Two Covenants - Two Kingdoms

"Is the New Covenant essentially different from the Old? Are we not still to carry a sword AND a trowel?"
--Handiwork

The New Covenant

The New Covenant and its relationship to the Old is far too broad and detailed a topic to study in depth here, but we will attempt to take a brief look at what the New Covenant is, what the natures of both Covenants are, and how they relate to each other, before applying that to the two kingdoms involved, and finally to the issue of Christians in politics. A rather round-about route, I must admit, but we must of necessity lay the foundation before putting on the roof. First, though, a look at the New Covenant.

Perhaps the most concise summary of the New Covenant is stated in the well-known verse, John 3:16--

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Another concise description, albeit with slightly more detail, is given in the form of a prophecy in Jeremiah 31:31 - 34--

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:... this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

A third summary that describes God's part in more detail is found in Hebrews 9:14 - 15--

How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Finally, man's part in response to God is summarized in 2 Corinthians 5:14 - 15--

For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

Notice in the second passage quoted above that the very core of the New Covenant is essentially the same as that of the Old: "I will be their God, and they shall be my people." The working out of that relationship, however, is radically different. To establish the New Covenant, God Himself became a man in the person of Jesus Christ, and gave His life for sinful man, becoming the spotless Lamb who was slain so mankind could be restored to a right relationship with a Holy God. Man's part is to acknowledge his need of redemption and accept Christ's sacrifice as the free gift that it is; and, as the last passage describes, to live thereafter for the One who died for him.

The Natures of the Covenants

Although we have already briefly touched on the nature of the Old Covenant[s], let's take a little deeper look at the natures of both Covenants, and see how they compare to each other. [In this section, Old Covenant refers primarily to the covenants with Abraham, Moses, and David.]

First off, we see that the Old Covenants were very specific and limited in scope. The promise was to Abraham and his descendents only, the nation of Israel and proselytes only, and David and his descendents only. The New Covenant, on the other hand, is universal in nature. "God so loved the world."

And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. Revelation 22:17


All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.


The Lord is...not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
2 Peter 3:9
John 6:37

While being specific in nature, the Old Covenant was also corporate--an entire group of people was included, usually by no choice of theirs. The covenant was to all of Abraham's descendents [through Jacob], the entire nation of Israel, and David's descendents as a group. The New Covenant, on the other hand, is made on an individual basis. You have to personally choose to become a part of the New Covenant, you cannot be born into it or inherit it.

Part of the reason for this difference is that the Old Covenant was primarily physical, while the New is primarily spiritual in nature. Abraham was promised a physical son, a geographical parcel of land, and physical blessings. The children of Israel were promised a physical nation in a physical territory and physical blessings conditioned on obedience to physical rituals, rules, and guidelines. David was promised a physical son to sit on a physical throne over a physical nation. Included in each of these was a promise with a future spiritual fulfillment, as we shall discuss later, but the primary concern was physical. Under the New Covenant, however, Christians make up a spiritual nation, one without geographical boundaries or civil governments. The commands of Jesus in the New Testament deal primarily with our souls and spirits, and issues of a spiritual nature. The blessings we are promised are also primarily spiritual in nature. Again, the physical is also involved, since Jesus died a physical death and physically rose from the dead, but the victory accomplished was spiritual in nature. His commands often deal with the physical, but only as the outworkings of the spiritual. His blessings are sometimes physical, but depend on our spiritual condition.

Because the Old Covenant dealt primarily with the physical, it was also temporary in nature. Isaac is no longer living, the entire land of Canaan no longer belongs to the nation of Israel, the temple no longer exists in Israel, the rituals and ceremonies are no longer all observed, the Jews are no longer God's chosen people [more on that later], the laws are no longer in effect, Solomon is long dead, the ruler of Israel is no longer a direct descendent of David, nor even a king. In short, many, if not most, of the promises involved in those covenants no longer hold true in the physical sense. We will look at what happened to them later, but for now let's just say the immediate concern of the Old Covenant has already been fulfilled or dealt with, and it is no longer in effect. The New Covenant, however, is eternal in nature. It will never pass away or become obsolete. "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35 The spiritual promises of the New Covenant hold true for all eternity. Jesus said, "It is finished" on the cross--God has made His final covenant with man. We either take it or leave it--it will not be changed. (Galatians 1:8)

One aspect that both covenants share is the double-fulfillment principle. Each promise contained both an immediate and a future fulfillment. God's promise of a seed to Abraham pointed both to Isaac, and to Christ. His promise of land pointed both to Jerusalem and the New Jerusalem. The rituals and laws of Moses served both to draw men to God in that time and to point forward to Christ. The promises of blessing conditioned on obedience were both to the nation of Israel for their time and to the church for our time. God's promise to David of a son on the throne was referring to both Solomon and Christ. In the same way, Jesus promises us under the New Covenant both present freedom and ultimate deliverance from sin, both present redemption and ultimate redemption, both present blessings and ultimate rewards, both present freedom and ultimate deliverance from corruption, to sup with Him both now and in eternity.

So we see that for the most part the Old and New Covenants deal in entirely different realms and have [at least on the surface] decidedly different goals and methods. What relationship then do these Covenants have with each other? How do they interact and mesh? Or are they mutually incompatible? We will look at this in some detail in the next post.

Two Covenants - Two Kingdoms

"Is the New Covenant essentially different from the Old? Are we not still to carry a sword AND a trowel?"
--Handiwork (see discussion under previous post)

The Old Covenant

As a continuation of the discussion under the previous post, and also to address the principles involved in the issue of Christians in politics, let's take a relatively brief look at the two Covenants in the Bible--namely, the Old Covenant (or Testament) and the New Covenant (or Testament)--and the Kingdoms they represent.

There are actually several different covenants in the Old Testament, each of which builds on the other, adding more details and information as time goes on. The first such covenant, though it is more of a promise than an agreement, is recorded in Genesis 3:14-15:

And the LORD God said unto the serpent,...I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

In context, this statement is actually a curse pronounced on Satan by God at the Fall of Man, but included is a promise to the first two humans that one of their descendents would at some point in the future defeat the serpent. This "covenant" was universal in nature, since it included all of mankind, and had both literal and spiritual fulfillments in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, when he defeated death and the devil (crushing the serpent's head) at the expense of His own life (bruising the Seed's heel).

The second covenant, as recorded in Genesis 9: 8-11, was made to Noah and his sons after they left the ark:

And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

The reason for this covenant is given in Genesis 8:21-22.

And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

This might seem a little odd, since this is the very reason God had sent the Flood in the first place :

And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Genesis 6:5 - 7

While it is not stated outright, I believe that included in this covenant is the promise of a Redeemer. Man's sinfulness before the Flood had reached a point beyond which the holiness and justice of God could allow, and He therefore destroyed them. But even after the Flood, man's heart had not changed. It wouldn't be very long before God again brought judgement (at the Tower of Babel) on a people who were already well on their way to the level of wickedness of their ancestors who were destroyed in the Flood. But rather than there being an endless cycle of increasing wickedness followed by universal judgement, God promised that this would be the only universal judgement, at least by water. Did that mean that God would overlook sin from now on? Absolutely not. It is not in the nature of God to overlook sin. So if it is a given that man will increase in sinfulness, that God cannot overlook sin, but that He will also not carry out periodic universal judgement, then it must mean that God will deal with man's sin in a different way.

The initiation of that new and better way occurred not too long afterward with the institution of the third major covenant between God and man in the Bible--God's covenant with Abraham. Whereas the previous two covenants were universal in nature, this covenant was to one individual and his descendents. Included in this covenant were promises of a son, numerous descendents, a certain section of land, present blessing, and future blessing through him to all the world.

Genesis 12:1-3

Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.


Genesis 13:14 - 17  

And the LORD said unto Abram,...Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered. Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee.



Genesis 15:5 - 7  

And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.


Genesis 17:1 - 8  

And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations....And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. (If you have time and access to a Bible, read also verses 9 - 14)


Genesis 22:16 - 18  

By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

If you skipped or skimmed over those verses, please go back and read them carefully--they are important for our discussion, and we will talk more about them later. For now, let's notice a few things about these promises. First, they are made to a physical individual, a real, historical person. Second, most of what was promised was also physical--physical descendents through a physical son, a specific geographical territory to be physically occupied, and other physical blessings. Third, the descendents would be innumerable, and the land would be their's forever. Notice also the differences between this covenant and the previous ones. As we mentioned before, this one is to an individual, versus to all people. Also, this covenant had certain requirements that the individual needed to fulfill, and was based in part on the obedience and cooperation of Abraham with God's commands and desires; whereas the previous two were made by God freely, with no requirements of the recipients or conditions on them.

This covenant was renewed with each of Abraham's descendents in the "line of promise" as time went on and each became the head of the family. This produced a narrowing effect, as far as which descendents God was talking about, since some of Abraham's descendents branched off in succeeding generations, and were not included in the promise. The result was that only the descendents of Jacob were counted as the "children of the promise", though Abraham had many other descendents still living. [As an interesting side note, Jacob was the first Jew rather than Abraham, since all of Jacob's descendents were Jews, while Abraham was also the (ancestral) father of the Ishmaelites, Edomites, and various other people groups.]


It was with Jacob's descendents that the next covenant was made, the major covenant of the Old Testament in many respects--the covenant made with the nation of Israel through the spokesperson Moses. To give all the details of this covenant, I would have to paste in the books of Exodus through Deuteronomy. Instead, I'll just list a few places that give a general overview of the covenant, and encourage you to read through those books on your own.

Exodus 19:3 - 8  

And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him.And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.



Deuteronomy 26:16 - 19  

This day the LORD thy God hath commanded thee to do these statutes and judgments: thou shalt therefore keep and do them with all thine heart, and with all thy soul. Thou hast avouched the LORD this day to be thy God, and to walk in his ways, and to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and to hearken unto his voice: And the LORD hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his commandments; And to make thee high above all nations which he hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour; and that thou mayest be an holy people unto the LORD thy God, as he hath spoken.



Deuteronomy 30:15 - 20  

See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it. I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.

Read also Deuteronomy 28.

While the details of this covenant were many and varied, the substance of it is given in the words of Jeremiah 7:23, " I will be your God, and ye shall be my people." Here God was expanding His covenant with Abraham, and filling in the details of the people's part. Notice the marked difference between this and all the previous covenants, in regards to the requirements and conditions involved. Not only were there numerous responsibilities given to the people as part of this covenant, there were also severe punishments for failing to fulfill those requirements. At the same time, the blessings for obedience were also numerous. In addition, the way was made open for man to come to God in a much closer way than ever before.

As we look back on the Mosaic covenant, we tend to get depressed at all the details of sacrifice and ceremony, while forgetting that it was through those physical means that man was able to approach Almighty God and obtain redemption and pardon for his sin. Note that those who were not born Jews could also become a part of this covenant, with equal standing before God. Here was a way for all men to be re-united with the Creator they were separated from at the Fall and the Flood. It was a way very much tied to physical rituals and a specific geographical location, but it was a way nevertheless.

Yet even this system, with all its detail and rigidity, was only temporary, a pre-cursor to a new and better covenant, one that would truly be universal and eventually restore mankind fully in their relationship with their Creator.

Before we look at that New Covenant, there is one final covenant in the Old Testament that we must take note of--God's covenant with the house of David. In David's time, the Mosaic covenant had long been established, and the nation of Israel had gone through numerous cycles of obedience/blessing and rebellion/punishment. God's promise to Abraham concerning the land of Canaan had been fulfilled, and Israel was now a prosperous nation. Now, God was promising the throne of Israel to David, and to his house forever.

2 Samuel 7:8, 11 - 16 

Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David,...the LORD telleth thee that he will make thee an house. And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

That promise was renewed to David's son Solomon:

1 Kings 9:3 - 9 

And the LORD said unto [Solomon], I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication, that thou hast made before me: I have hallowed this house, which thou hast built, to put my name there for ever; and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually. And if thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, in integrity of heart, and in uprightness, to do according to all that I have commanded thee, and wilt keep my statutes and my judgments: Then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel. But if ye shall at all turn from following me, ye or your children, and will not keep my commandments and my statutes which I have set before you, but go and serve other gods, and worship them: Then will I cut off Israel out of the land which I have given them; and this house, which I have hallowed for my name, will I cast out of my sight; and Israel shall be a proverb and a byword among all people: And at this house, which is high, every one that passeth by it shall be astonished, and shall hiss; and they shall say, Why hath the LORD done thus unto this land, and to this house? And they shall answer, Because they forsook the LORD their God, who brought forth their fathers out of the land of Egypt, and have taken hold upon other gods, and have worshipped them, and served them: therefore hath the LORD brought upon them all this evil.

As with the other covenants, the immediate application dealt with the physical: a physical son to sit on a physical throne over a physical kingdom. Included in the covenant, however, was a far greater future fulfillment: a Son on the throne forever. The immediate application was conditional on obedience. The final promise was based on God's grace.

In fact, the same could be said for at least the last three covenants discussed. Each dealt first with the physical, but inherent in each was a promise of something better in the future. Man's obedience appropriated the physical blessing. God's grace ensured the spiritual promise.


So rather than a single Old Covenant, we find an unbroken chain of covenants, stretching from Adam to David, and ultimately pointing to Jesus. Each successive covenant narrowed the field--the Seed must be the son of Adam, Abraham, Jacob, David--and raised the bar--complete perfection was absolutely necessary--until the field was so narrow that only Jesus could fill it and the bar so high that only Jesus could reach it. If we could describe all of these covenants in one way, it would be as an arrow pointing forward to Jesus and the new and better way, the living way.

We'll talk about the New Covenant in the next post.

Neither Right Nor Left--Nor on the Fence

Let thine eyes look right on, and let thine eyelids look straight before thee. Ponder the path of thy feet, and let all thy ways be established. Turn not to the right hand nor to the left: remove thy foot from evil.
Proverbs 4:25-27


This is sound advice in our day, when Right and Left, Conservative and Liberal, moderate and fundamentalist are constantly jostling for position as the correct view of reality. Especially since such competition, if you will, is not limited to politics, but is rampant in the "loving, unified" Body of Christ.

Let me make it clear right from the start that I'm not proposing some kind of "middle ground" "on the fence" position that tries to accomplish the impossible by combining and reconciling these diametrically opposed viewpoints. Far from it. Nevertheless, it has often been said that there are two ditches, one on either side of the road, and Satan doesn't care which one you fall into, just as long as you are off the road. I am afraid that many Christians, for fear of sitting on the fence, have forgotten that they are on a road, and have ended up lying in a ditch, which is far worse. In this case, the two ditches are called "Liberalism" and "Conservatism", or "Left" and "Right," respectively.

This was brought out to me in a strong way as I was reading some articles on the Christian Worldview Network recently. [Now don't get me wrong. I highly respect this excellent apologistic and evangelistic resource, and use it often. To tell the truth, I lean more strongly to the Right on most issues than to the Left. Still, both sides have some serious errors that cannot be overlooked, which is why I do not consider myself either Right or Left. I'll explain more later.]

I noticed a link to an audio interview with a well-known leader of the liberal Emerging Church movement, Brian McLaren, and decided to listen. I was saddened and somewhat frightened at what I heard, though not entirely surprised. Saddened that something like this could actually be considered a part of the Church of Christ, and frightened at the positive reception it is having even among evangelicals [just read some of the responses at the link above]. Among other things, Hell is said not to exist [or at least not as we traditionally believe], Jesus is just one of a large number of good examples of a life of love and self-sacrifice, sin is primarily a failure of humans to get along with each other, our primary goal is to fulfill God's will for us here on earth [eg, feed the poor, protect the environment, ensure good health care for everyone] while eternal things aren't as important [eg, salvation, witnessing to the lost], and we should not be as exclusive in our Christianity and think that this is the only way. Listen to it for yourself. Or, if you don't have time, read this shorter critique by Jason Carlson on the CWN.

The Christian Worldview Network, and similar conservative organisations, do a good job of pointing out the kinds of errors that liberals get into. They can show why such teachings are unbiblical, or even heretical. But at the same time, they have their own blind spots.

Take, for instance, the article by Jan Markell entitled, "Should America Kick Out Muslims That Want to Live Under Islamic Law?". The author favorably describes the banishment of Muslims who want to practice Islamic Law from Australia by the government, and encourages America to do the same. She also implies that such Muslims should not be allowed to hold "high political offices". The general attitude that comes through is one of hostility, almost hatefulness. How different from Jesus' command to "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" (Matthew 5:44) Or to "Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good." (Romans 12:17-21) We are to love those Muslims and share the good news with them, not thrust them out in hostility. That is precisely what we criticize them for doing in their own countries. Even apart from Jesus' teachings, whatever happened to freedom of religion that Conservatives care so much about? Or does that only apply to Christians? Of course, if someone has known connections to terrorists, or is actively planning violent acts against the government, they should be watched and dealt with accordingly. But to banish an entire group of people simply because of their religious beliefs is not very "Conservative", not to mention Christian.

Another example is the article, "Was Jesus Political?", by Mark Creech. While acknowledging that Jesus' ministry was primarily spiritual, the author tries to find secondary political "corollaries" or ramifications for many of Jesus' teachings. It is true that many of the principles Jesus taught could be and have been applied in the area of politics, but to assert that Jesus was including secondary political meanings in His spiritual teachings seems to me to be stretching it a bit. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus and the Apostles stressed that the Kingdom of God was not of this world, and neither should its citizens be.

"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." 1 John 2:15 "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord," 2 Corinthians 6:17 "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." Romans 12:2 "So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:33 "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26 And on it goes.

We are to forsake everything--our possessions, our family, our rights, our very lives--and yield complete and total allegiance to our new King. How then can we cling to the kingdoms of this world?

Furthermore, the laws of the Kingdom of God and the laws of the kingdoms of this world are almost always in direct contradiction. We have to obey the one or the other. We cannot obey both. Herein lies one of the chief errors of the "religious right". If the Constitution and the laws of earthly kingdoms were the final authority, they would be right on in most cases, and I would be one of them. But the laws of the Kingdom of God are the ultimate universal authority, and I must abide by them, as must all Christians.

These laws are often quite different from the principles Conservatives hold dear. In fact, Liberals are sometimes much closer to them than Conservatives are. For instance, as mentioned above, we are to love our enemies, yet "When the United States ponders going to war, nowadays 'Bible-believing' Christians are invariably the ones who are the most adamantly in favor of military action," as David Bercot points out in his book The Kingdom That Turned the World Upside Down. [(Texas, USA: Scroll Publishing, 2003.) 68.] How can we love our enemies and be in favor of killing them at the same time? Conservatives often try to "legislate morality", but the Bible clearly teaches that a person, and also a society, must be changed from the inside out. The Church is to use the Spirit to impact society, not the State. The Apostles and early Christians did not petition Rome to allow Israel to be a free country once more, nor did they try to influence the Empire through politics to follow their beliefs. Rather, they put their zeal into spreading the gospel of the higher Kingdom, one that is without geographical boundaries or political parties. They obeyed and submitted to some of the worse dictators in history, without complaining that they were losing their tax exempt status. [Bad illustration, but you get the idea.] Patriotism is another area in which these Christians were noticably lacking. Paul said that "my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved." (Romans 10:1) Not, "that they might be free from the Roman Empire" or "that they might regain their original territory", but that they would be saved. And in the end, that is the best kind of patriotism a Christian can have.


So what am I saying? I guess what I'm trying to point out is that God's Kingdom is not made up of Conservatives or Liberals. It is made up of Christians. Not those who stick to a particular ideology, or even theology, but those who know Jesus Christ personally, and live it out in their everyday lives. Rather than crusading for a particular viewpoint, we should be witnessing for Jesus and living out the Kingdom life according to Kingdom laws.

The liberals miss this by denying the King. Jesus is the only Way, Truth, and Life. The Conservatives miss it by denying the laws. Jesus' Kingdom is not of this world. Rather than falling into either of these ditches, we should take heed to Proverbs and stay in the middle of the road. After all, the road is very narrow, and the way dangerous. But if we are truly seeking, God will lead us in the right way.

Whatever ditch you are in, get out. Start walking the narrow path, with Jesus and His Word as your guide, not some man-made ideology or creed. Forget about being a Liberal or a Conservative. Be a Christian.

What is Science?

This is one of the most important questions we must answer in our discussion, since the question of what is scientific and what isn't directly hinges on the definition of science.

Yet, despite the importance of the definition, and the reputation science has of being exact, an unambiguous definition of science that everyone would agree with is hard to come by. The general principle behind it can be stated as "the study and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena"¹ or "knowledge based on observed facts and tested truths arranged in an orderly system"². But a working definition that would enable us to distinguish between studies and knowledge that are science and those that aren't is much harder to come by, at least one that everyone would agree on.³ What, exactly, are the criteria for determining what is science and what is not? What is the scope and purpose of science? What rules are it governed by? These are harder to get a consensus on, or at least a consistent consensus, especially when it comes to the creation/evolution debate. We will discuss these questions in more detail later, but for this post, let's focus on the basic question of what science is.

Perhaps the best way to do that is to discuss what science is not. For quite a while now, science has been viewed in an almost "holy" light, almost as if it were the Ultimate Source of knowledge and the Absolute and Final Authority in almost all matters. Not in so many words, of course, but the idea is suggested by such common phrases as "science says" or "scientists believe", the implication being that if "scientists say" so, it must be so. Perhaps a more easily recognized concept of science is the reputation it has for being an objective, unbiased, emotionless, systematic machine that is only interested in the cold, hard facts, regardless of the implications or consequences. Neither of these concepts are accurate or even justified.

Note in the above definitions that science is described as a "study", "explanation", and "orderly system" of "knowledge". At its heart, science is merely a system that man has devised to study what he can see, hear, feel, and measure in an organized and efficient way. It is a tool that mankind can use to increase his knowledge about his surroundings, hopefully so he can put that new-found knowledge to good use to better his condition. As a tool--and a man-made one at that--it has many weaknesses, shortcomings, and limitations. It is far from universal in scope, nor is it by any means always accurate in its pronouncements nor appropriate in its application. Science is carried out by scientists, who are far from objective, unbiased, or emotionless. Indeed, scientists can fight and argue just as much and as vehemently as politicians or religious leaders, with each passionately defensive of his own idea or theory.⁴ New ideas or breakthroughs in science sometimes take longer to make it through the "bureaucracy" of science than some laws do to make it through the legislature.

Furthermore, science is not even synonymous with truth. Science can be, has been, and undoubtedly is wrong in many of its pronouncements. Scientific theories are revised, updated, or discarded quite regularly. Science textbooks quickly go out of date. Even established laws and "proven facts" are sometimes significantly revised or completely discarded. Old models are quickly moved out of the way to make place for new. In short, science is a constantly changing, constantly revising study.

This is not at all to minimize the importance or power of science. Indeed, most of that change is progress, as newer and better explanations, theories, and models replace the older, inadequate ones. What I am trying to do is emphasize the fact that science is not absolute, it is not final, it is not set in stone. It is merely an extremely powerful and ever improving tool that man has developed to better investigate his surroundings. Because it was developed by man, and is used by man, it has all the faults and limitations of man. It is not some all-powerful, all-knowing, always-right, final authority.

So what is science? It is a tool, a powerful tool, but still a man-made tool. In short, science is a powerful tool that mankind uses to gain knowledge about his surroundings. Such is the nature of science. Nothing more, nothing less.

In the next post, we'll discuss in more detail the limitations of science.

______________

1. The American Heritage School Dictionary; Davies, Peter, Barry Richman, and Fernando de Mello Vianna, editors; (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1977).

2. The World Book Dictionary, 2 vols.; Barnhart, Clarence L. and Robert K. Barnhart, editors; (Chicago, Illinois: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1987).

3. For a brief discussion on this from an evolutionary perspective, see "Is Evolution Science, and What Does 'Science' Mean?", by John S. Wilkins in Evolution and Philosophy on Talk.Origins.

4. See also, "A Look at Some Myths About Scientists" by Carl Wieland of Answers in Genesis in Creation [11(3):29 June 1989].

_____________________________________________

By the way, perhaps I should explain a little about the post subjects. Since the creation/evolution posts take a lot of time and research, and I don't have enough free time to do that research very often, I've decided to use posts that don't take as much time or research in between the c/e ones. This keeps the blog from sitting for months without being updated. Hopefully sometime in the future I can figure out how to keep all the c/e posts together so it has more unity. In the meantime, I'll just have to jump back and forth. I would really like to be able to update it at least twice a month, but I'd need to learn to write concisely then. :)

Let's Pray

Pray without ceasing.
1 Thessalonians 5:17

men ought always to pray, and not to faint;
Luke 18:1b

Stand therefore,...Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;
Ephesians 6:14, 18

We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers;
1 Thessalonians 1:2

Brethren, pray for us.
1 Thessalonians 5:25


The command, exhortation, and request to pray is repeated often in the Bible. Often, we hear sermons about the importance and necessity of prayer. Frequently, we read of the far-reaching effects of prayer. Almost daily, we are flooded with requests to pray for missionaries, pastors, ministries, outreaches, activities, families, needs, governments, difficult situations, revival, blessing, help, and the list goes on. Always and on every side we are bombarded by the need for prayer.

But why? What is it about prayer that is so important? Why do people want it so much? Why is prayer in such high demand? What, exactly, does it accomplish? We've all heard the phrase, "Prayer changes things." But how?

I don't know if I can answer those questions fully. In fact, I don't think I know very much about prayer at all, really. Oh, I know that prayer is talking with God. I know what words to say and phrases to use when I pray. But to really, truly give myself to prayer is something that I confess is foreign to me.

We sing about the "sweet hour of prayer", yet when was the last time you spent a full hour in prayer? I'm not so sure that I've ever prayed that long. My longest "prayers" are when I start daydreaming or fall asleep on my knees. I would doubt whether I am physically capable of praying for one full hour.

Neither do I know what it means to "agonize in prayer" over something or someone. I must say, to my shame, that I have never actually experienced that. True, I have prayed somewhat more earnestly than usual for some things or some people, but nothing that you could justifyably call "agonizing".

Another song we sing says that "I love to steal a while away" to pray. This too, is something that I have not experienced very often. Yes, I have my normal "scheduled" prayer and devotional time. But I have never actually taken time out of my duties especially to pray.

Still less often have I fasted and prayed. Praying is hard enough on its own, without depriving myself of the physical necessity of food.

How then, can I really know what prayer is all about, if I have never really prayed? And I mean prayed.

I've been challenged lately about my lack of experience in the area of prayer. I need not only more quantity time praying, but more quality time. It is extremely easy to get sidetracked and distracted while praying. And I think there's a reason for that. Satan knows that "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." (James 5:16) He will do everything and anything he can to keep God's people from praying.

This fact was brought home to me more fully while reading Frank Perreti's book, This Present Darkness. The book is written like a novel, with angels and demons as primary characters, and the intense spiritual battle between them being acted out in part by their human counterparts in the physical realm. The demons far outrank the angels in strength as well as in numbers, and the angels are forced to assume a "watching and waiting" policy until they can gather enough "prayer cover" to give them sufficient strength to go on the offensive. The idea behind it is that the strength and effectiveness of the angels in spiritual warfare rests upon the strength and sincerity of the prayers of the saints. Only when the "Remnant" is aroused and start praying in earnest can the angels effectively ward off the attacks of the demons and foil their plan.

While this book is only fiction and is highly imaginative, it does bring out a very strong point--if we are to stand our ground, much less go on the offensive, we need to be praying. Not five- or ten-minute "Lord bless so-and-so" prayers, but real earnest, agonizing, "wrestling with God" type of prayers. "Sweet hour of prayer" needs to take on a literal meaning for us. It has been noted that no great revival has ever occurred in the absence of prayer. We cannot expect one to occur now.

If we are really serious about wanting a revival, we need to get really serious about praying. And so, I challenge you, as well as myself--Let's pray!

Creation Defined

If Evolution is the belief that everything came from nothing, what then is Creation?

In news stories discussing the issue, Creation is often referred to as "the Creation myth", or legend or story. See, for example, Live Science's presentation of the "Top Ten Intelligent Designs (or Creation Myths)," in which the Biblical story of Creation is compared to other ancient creation legends such as those from Norse mythology, Zoroastrianism, the ancient Egyptians, and the Aztecs. This definition focuses on the account as given in the Bible of the actual Creation of the universe and man.

Others relate Creationism to such beliefs as geocentrism, a flat earth, and very poor science and academics in general. The article "Dark Ages Primary" by Harold Meyerson of the Washington Post is a good example of this view [though the thrust of his article concerns politics, not science]. Apparently, these people believe that those who are ignorant enough to doubt evolution have no clue about science in particular, nor higher education in general.

Still others refer to Creation as the belief "that scientific evidence exists to prove that the universe and living things were specially created in their present form". While this view (expressed by Bruce Alberts of the National Academy of Sciences in the Preface to the book Science and Creationism) is closer to the correct definition, is still contains some misconceptions.

As was the case with Evolution, none of these common perceptions of what Creation is is fully accurate, though each contains one aspect of the broader picture. By the strictest definition, Creation is the belief that the story given in Genesis 1 and 2 in the Bible is an accurate historical account of the origin of the universe, the earth, and man. But the term Creation is much broader than this concept of special creation alone. Just as Evolution is closely associated with various other concepts and beliefs, so Creation is inextricably tied to many different ideas relating to both science and philosophy. Among them are the concepts of a young age for the earth and universe [about 6,000 years], catastrophism as a major influence in geological history [eg, Noah's Flood], the belief in God [theism], and the belief in moral absolutes. Also included are the religious beliefs that the Bible is the inspired inerrant Word of God, and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. For a broader summary of Creationist belief, see the booklet "The Seven C's of History", by Ken Ham and Stacia McKeever of Answers in Genesis [PDF document].

[It should be noted here that this is a definition of what is commonly referred to as "Young-Earth Creationism", as opposed to other variants such as Old-Earth Creationism, Theistic Evolution, etc. For the purposes of this discussion, I shall ignore all other variants, since they are simply hybrids, to differing degrees, of Young-Earth Creationism and Evolution.]

As we noted in the discussion about the definition of Evolution, these additional concepts cannot be divorced from the term Creation. They are as strongly linked to Creation as uniformitarianism and the Big Bang are to Evolution. One or more of these other concepts are inevitably drawn into any discussion or debate between Creation and Evolution. If we are to come to any firm conclusion in this discussion, then, we cannot ignore these related concepts.

Our concise definition of Creation, then, is closely parallel to the definition of Evolution. Creation can be defined as the view that everything came from God--the idea that God created nature. It includes such things as: Special Creation as the origin of the cosmos, catastrophism as a major influence in geology, Special Creation as the means for the origin of life, natural selection and built-in variation as the means behind the present variety of living organisms, and by implication the belief that there is something outside of nature (i.e., there is a God and supernatural realm) and that the Bible is God's Word (and therefore provides the moral absolutes by which we are to live).

Of course, there are innumerable other details to both theories, but these general definitions should suffice for our purposes.

To summarize our definitions so far, then, Evolution is the belief that everything came from nothing (with related concepts), while Creation is the belief that everything came from God (with related concepts).

The next step in this discussion is to define science. If we are to determine if something is scientific, we first need to know what science is.

Killing Jesus

John 11:47 So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council, and said, "What are we to do? For this man performs many signs.
48 If we let him go on thus, every one will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation."
49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all;
50 you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish."


Good question--What are we to do with Jesus? Should we let Him keep on performing miracles and drawing people to Himself? Should we let Him keep on doing His transforming work in our lives? Should we let Him continue to make us uncomfortable, guilty, and ashamed of ourselves? Should we let Him take the fun out of our lives? Should we continue to let Him tell us what to do and what not to do? Should we let Him destroy our social lives? Should we allow Him to destroy our reputations and interfere in our careers? Should we allow Him to mess up our families and relationships? Should we allow Him to interfere in our spiritual lives? In short, should we continue to allow Him free reign in our lives?

Or should we do something about this? After all, isn't this getting a little out of hand? What will people say? It was fun at the start, but now He's getting a little too pushy, don't you think? What gives him the right to tell me what I can do and what I can't? Who is he to tell me what to wear or what kind of music to listen to? Who does he think he is, anyway? And besides, what will my friends at church think of me? Suppose they start to call me "goody-two-shoes" or something like that? Suppose they think I'm "holier-than-thou"? Or even worse, suppose they start leaving me out of things because I'm "too good for them"? Or what about my friends at school? Suppose they think I'm ignorant or stupid or something? Suppose they think I'm a fanatic? Or the guys at work? Suppose they start calling me names, or making cruel jokes about me behind my back?

I know God has been working real miracles in my life lately. But what if I'm right that this is going too far to ask that of me? Suppose He starts to ask me to do all kinds of weird things, like going to Africa or something? Or--oh horrors!!--suppose He wants me to witness to my friends? What will I do then? I can't do that! I can never do that! Why, they would think I'm crazy! That would destroy all my friendships!

I know Who you are, Jesus, but I just can't do what you're asking me to do. It would make me much too uncomfortable. It would destroy the peace and order in my life. It would take away all my friends, and even family. It would destroy my religious and spiritual life, really it would. You are just asking way too much. There is no other way out. It's the only thing left to do, if I am to be comfortable and safe in my life. I will have to kill you, Jesus.



The above scenario went through my mind after I read this passage. It's easy for us to condemn the chief priests and Pharisees for their hypocrisy and blindness. We can easily recognize their malice, pride, and jealousy. But how easily do we recognize the same sins in ourselves? We tend to think that we no longer have the option of killing Jesus, but the truth is that we face that choice probably daily.

Either we are crucified with Christ (Galatians 2:20), or we are crucifying Him by our choices and decisions. We either mortify the deeds of the body (Romans 8:13) or crucify to ourselves the Son of God afresh (Hebrews 6:6).

There is a song that asks "Is There Blood Upon Your Hands?", and reminds us that "by the very acts you do, you can crucify Him too." It was our sin that put Jesus on the cross, whether that sin was 20 years ago or within the last hour. We can, and do, kill Jesus.

We do so by choosing self and sin, or even ease and comfort, above Christ. Our souls are kingdoms with only one throne. Either "I" am on the throne, or Christ is. No man can serve two masters. When we become Christians, we put Christ on the throne. As King, He demands unconditional surrender and full and complete obedience. But He also gives us free choice. We can obey Him and kill ourselves, or disobey Him and usurp the throne by killing Him, removing Him from our lives. The choice is ours.

This choice also involves a paradox, "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it." (Luke 9:24) The Jews thought that by killing Jesus they would save themselves, the Temple, and the nation from the Romans. They died in their sins, the Romans completely destroyed their Temple, and their nation was also destroyed. Those who try to preserve their comfort and pleasure by killing Jesus will lose both comfort and pleasure in the eternal fires of hell. At the same time, the One they killed is still alive, and is King of kings and Lord of all. In the same way, those who choose to crucify themselves will live forever, reigning with Him.

So the question now is, what will you--and are you--doing with Jesus? Are you "killing" Him to save yourself? Or are you "killing" self to live for Him?

Evolution Defined

Before we can have any meaningful discussion on this subject, we must clearly and concisely define what we mean by the terms “creation” and “evolution.”

What, then, is evolution? Evolution has a wide range of definitions, varying from the very scientific definition, “a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations” to the very vague generalization “descent with modification” (or even “change over time”). (See What is Evolution?, by Laurence Moran from the Talk.Origins website for a discussion by an evolutionist on the definition of evolution.) Upon inspection, though, it is easy to see that neither of these definitions accurately conveys what is commonly thought of when the word “evolution” is used. The first definition can be more accurately applied to the principle of natural selection (which is completely different from evolution) and includes nothing of the idea of life coming from non-life. “Descent with modification” can describe anything from “goo to you via the zoo” evolution to what happens in succeeding generations of a family to the effect of throwing a banana off the roof of a three-story building.

Educated proponents of evolution insist upon the first definition, pointing out that the origin of life is a separate issue, and the view that life comes from non-life is more accurately called a biogenesis. The general public, on the other hand, uses evolution loosely and freely, applying it to everything from organisms to the cosmos to language to technology. But while both definitions capture a particular aspect of the idea, neither describes it fully or accurately.

For instance, to deny that evolution includes the origin of life is misleading, since Darwin himself titled his book the Origin of Species, and talked about the first simple cells arising out of a primordial slime. Furthermore, textbooks, articles, or general books that deal with evolution commonly contain this idea of the first simple life arising spontaneously from non-living substances. On the other hand, to refer to any change over time as evolution is also incorrect, since the basic theory deals only with the biological evolution of living organisms. Nonliving substances cannot evolve. Furthermore, all change over time in biological entities is not evolution. Natural selection, for instance, is a well-documented principle in which the fittest animals in a species survive to pass on their genes, which provides the potential for great variety within a species.

It should be noted here that natural selection is not evolution. Charles Darwin was not the first to notice the principle of natural selection—it was first described by the creationist Edward Blythe. Even today, natural selection is an important part of creationist models. What Charles Darwin did was take the principle of natural selection and extrapolate it out to the point where it was capable of producing unlimited change, even to the point of creating entirely new species, genera, families, etc. In other words, natural selection is the means by which evolution is proposed to occur—it is not evolution itself. See the article, Muddy Waters, by Carl Wieland of Answers in Genesis for more information.

But while evolution itself applies only to biological entities, it is impossible to deny that there are a host of other theories about the origin of the universe that have become inextricably tied to this one concept—theories such as the Big Bang (“cosmological evolution”), uniformitarianism (“geological evolution”), a very old universe and earth, and other theories. Furthermore, evolution is almost automatically associated with more philosophical views, such as atheism, agnosticism, relativism, and materialism.

In other words, while a strict definition of evolution would refer exclusively to biological evolution, there is a large amount of baggage that has become attached to the term that cannot be ignored in any meaningful debate on the subject. Even evolutionists recognize that the public’s conception of evolution contains far more than the observable biological theory that they use as its definition. Furthermore, in most of the court cases concerning the teaching of evolution, the main issue is not the current biological process but the question of origins and the existence of God. In addition, when creationists debate evolutionists, the current biological process is only one area of disagreement. In any creation/evolution debate, you are likely to hear a wide range of issues discussed, from biological evolution to geological processes to the origin of life and the cosmos to the age of the earth to the existence of God, and many other issues. Therefore, to ignore all of these issues in a discussion such as this would be inappropriate, due to the universal nature of the issues automatically associated with the word “evolution”.

To come to a clear, concise, reasonable definition of evolution, then, we can say that evolution is the view that everything came from nothing—the idea that nature created itself. It includes such things as: the Big Bang theory as the origin of the cosmos, uniformitarianism as the default process of geology, a biogenesis as the means for the origin of life, biological evolution as the means behind the present variety of living organisms, and by implication the belief that nature is all there is (materialism; i.e., there is no God or supernatural) and that there are no moral absolutes (relativism).

Again, some evolutionists will disagree with this definition, but it is impossible to deny that those and other theories are firmly, automatically, and inextricably associated with evolution, both in the general public and in the creation/evolution debate.

"It's Not Science!"

Introduction

I’ve noticed that the Creation/Evolution debate has drawn increasing media attention lately due to the Dover school board Intelligent Design court case. Almost every newspaper you pick up is bound to have some column or editorial or even cartoon either defending or decrying the Intelligent Design (hereafter “ID”) movement. Almost every time you check the headlines on Yahoo or elsewhere on the Internet, some new article or story is out discussing the subject. Even the blogs are buzzing with private debates over which side is right.

In all of this discussion and debate, there is one particular statement that is thrown back and forth probably more than any other. Everyone is using it or commenting on it, whether they be scientist or politician, media or religious leader, lawyer or the guy on the street. The statement is, “Evolution is science; Creation and Intelligent Design are not.” In almost every secular media story or article I have read on this subject, if not every, this statement or something to that effect has been made.

In the next few posts, we will investigate this argument, with all its implications and ramifications, as thoroughly as my time and knowledge of the subject will permit. We will look at the claims of each side and analyze them to see what kinds of claims are being made, and whether those claims are “scientific” or not. We will do all of this without actually examining the truth of the claims themselves, only by classifying the types of claims being made.

But first, we will look at a few specific examples of this argument taken from various sources. We will also define the terms “evolution” and “creation,” as well as take a look at what, exactly, science is and what it is not.

The Argument

One need not look far for examples of the “It’s not science” argument. Almost any article about evolution and creation in the secular media or secular science websites contains variations of it. One of the most concise statements that I have found is on page three of the legal complaint filed by the ACLU on behalf of the parents in the Dover school board case:

Unlike the theory of evolution, however, intelligent design is neither
scientific nor a theory in the scientific sense; it is an inherently religious argument or assertion that falls outside the realm of science.

Or, there’s this more general statement from the National Association of Biology Teachers (taken from a list of such statements from the ACLU website (“What the Scientific Community Says about Evolution and Intelligent Design"):

Scientists have firmly established evolution as an important natural process. Experimentation, logical analysis, and evidence-based revision are procedures that clearly differentiate and separate science from other ways of knowing. Explanations or ways of knowing that invoke non-naturalistic or supernatural events or beings, whether called ‘creation science,' ‘scientific creationism,' ‘intelligent design theory,' ‘young earth theory,' or similar designations, are outside the realm of science and not part of a valid science curriculum.

Other versions of the argument are not nearly as precisely stated, nor as nice. They range from mild condescension--“the alternative reality that is biblical creation science” In Evolution Debate, Creationists are Breaking New Ground by Michael Powell from the Washington Post; also, the September 26 post on the blog Bad Methodist--to outright ridicule--Dark Ages Primary by Harold Meyerson from the Washington Post; also, the October 3 post from the blog The Strongest Note.

And I’m sure that if you read the newspaper or news stories on the web, you can find many more examples of your own. And these are the nicer ones. When you get into atheistic/agnostic/skeptic websites and blogs, things can get really nasty.

Why This Argument?

So, why is this argument used so emphatically, so persistently, and so extensively? Why does everyone feel a need to make sure you know that creation is not science, but evolution is? Why is this argument so important to them?

Furthermore, if this argument is repeated so often and so dogmatically, shouldn’t it be examined and tested closely? After all, since we are talking about science here, shouldn’t we take the time to prove our arguments?

I believe this argument has gone too long in the media without sufficient investigation. I think it is time we critically examine this claim, and see how well it holds up under scrutiny.

But before we do that, we need to take a little time to define our terms, just to be sure that there is no confusion. What, exactly, do we mean when we say “evolution”? What are we talking about when we refer to “creation”? We’ll take a look at the definitions next time.

Why?

Why Katrina? Why Rita? Why us? Why now? Why, God, why?

In the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and the devastating flooding of New Orleans--twice--, many might find themselves asking these questions. Or maybe it is the more general question, "How could a good God allow such suffering, pain, and death in the world?" Or maybe even an accusatory, "Why didn't you stop this, God?"

These are some very real questions in need of some very real answers. It's interesting, and enlightening, to note the different responses from people of different faiths. Take, for example, the article "Don't Call Them 'Acts of God'", by Niall Ferguson at the LA Times. In it, Mr. Ferguson laments the fact that most people are quick to apply their particular religious beliefs to the question in a manner that condemns others while supporting their own views. Some radical Moslems rejoiced at the devastation as a just reward for America's crimes. Environmentalists blamed our pollution-happy society for causing global warming, which in turn caused the storm. He also mentions that the traditional Christian response would be to call Katrina a judgement from God, but notes that "few Christian churches risk such strong moral medicine these days."

Mr. Ferguson concludes that "The reality is...that natural disasters have no moral significance." But he then goes on to say that they "should serve to remind us of our common vulnerability as human beings in the face of a pitiless nature," which is itself a statement of moral purpose, and serves to bolster his own naturalistic/humanistic/atheistic beliefs while chiding religious people, at least by implication, for believing in anything higher than "pitiless nature."

But who is right in this matter? Is the death and suffering caused by natural disasters just random occurrences caused by blind forces in a purposeless and pitiless nature? Or is there some higher reason behind all this, some greater force at work?


What answer do Christians have to these important, soul-searching, often pain-filled questions?


First, we need to understand why death and suffering exist in this world in the first place. To do so, we must go back to the beginning--literally. In the book of Genesis in the Bible, God explains to us why we die, and why we suffer pain. God originally created a world that was completely perfect, with no sin, no pain, no death, no suffering. Adam, our first father, and Eve, our first mother, changed all of that by disobeying God's clearly stated command. Because of this disobedience, mankind, through Adam, fell from his perfect relationship with Almighty God, and God placed a curse on His creation for man's sake, withdrawing some of His sustaining power. The effects of that curse are pain, suffering, and death. All humans after that are born with a sinful nature, and actively commit sin from childhood. We are all under this curse of sin. Death and suffering in general is all our fault. No one is innocent.

See "They're Not Connecting It!", by Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis and the articles linked at the bottom of this post for more in-depth discussions.

So ultimately, we are the cause of all the natural disasters like hurricanes and tsunamis, as well as the man-made ones like terrorist attacks and wars.

So that answers the general question of why God allows suffering and death. But more specifically, why did God bring or allow this hurricane to hit where it did? Why didn't He stop it? There are several possible answers to this question.

First, Katrina could have been a specific judgement on a sinful city. Regardless of how the world and even some of the church tries to portray that as a heartless answer, the truth is the truth. God hates sin and cannot abide it. He has promised, warned, and threatened that He will judge those who do wickedly. New Orleans was not exactly the epitome of godly, upstanding, righteous, moral living. God says many times in His Word that the wages of sin is death. Perhaps Katrina was payday for the many who lived their lives as if sin had no consequences.

Second, Katrina could have been a warning to us as a nation. America is becoming more and more ungodly every day and every year. Perhaps God is giving us a taste of what could happen if we do not repent and turn back to Him. Katrina was, after all, relatively limited in scope. It is not, by far, the largest national disaster possible. God does not punish with no warning. He repeatedly warns of coming judgement until we have no excuse. We have already gone through 9/11, huge wildfires, earthquakes, mudslides, numerous hurricanes, droughts, floods, and many other disasters. What will it take for us to wake up? Perhaps Katrina was meant as a warning to an increasingly sinful society.

Third, Katrina could be for our good as a nation. While that may seem hard to understand right now, it would not be the first time a natural disaster turned out for the good. The Great Fire of London cleaned out the old infrastructure so new and better ones could be built. There is already a huge rebuilding effort taking place, and promises are being made that the new New Orleans will be better than the old. For another thing, Katrina has drawn attention to the weakness of the levee system, and we are now putting forth more effort to fix it properly for when a worse hurricane hits. Despite the many doom-and-gloom predictions, the death toll has been much lower than originally expected. Perhaps we would not have been so lucky next time. Still another benefit from Katrina is that it exposed the holes in our emergency response systems at federal, state, and local levels. Perhaps after this we will be better prepared for whatever disaster we may face in the future.

A fourth possible reason for Katrina is to give Christians an opportunity to show God's love to people, and be a witness to the world of God's love. The response across America has been tremendous. Millions of people are giving money, food, clothes, water, medicine, and other physical necessities; while many others are voluteering their time and skills to rescue, clean up, and rebuild; still others are opening their doors to the evacuees, their families, and even their pets. I do not doubt for one minute that many people will be influenced to make decisions for Christ as a result of this outpouring. [Not trying to imply that only Christians have responded--people from all different religions have--but just illustrating the tremendous opportunity for Christians in particular to be a witness.] If even one person were to come to Christ through this hurricane, whether for the first time or in recommittment, it would be well worth all the physical and financial damage it caused. Perhaps Katrina was a blessing in disguise.

Finally, Katrina was meant to bring glory to God. We don't know how many, which ones, or to what extent the purposes above apply to this hurricane, but we do know behond a shadow of a doubt that it was meant for God's glory. He is the Creator of the universe, and Controller of the weather. The sheer size and power alone of the hurricane dwarfs man and all of his inventions and accomplishments, blowing away huge buildings like so many matchsticks. Yet that is nothing for God to create, for the very clouds are the dust of his feet (Nahum 1:3). God is also glofified in each of the four purposes discussed above. We can rest assured that God is in control, and that His purposes are always for the best. He sees the bigger picture. He sees what is down the road for us, both in this life and in eternity. In the end, whatever the specific purpose behind Katrina, the main purpose is to glorify God. [While to us it may seem to be mean of God to take the lives of so many people just to bring glory to Himself, we must remember that we are we and God is God. See Job 38-42 for God's response to one who questioned His right to do as He pleased.]


Ultimately, however, whatever is for God's glory is also for our good. Remember the curse of death that was brought on by sin? What if God had not made that curse? Then man would have lived on forever in his sinful state, completely separated from God. For God is a holy God and cannot tolerate sin. Nothing sinful and unholy can enter His presence. So God, in His love, provided a way in which man can escape his cursed body--through death. Yet even in death, his soul lives on, and would be in eternal separation from God, had he not provided a way to become free from the curse of death--namely, His Son Jesus Christ, who is the Life. Christ paid the penalty of sin on our behalf--He died in our place, so that if we believe in Him and accept Him as our Lord, we too can die to sin. Christ also rose again from the dead, breaking the chains of death, so that we too can "walk in newness of life"--both eternal life and spiritual life. So ultimately, death is a way of making it possible for fallen man to be restored to a relationship with his Creator.

The curse actually contains a blessing in disguise. So, for Christians, as we look at death and suffering around us, we can let it remind us of what Christ did for us so that we can be free from such pain. Death is not just a natural condition, one that has always been around and will always be around. It is the "last enemy", and will be abolished once it has fulfilled its purpose. As Christians then, we have hope of a future without death, without pain, without suffering. There is hope! Even in the midst of the darkess times, there is hope!



So, why Katrina? It's our fault--we deserve it--but God will work it out for good in the end. We don't know how, but we do know that He has His glory and our eternal good in mind. And praise God, death is not final--The Life killed Death so the Dead could live! Hallelujah!



_______________________


For further reading on the proper Christian response:

"A Lesson From a Hurricane", by Ken Ham at Answers in Genesis

"Why is There Death and Suffering?", by Ken Ham and Jonathan Sarfati from AiG

"Why Us?", by Ken Ham, from Creation magazine


See also the other articles at the Death and Suffering Q&A page.

What's in a Verse?

Sometimes I think it would be better for us if we had to experience trying to live the Christian life without a Bible. We too often take it for granted. Even aside from the Bible as a whole, certain passages have become so familiar to us in our church culture that we often rattle them off without really stopping and thinking through what they are actually saying. Take John 3:16, for instance. Practically everyone can recite that: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." But how often have you taken the time to really read this verse, and see what it says? Why don't you take some time right now and do that.

Here's a question that will help you: How many major doctrines of the Christian faith are contained in the 25 words in this verse? Let's start counting and see.

1. There is a God--"For God"

2. God is a God of love--"so loved"

3. The world is broken and unlovely (the Fall)*--"so loved the world that He gave"

4. God took the initiative--"He gave"

5. Salvation is a gift--"He gave"

6. The Godhead includes more than one person--"His...Son"

7. God's Son was physically born (virgin birth)--"His...begotten Son"

8. There is only one Son of God--"His only begotten Son"

9. God has other sons*--"His only begotten Son"

10. Salvation is open to all--"whosoever believeth"

11. Man's part is believing--"whosoever believeth"

12. God's Son is only way--"believeth in Him"

13. There is punishment for not believing (hell)--"should not perish"

14. God's Son is way of escape from hell--"should not perish"

15. Eternity is real--"everlasting life"

16. Life after death--"everlasting life"


* by implication


Amazing, isn't it! And I'm sure you can find more too. I'm beginning to realize that many of the verses we tend to read over quickly contain much, much more truth and spiritual gold, if we would only take the time to dig for it. Not necessarily even just in the overall picture, but in the details of the words used. Notice that most of the doctrines above are contained in individual words themselves; relatively few of them are directly involved in the overall picture, at least the usual overall picture.

Too often, at least for me, I tend to almost subconsciously assume that some of the words are just thrown in to make the main phrase sound better, and have no real meaning. For instance, take the phrase "His only begotten Son." We tend to think that the "only begotten" part is just for embellishment, but when you look at them they actually have profound meaning in themselves, and add much to the meaning of the phrase of a whole. We tend to read "His only begotten Son", but think "His Son." In doing so, we miss out on some real insights and inspiration.

One thing that has helped me some in looking at what the verse is actually saying is to take a phrase by itself and repeat it several times, putting the emphasis on a different word each time. It really makes you think, as you recognize the difference in meaning and importance when read in those ways. Then, when you put them all together, it gives you a fuller picture of all that the verse is saying. Let's take the same phrase again as an example. Think about the implications given to the phrase by emphasizing each word.

"His only begotten Son"

"His only begotten Son"

"His only begotten Son"

"His only begotten Son"

Now as a whole:

"His only begotten Son"

See what I mean? I hope you have been challenged, as I have, to read your Bible more carefully, and pay more close attention to the "insignificant" details. As you do so, I know that you will find that there is more than first meets the eye in verses you thought you understood completely.

_______________________

The epistles of Paul and the other apostles are great places to start, particularly Romans and Hebrews.

KJV only?

I recently came across a ministry on the web called Dial The Truth Ministries. I found the few articles I read quite interesting and informative, and the authors made some very good points on various issues. [I did find the tone of most of the articles rather disturbing, however, since it tended to be rather dogmatic, sarcastic, and almost arrogant.]

One of their beliefs that I found particularly interesting was that the 1611 Authorized Version [King James Version, or KJV] is inspired and inerrant. Not that the Bible is inspired, but that the translation itself is inspired.

I greatly respect the KJV. I believe it is a very accurate translation, and I use it 99% of the time. But I don't believe the translation itself is inspired.

At first I thought this was just another rather weird group with radical ideas. But they do bring up some very logical and very important points in support of their belief in the inspired KJV. The articles I read caused me to think about this for a while, which is good. Here's what I concluded.

The first question we must ask is, "Were the original manuscripts inspired?" I think most Christians would answer yes, since this is what the Bible itself teaches.

The next question is, "Are there any differences between the KJV and the original documents?

Upon this question lies the entire issue. If there is a difference, the fault must of necessity lie with the KJV, lest the originals be considered less inspired than the translation. If there is absolutely no difference, then the KJV is indeed inspired, but only because it exactly reproduces the originals.

This is assuming we have the originals with us. But we don't, which makes matters a little more complicated. All we have are copies of copies.

To ascertain how accurate the copies are, we must ask the same question of them--"How accurately do they repeat the originals?" We cannot answer this with complete certainty, since we don't have the originals. However, we can figure out with reasonable certainty what the originals said, by comparing the thousands of individual copies we do have. Since all of the copies don't have the same mistakes, or say the exact same thing, we can cancel out the errors by combining the different copies. (For more on this, see this excellent article by Ron Rhodes.)

Once this is done, we have a reasonably accurate idea what the originals said. Since the translations are based on this aggregate composition, we can be reasonably sure that the different versions are accurate also, though the accuracy and honesty of the translation work can affect the outcome.

In other words, the accuracy--and hence inspiration--of a particular verse in a particular version of scripture is based on the accuracy of the translation, which is based on the accuracy of the copies, which are based on the inspired originals. In this situation, the inspiration of a particular version is dependent on the accuracy of the step-by-step process. Since there are varying levels of accuracy in the translations, there will be varying levels of inspiration in the versions. The most accurate translation would produce the most inspired version. But since we cannot be 100% sure of the accuracy, no single version can have absolute authority or claim complete inspiration.

The only way we could claim inspiration for a particular version would be to say that both the copies and that particular translation were preserved 100% accurately by direct Divine intervention during the process. In other words, we would have to claim direct inspiration for both the copies and the version.

We run into major problems when we try to make such claims, however, since all such copies and translations were completed after the Bible was written. We would need to rely on information outside of the Bible itself to support such claims. While God promises that He will preserve His Word for all generations, that is a more general promise, and can be interpreted in various ways. (For example, we could say that the amazing number of copies that we have today is part of that preservation.) This promise does not and cannot endorse any particular copy, translation, or version. Again, we would need to use extra-Biblical information to support such claims.

But that would be, for all intents and purposes, to claim "special revelation." The Bible explicitly says that nothing can be added or subtracted from scripture. Thus, any claim of special or additional revelation should be regarded with suspicion and examined with utmost care.

So now we have two possibilities that are both rather troubling. One the one hand, the first solution leaves you with a version that is not completely inspired as it is written, and allows for other versions with comparable inspiration. The other solution holds up one particular version as completely inspired, but relies on extra-biblical information to do so.

Personally, I choose the first option, since it allows for very nearly complete accuracy--and hence inspiration--without relying on outside proof. The way I see it, the other option opens the door to new revelation and inspirations, a condition which I find very troubling, dangerous, and contrary to scripture.

I would rather say that the version I have is not quite 100% inspired than to say that it is the result of new revelation. For all that goes, the vast majority of the differences that are present are minute--only changes in spelling or word order. No major doctrine is affected in the least. Thus, I can be sure that what I read and believe is practically identical to what the original authors wrote down.

Yes, the King James Version is a very accurate translation--but it is not the only authoritative one.

Besides, God's Word is ultimately not written on paper, but rather it is "forever settled in the heavens." Furthermore, I have a personal relationship with the Living Word, and have the One who inspired the original documents dwelling within me and helping me to understand them. Manuscripts may be altered and copies may be wrong, but the Son abides forever.
___________________

For further reading, see

The Inspiration, Inerrancy, and Authority of the Bible, by Ron Rhodes

The Textual Reliability of the New Testament, by James Patrick Holding

The Resurrection of the Un-Dead

I just came across an interesting article in the Yahoo News about the recent sightings of a number of birds previously thought to be extinct. Among them are the ivory-billed woodpecker, the storm petrel, and the rusty-throated wren-babbler. It also talked about birds that have not been seen for decades, but were recently sighted.

This raises the question, "How do you prove an animal is extinct?" In short--you can't! Sure, you can determine beyond reasonable doubt that a certain species no longer exists, but the only way to know 100% for sure is to be able to check every single square inch of planet earth at the same time without finding that particular species anywhere. All it takes is one live specimen to keep the species from being extinct.

The article ended by quoting a representative of a conservation group as saying that "There is no chance of a dodo turning up." Which might very well be true. But what about other animals that we have believed all along were extinct? Animals such as...dinosaurs? Is it conceivable that an animal that is supposed to have been extinct for millions of years could still be living on earth today?

Before you make a quick answer, think a moment. Have you ever heard of the coelacanth? It is a fish that was thought to have become extinct 60 million years ago [and we thought 60 years was long!], but was found alive and kicking [well, flipping] in the 1930's. How about the "dinosaur tree", the Wollemi Pine? It too was though to have died out with the dinosaurs, but was recently found growing in Australia. Then there's the Gladiator insect, also supposedly extinct for millions of years, but found recently in Namibia. And this is just an introduction to a growing list of "living fossils", creatures alive today that are virtually identical to their fossilized counterparts that are claimed to be millions of years old.

Even more sensational is the discovery of several huge elephants in Nepal that have startling similarities to mammoths.

So the next question is, why not dinosaurs? If you can find a fish, a tree, an insect, invertebrates, even mammals that were thought to be extinct for thousands or millions of years--why would it be unthinkable to find a living dinosaur?

Think for a moment of all the dragon legends of longer ago. They come from a large variety and distribution of cultures and geographic locations. It is said that there is some truth to every legend. Why could not those dragon legends be referring to actual encounters with live dinosaurs? There are also numerous recent and even contemporary accounts of sightings of dinosaur-like creatures, from places as varied as the United Kingdom, Papua New Guinea, and the heart of Africa. There have even been several scientific expeditions into Africa in search of a strange animal called Mokele-Mbembe, that from all accounts is similar to a sauropod dinosaur.

"But," you say, "that is impossible. Dinosaurs died out millions of years ago." Think again! Remember our discussion above about proving an animal extinct? We said that the only way you could do that was to search the whole world over at the same time an not find anything. Well, people are searching the world--and they are finding things! Obviously, if you find a live dinosaur, they are not extinct!

"But we're talking 60 million years!" you object. Sixty million years or six decades--what difference does it make? Remember that the coelacanth, the Wollemi Pine, and the other living fossils were also thought to be millions of years old, but they were found alive and well, just as the ivory-billed woodpecker was found alive and well after 60 years. Again, why not dinosaurs?

In addition to sightings and legends, which admittedly can be questionable, there is recent fossil findings that would support that dinosaurs were alive at least into the recent past. For instance there have been a number of findings of unfossilized dinosaur bones [some of them weren't recognized at first, since they were so "fresh" they resembled bison bones]. Not only that, red blood cells and even soft tissue have been found in dinosaur bones! Though evolutionists have tried their best to explain this away as some kind of freak preservation, it stretches credibility to the limit to believe that these flexible soft tissues could last for 60 million years.

So there you have it--legends, cave drawings, recent sightings, other "resurrected" species, unfossilized dinosaur bones, soft tissue and blood cells in dinosaur bones--all point to the conclusion that dinosaurs were living at least into the recent past. So while the dodo may be out of the question, maybe, just maybe you might one day read about the resurrection of the dinosaur in your local newspaper headlines. Imagine the headscratching that would follow in evolutionist circles! But such a finding would be just what we would expect if we based our thinking on the Bible.

Interesting, isn't it, how recent disoveries support the Bible, which is supposed to be long dead and gone, at least by skeptics' predictions. Perhaps, along with the other recent "resurrections" of the un-dead, there will be a resurrection of belief in the Bible, which is most certainly not dead.