Wednesday, December 12, 2018

William Lane Craig and Other Genesis Deniers

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Wisdom itself beings with God (Prov. 1:7), and the Bible is to be the foundation for the Christian's thinking in all areas (Psalm 119:105, 2 Tim. 3:16-17, Rom. 11:33). As we have seen in several articles here and on other biblical creation sites, Genesis is the source of all major Christian doctrines. Some professing Christians as well as atheists, old earth proponents, and other anti-creationists reject the authority of the Bible and attack not only the truth of God's Word, but also the people who take their stand on it.


There are people who reject the authority and plain teaching of God's Word, especially about creation. William Lane Craig is great at defeating atheism, but he mocks biblical creationists.
Credit: Pixabay / Jeff Jacobs

The Wisdom of the World

The Christian's faith is established in God, not in the ever-changing whims of man-made science philosophies. For example, some have joyously stated that proof of the Big Bang validates the Bible, only to have the evidence pulled out from under them. If someone's faith is based entirely on secular interpretations of science, they have little to support their beliefs when scientists change their minds. The wisdom and ways of God are far above those of man (1 Cor. 1:18-25, 2 Cor. 10:4-5 ESV).

The first line of offense for anti-creationists is to attack the person with ad hominem remarks and ridicule. If you read comments on posts, forums, and so forth, the hatred is palpable. They also blatantly misrepresent Scripture and creationists. Although denying the Bible, some (like this tinhorn) pretend to understand it and use it to demonize creationists. I do not say this lightly: such people are evil, seeking to destroy under the pretense of defending "science". Only their narrow, rigid views are to be tolerated, and the views of people who disagree are to be silenced. This silencing is often attempted through the aforementioned ridicule and misrepresentation.

Unequally Yoked

A frequent admonition for Christians who are considering marrying unbelievers is found in 2 Corinthians 6:14. The most common translation is that we are not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers, and some render it mismatched, bound together or similar expressions. It is also used in counsel regarding business partnerships with unbelievers. Christians should also avoid other alliances with those in rebellion against God.

Some professing Christians are willing to ride with atheists for the anti-creationist brand and ridicule not only biblical creation science, but the people who proclaim it as well — and many do it with fervor, giving aid and comfort to enemies of God. I reckon John 13:35 has been blotted out of their Bibles, as well as other verses about showing love for Christian brethren and for God's Word. This makes me wonder if they've actually read the New Testament.

I have seen some misotheists say they can accept some "moderate" Christians as long as they reject recent creation and the Genesis Flood. As regular readers have seen or a search of the site will reveal, denying the Flood is required by old earth and theistic evolutionary views but essentially calls Jesus, Peter, Paul and other who affirm the Flood to be liars! That is not "moderate" by any means.

Teaming up with unbelievers to ridicule believers really takes the rag off the bush. They are elevating atheistic interpretations of science to the magisterial position above God's Word as the final authority, which opposes the Bible that they claim to believe. It's who they are and what they do. God meant what he said about creation, and he said it plainly, old son.

People in rebellion against God hate Bible-believing Christians because rebels hate Jesus (John 15:18, 2 Tim. 3:12). Why does the world hate him? Because he testifies of it (John 7:6-7) and people will stand before him at the Judgement (Jude 1:14-15, Rev. 20:12-13). If you profess to follow Christ but join with unbelievers, I strongly recommend that you examine yourself to see if you are indeed in the faith. Also, are these folks with such venomous ejecta the kind you really want to associate with?

William Lane Craig Denies Recent Creation

Dr. Craig has openly mocked biblical creationists. He does not perform proper exegesis, preferring philosophy to biblical authority. Yes, he devastates atheism and affirms theism, but incompletely because he does not present the true God of the Bible.

Now I'm going to recommend an article by Dr. Jason Lisle. He expands on some of the things I mentioned earlier, and he shows how Craig's thinking is confused and is loaded with bad theology.
Our critic this week is Dr. William Lane Craig, a philosophy professor and Christian apologist.  Although Craig defends Scripture in some areas, he adamantly denies literal (6-day) creation in favor of the big bang and secular timescale.  Last week [November 18, 2018] he responded to a question posted on his blog.  His response seems to indicate a lack of faith in the clarity and authority of God’s Word, and a misplaced confidence in the opinions of fallible men.  This highlights the difference between classical/evidential apologists like Craig, and those apologists who embrace biblical authority as the ultimate presupposition by which all experience is made intelligible.
To read the rest of this important article, click on "William Lane Craig on Genesis". Also, I recommend a video message by Adrian Rogers, "Your Friendly Enemy".



Tuesday, December 4, 2018

The Reliability of the Chronicle of Adam

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It is easy to wonder about the accuracy and reliability of biblical history, what with the events happening such a long time ago and all. People disagree about events in much more recent history such as the World War II, for example. How do we know that the oldest narrative it correct?


People may wonder how Moses knew the events of Genesis so he could write them accurately.
Credit: RGBStock / Billy Frank Alexander
Yes, I'll allow that it's been a mighty long time between then and now, and things are very different. People may think of those games where one person tells another down the line, then it turns out that the last person hears something very different from the original story. Well, isn't that how we received the biblical texts? They had oral transmission until someone got the notion to invent writing, so mayhaps the Eden account was a bit fouled up before Moses commenced to setting down the events? That's a fair question.

Hold up a minute there, Hoss. 2 Timothy 3:16 NIV tells us that Scripture is God-breathed. (Many translations are less direct, using the word inspired.) Even if writing did not exist until long after the events of Genesis, we can still trust God that God has given us the truth.

The idea that writing did not exist until after humans had existed for a few hundred thousand years is based on Darwinist presuppositions. Even people who reject evolution may also accept the notion that there was no writing from the beginning.

Biblical creationists have made a compelling case that writing (as well as language and intelligence) existed from the beginning — Adam and Eve were created with everything they needed to survive in the newly-minted world, including the ability to write.  Dr. Ben Scripture had a podcast where he affirmed that he also believes that Adam (and later authors) write some materials which were preserved until Moses edited them. He also had some other interesting things to say. I hope you'll spare 13-1/2 minutes and give it a listen.



Tuesday, November 27, 2018

Design and Illusion

One of the most basic appeals to intelligent design is to say that a building needs a builder, a painting needs a painter, music needs a composer, and the far more complex things of life itself need a Master Designer. A bit simplistic, I'll allow, but it does make a point. Even children can see something and will intrinsically ask, "Who made that?" Atheists and evolutionists tell us we're nuts, that things only appear to be designed; things that we perceive as having patterns are nothing more than apophenia. This veiled ad hominem is actually a statement of metaphysics based on atheistic presuppositions; it has nothing to do with science.


Atheists and evolutionists claim that there is no design in nature, it only looks that way. Then they appeal to invisible imaginary agencies of evolution while implying that we are insane.
Credit: Unsplash / rawpixel
Atheists like Michael Shermer tell us that we evolved that ability to avoid predators. How he "knows" this is a mystery. People like this who say that there is no intelligent agency designing life are suppressing the truth about the Creator they know exists (Rom. 1:18-23). More than that, they appeal to invisible imaginary agencies that guide particles-to-pretender evolution. Mere assertions from misotheists who are Making Things Up™ are not exactly factual. Not by a long shot. It takes willful ignorance to deny the obvious specified complexities in organisms.
Life looks like it was designed. Even Richard Dawkins admits it: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”1 It seems biology cannot do without design language. However, evolutionists say life is a result of mindless processes, not design. So, if life is not designed, why does it fool us so readily into thinking it is? Some evolutionists try to explain why the appearance of design in biology is convincing though misleading—with a phenomenon called ‘apophenia’. Apophenia is ‘seeing meaningful connections in random phenomena’. Put simply, the idea is that the appearance of design in biology is just a trick of the way our brains work.
To read the rest, click on "Design: just a trick of the mind?"


Tuesday, November 20, 2018

Matt Walsh and the Age of the Earth

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Edited about 22 hours after initial posting.

Matt Walsh has a strong pro-life view, stands up for politically conservative values, and has an excellent sense of humor. I have occasionally linked to him, and his material spurred me to do some writing (such as "It's Not My Fault!"). Unfortunately, he is bothersome to many of his supporters when he discusses theology. What really took the rag off the bush is when he decided to slap leather with biblical creation science.


Matt Walsh has been attacking creation science, but does not use logic in his reactions.
Credit: Freeimages / Robb Kiser
Matt seems like the kind of guy that I could hang out with, and we could have some interesting discussions. Unfortunately, he is a staunch defender of Roman Catholicism and has weak theological foundations. When he threw down on creation science, I posted a couple of articles at The Question Evolution Project. The first one was by Peter Heck, "Why Matt Walsh is Dangerously Wrong About Genesis". Later, I posted an article by Paul Price at Creation Ministries International, "Apologist Matt Walsh makes a seriously uninformed attack on biblical creationism". 

Later, I did not read an article by Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis, but still attempted to engage Walsh (again) on Twitter:


Walsh is upset, and his bad reasoning and personal attacks have been exposed.
Click for larger
For some reason, he really got upset about the Ken Ham response and made a video. Interesting that he ignored other articles refuting his positions. Regular readers know that creationists encourage critical thinking, and I encourage people to develop skills at spotting informal logical fallacies. Walsh reacted in the same way as atheists, liberal Christians, and other anti-creationists when dealing with biblical creation science. He used prejudicial conjecture (using words without knowledge because he did not research the subject), ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, and more. He also called Ham a liar. 

If you call someone a liar but do not show valid reasons for the accusation, you are the liar, old son. 

Such attitudes and actions are like those of a certain misotheist who hates Ken with a passion, and assumes Ham is lying. Evidence? In his mind, Ken Ham is a liar and the misotheist is right because he hates Ken (makes perfect sense). His proof is by using the fallacy of repeated assertion, but all he does is display his bigotry. I doubt that Walsh would be interested in the support of someone who called God a liar and is logic impaired. By the way, he also ignored the other creationist articles refuting Matt, but seems to seek relevance by attacking Ham. In fact, Walsh called Ham a liar and demanded an apology for things that were never said, and Walsh owes Ham an apology!

It is interesting that Matt Walsh acts just like Bill Nye in many ways. Both have singled out Ken Ham, as if he was the only creationist out there, and act like he is leading an anti-science cult. In fact, there are thousands who are also riding for the creation brand. Many times, creation science has caused secular scientists to realize that their deep time and evolutionary presuppositions are loaded with error. F'rinstance, creationist research on the human-chimp DNA fiasco brought down a long-standing evolutionary falsehood.

Whether in debates or criticism, it is essential to do some reading on the subjects under discussion and to avoid misrepresenting the other side. Walsh, Nye, and that other guy need to learn that attacking the person does not prove that their own positions are correct, you savvy?

We can pray that these folks have their eyes opened by the Holy Spirit, that they humble themselves, and repent. Until then, we can use their attacks for instruction and to warn others about how rejecting God's Word affects the mind. As creationists, we not only emphasize the foundational aspect of Scripture beginning with the very first verse, but also its authority as well. 

Now I'm going to bring you to the most recent response to Matt Walsh by Ken Ham and others at Answers in Genesis. To read it an watch the video, click on "Responding to Matt Walsh on Young-Earth Creation".



Wednesday, November 14, 2018

The Length of the Seventh Day

People riding for the Long Ages brand will tell you that an old earth was accepted by people until young earth creationists rode into down. That is the opposite of the truth. People accepted recent creation until Christians and Jews began compromising with secular science. One bit of trickery that these four-flushers use is to say that the seventh day of creation week is not an actual day.


Some professing Christians who compromise with long ages claim that the seventh day of creation week is not an actual day. This requires eisegesis, and does violence to other areas of Scripture.
Credit: Pixabay / Kai Kalhh
As to why some professing Christians want to cede to secularists and insist that Earth is billions of years, I suspect it's because they want to look intelligent in the eyes of secularists. The only way to get millions or billions of years out of the Bible is to shove them in there first and commence to saying, "Lookie what I found!" Not hardly! This effort to change the obvious meaning of the seventh day requires massive eisegesis and ripping verses out of context (while ignoring others altogether), but doing so also does damage to other areas of Scripture.
It should be noted that God is not still working on the seventh day and that he had finished working the prior day. The seventh day was not a day of creation but a day of rest (Genesis 2:3). Thus God had finished (kala’) all his work, referring to everything in heaven and earth being completed. The words of Genesis 2:1 introduce the completion of God’s creation. The verbs “finished,” “rested,” and “blessed” indicate the uniqueness of this day. The fact that day seven, like the other days, is numbered is further evidence that it is a day of 24 hours (Genesis 2:2–3).
The interpretation that day seven is not a 24-hour day because it lacks “evening and morning” misunderstands the use of this phrase throughout the creation week. Notice that in each of the first six days there is a structure, which is not mentioned on the seventh day, to shape each of the days:
To read the entire article, click on "Is the Seventh Day 24-Hours Long?"


Thursday, November 8, 2018

Gungor, Apostasy, and Bad Foundations

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

One of the most important aspects of the Christian life is to have a strong foundation. As Christians, we are supposed to rely on the Word of God in all matters of our faith (2 Peter 1:19-21, 2 Tim. 3:16-17, Luke 6:47-48). The source of all major Christian doctrines can be found in Genesis. When people build their faith on fun things, liberal theology, emotionalism, personal experiences , and other things instead of Scripture, the results are disastrous. Take a warning from Gungor.


Gungor did not have a solid foundation, which all Christians must have.
Credit: Unsplash / Dominik Scythe
Michael and Lisa Gungor, who performed and recorded as Gungor, were popular in Christian music circles for a while. Michael got on the prod and complained about creation, the Flood, and Genesis. Let me plagiarize a section of my article a bit:
Christian and musician Michael Gungor was in the midst of controversy because of his statements rejecting literal creation. Guess who likes him? Biologos!  Also, this venomous TE also used the Gungor controversy for his own anti-creationist attacks (note the comments from atheists as well). . . . After denying the foundation for the gospel in Genesis, Gungor has progressed to denying the gospel message itself by ridiculing substitutionary atonement and calling it "murder". I wouldn't be at all surprised if Gungor declares himself an atheist.
I don't rightly recollect when this happened, but one bitter apostate was happy about Gungor's attitude and wanted to encourage him. People who reject the truth are happy when others do so. This brings Romans 1:32 to mind.

In the above quote, I said I wouldn't be surprised if he became an atheist. Well, Michael did become an atheist for a year. Is he an atheist now? According to Twitter, he is a "mystic".


Click for larger
Although I saw some atheists happy that he has renounced Christianity, it appears that he does not want to be numbered among them.

Click for larger
Since his strange (possibly pantheistic) belief is "fluid", who knows where he and his wife will end up.

Despite the claims of some professing atheists and tinhorn apostates, there is no such thing as a former Christian. Sure, people have doubts and get confused on some things. To reject Jesus and the Bible after being transformed and adopted (2 Cor. 5:17, Gal. 4:4-7, John 3:3) and become a former Christian is a theological impossibility. Like a song says, you can't lose what you didn't have, and as the Bible says, people who left were never Christians (1 John 2:19).

Now I would like to turn you over to Wretched Radio for more information and discussion. It is the first segment, then a break of about three minutes, followed by a little bit more. The next segment is appropriate for this situation as well if you have a notion to keep listening. To hear online or download, click on this link.


Monday, October 29, 2018

Evolutionism and Earth Goddess Worship

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Evolution is not simply a biological hypothesis, but is actually an ancient pagan belief presented as science. Indeed, when the Apostle Paul was debating with philosophers in Acts 17:16-34, those Epicureans in Acts 18:18 were pagan evolutionists. If you commence to doing some reference digging, you will find that evolutionary beliefs can be seen in ancient Hindu beliefs. Did you ever notice that much of paganism is based on goddess worship?


The "Gaia Hypothesis 2.0" is an even more direct love of paganism presented as 'science.
Gaea (another spelling of Gaia) by Anselm Feuerbach, 1875
You hear the expression "Mother Earth", right? People usually who use the term are generally ignorant of its pagan origins and associations. Same as referring to Earth as Terra (standing on terra firma, the earth), which is the Roman counterpart for the Greek Gaia (or Gaea). The enviornmental movement is, at its core, essentially based on evolution and the rejection of our Creator.

While there are good points in the environmental movement, some of the more extreme environmentalists are into nature worship. Fits right in with the pagan "earth is our mother" religion. The ecosexual movement strikes this child as downright nutty, but the most dangerous aspect is the eco-war on humans.

While true evolutionism requires purposelessness, Papa Darwin began giving evolution through natural selection a personality and advancing pantheism. Man created the false goddess of evolution in his image. The "Gaia Hypothesis" was advanced a few decades ago, but despite the cognitive dissonance of promoting blind chance and randomness versus evolution as a guiding force, pantheism has been waiting in the wings. After all, the increasingly worthless Nobel Prize was awarded for a self-contradictory, self-refuting premise in evolutionism.

Some evolutionist sidewinders are being more blatant in their efforts to deny God by passing off Earth-Terra-Gaia as a living unit. All of evolution is to work together to this point, and boy howdy, you don't want to get Gaia angry. You won't like her when she's angry. We were told this would happen in Romans 1:18-23. If you study on it a while, you may notice something. With the increasing wickedness in the world and hostility of atheopaths toward God (and especially toward the foundations of the gospel in biblical creation), this should not come as much of a surprise.
“The Gaia hypothesis—first articulated by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis in the 1970s—holds that Earth’s physical and biological processes are inextricably connected to form a self-regulating, essentially sentient, system.” Lovelock named his theory after the mythological goddess—venerated as the personification of Earth. His theory was meant to tie together several biological phenomena, particularly the tight-knit cooperation between living organisms, life’s resilience in the face of catastrophic events, and the close association between the organic and inorganic realms. 
All of these observations could be seen as working together with such purposefulness that one explanation for life’s origination is the tremendous wisdom and power of God. In contrast, Lovelock hypothesized that the organic and inorganic components of Earth evolved together so tightly that everything on Earth somehow became melded into a single, self-organizing system that seems to mystically exercise an intrinsic agency. This has led some researchers to ask, “Is Earth really a sort of giant living organism as the Gaia hypothesis predicts?”
To read the entire article from the beginning, click on "Evolutionists Sense Life's Design and Deify Nature".



Tuesday, October 23, 2018

Belief in the Eternal Hell

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It is in the latter part of October as I write this, and people are getting all excited Halloween, which is the most important holiday for witches and Satanists. People get cutesy with it, portraying the Devil as a red dude with a short beard and horns who carries a pitchfork. They often believe he is the the boss of Hell. All of these images are like the crowded bathtub version of Noah's Ark: cute stories for kids, but big people don't believe them. I'll allow that there are more somber depictions of Hell that are a bit closer to biblical reality.

Satan and Hell are often presented as jokes. Both are serious subjects
Fallen angels in Hell by John Martin, ca. 1841
Some rock stars and People who reject or simply do not bother to learn the truth in God's Word are going to having a miserable eternity. We can debate about whether or not the flames of Hell are literal or figurative, but it should be clear that Hell is not a place to go and have wild parties with friends; it will live up to its name. People who believe that Hell is a fun place seem to be smart as the average scarecrow. Study on it a moment: Hell is a place of punishment, not a refuge from people who interfere with your good times, you savvy that? It is not a myth or a joke.

Some aberrant religions like Seventh-Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses, along with an increasing number of professing Christians, believe in what they call conditionalism. That is a new way of saying annihilationism. Either way, they believe that the lost are going to Hell, and they will be consumed by the flames and cease to exist. I have seen adherents of that view focus on converting others to that instead of proclaiming the gospel. (More on this in "Hell, Creation and Side Issues" and its sequel, linked at the end of the article.) A more important question remains.

No matter which view of Hell (annihilationism or eternal torment) that you may accept, we need to make sure that is is theologically sound. While some conditionalists present arguments that sound plausible, they are usually rooted in poor theology. An example of poor theology is where an angry atheist calls creationists "liars" because they present evidence that he dislikes, so they are liars. He uses the Bible that he rejects and the God he denies to send people to Hell. Even if someone did tell a lie, that's not a loss of salvation, old son. Likewise, similar bad theology can be found in the annihilationist camp. God's love and mercy are everlasting, but his nature requires justice as well.

Here is where I offer you some resources.
  • "Is annihilationism biblical?" is a concise article from Got Questions.
  • "Hell is for Liars" (in two parts, the second part is linked at the end of the first) is somewhat tangential to the annihilationism issue, but still has some useful information
  • Finally, I saw a post from Why?Outreach on an examination of annihilationism. It links to an in-depth article in PDF format (I had it converted to my ebook's format, you may wish to do the same) that I recommend for those who are serious about learning. Click here for "The Destruction of Hell: Annihilationism Examined" by Jeff Spencer. It says "Microsoft Word", but it really is a PDF document.
I hope these resources prove helpful. Perhaps they will also motivate people to spread the gospel message to those who are heading for hell. Are you going there? Are you sure you're saved? I urge you to be certain, and check out the "Examine Yourself" section of this site.


Wednesday, October 17, 2018

Faith and Understanding

Every once in a while, some jasper drag this swayback out of the corral: "Faith is believing in something you know isn't true". Great. Now give it a sugar cube and put it back. Such an insult has nothing to do with Christian faith, and also shows ignorance of the real meaning of the word.


Christians must live by faith.
Credit: Freeimages / V Fouche
Everyone has faith in something to one degree or another, but the important thing is where our faith is placed. Christians know (or should know) that it is impossible to please God without faith (Heb. 11:6). Some folks think that faith is blind, or believing for its own sake, but that's not the case. Our faith is supported by evidence, and God's Word is self-attesting as well as supported by evidence. With God's help, we can persevere in an unbelieving culture.
The ‘hall of faith’ in Hebrews 11 is one of the passages that Christians are most familiar with. It is inspiring to look at the recounting of the biblical heroes, and spurs us on to greater faith. But the first example of faith that the author recounts is one practised by all believers.
Hebrews 11:3 tells us:

    “By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.”

There is a lot of content packed in one small verse which is worth looking at in more detail.
To read the rest, click on "By faith … we understand!"



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".