The reason why I write this blog is based on that I believe the idea of God creating the universe based in millions and billions of years only compromises with the secular world view and it has implications that are far more reaching than just difference of opinion.
If you have the time here is a nice little debate or conversation between the idea of young earth and old earth via Ken Ham and Hugh Ross. Ken Ham is young earth and backs his theology by scripture while Ross is old earth that is trying to interpret scripture and the Bible with the idea of fitting millions of years into the Biblical historical picture.
Most secularists will say both proponents Ham and Ross are wrong because the universe is billions of years old.
What I find as the problem with the old earth belief is there is not good evidence and you have to add to scripture to make the point while the young earth is better equipped to follow scripture.
Interesting out of a panel of six on this show, five of the guest believed in a young earth and one (Ross) believes in an old earth that included the big bang.
Out of that 5 only three so it was split evenly (with Ross being the 6th), but only three Ken Ham, Ray Comfort and Eric Hovid believed the scripture was more clear on the idea of each day as it was created by God (day being 24 hours) and that this statement of scripture was very important, not only understanding Biblical creation but it aided in the understanding of Biblical knowledge for everyone.
The interpretation of each creation day being one day (24 hour day) is important to teach people based on if we demand that people believe in the parting of the red seas, a virgin woman getting pregnant by the Holy Spirit and a man dying and coming back to life. How then can we tell people that in Genesis God was not talking about 24 hour day but he meant millions of years and that the passages of Genesis aids itself more to how modern science interprets the age of the earth via millions and billions of years.
On one end we demand people believe in supernatural events but in Genesis we compromise and say there is nothing supernatural how God created the universe. That statement maybe a bit over the top due to that Christians believing in a creation of a million years still view it as supernatural but the idea of God creating the world in 6 days has to be agreed as a bit more of a supernatural event than using a naturalistic way to explain creation.
Sean McDowell and John Bloom from Biola University were more on the fence of Biblical interpretation, McDowell even so far as to going there and saying so much as can we really know the true interpretation from Greek, Hebrew to English. I chalk McDowell statement to his youth; this statement is what secularist use to kill the conversation on Christians that don’t know there Biblical history or believe in actual words of our Biblical authors and we cannot accept such a statement.
Bloom and McDowell were willing to question interpretation while Comfort, Ham and Hovid felt that the Bible was God’s breathed word that all can know, people could know then (thousands of years ago) we can know now. 1 Timothy 3:16 Ephesians 4:11-16 and Hebrews 11: 1-40
McDowell and Bloom walk a slippery slope that will have you back peddling trying to explain Biblical truth in a sea of secular lies and it does not have to be that way if we take scripture at its word.
I believe Ross is trading certainty for truth and McDowell and Bloom are entertaining that idea as well Bloom more so than McDowell.
The truth is we can know scripture and what it says, understanding that not everyone will completely get what is being stated in every book or letter but the main theme of the Bible is God and following God. His grace to us and for us and how and why he did what he did for his creation.
You will see at the end of the video Ross offers a truce and I have no doubt Ross was very sincere just as I have no doubt Ross is a Bible believing man of God. The problem I have with Ross’s truce is it is not as the same way we can view the main purpose of truth from such men as George Whitfield and John Wesley.
Whitfield was a strong preacher of election with his main theme on salvation, while Wesley was a strong preacher on the will to know God with the main theme on salvation so we see two men that preached different styles had the same theme and that was salvation. This is what made these men great in the eyes of Biblical history the final authority was God and his salvation for you.
Ross’s truce is genuine but misguided based on the issue we live in different times than Wesley and Whitfield did; the average person had a standard of who was God and the respect of who God was not to mention being a pastor or evangelist during the 1700’s was a very respectable position.
Today’s western world does not respect God as it once did nor has a standard of who God is. Today’s western world does not respect men like Ross or Ham they view them as the enemy. People like Bill Nye who puts out hate messages that parents that teach creation are abusing their children.
We can easily see why main stream media and science who is desperate to be the grand daddy of all authority of life will mock and tear down our children and young people in the public arena.
How can we as Christians tell our children God did all these great supernatural things but that stuff in Genesis may not be literal, can you see why liberal Churches are not teaching that Jesus died or was born of a virgin, compromise to secularism to be relevant in today’s world is the in thing for people and Churches that think this is the only way to get people to God.
The difference between Ross and Ham is that Ham uses the Bible to interpret scripture for both knowing God and understanding God in a Biblical context with the final goal preaching the word of God for the purpose of following Jesus to salvation. Ross uses the Bible to prove science is correct and prove there is a God while returning a standard of the belief in God to science and while this is important without the notion of one following Jesus and putting God first before all things there is no real hope for people to know God.
Final thoughts I know those six men, Ham, Comfort, Hovid, Ross, McDowell and Bloom are good men of God and I know they want the best for bringing the Gospel to all people but the western world we live in is now requiring we either go with the world or against the world.
Trying to compromise or make a hybrid world view with a mix of some world and some Christianity will not work. It is not Biblical to mix Holiness with evil 1 Corinthians 15:33, like my old youth pastor use to say, two rivers running into each other, one is flowing clear blue water the other is dirty brown water and when the two come together and mix the clear blue water turns to dirty brown. The two cannot mix.
Abortion has to end now, pro life and right to life groups are for slow incrementalism.
The goal is to slowly change the laws state by state all the while change the hearts and minds of humans that abortion is wrong.
I completely understand this but logically this form of action makes no sense.
For one point of logic the right to kill an unborn child with the idea that the baby is not a real human these days is antiquated and out dated at best.
In an age of 3D sonograms and medical sonograms that show at 5 weeks (one month) this is a baby and we are still saying “yes you can kill that child”.
Interesting note do a web search on sonograms and just about every medical site uses the term baby not globs of cells.
It took one day in 1973 for unelected judges to legalize killing our offspring yet we are expected to be patient and allow smart guys using the political process to slowly change the law through court cases one at a time. In the meantime millions of babies are being killed each year, in this country alone over a billion world wide since 1973.
The logical option is to end abortion now, every state needs to end abortion now today not tomorrow.
So what if the federal government says its legal, each state can still end abortion now.
Plenty of states have laws that are contrary to federal law yet they choose not to follow or the Feds choose not to prosecute so the precedent has been set many years ago, we don’t need judges to tell our states what kind of killing is right and wrong we need to end abortion now.
The logic is today all states make abortion illegal and criminal.
Now that it is illegal then pro life, right to life and all the good men and women everywhere can start explaining why killing your child is wrong. Why life is important, we educate people we educate our children why life is better alive than dead.
It is easier to explain to somebody why somethings is wrong to do when it’s wrong to do it.
When something is against the law you have a precedence on your side, you have the the legal right to explain why it’s wrong, the morality of the issue makes more sense because the law states this is wrong.
The ethics and philosophy of the law makes more sense and scientifically it confirms that yes there is a baby in that belly yes there is life living here.
Pro life and pro choice cannot be a preference, it cannot be an opinion abortion has to end now we owe this to our children and to the human race.
Logic demands we end abortion now
I very much enjoy Dietrich Bonhoeffer and this quote is one reason why. It is overwhelming the truth in any society here there or in any century.
A few months ago I was trolled on social media into a conversation with a devout atheist/agnostic I only add the agnostic because he would kind of admit that he didn’t know for sure if there was or not intelligent design but he was bent on doing his best to rebel by denying there was no God.
What sparked the conversation was a FB friend had posted a meme that featured a smashed watch that no longer worked that basically said let us see if is broken watch will evolve itself into a working watch. I added a reply and so did our atheist by saying let’s drop some sand on the floor and see if God will create a human, you know how God took Adam from the earth and breathed life into him.
My first thought was “well God has been there and done that, besides he used a bone from Adam to create the second human Eve so why use dirt again”.
The conversation went on and on but believe it or not I finally got our atheist to civilly admit unless he saw proof there was no way he could believe in a God, at least he was honest I can respect that much.
My next thought was even if you saw God, you would not believe. Jesus said in Luke 16:31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’” Those words still ring true today as God has written on our hearts yet some still rebel and deny. Romans 2:13-15
This takes me to when I was listening to Ravi Zacharias one day and he had made a statement that I believe is very true, Ravi was convinced that Jesus came during the time period he did for good reason.
If God had came in a more modern time where we humans could record Jesus by photograph we would turn that image into an idol, I would add to that if we had visual proof of God most would make that proof into an visual or physical idols and then worship those images instead of worshiping God himself “why” you ask, because that is the way we humans are.
If God came down and visited us nothing new now would happen as it did then when he sent his son Jesus two thousand years ago.
The proof of God would be there as a digital image but still groups would be formed called the atheist magicians and they would try and explain how Jesus fed thousands with a few pita breads and a can of sardines and turned water into White Zinfandel using smoke and mirrors or used the power of suggestion.
Medical experts would try and explain away the physical and mental healing’s and first hand site miracles like the calming of the sea and the mount of transfiguration would be chalked up to cult like followers that would say or do anything to make Jesus or God appear supernatural.
God’s image would be liked and shared otherwise you won’t receive a blessing, pin it on your board and look my image I tweeted is trending well.
People first would give God’s image way freely but eventually the paparazzi would sell behind the scenes images of God doing miracles and the next thing you know we would be worshiping those photos.
You no longer need to have faith that the actual God of the Bible existed just stare at your photo or have a digitally enhanced stone cutter carve out a life size likeness of God.
There would be no mystery in who God was for some because you have his photo on your phone. Just pray to your phone and believe.
New mega churches would pop up everywhere in all denominations with God’s image front in centered, mood lighting, little plastic necklaces to wear and rub in your hands when your not sure or scared.
Why God sent his son Jesus to die and returned to heaven would no longer have meaning because I have his actual photo on my electronic photo frame who needs to study the Bible, Jesus is not in heaven he’s on my tablet my sins are forgiven just looking at my image the resolution is remarkable
My atheist troll would still not believe even if he said he saw some proof because like all people of his mentality there is never enough proof.
On the same notion a new breed of non believers would pop up, oh sure they saw Jesus, they have his image but that is all they want or think they need. No need to follow Jesus I saw God he’s on my computer I’m good to go.
No reason to crack open my Bible and listen for the Holy Spirit to speak to me God is on your front porch or on the fireplace mantel and I say a prayer to that image every night before I go to bed so I now have faith.
Bonhoeffer was absolutely right a God that would let us see and examine every megapixels of his existence without first believing in him and acknowledging his existence would just become an idol.
Some people would eventually throw their image into the trash because its everywhere why hold on to it, some would hoard even more images obsessing over them without truly understanding why he made them and what their existence is for.
Finely others will call him great but deny he was God because look I can see him, a true God that can do all things is beyond any humans approach.
The newest assault on Christianity from the liberal Christian crowd is labeling Israel’s second king David as a rapist.
Not surprising of this, liberal Christianity has no regard to understanding the Bible just creating doubt for others. The first assault was calling David a homosexual or calling his friendship with King Saul (the first King of Israel’s son) Jonathan a homosexual act because the two were very close friends and now we are told David was a rapist.
We are told to believe that David rapped Bathsheba; it was against her will, this actually very telling of Christians that sell this bill of goods. They assert that the Bible is inaccurate and is withholding information in the name of a male oriented God or writer.
The story of David is long and laced with disobedience but most importantly it is filled with repentance from David to God.
First we need to understand God was very disappointed in Israel for wanting a king other than God himself. If you read 1 Samuel 8:1-18 God gives the people of Israel a king but tells Samuel the people have disobeyed him (God) in doing so. Israel, we can see here is not trusting God, they are fearful that Samuel will die and leave wrong people to judge them and lead them so they demand a Kind. In doing so God teaches them a lesson that they can never get out of because they doubted him with leadership and it cost them their kingdom.
In picking a king for Israel we the reader can see why disobeying and doubting God is so dangerous. We see Israel now has to rely on men to govern them, fallible, lying, sometimes good, and sometimes bad men that will always let down this nation.
First king is appointed by God through Samuel as Saul. Saul is given a commandment by God through Samuel to kill and rid all witches and fortune tellers of Israel. Saul disobeys this command by sparing one fortune teller and using the witch because of his doubt and this cost not only King Saul’s life but his son Jonathan’s life as will.
1 Samuel 16: 11-13 Samuel is told by God that he has rejected the first king of Israel and tells Samuel to go to the house of Jesse and he will anoint anther king, that King was to be David. The key here is God is anointing David as king; David doesn’t fall backwards into the position as Kind but is appointed by God.
Now the rape allegation; liberal Christians are telling us David raped Bathsheba against her will. Because the Bible does not say Bathsheba opposed her contact and adultery with King David they (liberal Christians) insist since David was king and there is no way she could have said no. Understanding David was King, rape could have been the easy thing to do and no one but God would have opposed.
The problem with that form of reasoning David raped Bathsheba is it doesn’t follow the text of the Bible, so one has to conclude based on liberal Christianity reasoning: 1 The Bible was written to hide the rape from the reader so as not to cast ill on David (makes zero sense since David is full of ill and disappointment to us all through his rein). 2 This book is written by a man and men have no clue what rape is and will hide it if it does appear. (This thinking is called heresy because it states the writer of the book is not following God when writing. The book is not inspired by God. Begs to wonder how it got in to the cannon if was not the inspired work of God). Textual reasoning gives us this: David is guilty of power abuse, adultery, murder and overall disobeying God that leads to death of more than one person.
The text of the Bible or the book of Samuel is very telling when somebody is saying “no” or being warned by God. 2nd Samuel 11:11 David is told by Uriah (the man who David covets his wife Bathsheba) that David’s responsibility is with the Ark of the covenant and fighting with his men. This blatant disobedience of David to God based on his lust for Bathsheba, it cost Uriah’s life. We are not told Bathsheba ever opposed David in his lust for her so liberal Christians chalk this up that because David was the King and there is no way she could have said no.
The key text here in 2nd Samuel chapter 11 is because David fell into his lust he fell out of holiness with God. James B Jordan puts it as such “Uriah’s protests serve to highlight David’s sin, his sin of not going out to fight as a king was supposed to do (11:1). If David had been with the Ark in the field, he also would have been under conditions of holiness that would have prevented him from having sex with his wives (Deuteronomy 23:10; Exodus 19:15).
Further we see in 2nd Samuel chapter 13 7-14 we find the rape of David’s daughter Tamar by this son (Tamar’s half bother) Amnon in which Tamar protest. Key here is protest. Bathsheba does not protest yet Tamar does protest, Biblical text does give us lead to know the difference between lust between David and Bathsheba and rape or violation of Tamar by Amnon.
Liberal Christians might now argue that well of course we have protest we are talking incest rape the most vial of rape. This is why understanding the Bible requires us to read and discern Biblical text before leveling accusations and interpreting scripture beyond the Biblical text something progressive Christianity often fails to do.
The start of the David Bathsheba incident caused a calamity for David and his household and those who were close. The key here is that David sinned but he repented from his sin 2nd Samuel 12:13-14 but even with that it cost David and Bathsheba the life of their child. David repents of his sins as we see 2nd Samuel 12:13, Psalm 32, and 51
We also need to look at before we level accusations towards David to know who David was. 1st Samuel 13:14 God tells Samuel to Saul that because he had acted foolishly he will replace him as king with a man after his own heart. Acts 13:22 the inspired word of God reiterates this. Ron Edmondson gives us 10 reasons why David was a man after God’s own heart. David was Humble, reverent, respectful, trusting, loving, devoted, recognition, faithful, and obedient.
It is troubling to see people that call themselves Christians to take such a man like David and try and change our view of him but I assume this is the point of liberal Christianity to take what is of God and change it, redefine it and relabeled it.
What I would say is this, we first might know and understand what the concept here is, what is to be learned from God, and how does this give glory to God something the life of David does give
King David was many things, he did much bad and sin in his own life and for that he suffered and his kingdom suffered with the point being Israel rebuked God for a human king and when one does that they become lost.
With all the sinful deeds David fell into he never stopped loving God, he never stopped trusting and giving God the glory. I believe this is why God used David for his saving grace by using his family line to bring Jesus to us as noted by 2nd Samuel 7 and John 7:42