Thursday, October 11, 2018

They Exchanged the Truth for the Lie

Christians are to stand on the Word of God, which is inerrant in the original autographs (2 Peter 1:20-21), and is authoritative. We can learn not only about salvation (Rom. 3:23, Rom. 6:23, John 1:12-13, Eph. 2:8-9) and how to live the Christian life (2 Tim. 3:16), but why many people choose to reject God and ride the Owlhoot Trail.


Atheists and other people do not want the truth of God. They know he exists, but suppress the truth and exchange it for the lie.
Credit: Pixabay / Pete Linforth
Atheists often demand, "Prove to me God exists!", and enthusiastic but uninformed Christians attempt to give all kinds of proofs. If they had spent enough time in the Bible, these Christians would have seen that there is no place where someone tries to prove God's existence. Further, they know that God is real, but suppress the truth!

Have you noticed that there is more hostility in the world toward our Creator and his Word, and there is more persecution of Christians? Atheists and liberal "Christians" hate Genesis with a passion. Jesus, Peter, Paul, and others in the Bible quoted extensively from it to lay the foundations for most doctrines. Things are getting worse in the world — just like God said. In Romans 1:18-28, Paul showed how this suppression of truth leads to idolatry. No, that doesn't mean people carve out a physical idol to worship; idolatry is putting something ahead of God. We can see this when humans try to justify evolution and deny God's creative work. Even Christians can be idolaters. Such activity affects people in three primary areas of life.
In Romans 1 Paul lays out one of the clearest expositions of the gospel’s implications. In verse 16 he writes, "I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also to the Greek." Paul then moves on to talk about the righteousness of God that comes through the gospel (Romans 1:17). However, he recognizes that if he is going to talk about the good news, he first needs to talk about the bad news; we cannot really appreciate the good news until we understand how bad the bad news really is. This understanding is why he moves from righteousness revealed to wrath revealed (Romans 1:18). For Paul, God’s wrath is a present1 reality. It is the experience of the outworking of his handing people over to their sinful behavior (Romans 1:24, 26, 28). God’s wrath is therefore justified because of the ungodly and unrighteous acts people commit.
To read the rest, click on "The Apostle Paul’s Use of Genesis 1–3 in Romans 1".
  

Sunday, October 7, 2018

Albert Mohler's Reformation Lecture Series

People may have thought that we had the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, considered to have "officially" begun on October 31, 1517 when Martin Luther posted his Ninety-five Theses on the "social media" of his time. Read an article, listen to a message, have a German beer and ride off into the sunset. Not so. As we saw in several posts last year, the Reformation had its beginnings long before that date, and continued afterward.


Luther at the Diet of Worms, Anton Werner1877
Dr. Albert Mohler had been presenting a series on the Five Solas which I was looking forward to posting in time for the big anniversary observance. Delays happened, so I decided to save them for y'all in time for the 501st anniversary. Before obtaining those, I recommend reading his article, "Here We Stand".

They lectures are in MP3 format, so you can download and listen to them at your convenience. Free of charge, naturally. Each link will take you to the page where you can commence to downloading each one.
I trust that these will prove edifying and interesting.



Thursday, September 27, 2018

Was the Genesis Flood Tranquil?

There are people who propose that the Genesis Flood was a local event, or even tranquil. People who say this are attempting to accommodate secular geology (evolution and millions of years) while still trying to maintain a religious appearance. Also, I reckon the are unfamiliar with floods in the first place; even draining a basin gives them a small-scale glimpse of water power.

Bible believers know that the Genesis Flood was neither local nor tranquil, but some people still try to promote the foolish tranquil flood angle.
Water Drain image credit: FreeDigitalPhotos.net / Teerapun
The global Flood was anything but tranquil, and Scripture makes it clear in numerous places that it was global. After all, it was a judgement of God. The Ark was also a type of Christ, and that also indicates the extent of the Flood. I've put forward the question, "In 2 Peter 3:2-4, Peter talks about the Genesis Flood. Then he talks about the coming Judgement by fire. Will that be a local event?" Not hardly!
Have you ever thought about what Noah would have been able to see when he came off the Ark? Did he walk down the Mountains of Ararat and locate his old home? Was he able to walk down familiar streets, visit a cherished piece of coastline, or survey his favourite piece of architecture? Of course I am being facetious in my suggestions, as there is not even the slightest possibility that this was the case! The Bible is quite clear about the epic scale and total coverage involved in the global Flood (e.g. Genesis 7:19–20).
To finish reading, click on "What would Noah have observed coming off the Ark?"


Wednesday, September 19, 2018

Despair in an Atheistic Worldview

I know of someone who attempted suicide, became a cripple, and now blames God for his condition and other problems. He also hates biblical creationists. The Christians worldview is the foundation for most of Western civilization. Because of that, he has his wheelchair and gets his needs met. Most importantly, the God he rejects has offered him salvation and eternal life.


Atheism and evolution can offer nothing to deal with death and suffering.
Credit: RGBStock / Sanja Gjenero
Now think of the large-scale tragedies in life. There are wars, hurricanes, earthquakes, diseases, and more. In an atheistic worldview, there is no reason to grieve or even provide assistance for others, since death is just another aspect of the human experience. Evolutionists believe that death is a means to developing current lifeforms. The old, infirm, sick, depressed, and others have a duty to die and get out of the way for the fit to move forward. The religion of Secular Humanism is atheism dressed up and looking respectable like, but it is deceitful and inhuman; people will get no meaning or comfort from them.

The biblical worldview — beginning from the first verse — is the only one that comports with reality. God's Word helps us understand human experience, including death and suffering, and helps us to have compassion for others. Don't disunderstand me, old son. Christians do not know everything, and we certainly do not understand everything. God reveals many things to us, and we trust him by faith.
Evolution requires death. At its core, Darwin’s postulate appeals to the power of death to remove those less able to survive so that the “more fit” can take their place. Natural selection, in this Darwinian sense, toils mindlessly on, removing individuals, populations, and even entire species. Whether something—or someone—lives or suffers, Darwinism offers only the cold machinations of time and death. Anything more would require existential purpose, after all, and that cannot be allowed.
To read the rest, click on "Tragedy in a Godless Universe".


Wednesday, September 12, 2018

Evidence for the Resurrection without the Bible?

It is a fair question to ask if there is evidence for Jesus, especially his Resurrection, from non-biblical sources. Is there corroborating evidence from various historical accounts? Maybe some forensic evidence? However, such questions can often an attempt to demand evidence but the inquirer is not interested in biblical information.


People who insist on evidence for the Resurrection without the eyewitness testimonies in the Bible show an anti-Bible bias.
US Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Shane A. Cuomo
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents by the US Department of Defense)
Some folks don't seem to ponder on some things, and forget that almost instantaneous satellite news didn't exist back then. We're talking about an event that happened over 2,000 years ago. Another is that Jerusalem was a jerkwater town in the Roman empire. Other information may have existed, but it's turned to dust by now. More than those details, however, is that the Bible is historically reliable. We get names, dates, details, eyewitness accounts, and more. People don't seem to have felt a need to bring in more information. Dr. Jason Lisle points out that giving other manuscripts the superior position degrades the Bible.

There may be charges from skeptics, saying, "The Bible is biased!" So? They say that like it's a bad thing. Does that automatically make it untrue because people want to give accounts of what they saw, experienced, and investigated? There would be very little knowledge in the world, because people who write and give speeches usually are biased! "I want to convince you of something, but I'm remaining unbiased". Ain't happening, Zeke. Insisting that we "leave the Bible out of it" is an anti-Bible bias.
J.T. from Singapore writes:
I was wondering if you guys could write an article about the historical evidence of Jesus’ resurrection itself, but not using the Bible as the primary source of evidence (which after going through some of the articles on your website, the eyewitness accounts of the disciples and the credibility of that accounts seem to make up the main bulk of the argument for resurrection).

If indeed Jesus’ resurrection happened, and he was seen by a few hundred people, surely there must have been other written accounts (e.g. scrolls, parchment, etc, and not including the Bible) in which these eyewitness accounts are documented. It would be really great if you could direct me to these historical evidences (if any).

This question has been one of the topics that my friends and I were discussing, and so far we could not find any other sources that correlate with the Bible on Jesus’ resurrection.

Thank you, and hope to hear from you soon!
CMI’s Shaun Doyle responds:
To read Shaun's response, click on "Proving Jesus’ resurrection without the Bible?" Also, Dr. Lisle has a series in progress. You may like to see "Origin of the Bible: Part 3 – Accurate and Divine", and search the site for the other "Origin of the Bible" articles.



Wednesday, September 5, 2018

The Gospel is Incomplete without Creation

When discussing Creation, atheists and other anti-creationists will ridicule it since they do not approve of viewpoints that do not include Darwin. It's who they are and what they do. It is indeed unfortunate that many professing Christians will file Genesis under "nice story" or "allegory" (and even say that God used the Big Bang for creation — which shows their ignorance of both Genesis and evolution.) In reality, Genesis is essential to a proper understanding of the gospel.


Genesis is very important for a proper understanding of the gospel.
Credit: Unsplash / Aaron Burden
No, we are not saying that believing in creation is essential to salvation, but it is a gospel issue. If you read the Bible carefully, you will see that creation is proclaimed all the way through to the end (see Rev. 14:6, 3:14, for example). What we believe controls what we think, and therefore, what we do. Christians need to have a high view of Scripture, which is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16 NIV). Rejecting creation leaves the gospel incomplete.
Many believers think creation is an irrelevant issue, but the opposite is true. There are few things more important to our faith, because if you believe the Genesis account is not true, then nothing in Scripture is dependable. Once you embrace the idea that the early chapters of Genesis are not historically accurate, then everything in the Bible is subject to personal preference. If God’s Word is not a God-inspired record of God’s words, then it’s nothing more than man’s words—and, therefore, just as viable as a Hollywood movie script, a New York Times bestseller, or a gossip piece on the evening news.
To read the article in its entirety, click on "The Gospel Starts with Creation".




Wednesday, August 29, 2018

Demons and Secular Science

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Materialists contradict themselves by claiming that there is no God, spirits, or anything supernatural, and then they try to explain the soul and their version of free will (which is impossible from an evolutionary worldview). Ironically, atheists have their own miracles of sorts, but they deny God. 

Sure, we see some self-styled ghost hunters on television attempting to obtain electromagnetic, infrared, and other readings of supposedly haunted places. Those do not amount to much. Can secularists ride the trail and scientifically study demons, which they believe do not exist? Kind of difficult with their materialistic presuppositions and bad logic, such as, "Since there are some fakers, there are no spirits at all". I can show you some angry atheopaths that have blasphemed each person of the Trinity, and are demonically possessed.

Materialists deny the existence of spirits, but attempt to study demons anyway.
Credit: Pixabay / Pete Linforth
The Parkland school shooter, Nikolas Cruz, said he had a demon telling him to kill and destroy. His account sounds like a case of mental illness. From a Christian perspective, we need to consider the possibility of demonic influence, but I'll allow that it is unlikely in this case.

A study of Ouija boards was done by Thomas Hoffman. You know, that thing you scoot around on a board with an alphabet that also has symbols as well as a yes and no? Many people claim to have contacted spirits. This scientist wrote it is all in the minds of the users. What pusillanimous drivel!

I've told my account elsewhere of living in an apartment complex and hearing the teenagers across the hall messing with a Ouija board. They didn't know I was there. I went outside and prayed with authority, and shut the wicked thing down. Then I heard them wondering why the thing stopped. I explained why, and also explained the gospel to them.

A woman's daughter and a friend were playing with one of those boards, and the woman was invited to join in. As time went on, they learned the name of the person that the spirit was impersonating, how he died by suicide, where he had lived, and more. They contacted some of his relatives online and verified the story. As more time passed, the spirit did not like the woman's current boyfriend, and she was physically assaulted by an unseen power, knocked backward in her chair to the floor. They ended Ouija involvement at that point, but she felt a presence for quite some time after that.

My interference was not something in the minds of those teenagers, and people like Hoffman would be hard pressed to explain it away. Also, he would not be able to explain how previously unknown people and facts were learned from a distance, or the force that assaulted the woman. Mere dismissal is not an explanation, old son.

"What does a demon look like, Cowboy Bob?"

Whatever it thinks will be the most influential, and not in red pajamas with horns and a pitchfork! I heard a story about demons that took the forms of the rock stars in the group Kiss, because that was someone's focus in life. Others can be the stuff of movies, with fangs and glowing eyes. What I think is worse is that they can be beautiful, like their master (2 Corinthians 11:14, Ezekiel 28:17). Despite all this, I fully believe that most people will not actually see a demon or angel.

Studying demons and angels can be fascinating and even helpful, but Satan likes a couple of things. One is for people to believe that he does not exist. Another is for people to become so obsessed with studies of angels and demons, they drift away from their Creator who gave them life. Those who have had demonic activities, whether through direct occult involvement or demons pretending to be can test the spirits: "Who is Jesus Christ?" (1 John 4:1-3).
One cannot make predictions about what a mind will do. Secular scientists mock belief in angels and demons, but they have their own occult beliefs.

Science cannot study what it doesn’t believe is real. Secular cosmologists believe dark matter and dark energy are real, but cannot see them. They believe angels and demons are unreal, but then have to account for things that defy natural explanations. Let’s see how they do.
To finish reading, click on "Can Science Study Demonology?"


Wednesday, August 22, 2018

Intellectualizing God out of the Bible

Some folks spend too much time in secular edjamakation centers and get into a habit of intellectualizing too many things. That is, they commence to pondering the minutiae of many things, and making a mighty great mess of it all instead of starting with the plain intent. A certain tinhorn named Dr. Jordan Peterson does that very thing with the Bible — especially Genesis — and unfortunately, he has many followers.


Jordan Peterson is dismissing Bible believers and replacing the meaning of Scripture with weird Jungian psychology and atheistic philosophies.
Credit: Freeimages / Sar Castillo
I'll make no apology that he's not the kind of guy I'd like to have lunch with. From excerpts in his books it's easy to see that he's condescending and rejects the God of the Bible. He labels people who believe in creation, the global Flood, even the historical account of the Mosaic writings as fundamentalists. Like so many other labels, it has become vague and has many connotations nowadays, and is primarily used to stir up negative emotions.  Peterson doesn't tell us how he defines a fundamentalist. But then, he's smarter than you and me, so he prolly don't need to.



Looking down from his high horse, he dismisses fundamentalists outright. Apparently, he categorizes those of us who believe the Bible are stupid jaspers, and he is superior to us because he's a (pseudo) intellectual. He argues from atheistic and evolutionary presuppositions, including the complex scientific principle of Making Things Up™. Jordan emotionally manipulates his audiences with assertions, smug superiority, and implicit ridicule of those who disagree with his pronouncements about Moses and Jungian psychology. That's just plain weird, old son. I'll take the clear meaning of God's Word (with the help of scholars who actually believe it when it comes to the difficult parts) instead of accepting the say-so of a disbelieving "scholar" any time.
We recently listened to a lecture series on the psychological significance of the biblical stories by Dr. Jordan Peterson, professor of psychology at Toronto University. It has taken a long time to distill the hours of lectures down to a form that can be examined in something as short as this article. It was a daunting task! However, the first lecture alone has over 2.5 million views on YouTube, indicating that Peterson’s lectures have a real audience, so it is worth talking about them here. His lectures are generally admired by his devotees, in much the same way that faithful churchgoers regard the sermons of their pastor; however, we found them intensely tedious, rambling, and hard to follow.
To read the rest, click on "Is Genesis psychology or history? A response to Jordan Peterson".



Wednesday, August 15, 2018

Would Paul the Apostle Debate Modern Evolutionists?

Speculative questions can be as useful as a hole in a milk bucket, as you can spend a lot of time working at them, but not much get accomplished. You get a "what if" and a "yeah, but" added now and then, and folks get a mite overwrought.

On the other hand, if handled properly, though, thought experiments can be interesting and productive. Uncle Albert Einstein liked them, after all. So, let's see if we can make use of the question about whether or not Paul the Apostle would debate modern evolutionists if he rode into town today.


If the Apostle Paul were here today, we can wonder how he would have dealt with evolutionists. He did that very thing before.
Made at Break Your Own News, background image St. Paul Preaching in Athens, Raphael, 1515
Paul was enthusiastic, to say the least. He would reason, discuss, debate, and so on at the drop of a hat, and he'd drop his own hat if nobody else did. Okay, the last part is an exaggeration, but I don't reckon it's too far afield.

However, how would he deal with evolutionists? Would he try to "out evidence them" with piles of facts, hoping that if he was the best orator with the biggest prairie schooner-full of evidence, people would realize that they need to repent and bow to Jesus? That'll be the day! As I study on it, I believe one of the biggest problems with evidence-only apologetics is that the method not only appeals to the pride of the sinful man, but the pride of the apologist who is doing the presentation. We are supposed to be glorifying God, not ourselves, and Scripture clearly tells us that unbelievers are blinded and under the control of Satan. An even bigger problem is that by doing this, we are actually agreeing with unbelievers that the Bible is not true!

Now, don't be getting vexed. I'm not saying that there is no place for evidence, but it needs to be presented properly. Look at Paul in Acts 17-16-34. He was making his argument to the pagan evolutionary philosophers, just like we do today. Western society has been hijacked by materialistic philosophies, postmodernism, atheism, and evolutionism. How are we supposed to follow 1 Peter 3:15, "...ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you"? We sure as shootin' can't be an expert in every philosophy or every science view that is in vogue.

We have to believe the Bible, first and foremost. We presuppose that Scripture is true, and then we can present evidence in the proper framework that honors God. Jesus, Peter, Paul, and the others did the same thing. Also, the Bible is self-affirming.
If we jump back to Paul and consider his missionary journeys, sermons, and epistles, he saw a great number of people and surely encountered a great number of beliefs. 

. . .
In the greater context, we find Paul forced into a debate with Epicureans and Stoics. In fact, because they disagreed with him, they take him to Mars Hill (the Areopagus) to defend his views in front of the whole crowd of philosophers. So Paul masterfully begins his defense, which has gone on to become the basis for creation evangelism.
I'd take it mighty kindly if you'd read the rest of this article. To do this, click on "If Paul Were Around Today, Would He Argue Against Evolutionists?" Also, you may want to hear this short podcast of Scripture on Creation, "Creation's Role in the Gospel".

Wednesday, August 8, 2018

Genesis as History: Short Form

There are times when we need to ride up to yonder hill and get the view from up there. That is, a broad view or big picture. Biblical creationists maintain (with a little help from Occam) that the basic approach is true: Genesis is written as history. Some owlhoots read all sorts of things into the text in order to work in long ages and evolution.


People wonder if Genesis is meant to be taken as history. Yes, it is.
Creation of the World III, Mikalojus Konstantinas Ciurlionis, 1906
I have long wondered why some professing Christians insist on compromising with atheistic, ever-changing whims of man-made science philosophies. It is also an inconsistent message to say that we believe the Bible is true from cover to cover except the early chapters of Genesis. Those, we have to interpret according to man's wisdom. Oh, please! So when do we start believing the Bible, and when do we stop? Can we trust John 3:16-17, or is that just allegory? By the way, even if the first few verses of Genesis were allegorical, that does not mean they are untrue and that there was no history in them, you savvy?

Some go as far as to say that Jesus, Peter, Paul, and others in the Bible were unaware of science. Reign in there, pilgrim! First, Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16-17), so that is an indirect attack on God's integrity by calling him a deceiver. Second, Jesus is God and created all things (John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16). This is essentially saying that Jesus is not God — you are an antichrist (1 John 4:2-3, 2 John 1:7). If you want to deny six-day recent creation, go ahead. But do not attack God in your efforts to compromise with eisegesis and bad hermeneutics.


We have many reasons to believe that Genesis is written as history. We can examine how scientific evidence supports this (you may want to see my review of the video Is Genesis History?). Also, we can demonstrate in great deal how the days of creation were meant to be taken as literal days. But let's get that view from the hill, shall we?

The early chapters of Genesis contradict ancient history as portrayed in public schools, television, and movies. For example, our culture insists humans evolved from ape-like creatures, while Genesis says we were made in God’s image. Culture says the earth formed over eons, but Genesis 1 says it took God just six days. Is it possible to believe both the Bible and evolution’s history? Many try. Some say early Genesis doesn’t convey real events and that God never intended for us to take Genesis 1–11 as history but as poetry. How well does this idea work?
To read the rest of this short article, click on "Is Genesis 1–11 Actual History?"



Saturday, August 4, 2018

Non-Human Persons, Pro-Life, and Evolutionary Thinking

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

One aspect of the extreme environmentalist movement is to give "rights" to animals, even going so far as to call them non-human persons. Naturally, vegans also saddle up to ride for this brand, which is primarily based on evolutionary thinking. Professing Christians are also joining in. Christians and creationists need to think logically, and not fall for emotional manipulation tactics, nor get their values from worldly thinking.


The idea of non-human persons is a ludicrous view based on evolution.
Ham the chimpanzee in the biopack couch for the MR-2 suborbital test flight
Credit: NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Be wary of word games, because not only do extremists use loaded, emotion-provoking terminology, but they redefine words. It is interesting that just before I wrote this, I saw a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode called "Lonely Among Us". Commander Riker told someone, "We no longer enslave animals for food purposes". Enslave? A slave is a person, not an animal. We are also told that killing animals is "murder". When trophy hunter Melissa Bachman showed off her kills, she was castigated for murdering animals, and ironically, some people wanted her to be murdered! 

Then there's the word person. The idea of a non-human person is ridiculous. It amazes me that some people wanted legal rights for an orangutan, and took the case to court. Also, some want rights for chimpanzees. I guess the next time we send one up in a rocket, we need to have the critter sign off on it to make the whole thing legal.



There are people who use emotional manipulation and lack of thinking by going to the extreme, "You don't care that animals are tortured!" Did anyone say that? Sorry, not interested in defending something I, or we, did not say, and do not believe. We were created by God, in his image. Animals were created as well, so we do not share an evolutionary lineage. For that matter, we should be able to kill all we want to be consistent with evolutionary views, you savvy? But knowledgeable Christians do not act that way, because God made us stewards of his creation, and we are not to abuse it. These facts are found in Genesis, but liberal theology does not recognize it as legitimate or even important.

Some owlhoots at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, a part of the Southern Baptist Convention, put up a video with a Roman Catholic comparing animal rights with the pro-life position, and was scornful that pro-lifers were not involved in animal rights. (That's just as sideways as the tinhorns that claim my political views negate everything I write and post about creation science). It's called being focused, and not chasing rabbit trails. Do enough of that, and you lose sight of your calling, old son.

This article was inspired by a discussion on The Dividing Line by Dr. James White. Since I prefer to avoid embedding longer videos here, I'll link to the appropriate part, which takes about 24 minutes of the 1 hr. 41 min. episode. While the whole thing is interesting, I know y'all are busy, so this link should take you to the 54 min. 34 sec. mark. Please give it a look. If you want the MP3, Sermon Audio has it at this link. Interesting that what he says parallels several things that I have said, but he has quite a bit more to say on the subject that I should let you hear him cover.

Wednesday, August 1, 2018

Roses for Afghanistan?

Poppies are nice to look at, but the plants have chemical properties that can be lethal. Opioids are processed from them, and some are for good purposes. Unfortunately, the opium poppies in Afghanistan are mainly used for heroin. Follow the money: people who foolishly use heroin are ultimately funding the sidewinders of Islamic terrorism! With any drug trafficking comes violence and criminal activity. What's a poor Afghani farmer to do who wants to put food on the table? Personally, I'd find something else to do that doesn't involve the deaths of many people.

Damask roses are a means for farmers to make a living better in many ways than from poppies.
Damask rose image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Kurt Stüber (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Enter the Damask rose. It is native to Afghanistan, appeals to the eye and nose, is more profitable than poppies, a renewable resource, is a source of employment, and more. God has given us all sorts of things for us to use. We can use them through biomimetics, or use them directly — if we know how. Our creator gave us minds and expects us to use them. Part of this is done through finding ways to observe, use, or develop applications from or inspired by what he has given us.
Need some good news for a change? Some Afghan farmers are finding better profits growing roses than growing opium poppies.
. . . 
Sales of opium poppies create many well-known evil effects downstream. Drug trafficking, though illegal in the country, engenders gang violence and international conflicts, and fuels much of the economic ties of violent countries to other violent countries. . .
But what if the poor farmers could be convinced to grow something good instead? Something beautiful, useful, and in high demand? What if they could make a better living growing roses?
The farmers who are trying it, according to the article, are finding these benefits in switching:
You can read the rest by clicking on "Will Everything Come Up Roses in War-torn Afghanistan?"


Wednesday, July 25, 2018

External Pressures and Internal Changes

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Over at Piltdown Superman, I've been posting material from ICR on engineered adaptability and the continuous environmental tracking model. Essentially, Charles Darwin supposed that organisms change because of external "pressures", a concept that his followers cling to even today. They don't cotton to the notion that critters adapt (without evolving into something else altogether) through internal mechanisms (see "Targeted Changes and Engineered Adaptability" if you want to see an example). The Master Engineer built in the ability to make changes.

Using biological concepts as illustrations, external pressures and engineered adaptability are contrasted in the Christian life.
Modified from a Library of Congress photo (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Let's take this biological concept into another area — and flip it.

People have been blaming others for their actions for a very long time. Go back to Eden, and see that Eve blamed the serpent, Adam blamed Eve and God ("the woman you gave me"). This happens all the time. Just pay attention for how many times you come across someone using a phrase similar to, "It's not my fault!", or how many times you do it yourself.
  • The boss cheated me out of my lunch break, so I'll cheat back the time
  • I had to lie so I wouldn't look bad to my peers, then I had to lie some more
  • My husband isn't man enough, so I had sex with another guy
  • I hate her because she said something I don't like
  • Christians are big meanies, it's their fault that I'm an atheist now
See that? We have external pressures and we react to them. Unlike the creation science principle of engineered adaptability, external influences are not in conflict with our inner nature, and there is no need to change. (If anything, the more we give in to our urges, the worse we get.) Something needs to change, old son, before we drift into full postmodernism.

The root of the problem is sin. If we fess up and agree with God that we are sinners, and are giving in instead of living for Jesus Christ, by whom and for whom we were created. If you belong to God, you have the Holy Spirit living inside of you. People who truly believe the Bible, have repented, have Jesus as the primary place in our lives, and seek to glorify  him have the Spirit's engineered adaptability. We can take responsibility for our actions, stop blaming other people and external pressures, and let God work inside us so we are not "under the circumstances".

I have a couple of sermons by Voddie Baucham for you and they're free, as usual. Mayhaps I'm asking a lot, but this is important. Note that each one is a direct link to the MP3, and I'd be much obliged if you'd give them serious attention. First, "Errors In The Modern Day Gospel". Second, and for me this one supplemented the first, "The Supremacy of Christ in Truth in a Postmodern World", which actually begins at the 3 min. 45 sec. mark. Let's get serious with God, and let him work his engineering inside us so we're not adapting to sinful influences.


Wednesday, July 18, 2018

The Mystery of the Trinity

Although orthodox denominations bearing the name of Christ have their differences in some doctrines, they tend to historically agree on major articles of faith. (With the increase in apostasy, that may not be happening so much nowadays.) One of the most common areas of agreement is the Trinity: The Father is God, Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God. And yet, there is only one God!

Although that word Trinity is not in the Bible, the teaching is clearly present from the beginning.
Trefoil (Trinity) symbol image credit: Pixabay / Philip Barrington
People get bothered when a theological question is given the response of, "It's a mystery". That is often an excuse for someone who does not know what he or she claims to believe, or maybe does not want to actually look for an answer. This is devastating to children. However, there are times when mystery really is the best explanation. We are not expected to fully understand everything about the eternal Creator God, our Redeemer, you know. We cannot fully understand the Trinity.

Some owlhoots and cultists deny the existence of the Trinity. One of their excuses is that the word is not found in Scripture, but the doctrine is clearly indicated there. They tend to "proof text" by lassoing verses that fit their preconceptions, ripping them out of context, and corralling them as "evidence" for their views. Doesn't work that way, old son.

Even though biblical creationists emphasize that God the Son is the Creator (John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16), we know that the Trinity was present at creation,  Also, the early Church Fathers clearly believed in the Trinity. This doctrine is essential to salvation, but cultists, atheists, uninformed religious folks, and ultra-liberal "Christians" say that we are wrong.
It may surprise some to learn that we have supporters who like our work on biblical creation, but disagree with central Christian doctrines which we hold and strongly defend. Bruce B., Australia, wrote,
For my rejection of the false belief of the Trinity, I need only to rely on history, and just one Bible reference although there are many. That reference is Mark12:29-34. Here Jesus defends the Shema, which every Jew learns when he first learns to speak, and repeats each morning. This was an ideal time for the Lord Jesus to teach the Trinity. But he did not. Why?

With 8 or so texts that tell you Jesus has a God, and it is the Father, Who is omnipotent, (Micah 5:4; Matt 27:5,6; John 20:17; Ephes. 1:3; v. 17; 2 Cor. 11:31; Heb 1:8-9;Ps 45:7; 1 Pet 1:3; Rev 3:12) how can you persist in your spiritual blindness? You are still using the term “God the Son, which is a term you will never find used in the Bible, NOT even once. You will find Son of God. Why do you persist in adding to the Scriptures? (Deut. 4:2)

I have studied this topic on and off for 50 years. I wouldn’t dare to accept your delusion. Why don’t you re-study it? You work for Creation Ministries, which talk a lot about checking things out. The tremendous work you do is marred by this fallacy. It’s TIME TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
Lita Cosner, CMI-US, responds:
To read Lita's response, click on "Discussing the Trinity".


Wednesday, July 11, 2018

The Bible Affirms the Genesis Flood

Unfortunately, many professing Christians (including pastors) have not given serious thought to the Genesis Flood. Many accept atheistic interpretations of science philosophies, accepting millions of years and evolution. This makes it more difficult to present the gospel message because of the compromise involved. Also, accepting deep time usually means rejecting the Genesis Flood. This leads to a series of biblical errors and, ultimately, rejection of Scripture.

Many professing Christians do not realize that the Genesis Flood is stated as history throughout the Bible.
The Animals Entering Noah' Ark, Jacopo Bassano, 1570s
I have pointed out several times that when people say that the Flood was local or tranquil (or never happened at all), they are calling Peter, Paul, Jesus, and others wrong or even liars. They said it was a real historical event. Peter likened the Flood to the end times, and Judgment by fire — will that be a tranquil, local event also? Not hardly! When you claim to believe the Bible but doubt the Holy Spirit's divine inspiration, you have some serious problems, old son.

Try setting aside the excuses for rejecting the straightforward account of the Flood, and read about it in Genesis 6-9. Ask yourself if it sounds reasonable to make such extensive preparations for a local flood. Check the terminology, and look for the purpose of the Flood. Local floods do not last such a long time. Why compromise on the truth of God's Word? Indeed, there are many things to ponder.

Some things make sense just by giving an honest reading and thinking about them, but there are other aspects (such as Hebrew terminology) that provide additional impact. The article linked below is one of the best I have encountered about the importance and purpose of the Flood, and how it is relevant all through Scripture. It's not that difficult, either. I hope you'll not only read it, but save it for future reference.
Today, most Christians around the world (including seminary and Christian college professors) accept the idea of millions of years of earth history. In doing so, they either ignore Noah’s flood or reject its globality or historicity and think it has nothing to do with the question of the age of the earth. But the flood is critical to that question. Here I present the overwhelmingly clear biblical evidence that Noah’s flood was a global catastrophe that destroyed all the land animals, birds, and people not in the ark, and by implication ripped up all the vegetation on the land, killing millions of sea creatures, and buried many of those plants, animals, and people in sediments that now cover the earth in the form of sedimentary rocks layers filled with fossils. The flood is a vital reason for concluding that the earth is only a few thousand years old.
I'd be much obliged if you'd keep reading. To do that, click on "Noah’s Flood: a Unique, Historical, Yearlong, Global Catastrophe".


Thursday, July 5, 2018

Suicide and your Creator

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This child has had problems with depression for decades, so I can relate to the frustration people feel when they are told to "get over it" or have similar dismissals. It seems like some folks just do not care. While that may be the case, we have to use our minds in our depressed moments — which can be difficult at times.

Depression and suicide are on the increase. Our Creator Redeemer has provided a means to deal with this.
Credit: RGBStock / Jeff Grace
People are caught up in their own problems, whether it is relationship issues, bad employers, family difficulties, their own shallowness, health troubles, and maybe their own depression or mental health challenges.

Seems that everyone gets depressed now and then over circumstances, so the callous "get over it" is at least a mite understandable. Others have depression problems because of chemical imbalances or other medical causes that need to be diagnosed and treated; it annoys me that some of my hypertension and other medications contribute to depression. I believe that knowledge of what is happening is a step toward dealing with the ongoing problem.

I took medication for depression for several years, but went off it some time ago. Now I have to examine the situations and my reactions, and trust God. Don't run off, I'm not saying that becoming a Christian makes everything peachy keen. In fact, it can be a difficult life — but it has rewards, both in this life and especially in the life to come. Some folks get an emotional high after their conversion, but they need to mature in the faith, growing in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.

You may have noticed that depression and suicide are on the increase. A good part of that is focusing on negativity. Atheists are the most negative, angry, and bitter people I have ever encountered. Indeed, atheists have a high suicide rate. Is it surprising, since they cling to an evolutionary worldview, where we are all the products of time, chance, and random processes? If all you are is a bunch of chemical reactions, you cannot trust your own thoughts to be rational or even real. When you die, you're worm food; no afterlife, no justice or judgement, and no hope. 

Materialistic and postmodern philosophies are unable to get to the root cause; it is not just psychological or medical, but primarily spiritual (people who do not know God are belong to and are controlled by their father down below). There is a way for change, but it involves humbling yourself and accepting the salvation offered through God the Son, who became a man, was crucified for our sins, and bodily arose, thereby defeating death. Then, God the Holy Spirit indwells us. He also guides is when reading the Bible, the written Word of God.

There is someone I knew that was a happy Christian for some time, but has not only problems with depression, but a habitual negative outlook. This is not what God prescribes for us! Like atheists, she developed a habit of seeing the bleak side of things and dwelling on disappointments. She forgot (and sometimes I may forget like I did when I had suicidal thoughts not all that long ago) that she has a personal relationship with the Creator of the universe, who has redeemed her and lives in her. Perhaps she needs to examine herself and make certain that she really has received Christ. Unfortunately, too many professing Christians are actually false converts, giving intellectual assent or are "cultural" Christians.

I recently heard a sermon that mentioned the book of Ruth. Her mother-in-law Naomi had some serious setbacks in life, and told people to call her Mara, meaning bitter, because she felt that God had dealt bitterly with her. Later, when she's helping Ruth get acquainted with Boaz, you can see that her spirit had improved. The fact that her attention was no exclusively on herself may be a big part of the change.

People need the proper perspective. Although I detest the trite saying, "Count your blessings", there is truth in it, but it needs to be taken further and developed. To borrow something my father used to say, "Ya gotta wanna". Now I'm going to turn you over to the article that inspired what I have written here.
Entering a relationship with your Maker through Jesus Christ is the key to healing suicidal tendencies, but there’s more to work on after you become a Christ follower, because even Christians can get depressed and suicidal. There are some day-to-day thought processes that need to change, and will change, as the Holy Spirit enters your life and begins to work. His work will accelerate as you study God’s word and learn to trust God in prayer. Finding Christian friends at a solid, Bible-believing, Bible-teaching church is extremely helpful for preventing suicidal thoughts from coming back, but there is more you can do silently in your own mind when you are alone.

I want to share what I think is the greatest daily therapy for preventing suicide, and that is: ‘Cultivate Gratefulness.’ It sounds too easy, but think about it. Look at what this one habit of mind can do for you.
I really hope you will read the entire article. To do so, click on "Creation Therapy for Suicidal Thoughts".



Wednesday, June 27, 2018

The Best Evidence for the Young Earth?

Biblical creationists are occasionally requested to give what we consider the best evidence for creation, and closely following, the best evidence that the earth is young. We have quite a bit of scientific and logical evidence for both. However, it is a serious mistake to try to "out evidence" a skeptic, because they often counter with something else (often unrelated — be careful of distractions), then you counter the counter, ad nauseum, even though the evidence is on the side of biblical creationists.

Although evidence for the young earth is on the side of biblical creationists, we need to be very careful how we present it.
Credit: Unsplash / Robert Lukeman
Many times, atheists and evolutionists will reject what we present out of hand because of their naturalistic and deep time presuppositions. They are not in the habit of honestly considering books, videos, articles, and so on, and find rescuing devices. Creationists often have links thrown at us, which can be from atheistic and evolutionary sites, compromising Christians, and so forth. Scoffers have a habit of finding something written for us reg'lar folk and saying, "That doesn't prove the earth is young!" and conveniently forgetting that we have thousands of items to offer, which is another rescuing device.

Christians have presuppositions as well. We should be presupposing the truth of the Word of God. The scientific evidence does support recent creation. The problem is, people have been indoctrinated in the deep time view. As Christians, the Word of God is our ultimate starting point, and it causes serious problems if we put atheistic interpretations of scientific evidence in the magisterial position.

"But Cowboy Bob, the world looks old!"

People do say that, don't they? It looks old...based on what? There is no way to compare old and young worlds, and such opinions are tainted by deep time conditioning.

Don't be disunderstanding me now! Presenting scientific evidence for our position is important, but we must do it right. That is, we cannot "leave the Bible out of it" and discuss on "neutral ground". There is no such thing, and we are agreeing with their naturalistic presuppositions. Worse, we are denying what Scripture says about the mind of the unsaved person. Instead, believe the Bible, and present evidence from a Christian presuppositional framework, which means not divorcing evidence from Scripture. This is one of the most serious problems with the Intelligent Design movement.
In our evangelism we need to present design arguments along with the Scriptures. Don’t let Satan lead you into thinking that in your witness to skeptics who reject the Bible as God’s Word you cannot use the Scriptures at the same time as you use apologetics. Use Scripture and apologetics and never forget that whether people believe it or not, the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God and is sharper than a two-edged sword (Hebrews 4:12). Faith comes from hearing the Word of Christ (Romans 10:17).
I agree with you that “to bring intellectuals to Christ takes good apologetics, love, prayer, and patience (or of course, an encounter with God!).” . . . We need to overcome our fear of using the Bible when we talk to skeptics. We must resist their insistence that we leave the Bible out of the discussion. It doesn’t matter if they don’t believe the Bible. God promises to honor his Word as we humbly and respectfully share it with others. We also need to expose and refute their faulty philosophical presuppositions (which most intellectual skeptics don’t even realize they have).
I'd be much obliged if you'd read the entire article, which also includes a passel of links to useful material. To read it, click on "What Is the Most Compelling Scientific Evidence of a Young Earth?"