Wise Advice in Troubling Times

If you've been keeping up with the news lately, you know that things are looking pretty bad both at home and abroad. We're likely to face some fairly rough times ahead, and not just economically. For an excellent overview of some of the threats we'll most likely face in 2008 or soon thereafter, read Chuck Missler's article, "The Turbulence Ahead." Though he doesn't approach the issue as a doom-and-gloom hand-wringer, neither does he try to soften the impact or dilute the importance of the various issues he discusses. From potential nuclear (and other) confrontations in the Mid East, to the various geo-political forces vying for prominence in the global community, to political and economic threats at home - all of these are serious issues with deep and lasting impact on our lives and even on the next generation. While he acknowledges that "you and I cannot impact significantly any of the strategic trends that are destined to buffet us in the coming months and years," he ends his overview with a call to action. Not a political call, nor even an economic call, but - refreshingly - a spiritual call.

"The emerging clouds on our geopolitical and economic horizons should propel us to use every day-and every opportunity-to get on with the Lord’s business as our primary priority!

As you formulate your priorities for the coming year, have you included an objectively measurable program for your spiritual growth? All of us are a “work in progress.” Each of us needs to significantly “raise the bar” in our own walk with Him.

Will you commit to a program of serious study of God’s Word as part of a path toward spiritual growth? When 2009 rolls around, will you be able to look back and demonstrate personal growth spiritually?

Pray about it.

Seriously."

In reality, "we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." (Ephesians 6:12) The only way we can ultimately make a difference in the midst of the chaos of this world is to follow Chuck's advice and make living for our King each and every day our first priority. Nothing else will matter, because nothing else will last. Not politics; not economics. Only the spiritual will last for eternity. Let's not lose sight of that in the days ahead.

When Atheists Teach Sunday School

In general, it is not wise to take Bible instruction from atheists. Those who reject the very existence of God lack the Holy Spirit in their lives and are therefore incapable of understanding the spiritual things of God, much less teaching others about them. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14) In other words, atheists make poor theologians.

Nevertheless, some truths in scripture are so blindingly obvious that only the obviously blind can fail to see them. In some such cases, some "blind" atheists prove themselves more capable of sight, limited though it may be, than some "believers" who, though claiming the gift of sight, apparently still can't see.

One such atheist is Sam Harris. In the first chapter of his Letter to a Christian Nation, he lays out the stakes far better than many Christians can:

"Before I point out some of the problems with these beliefs, I would like to acknowledge that there are many points on which you and I agree. We agree, for instance, that if one of us is right, the other is wrong. The Bible is either the word of God, or it isn't. Either Jesus offers humanity the one, true path to salvation (John 14:6), or he does not. We agree that to be a true Christian is to believe that all other faiths are mistaken, and profoundly so. If Christianity is correct, and I persist in my unbelief, I should expect to suffer | the torments of hell. Worse still, I have persuaded others, and many close to me, to reject the very idea of God. They too will languish in 'eternal fire' (Matthew 25:41). If the basic doctrine of Christianity is correct, I have misused my life in the worst conceivable way. I admit this without a single caveat."¹

Yet despite this remarkably clear understanding of the issue, Sam goes on to say that

"The fact that my continuous and public rejection of Christianity does not worry me in the least should sugest to you just how inadequate I think your reasons for being a Christian are."²

Here is a man who totally and completely rejects the Bible and even the idea of God. According to biblical terminology, he is (spiritually) blind, as becomes quite obvious as you read the rest of his book. Yet he sees the essential truth of the exclusivity of Christ more clearly than a lot of professing Christians do. As he himself points out,

"Of course, there are Christians who do not agree with either of us. There are Christians who consider other faiths to be equally valid paths to salvation. There are Christians who have no fear of hell and who do not believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus."³

He rejects this middle ground position

"Let us be honest with ourselves: in the fullness of time, one side is really going to win this argument, and the other side is really going to lose."⁴

If only more preachers would proclaim that message from the pulpit! Yet many of them are actively promoting the same ideas this avowed atheist rejects as false! Many who profess Christianity deny the essential doctrines of the faith, yet they still call themselves the church, and much of Christendom accepts them as such.⁵ How far has the "church" fallen when "militant" atheists can see and understand biblical truth more clearly than many pastors and spiritual leaders? I am reminded of God's rebuke to the Laodicean church:

"Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent." Revelation 3:17 - 19 (emphasis mine)

Truly, we are in need of repentance.

Another atheist who at times sees more clearly than some Christians is Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is not by any stretch of the imagination a friend of the Bible. Quite the opposite, in fact. Yet in the middle of his tirade against the doctrine of redemption, he clearly and forcefully exposes the fundamental flaw of compromising on the accuracy of the book of Genesis. Let's listen in as Dawkins "teaches Sunday School."

"Progressive ethicists today find it hard to defend any kind of retributive theory of punishment, let alone the scapegoat theory - executing an innocent to pay for the sins of the guilty. In any case (one can't help wondering), who was God trying to impress? Presumably himself - judge and jury as well as execution victim. To cap it all, Adam, the supposed perpetrator of the original sin, never existed in the first place: an awkward fact...which fundamentally undermines the premise of the whole tortuously nasty theory. Oh, but of course, the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn't it? Symbolic? So, in order to impress himelf, Jesus had himself tortured and executed, in vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual? As I said, barking mad, as well as viciously unpleasant."⁶ (emphasis in original)

As I said, Dawkins is obviously no friend of the Bible. Yet he realizes what a symbolic or just plain false Genesis does to the Gospel story, something many Christians either fail to think about or choose to ignore. In their efforts to marry biblical history to comtemporary science, they reject, distort, explain away, "correct," and otherwise mutilate the Genesis account of Creation and the Flood.⁷ But in doing so, they destroy the very foundation of the gospel itself, not to mention trust in the Bible as the inerrant, inspired Word of God.

Both of these atheists see right through the inconsistencies in these unbiblical positions. They can read their Bible too, and while they might not have the spiritual insight of someone indwelt by the Holy Spirit, they see things in black and white, and can tell when something contradicts what the plain words of scripture teach, even though they reject the authority of scripture. On the other hand, those who try to reconcile white with black end up in shady gray, unable to see clearly and subject to Satan's deception. Remember, compromise blinds. Stand firm upon the Word of God. Even those who disagree with you outright can at least respect you for consistency in adhering to your professed Authority.

---

1. Harris, Sam, Letter to a Christian Nation, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006), 3 - 4.
2. Ibid, 4.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid, 5.
5. Take, for example, the Emergent Church movement.
6. Dawkins, Richard, The God Delusion, (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006), 253.
7. Take, for example, the Framework Hypothesis, Progressive Creation, and other old earth creationist positions.

The Reverend Mr. President

Is there anything biblically wrong with the title above? To hear much of evangelical Christianity today, you wouldn't think so. In fact, you'd think that was the greatest good that could happen to our country today. While I don't think it would be bad for our country, necessarily, to have a pastor as a President [in fact, unless I'm mistaken several past Presidents were also ministers], I do believe that to view the President as a Pastor is bad for both the Church and the country.

Church and State are two entirely different institutions. Both have been ordained by God, but for very different purposes. The job of the State is to protect the lives and liberties of the people, and to punish wrongdoers. It can be called God's arm of vengeance on earth. Speaking of the "powers that be," the Bible says,

"he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." (Romans 13:4)

God has a completely different agenda for the Church:

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." (Matthew 28: 19 - 20)

Jesus also calls us the Salt and Light of the world, exhorting us to let our light shine, for the glory of the Father. He referred to Himself as the One who fulfilled the prophecy, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord." (Luke 4: 18 - 19) He did these, "leaving us an example, that [we] should follow his steps." (1 Peter 2:21) The Church can be called God's arm of mercy on earth.

The Church is not authorized-indeed it is forbidden-to usurp the authority of the State.

"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: 19 - 21)

The State demands justice; the Church offers mercy. The State is required to exact vengeance; we are commanded to forgive. The State "bears not the sword in vain;" we are commanded to "put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." (Matthew 26: 52) The State is part of the "kingdoms of this world;" we are of the "kingdom of heaven."

Most evangelicals agree that (at least in some cases) it would be bad for the State to interfere in the Church, and history provides us with ample support of that view. At the same time, they demand the right for the Church to dictate to the State. Perhaps nowhere is that more obvious than in the "religious Right's" criteria for presidential candidates. Anyone hoping to receive their votes must meet the strictest standards for beliefs in certain areas-or at least they must profess to. This is a very unreasonable, not to mention unconstitutional, requirement, as Cal Thomas points out in his December 13 column, "The Faith Factor."¹

"This election should be more about competence and less about ideology, or even faith. It shouldn’t matter where — or if — a candidate goes to church, but whether he (or she) can run the country well."

He points out that those "who require statements of faith from presidential candidates risk disappointment," as history repeatedly bears out. In addition, by attempting to use political power to enforce their beliefs, "They exchanged real power and its ability to transform lives for temporal power, which changes little of lasting importance."

As Chuck Baldwin bluntly states, "The federal government cannot do the church's job."² In his article, titled "Government Cannot Do Church's Job," he bemoans the fact that the Church is woefully neglecting its duty, then expecting the State to take up the slack.

"Therefore, instead of doing the hard work of teaching and disciplining our children, we look to Uncle Sam to straighten out our rebellious kids. Instead of preaching the hard messages of truth from our pulpits, churches expect Uncle Sam to straighten out (through the power of law) all those "bad" people out there. Instead of taking personal responsibility for our own health and livelihood, we expect Uncle Sam to be our provider and protector."

...

Let's tell it like it is: America is fast losing its moral compass because our families and churches are not doing their respective jobs. And the problem is, when families and churches fail, there is no Plan B. That is, not without the loss of freedom and independence."

Why?

"because everything [the federal government] does is at the expense of something else. The only wealth it has is what it confiscates from someone else. The only power it has is what it steals from someone else. The only 'services' it provides are at the expense of someone else. This is why our country's founding documents state that the federal government's role was to be very limited and narrowly defined."

When we as a church neglect our duties and fail to carry out our commission, our responsibilities, we cannot look to political figures to do our jobs for us, no matter what their statement of faith may be. By asking the State to help us in our responsibilities, we not only neglect our own duties, we ask the State to overstep its God-ordained bounds. But the two institutions cannot be combined with good results. "Pastor President" is an unholy alliance that is not good for either the church, or for politics. Only the Church can do the Church's job. Brothers and Sisters, we have a job to do. Let's get busy!

---

1. Cal Thomas, "The Faith Factor", 12-13-2007, http://www.calthomas.com/index.php?news=2112.

2. Chuck Baldwin, "Government Cannot Do Church's Job", 12-11-2007, http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/2820/Chuck_Baldwin.

"Seeker Friendly" = Disciple-less?

What must it feel like to know that you have led millions of people astray, and started a movement that has grown much bigger than yourself and cannot be easily stopped or turned around? That is how Bill Hybels must feel right now. Apparently, he was very instrumental in the launching and promoting of the "seeker sensitive" movement, with its man-made philosophy of evangelism and church growth. Now, due to the findings of a study conducted to investigate the results and effectiveness of their methods, he realizes that replacing traditional biblical methods of evangelism for their man-made methods was "a mistake."

Bob Burney analyses Mr. Hybel's confession in the article, "Seeker Friendly Church Leader Admits They Have Done It All Wrong," on the Christian Worldview Network. Commenting on the magnitude of this "mistake," he notes:

"...the error of the seeker sensitive movement is monumental in its scope. The foundation of thousands of American churches is now discovered to be mere sand. The one individual who has had perhaps the greatest influence on the American church in our generation has now admitted his philosophy of ministry, in large part, was a “mistake.” The extent of this error defies measurement."

Burney notes that while the movement is successful by the measure of the world - that is, in numbers - it falls far short of producing the "rooted and grounded" disciples that Jesus desires in His Church.

"The report reveals that most of what they have been doing for these many years and what they have taught millions of others to do is not producing solid disciples of Jesus Christ. Numbers yes, but not disciples....If you simply want a crowd, the “seeker sensitive” model produces results. If you want solid, sincere, mature followers of Christ, it’s a bust."

It is encouraging that Mr. Hybels at least realizes his mistake now. Rather than condemning him and other such leaders for leading so many astray, we should be praying for them that they would have the courage to work to counter what they helped to start, and that they would return to the time-tested, sciptural methods rather than trying to think up new methods on their own.

This should also remind us of the importance of knowing God's Word for ourselves, lest we also be led astray. Rather than backing up our own beliefs with scripture, we should look to scripture for our beliefs in the first place. Lest, while we stand firm in our convictions, we blindly lead the blind into the ditch. In addition, knowing what is right and wrong is of no value unless we act upon that knowledge by living it out from day to day. Only heaven will show the effect we have on others, either way, as we live our lives.

---

As an afterthought, I was just reminded of the passage in I Corinthians 3: 10 - 15 that talks about building God's Temple, the Church. Not all building materials are equal. Some will not withstand the fire. While the builder himself might be spared, his entire life work, as it were, could be consumed. Let us therefore, as Paul warns, "take heed how [we] build thereon," and choose only the best materials.

Seeing Through "Poorly Designed Retina" Argument

One of the common arguments used by evolutionists to try to discredit biblical creation is the "poorly designed retina" argument¹. The gist of the argument is that the retina is wired backwards, forcing incoming light to pass through a layer of nerves and other cells before it reaches the light sensitive rod and cone cells, which are pointed away from the incoming light. Evolutionists claim that an all-knowing Creator would not use such a "poor" design, and that therefore the eye must have evolved by chance processes.

Creationists have long countered such arguments by pointing out several important reasons why the retina is set up the way it is^2,3. Among these is the need for the photoreceptors to be in close contact with the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) layer of the retina, which performs numerous vital functions, including the continual regeneration of the photoreceptor cells, the blocking or breaking down of harmful substances, the transfer of nutrients from the choroid to the photoreceptors and other cells in the retina, and the absorption of excess light. The choroid, in addition to providing the nutrients for the retina, acts as a heat sink to remove the excess heat generated in the RPE, thus protecting the photoreceptors from heat damage. Both of these layers need to be in close proximity to the photoreceptors to ensure adequate protection and efficiency, but both are opaque. Were they put in front of the photoreceptors, as a verted retina would require, they would block most of the light from ever reaching the light sensitive cells.

Creationist (and some evolutionist) ophthalmologists who have studied the problem in depth have concluded that the inverted design of the vertebrate retina is the best arrangement considering the environments in which vertebrates live and the contraints placed on the design by the physical properties of light and the "seeing" process. Rather than being evidence of poor design, it demonstrates the ingenuity of the Creator in designing an eye that reaches the perfect compromise between all the conflicting variables.^2,3

Evolutionists point to the verted retinas of invertebrates, especially cephalopods, as the perfect or correct design. Creationists disagree. They point out that contrary to the poorly designed claim, our eyes provide us with excellent vision. While the verted retina is suitably adapted to the undersea environment of the squids, octopi, etc. that possess it, there is no evidence it would work as well for land-dwelling vertebrates. In fact, since it lacks some of the numerous protective devices built into the vertebrate retina, it would probably be more susceptible to damage, and thus prove a much poorer design for our environment.^2,3

While the above arguments are more than enough to discredit the poor design claim, new research has turned up even more powerful evidence for the superb design of the vertebrate retina^4,5,6,7. It turns out that some of the cells in front of the photorecptors that were previously thought to be for structure and support only actually act as a fiber optic plate of sorts, transferring light through all the obstacles with very little distortion. These cells, called Muller cells, have funnel-shaped ends, which provide for even better collection of light in addition to allowing room for all the nerves to pass between them without blocking the light. This structure completely does away with the supposed disadvantage of the nerves blocking the light, which was not much of a disadvantage to begin with.

Once again, real science supports the creationist worldview, while posing serious problems for evolutionary theory. Despite all their accusations of poor design, evolutionists themselves have no explanation for how such a complex, perfectly balanced system could have evolved by chance⁸. In reality, their objection is not even based on science, but on their own faulty ideas of what God could or would do or not do. Not being able to provide a scientific explanation, they have resorted to illogical theological objections.

"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."
Romans 1:19 - 22

Remember, "the foolishness of God is wiser than men." (1 Corinthians 1:25) The case of the inverted retina is ample proof of that. Who are you going to trust?

---

1. For one example, see "Creationism Still Blows!", by "Nella" on the Jalenack blog. For a more official version, see the quote from Richard Dawkins in reference 4 below.


2. Gurney, Peter W. V.,
   "Is our ‘inverted’ retina really ‘bad design’?"; http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1683/, Accessed 9/01/2007. First published Journal of Creation 13(1):37–44, April 1999.


3. Bergman, Jerry, "Inverted Human Eye a Poor Design?"; http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF3-00Bergman.html, accessed 9/01/2007. From Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 52 (March 2000): 18-30.


4. For the creationist perspective that inspired this post, see Sarfati, Dr. Jonathan D., "Fibre optics in eye demolish atheistic ‘bad design’ argument", (Creation Ministries International, 8/21/2007); http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5214, accessed 9/01/2007.


5. For the abstract of the original article, see "Müller cells are living optical fibers in the vertebrate retina", on the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences website.


6. For a popular-level news story, see "Living Optical Fibres Found in the Eye," by Lucy Sherriff from The Register.


7. For a more detailed look at the experiments, see "Müller cells: Nature’s fibre optics", on the Neurophilosophy blog.


8. For more instances of brilliant design in the eye, see Wagner, Tom, "Darwin vs. the Eye", http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i4/eye.asp, accessed 9/01/2007. First published: Creation ex nihilo 16(4):10–13, September 1994.

Sadly Amusing

There's a rather amusing, yet also sad, article on the CWN called "Announcing a New Denomination", by Bob Burney. Amusing because of the way it is written; sad because it is so accurate a depiction of the state of the [so-called] church today. But of course, that's not describing us. Or is it?...

Of Pharisees and Freedom

I am constantly blessed by the quality of the articles on the Christian Worldview Network. Many of them are edifying and challenging. One that I found particularly so this week is "Are the Pharisees Still Among Us?" by Steve Cornell. In it he examines who the Pharisees were and what they believed, and relates it to us today: are you a Pharisee?

He points out that the Pharisees started out with the commendable goal of returning to faithful obedience to the Mosaic Law after Israel was punished for her continual disobedience by being exiled to Babylon. Yet over the years they placed their applications of the law on equal footing as the law itself, and became very condemning and judgemental on anyone who violated their sometimes ridiculous rules and regulations.

Steve then points out the same attitude in many Christians today. We make specific applications from Biblical principles, and rightly so. But then we go on to judge others' spirituality by our application, when there is room for legitimate differences of interpretation or application. In that way, we elevate our own convictions in areas that are not specifically addressed by scripture to the level of scripture itself, just as the Pharisees did. When we judge others based on those convictions rather than based on scripture itself, we do the very thing Jesus condemned the Pharisees for and commanded us not to do in Matthew 7.

There is room for differences of application of general principles in scripture, and we should be careful to allow our brothers and sisters that liberty. There is, of course, the opposite extreme of "anything goes," but that is not what Steve is advocating here. He encourages us to be firm in our convictions in these areas, but to at the same time grant the same privelege to Christians who disagree (again, speaking about areas the Bible does not specifically address).

He includes a list toward the end of areas in which sincere Christians disagree on the application of biblical principles in areas not specifically outlined in scripture, and challenges us about our attitude towards those who disagree with us on those issues. This list was quite challenging to me in different ways, since I come from a tradition that would not practice most of the things on the list. I can immediately find principles in scripture that I would contend are violated by those practices. But I need to remember that for most of those items, that is one possible application of those principles, but that does not mean it is the only one, nor that the application is as authoritative as scripture itself. I am not to condemn Christians who do those things as doing something categorically wrong.

At the end he shares several points, based on Romans 14 and 15, on dealing with our differences in what he calls "areas of freedom." I agree completely with those points, and with the general thrust of the article as a whole. At the same time, there is a very important principle that he does not take into account.

For instance, he speaks of Christians considering the things on the list as being either right or wrong, obviously permitted or obviously forbidden. But the Bible speaks of another set of categories that Christians are to live by, namely good or best. In other words, we are not only to avoid things that are wrong, we are also to choose the right things that are best over the right things that are merely good, or "permissible". As the apostle Pauls says, "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not." (1 Corinthians 10:23) In discussing principles of Christian liberty, Paul says that even though some things are not wrong, they are not for the best either. Even though some things are not forbidden, they do not help us in our walk with God either.

Later on in the same passage, Paul states the goal we should have in such "areas of freedom": "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." (1 Corinthians 10:31) Our primary focus should be to please God in everything we do, to ask about every action or practice, "Is this the best?" rather than merely "Is this okay?" or "Is there anything wrong with this?".

So going back to that list, we need to look at it in a different perspective. If asked, "are these wrong", I would say that most of them are not wrong, since they are not specifically condemned by scripture. But if you were to ask, "are these the best", I would say that most of them are not. Yes, they are "permissible", but do we really want to partake of what is merely "permissible" before God, or do we want to do the things that are best?

Going back to the issue of judging others, I confess that I do often have a problem with that, and I do need to be more careful to allow other Christians the same liberty that God allows them. But at the same time, that does not mean that I have to believe that what they are doing is the best choice, even though it might not be wrong. So I challenge you, along with myself, is what you are doing best, or "only" right?

ET: Nothing New Under the Sun

I recently attended a seminar by Gary Bates of Creation Ministries International on the topic of aliens and UFOs, and how they relate to the Bible. In both the seminars and his excellent book, Alien Intrustion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection [which can be found on his website], Gary presents a compelling argument for the real nature of aliens and the reasons behind their immense popularity in our society.

There is more going on than meets the eye, and it is extremely important that we be aware of it and able to deal with it properly, not only in the society at large, but probably even more importantly in the church. Sadly, much of the church has either ignored this topic completely, or fallen into one extreme or the other of denying all accounts of aliens completely or trying to reinterpret the Bible to fit aliens and flying saucers in where they do not belong.

Gary presents a balanced view, one that is supported by both science and scripture, that these phenomena are indeed real, but they are not caused by intelligent beings from another planet. Rather, he shows that Satan and his fallen angels are and have always been in the business of deceiving the world, and even God's people. To the Greeks and Romans, and many other ancient cultures, it was in the form of gods and goddesses. To others, fairies and elves. To our postmodern "enlightened" society, it is in the form of "saviors" from another planet or star, or even dimension, here to help us evolve to a higher level.

Gary examines the messages these beings are supposedly giving to their abductees and followers, and shows that something very deceptive and evil is going on, something that the church in particular cannot afford to ignore. Like it or not, this type of phenomenon is on the rise, and if we as Christians are going to be able to deal with it effectively, we need to understand the true nature of it and the purpose behind it.

Interestingly enough, these "visitors" do not hold Bible-believing Christians in high regard. In fact, we are viewed as obstacles keeping the rest of humanity from acheiving a higher level of evolution. "Aliens" are real; and if you are a Bible-believing Christian, they do not like you. Don't you think it's time you find out the truth and stop ignoring this "fringe" issue? The future of our society, and probably the church, will likely depend in part on how we respond to this issue. The Bible does have the answers, even for questions like this. It's up to us to know those answers and use them effectively.

Our "ET creators" are supposedly coming back. Are you prepared to counter their deception with the truth of our real Creator, Who is coming back, and soon?

The Real Global Warming

There is a lot of talk going around these days about global warming, even among Christians. Many people are scared to death of the predicted results of what we are supposedly doing to our planet. I recently came across an article on the Christian Worldview Network that helped to put things into better perspective by warning of an even more serious kind of "global warming." Unlike environmental global warming, the causes of which are hotly debated and the remedy for which is unsure at best, this kind of warming is definitely caused by man, and can also be remedied, at least in part, by man. In fact, each one of us can help to make a difference.

The article is called "An Inconvenient Truth: Global Pew Warming." The author, David Raynaud, uses the analogy of global warming to describe the epidemic of what Ray Comfort calls "false conversion", people who "come to Christ" because they have been told that He can benefit them in various areas of their lives. These people lack true repentance because they have not admitted they are sinners in the first place. But by definition, someone who does not admit he is a sinner and does not repent of his sin cannot be saved. Yet the church, which is supposed to be a body of people who have been cleansed by Jesus' blood and are living a holy life under the power and direction of the Holy Ghost, is filled with these unconverted sinners. This causes a whole host of problems in the church, some of which Mr. Raynaud mentions.

He points to conformity to the world and wholesale adoption of its ideas as the causes of this global warming, and lays the blame at least partly on leaders who aim more for success according to the world's standards than faithfulness to God and His Word. This warming can be reversed, but it won't be easy, quick, or fun. Each of us can do our part by "making your calling and election sure," [2 Peter 1: 10] and being "on fire for God", rather than being lukewarm Christians (whom God has threatened to spit out [Revelation 3: 16]) or "pew warmers". We can also take God's Word seriously, and start living by its teachings rather than only talking about them.

Global pew warming is a serious problem with terrible eternal consequences for millions of people. What are you and I doing about it?

Dino Dung Discovery Disturbs Darwinian Dogma

The latest issue¹ of Creation magazine contains an interesting article about the discovery of remains of several different types of grasses in dinosaur coprolites (fossilized feces) from India. The discovery was somewhat surprising for evolutionists, since grasses were not supposed to have evolved until some 10 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. Evolutionists are quoted as saying that the discovery "would completely revise what we've thought about the origin of grasses"² and "will force reconsideration of many long-standing assumptions"³ about dinosaurs.

Now I have no problem with having to revise theories occasionally; nobody knows everything, and every theory is subject to change with new information. Nevertheless, this is only one small example among an innumerable host of similar situations in which some new find or other "forces" evolutionists to "completely revise everything we know" about some aspect of their theory. It stretches credibility to the breaking point after so many years of constantly revising "everything we know" at every other discovery. Especially since these are the very same people who insist that their view is the only correct view and should be dogmatically pushed in all public schools to the complete exclusion of any and all other competing theories. If everything they thought they knew about grasses and any of the numerous other cases could be so drastically changed so easily, why should anyone accept what they so confidently state in other areas? Who's to say some new discovery won't "completely change" all of that?

In stark contrast to the shifting sands upon which evolution is based, the Word of God, which is the foundation of creation doctrine, stands sure and unchanged throughout all ages. Several thousand years before Christ, the writer of Job described an animal he calls "behemoth", which many creationists believe was some kind of dinosaur. Note the description: "Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox..."⁴ Long before modern science ever discovered dinosaurs, much less found out they ate grass, the Word of God gave an accurate description of these creatures and their food.

So, who are you going to trust? Fallible man whose opinion needs to be revised with almost every new discovery, of the Word of an infallible God that is only being confirmed with every new discovery modern science makes?

---

1. Catchpoole, David, "Grass-eating dinos, A 'time-travel' problem for evolution", Creation 29(2):22 - 23, 2007.

2.Kellogg, Elizabeth A., quoted by Sid Perkins, "Ancient Grazers: Find adds grass to dinosaur menu", Science News Online, http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20051119/fob1.asp, accessed 4/07/2007.

3. Piperno, Dolores, and Hans-Dieter Sues, quoted in Associated Press online article "Dinosaurs Ate Grass, Study Finds", http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176052,00.html, November 18, 2005, accessed 4/07/2007.

4. Job 40:15, emphasis mine.

"The Choice Momentous"

I recently did a Google search for a poem I had memorized in high school. I could only remember a few lines, but what I did remember has stuck with me ever since I memorized them. The poem is called "The Present Crisis",¹ and was written by James Russell Lowell in 1844. I found a full version [the version I memorized was much shorter] on the Poet's Corner website.

The poem was written to protest a war², but also deals with the struggle between Truth and Falsehood, and the necessity of our making a choice for one or the other.

In the lines I remember so well, he eloquently lays before us the choice:

"Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of Truth with Falsehood, for the good or evil side;
Some great cause, God's new Messiah, offering each the bloom or blight,
Parts the goats upon the left hand, and the sheep upon the right,
And the choice goes by forever 'twixt that darkness and that light.

Hast thou chosen, O my people, on whose party thou shalt stand,
Ere the Doom from its worn sandals shakes the dust against our land?
Though the cause of Evil prosper, yet 'tis Truth alone is strong,
And, albeit she wander outcast now, I see around her throng
Troops of beautiful, tall angels, to enshield her from all wrong."

He describes how clearly we see the turning points of history looking back from the present, but how dimly those who lived during those times perceived the events of their own day. The results were often tragic for the few who did see:

"Careless seems the great Avenger; history's pages but record
One death-grapple in the darkness 'twixt old systems and the Word;
Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne,-
Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own."

Though it cost them their lives, they were the ones who altered the course of history, and are looked up to today as great heroes.

"Count me o'er the earth's chosen heroes,- they were souls that stood alone,
While the men they agonized for hurled the contumelious stone,
Stood serene, and down the future saw the golden beam incline
To the side of perfect justice, mastered by their faith divine,
By one man's plain truth to manhood and to God's supreme design."

Ironically, while we recognize and honor the heroes of the past for the stand that they took for Truth, we demean and seek to destroy those who stand for Truth in our own day. As Jesus accused the Pharisees of doing³, we honor the tombs of the prophets our fathers killed, yet do not hesitate to murder the prophets of our own day.

"For Humanity sweeps onward: where today the martyr stands,
On the morrow, crouches Judas with the silver in his hands;
Far in front the cross stands ready and the crackling fagots burn,
While the hooting mob of yesterday in silent awe return
To glean up the scattered ashes into History's golden urn."

He condemns this hypocrisy:

"They have rights who dare maintain them; we are traitors to our sires,
Smothering in their holy ashes Freedom's new-lit altar-fires;
Shall we make their creed our jailer? Shall we, in our haste to slay,
From the tombs of the old prophets steal the funeral lamps away
To light up the martry-fagots round the prophet of today?"

Though written well over a century ago, this poem holds great challenge and rebuke for our own generation, and especially for us as Christians. We claim to honor the Fathers of our faith, but how do we treat our Brothers today who touch a nerve by proclaiming truth? It has been said before, that if Jesus had come for the first time in our day, or even if we had been alive in His day, we would have put Him to death. Notice that it was the religious leaders of His day that sought His death; are we any different today? Are we open to correction and rebuke? Or do we harden our hearts against God's prophets and their message?

Lowell describes how each generation must learn for itself to accept the prophets of their own day, and the One they represent.

"By the light of burning heretics Christ's bleeding feet I track,
Toiling up new Calvaries ever with the cross that turns not back,
And these mounts of anguish number how each generation learned
One new word of that grand Credo which in prophet-hearts hath burned
Since the first man stood God-conquered with his face to heaven upturned."

Have we learned the lessons of history? Are we ready to listen? Are we ready to choose Truth today, no matter how unpopular it is right now?

"Then to side with Truth is noble when we share her wretched crust,
Ere her cause bring fame and profit, and 'tis prosperous to be just;
Then it is the brave man chooses, while the coward stands aside,
Doubting in his abject spirit, till his Lord is crucified,
And the multitude make virtue of the faith they had denied."

Remember, "the choice goes by forever." ..."Hast thou chosen?"

---

_______________________________________

1. Scroll down. There is also a hymn based on this poem.

2. Bill Dagle, "Once to Every Man and Nation-A Hymn Story", http://www.songtime.com/hymn/hymn0104.htm.

3. Luke 11: 47 - 51.

"...Are You Ready?"

How do you know if you are ready or not? How can you be sure that your salvation is genuine? These are the questions Jim Elliff deals with in his challenging booklet, Wasted Faith. "Most people will spend far more time examining the vegetables in the supermarket than they will ever spend scrutinizing their faith,"¹ he says. "Regardless of what others may have told you about the significance of an event in your past, let me ask you a searching question: Right now, is your faith authentic or counterfeit?"² He then makes the following plea:

"We are obeying God by reexamining the issue of our own salvation. We are also acting with the highest level of common sense, considering the stakes. Will you search it out? What is most alarming is the risky willingness of many professing Christians to gamble eternity on an emotional one-time experience, a "sinner's prayer" properly prayed, or a feeling of substantial relief at a juncture in time, without ever taking a serious look at what is evident now, at this moment. Is eternal life of so little value that it seems unnecessary to examine yourself for evidence of it? Is there nothing to lose? Hell is engorged with people who once thought of themselves as Christians. Is there no danger for you?"³

He goes on to describe six counterfeit faiths, faiths that will not provide entrance to heaven: Faith without the Spirit, faith without Christ, faith without reason, faith without repentance, faith without fruit, and faith that does not last. He stresses the importance of relying on God for salvation, rather than on our own merits, actions, desires, or prayers. But he also emphasizes that true faith will result in a changed lifestyle, will produce fruit, and will be able to endure tribulation.

"Saving faith is an initial and ongoing belief in the truth about Jesus Christ (who He is and | what He has done) and a lifelong reliance upon Him alone for salvation."⁴

"Saving faith is prefixed by repentance, or a thorough change of mind about sin and God. Saving faith is suffixed by affection for God seen in its fruit, obedience. Saving faith is evidenced by love toward others, both in terms of correct responses | and benevolent deeds. Saving faith will endure, even though tested by fire.

Is saving faith the faith you have?"⁵

This kind of talk goes against much of the modern church, which considers any questioning of your salvation as doubts from the devil. But the Bible also encourages us to "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves." (2 Corinthians 13:5) And again, "Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." (2 Peter 1:10 - 11)

So in light of eternity, where do you stand before God? Is your faith and salvation genuine? Have you truly repented, and are you now living a life that is pleasing to God and that brings forth fruit for His glory? Or are you trusting in your own works or even your own faith to save you? It is Jesus who saves you, and Him alone. Nothing we can do or say can save us; all we can do is accept the salvation Jesus freely offers us. But a life that is radically changed at the fundamental level is part and package of that salvation. No fruits, no salvation.

As we were reminded in the last post, Jesus is coming again, and soon. Yet we don't even have the assurance that we will live until then. Death is sure. Is your faith genuine? As the words of a song go, "The Lord is coming! Are you ready?"

---

1. Jim Elliff, Wasted Faith, (Missouri, USA: Christian Communicators Worldwide, 2005), 7.
2. Ibid, 8.
3. Ibid, 9.
4. Ibid, 35 - 36.
5. Ibid, 51 - 52.

"The Lord is Coming..."

This was brought home to me in a new way recently as I read a book about end-times prophecy. No one questions that we are living in the last days, but just how close we are to the apocalyptic events foretold in the Bible is sometimes overlooked.

The book, Epicenter, by Joel Rosenberg, primarily talks about the war of Gog and Magog prophesied in Ezekiel 38 - 39. While that is only a preliminary skirmish, as it were, before the much larger battles later on, our world will never be the same after that war. And according to Rosenberg, that war might not be very far off.

Based on his research, experiences, and observations concerning current events in the Middle East, Mr. Rosenberg thinks it very likely the War of Gog will happen in our lifetime, possibly even in the next couple years. All the conditions described in the Bible are not fully in place yet, but never before have we been this close.

Based on his research and his interpretation of Bible prophecy, Mr. Rosenberg also makes a number of predictions concerning the near future. Among them, Israel will discover vast reserves of oil and/or natural gas on its territory; Iraq will stabilize and become one of the most economically advanced and prosperous nations in the region; and radical Islam as we know it will cease to exist after the War.

Whether or not you agree with his interpretation of prophecy and current events, the fact remains that Jesus is coming back--soon--and we need to be ready. Mr. Rosenberg ends his book with an exhortation for us as Christians to be watching the signs of the times and warning the world of things to come. And a plea to each of us to make absolutely sure we are ready.

Are you ready?

Obedience

My Child, I love thee—Be!

But, Lord! I’m just a man.
I’m weak and frail, and often fall.
I cannot change the way I am,
It matters not how hard I try.
My Lord, I love Thee,
But I cannot be.

My Child, did I not say
That I would give thee strength
And pick thee up from every fall?
I ask thee not to do it on thy own,
But as thou dost abide in Me, and I in thee.
My Child, I love thee—
Be like Me.

My Lord, I love Thee,
And if Thou wilt live in me
And give me strength;
Then, Lord I’ll gladly be like Thee,
Instead of staying as I am.

My Child, I love thee—Go!

But, Lord, it is so safe and pleasant here,
And full of grief and danger there.
I do not want to leave my home to go so far away.
And who would go with me, I pray?
I cannot go alone.
My Lord, I love Thee,
But I cannot go.

My Child, did I not say,
That I will be with thee Wher’ere thou art
And keep thee safe in Me?
I ask thee not to go alone,
For I Myself will go with thee.
My Child, I love thee—
Go, for Me!

My Lord, I love Thee,
And if Thou wilt go with me
To comfort, guide, and keep;
Then I will gladly go with Thee,
Not stay here by myself.

My Child, I love thee—Speak!

But Lord, I cannot speak!
I don’t know what to say.
And they will laugh at me
And call me names.
I cannot bear the thought of that.
My Lord, I love Thee,
But can I not be silent,
And tell by deeds?

My Child, did I not promise
That I would be with thee
And give thee what to say?
And did I not endure much shame for thee?
I ask thee not to speak thy own
But I will speak through thee.
My Child, I love thee—
Speak of Me.

My Lord, forgive me!
Thou didst suffer much for me—and them.
And can I not tell them of Thee?
If Thou wilt speak Thy Words through me,
Then I will gladly be a mouth for Thee,
Rather than speak my own, or silent be.

My Child, I love thee—Do!

But Lord, that is so hard and takes much time
And I am busy too, you see.
Are there not others who could get it done?
I am already doing much for Thee.
My Lord, I love Thee,
But I cannot do.

My Child, I’ve promised thee to be with thee
And give thee strength to do.
Who gave thee time, and skill to work?
Is it not I?
And if there are others serving Me,
What is that to thee? Obey thou Me!
My Child, I love thee—
Do My will.

My Lord, I am so weak and vile!
How could I forget so soon
What You have done for me, and given me?
My Lord, I love Thee,
And as Thou dost give me strength and length of days,
I will do all for Thee,
And not work for myself alone.

My Child, I love thee—Do not be!

I love Thee, Lord and know Thy pledge
To be with me, protect and guide me.
But right now the way is dark—
I cannot see the light—I do not know the way ahead.
I want to trust Thee, Lord,
But I can’t help but be afraid.

My Child, I know that it is hard to trust,
But you must choose—if you would onward go.
But do not fear—I am the way! I am the Light!
And I will always be with you.
My Child, I love thee—
Do not be afraid.

My Lord, I choose to trust
And put myself within Your care.
If You are with me, I will not fear.

My Child, I love thee—Stay!

Dear Lord, I trust You, but I do not understand.
The door is open, the time is right, the need so great!
I am willing to go and die for Thee—
May I not go?

My Child, I know your heart for Me,
That you would fight most valiantly.
But I have other work for you, right here.
And others who will serve Me there.
My Child, I love thee—
Stay right here.

Ah, Lord, ‘tis hard to sit and watch from here,
When my heart burns so much to go!
Especially with so many years
Wasted by not heeding You.
But I have learned that You know best,
So if You need me here right now,
I will not pine, but gladly serve.

My Child, I love thee—Hold thy peace!

But, I…



Lord, why…


My Lord, I love Thee.
I will keep silent.

My Child, I love thee—Thou shalt not!

My Lord, I love Thee.
I will not.

My Child, I love thee—Come!
Thou hast been faithful—
Welcome Home!

The Race to Armageddon

During the last month, two things have caught my attention and reminded me that the end is coming at an ever increasing rate. These two things are not new; they have been going on for years. Nor are they directly related. Yet they provide a telling picture of the coming conflict.

The first was an article about the North American Union.¹ According to this article, the leaders of the United States, Canada, and Mexico have met and are working on a plan to unite the three countries into one geopolitical unit, similar to the European Union, called the North American Union. Portions of the plan would result in the virtual elimination of the international borders between these countries, a tremendous increase in economic activity among the countries, and the merging of the laws and currency of the three nations. In other words, the United States of America would have ceased to exist as a separate, sovereign nation. And all without the consent or support of the American people.

And this is just one small [relatively] part of a larger plan that has been going on for decades to unite the world in one global community. Many Christians feel this will usher in the rule of the antichrist and the persecution of Christians worldwide.

The second was a reminder at a Wycliffe banquet about the work of Bible translation that is going on around the world. During the past several years, the pace of Bible translation has been accelerated dramatically, to the point where Bible translators are hoping to have started translation in every language that needs one by 2025.² That is a tremendous task indeed, and the obstacles seem daunting, but over a century has already been cut from the job since the adoption of Vision 2025, as the goal is termed. And the acceleration is increasing continually, as more and more Christians catch the vision and support the work of Bible translation through giving, volunteering, and praying.

The Bible repeatedly ties the reaching of all language groups with the gospel with the end of the age.

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
Matthew 24:14

And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
Revelation 5:9

And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
Revelation 14:6

As I thought about these two continuing developments in the last great saga of the universe, I couldn't help but think of the difference in response to each of them. The first reaction, at least of conservative Christians, would be to fight to the death to avoid the creation of the North American Union, while also supporting the work of Bible translation as they think necessary. But is that the proper response?

We already know from prophecy that a one-world government ruled by evil incarnated will arise in the last days. The details of how that will come about are sketchy, but I don't think it would be a stretch to say that the NAU would be part of that plan. If it is, nothing we can do will stop it from happening.

On the other hand, we also know from Jesus' words that the gospel will be preached to all nations, and that people of all languages will be present around the throne of God. Again, the details of how that will happen are also not clear, but it would not at all be a stretch to assume that Bible translation will be a vital part of that. If it is, nothing Satan can do could stop it from happening. But anything Christians can do to make it happen sooner will shorten the reign of evil. The Bible says that "The Lord...is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9) That means it's up to us to reach all nations as quickly as possible.

So which is the better strategy? To use our resources and time to fight the inevitable evil, or to use them to further and accelerate the inevitable good? The end is coming. How soon it comes depends on us. We decide, at least to a certain degree, how evil the world will be when Jesus returns. If we persist in wasting time fighting the inevitable evil, the inevitable good will take longer to be accomplished. And the longer that takes, the more evil the world will get.

Another thing to think about is that as the world slides more and more into violence, confusion, natural disasters, etc. as the end approaches, fewer and fewer people will have the economic means to support the work of Bible translation. Right now we are still extremely rich, with abundant resources available and the technology and equipment to carry out the numerous Bible translation projects going on. But that will change in the not too distant future, if not because of persecution, at least because of a poor economy.

So again, it is up to us, right here, right now to decide how we will fight in this battle, whether we will defensively oppose the evil or offensively support the good. True, to go on the offense will lose us many things we hold dear. But is America really more important than the souls of men and women or the will of God?

Armageddon is coming. What are you doing about it?

---

1. Kerby Anderson, "North American Union", on the Christian Worldview Network. See also "The Federal Reserve: The Engine of Power" and "The Twilight's Last Gleaming?", both by Chuck Missler.

2. Vision 2025 on the Wycliffe International website.

"If I Should Die Today"

If I should die-today-
Would I have lived in vain?
If I should lose my all-right now-
What would I gain?

What treasures do I have in store,
What mansions in the sky?
What memories and friends below?
What lasting legacy?

What service rendered to my King,
What love to others shown?
What joyful song I "used to sing",
What seeds of kindness sown?

What kind of witness would I leave,
If I should die today?
Would anyone in Christ believe,
And choose the Narrow Way?

"Dear Lord, I know how weak I am,
And-oh!-so prone to stray!
But yet I hope that by Your grace
E'en just one soul would see Your face
And be caught up in Your embrace
Because they watched me run the race
And through it faithful stay-

If I should die, today."

Identity Crises

Have you heard the news? Pluto is no longer a planet!^1,2,3 Science books have to be re-written--we now have only eight planets in our solar system.

It seems that the discovery of several heavenly bodies as big as or bigger than Pluto has forced the scientific community to come to a definite decision in their long debate about what a planet is, exactly. Either they had to accept three new planets into our solar "family" or kick tiny Pluto out. Turns out Pluto had to go. It did not fulfill all the requirements of being a planet by the new definition.

Not everyone is happy with this turn of events, and some astronomers are even circulating a petition to overrule that decision. I had no idea "logical, unbiased, unemotional" scientists could get so upset over an issue of semantics. Ironically, Pluto is now defined as a "dwarf planet", which makes the whole deal seem somewhat frivolous.

Pluto isn't the only one dealing with an identity crisis, however. It seems the Anglican Church [and more specifically the Episcopal Church, which is the U.S.'s branch of the Anglican Church] is almost at the point of division, with some conservative Episcopalians no longer wanting to be associated with the Anglican Church.^4,5,6 Unlike the debate over Pluto, this disagreement is far from frivolous or unimportant. The Anglican Church has, among other things, ordained at least one openly gay bishop, and supports gay relationships between professing Christians. Some contend, and rightly so, that these things should not be in the Church of Jesus Christ, and do not feel like they can conscientiously be a part of or support a denomination that does so.

Just the fact that such a debate exists in the church in the first place is a sad testimony to the confusion and deception that has taken hold of the church in recent years. But identity crisis at the denominational level is only a symptom of a much deeper problem--identity crisis in Christians as individuals.

The term "Christian" has become so diluted it has all but lost its meaning. Anyone and everyone is a "Christian" these days, regardless of how they live their lives or what they believe. Or at least they are Christians by today's definition of the word. But, unfortunately for those who are Christians in name only, God does not play word games. His definition of "Christian" is the same as it always was, and it will never change. The Father of Lies can re-define "Christian" to include anyone he wants, but his vote does not count in the Throne Room of the King of the Universe. And there is coming a day when many who considered themselves Christians by Satan's definition will be rudely awakened to find that by the proper definition they are not Christians at all, and, like Pluto, will be excluded into outer darkness, separated from the family of God, because they do not meet the qualifications of a real Christian. However, unlike the situation with Pluto, there will be no opportunity for a re-vote.

Are you a real Christian, or only a "dwarf planet", as it were? Have you "made your calling and election sure"? (2 Peter 1:10) If not, I encourage you to "examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith;" (2 Corinthians 13:5) How can we know?

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.
Romans 8:16

Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Matthew 7:20

He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
John 14:21

And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.
1 John 2:3-6

We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
1 John 3:14

Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
1 John 4:15-16

A Christian never has to have an identity crisis--I can know that I know who I am in Christ. I'm a child of the KING, and will outshine the stars! And, thankfully, no amount of redefinitions or hand-raising votes can change that!

---

1. Dinky Pluto loses its status as planet by William J. Kole, from the Associated Press.


2. Pluto Demoted: No Longer a Planet in Highly Controversial Definition by Robert Roy Britt, from Space.com.


3. Astronomers: Pluto just a dwarf by Dan Vergano, from USA Today.


4. Dallas Episcopalians contemplate break with national church
   by KRISTV.com (Corpus Christi, TX), from the Associated Press.


5. A new school of thought for conservative Episcopalians: Seminaries partner to unify conservative voice by Jay Lindsay, from the Associated Press.


6. Episcopal split mulled in Dallas by Matt Curry, from the Associated Press.

SETI--The Search for a New "God"

I came across an article¹ recently about the connection between SETI and the evolutionary search to find meaning in life apart from God. Normally, one would associate NASA and scientists such as those involved in SETI (the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) with those who would distance themselves from anything resembling UFOs, aliens, and that sort of thing. After all, these are supposed to be the logical, intelligent, scientific scholars, not wacky fanatics that claim UFO sightings and believe in Atlantis.

And indeed, these researchers do claim to have strong basis in science for their work. After all, "if life evolved here on earth, why could it not also evolve on another planet somewhere in the universe?" Their goal is to make contact with any such intelligent civilization that might be out there, and they attempt to do this by scanning the skies (using radio telescopes) for anything that would be considered an intelligent message from outer space.²

Yet behind the cool, collected, "scientific" facade there lies the hope that maybe somewhere out there someone or something exists that could give hope and provide answers for the human race, answers that people all over the world have been looking for since time began.

Sadly, this quest has little to do with real science, and a lot to do with the emptiness modern society brought upon itself by denying the existence of God and refusing to acknowledge Him as Creator and Master of their lives and destinies. Refusing to acknowledge the real God and accept and believe what He tells us in His Word, they are forced to look elsewhere for meaning and purpose in life, and for someone or something to worship and obey. Whereas others look within themselves (humanists) or at the world around them (naturalists), these people look into outer space.

Ironically, despite their effort to distance themselves from UFOs and all the associated mythology and just plain weirdness, SETI-ites end up in the almost identical position of relying on supposedly more intelligent and advanced (in the evolutionary sense) civilizations to provide the answers to humanity's problems.³

Unfortunately, in doing so they open themselves wide to Satan's deception. Just as Satan and his demons have used the popularity and allure of UFOlogy to gain a foothold in many people's lives (and through those people spread his deception even further), he is using the lie of evolution and the false hope of extra-terrestrial "saviors" to turn people away from God and lure them within his grasp.

As C.S. Lewis' demon Screwtape tells his nephew Wormwood in The Screwtape Letters⁴, "I have great hopes that we shall learn in due time how to emotionalise and mythologise their science to such an extent that what is, in effect, a belief in us [demons] (though not under that name) will creep in while the human mind remains closed to belief in the Enemy [God]." I am afraid that they have succeeded, since there remains little doubt in my mind that "aliens" are nothing more than demons "though not under that name". Furthermore, "Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness;"⁵ The stretch between believing in advanced civilizations in outer space to advanced beings in another dimension is not insurmountable, and would allow the "logical, scientific" mind to believe in demons while denying the existence of God. But, of course, demons would not represent themselves as what they truly are, but rather as "angels of light", or to use more modern terms, "spirit guides". They would, and do, claim to be here to help man achieve a higher evolutionary stage. But of course, there would be some requirements that need to be met. With the state of the post-modern mind, befuddled by "tolerance" and multiculturalism and relativism and New Age ideas, any objection to those requirements would not stand for long.

This is not something theoretical that I am making up, by the way, but is actually happening.⁶ SETI is looking for intelligent extra-terrestrials. Many ufologists claim they have found them. And that they have messages for us. And those messages are not at all friendly to Christians or Jews [wonder why, of all religions, these two would be singled out?].

Make no mistake about it--Satan is at work in the modern UFO/alien obsession, and more subtly so in the SETI. While they may deny it, SETI is in reality a search for a new god, one to replace the God they "killed". Satan is only too happy to oblige.

Let's not fall for his deception by going along with it, or denying that it exists, or ignoring it. It is a real threat to us as Christians and, in fact, as humans. There is intelligent life out there, and it comes in two "flavors". If you choose to ignore or deny the existence of Him who communicated with us thousands of years ago His express will, the only intelligent life left for you to find, to your detriment, is the same serpent that Eve found when she decided she knew better than God and denied His word. The results were not pretty then, and they won't be now either.

It's up to us to "choose you this day whom ye will serve."⁷ Will you look to SETI for the answers to life questions, or will to look to God, who has revealed to us all we need to know in His Word? The choice is yours.

---

1. Patrick J. Burwell, "Of Faith and Fantasies: S.E.T.I is of the Religion of Evolution" on the Christian Worldview Network 8/12/06


2. Gary Bates, "SETI--Coming In From the Cold of Space" from Answers in Genesis 11/3/03


3. For more articles discussing these issues, check out the following:
   
   
   
   • "UFO's and the Gospel of Christ", parts 1 and 2 by Ralph C. Barker on the CWN.
   
   
   • "UFOs and aliens—is there something going on?" by Gary Bates of AiG
   
   
   • "Should we search for extraterrestrial intelligence?" by David Laughlin on AiG.
   
   
   • "God and the extraterrestrials" by Werner Gitt of AiG
   
   


4. C.S.Lewis, The Screwtape Letters (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1961), 33.


5. 2 Corinthians 11:14, KJV


6. For a detailed discussion of the many aspects of this issue, read Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection, by Gary Bates (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2004).


7. Joshua 24:15, KJV

Change of Pace

I've decided to adopt a change of pace. I'm afraid I've rather strayed during the last few months from my stated purpose for this blog. A blog should be updated more than once a month, in any case, and I simply don't have time to go into as much detail as I would like to when discussing such issues as Creation/Evolution and the role of Christians in politics. I won't drop those discussions, but will transfer them elsewhere, where I will have more time and space to ramble as I please. I'll provide a link once it's ready. The only drawback will be the lack of a place to respond to the articles, other than an email address. I'll see if I can arrange something. Not that any significant number of comments have been coming in anyway, but... :)

From now on, I'll try to post more often, hopefully at least once a week, and will limit each post to one specific topic or item I've read or heard about recently. With all that's been going on in the world lately, there are plenty of opportunities to apply the Truth to our lives.

Nate

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.