course, what “tolerance” and “intolerance” mean is confined to that which is agreeable to their position.  Tolerance ends where there is disagreement with their position.  Intolerance is any view that does not accept liberal rhetoric.  As soon as someone steps out of the accepted norm, he or she is condemned as a bigot, homophobe, intolerant, arrogant, unloving, hateful person (5); many even equate disagreement with homosexuality with slave-owner mentality! 6

My challenge is this:  Are you truly ready to stand by your statement consistently?  Does everyone have the “right’ to “love” and be “loved”?  Are you ready to extend this “right” to polygamists, one of their spokeswoman reported as stating,

We polyamorists are grateful to our [LGBT] brothers and sisters for blazing the marriage equality trail“? 7

Or to pedophiles?  How about those who practice bestiality or necrophilia?  On what consistent basis will you deny them the “right” to love and be loved?  As polygamists cheer this further breakdown of the meaning of the covenant of marriage with you, will you be intolerant, hateful, bigoted, racist, and unloving? Shouldn’t they be “proud” to love whatever and whoever they want?   Don’t they have the “right” to love and be loved?  It is about time that those who advocate homosexuality step up and address this question honestly and objectively.

Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.” – Dr. James White

Check out more articles on homosexuality here.

1. https://truthwartoday.wordpress.com/2013/06/26/four-points-on-supreme-court-ruling-of-doma/

2. http://www.baysidebulletin.com.au/story/1308489/man-marries-dream-boat/

3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/nadine-schweigert-woman-marries-herself_n_1546024.html

4. http://rt.com/news/uk-husband-wife-overrule-379/

5. Street Preacher Interrogated by Police: http://www.archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.ca/

6. https://truthwartoday.wordpress.com/2012/05/26/ten-things-i-wish-the-church-would-know-about-homosexuality-answered/

7. http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/polygamists-gay-marriage-ruling/2013/06/27/id/512233?s=al&promo_code=13FB6-1

Video

Do You Have Peace with God?

A few Saturdays ago I had the privilege of sharing the microphone for the first time with other very intelligent and awesome brothers in Christ at the Santa Monica Third Street Promenade.  I had the mic for over 30 minutes in which I wanted people to ponder one simple question: Do you have peace with God?

A few minutes later, a young lady came up to the microphone and started a dialogue with me about homosexuality.  More specifically, I think it was on the subject of morals in general, and what is objective vs. subjective truth.

Here is the video:

Please check out my brother Tom’s channel (who invited me to preach) here.