A Response to Calvinism, Pt 1

I'll start by saying that there is a lot of good teaching in Calvinism. I don't think anyone should completely reject the teachings usually associated with it. Many great Christian minds have come to be Calvinists through a careful study of the Scriptures, many of them are heroes of the faith to me. However, I do think that some elements of Calvinism unnecessarily cause confusion and lead people away from trusting the Bible. I want to address those areas in a few posts. I will not address every verse and every argument, I am not writing a book. But I will briefly address what I think are the central issues.

How does Calvinism lead people away from trusting the Bible? Calvinism in popular usage refers to a collection of doctrines related to God's sovereign role in salvation. It is a theological system, defined by five points forming the acronym "Tulip": Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. It claims that a person has no ability to believe in the Gospel and be saved unless God first gives them the "new life" or "new heart" that the Bible associates with salvation. God has predestined a select group for salvation and everyone in that group will believe and be saved. Everyone else will be lost.

This system creates a tension with a number of Bible verses. If you embrace this system as a whole, it is difficult to explain why the Bible says, "God so loved the world..." (John 3:16), or that God "desires all people to be saved" (1 Timothy 2:4). Usually, Calvinists respond that, for various reasons, the words "world," or "all people" in these verses refer only to the ones God chose to save, not all the people in the world. In my opinion, if a theological system leads you to make such a strained interpretation of a straightforward verse, there is something off with that system. It is a kind of lack of trust in the Bible.

So why would someone be a Calvinist? First, some passages in the Bible do teach that God chose to save some and not others. One of the clearest examples is Romans 9:22-24:

"What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath-- prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory-- even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?"

I say some because I think the quantity of these kinds of verses is overstated by Calvinists. Romans 8:29 mentions "predestination" but it is not talking about predestination to believe and be saved, but rather that God has predestined believer in Jesus to be sanctified. There are many examples of Calvinists using the words "predestine" and "chose" in the New Testament to support their system, but in only a few cases are the words actually referring to salvation. However, one verse is all that is needed to say a doctrine is supported by the Bible. The issue is not whether or not God has chosen to save some and not others, but the way in which God goes about accomplishing his purposes.

In many other instances, Calvinists reach their conclusions based on assumptions about what they believe a text implies. This is where problems with biblical interpretation begin. In the rest of this article, I will specifically address how this happens when it comes to "Total Depravity." I will address other aspects in future posts.

First, what is Total Depravity? Calvinists use the term to mean that sin has impacted every aspect of a person. We are all born in slavery to sin and our intellect, emotions, spirit, -everything about us is depraved. This does not mean that every person is as sinful as they could be, or that a sinner always does the worst thing possible in every situation. Rather, our fallen state means that it is impossible for us to act and think in a way that is truly pleasing to God (Romans 8:8). The result is that we are spiritually "dead." So far, so good. Paul writes, "And you were dead in your trespasses and sins," (Ephesians 2:1).

But what does it mean to be spiritually dead? Calvinists believe the phrase implies that a person is incapable of responding to the gospel message and believing in Jesus. Because someone who is physically dead cannot do anything in the physical realm, they reason, so someone spiritually dead cannot do anything in the spiritual realm, like believing in Jesus. They then build an order of salvation around this assumption. Someone must first be "regenerated," or given spiritual life by God. Then they can (and will) believe the gospel. The sinner has nothing to do with God's act of regeneration. God does this for a specific group he has chosen from the very beginning. If God did not choose you, then it is impossible for you to respond to the gospel and be saved. 

But all of these conclusions rest on the assumption that those who are spiritually dead cannot respond to the gospel, an assumption that I do not think the Bible supports. For starters, even Calvinists must admit that spiritually dead people can do some things. For instance, they will face God in the judgment. So to say that spiritual death is equal to physical death in that you cannot do anything at all is to press the metaphor too far. So what does the Bible mean by spiritual death? Let's look to the Bible to find out, not our own assumptions. Here are two key passages:

"And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses." -Colossians 2:13

"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life." -John 5:24

In both cases, going from death to life has to do with having your sins forgiven. You are spiritually dead if you are guilty before God. You are heading to judgment where you will be condemned. You have no hope of doing anything to make yourself right before him. You are doomed to eternal separation from God. But when God forgives you, then you are spiritually alive. Thus the Bible uses the term to refer to hopelessness in your own ability to secure salvation apart from the gospel, not hopelessness to respond to the gospel apart from God first making you alive. 

See also John 3:36:  "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

Again, eternal life is contrasted with not having God's wrath on you. Also, note that someone who believes has eternal life. The verse does not say that the one who has eternal life believes, as the Calvinist supposes. In fact, many verses contradict the order of salvation in the Calvinist system. In Acts 16:31 we read, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved!" Paul does not say, "Be saved, and you will believe in the Lord Jesus!" 

The Calvinist may also argue that someone who is not saved cannot put faith in Jesus because that would be a good work, and we are not saved by works (Ephesians 2:8-9). Again, that is an assumption that the biblical text does not support. When the Bible says we are saved by grace and not works, it does not mean that unbelievers can never do anything good. It means that no good work can justify us before God. We cannot get any closer to salvation through our works. Faith in Jesus is the same way. Faith does not make us justified before God. I cannot say that my faith in Jesus makes me any closer to being righteous before God. My choosing to stop rejecting Jesus is not a good work that earns a reward from God. That would be like saying that "Because I chose not to murder someone I was angry with yesterday, God owes me salvation!"  No, that doesn't earn me anything from God. Rather, I am saved through faith. God chooses to give salvation to those who have faith. Salvation is entirely his work. Paul also goes to great lengths to demonstrate that faith is not a good work in Romans 4. 

In Part 2, I will discuss Irresistible Grace and get to what I think is a more biblical understanding of Romans 9:22-24. Click here to go to Part 2.

Trust the Bible's purpose is to grow your confidence that the Bible is true and the ultimate resource for life." You can join the Facebook group by clicking here. Trust the Bible is a weekday radio program that begins at about 8:10 each morning on WDOG 93.5 in Allendale, SC. Listen to previous programs online: www.fairfaxfbc.org/trust-the-bible.html

Legalism

500 years ago, Martin Luther is credited with starting the Protestant Reformation. This wasn't so much a battle against the Roman Catholic Church, but legalism- a battle that Christians must fight continuously in denominations, churches, and in the hearts of individual believers. On the other hand, there sometimes seems to be an overreaction to legalism. "Legalism!" is the standard reply to almost any church group seeking to uphold a moral standard that the accuser disagrees with. In actuality, I don't think the problem is an overreaction but rather a misunderstanding of what legalism is. So what is legalism, really?

Jesus battled legalism in an insightful dispute with the Pharisees in Matthew 15:1-9. They asked Jesus, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!" Now, there was nothing necessarily wrong with this question, depending on the way it was asked. In their tradition, "hand washing" had nothing to do with hygiene, it was a ceremonial dipping of the hands in a bowl of water to demonstrate concern for purity laws in the Old Testament. It was like a baptism, but only for the hands. Because they probably shared a bowl, this "washing" actually helped spread germs! Although the practice wasn't commanded in the Old Testament, the Pharisees saw it as a helpful way to focus on Old Testament purity laws, similar to how Christians today have a tradition of praying before we eat to keep our focus on God during the day (praying before eating is sometimes modeled in the Bible but never commanded). 

Traditions like this often are helpful. But watch out for two things. First, we must never think that doing any kind of deed, even those commanded in Scripture, are necessary to maintain our goodness or God's favor. Second, we cannot elevate traditions to the level of a command we believe everyone should follow. Jesus' response shows that the Pharisees were guilty of both, and also a third issue that we don't usually associate with legalism- lawlessness. However, when you think about it, these three things (works-based salvation, imposing traditions on others as commands, and lawlessness) are all inevitably tied together. Seeing why they come together helps us get to the root problem, which is what Jesus does in his response.

"Jesus replied, 'And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?'" (Mt. 15:3). First, notice that he is not defensive in his answer. He doesn't give excuses or even an explanation for his actions. Instead, he goes on offense. Jesus isn't fooled at all. He knows this is more than an innocent question. He sees the Pharisees' hearts (15:8). He knows they are really saying, (and not asking) "Some Rabbi you are! You and your disciples don't measure up to us and our goodness because you don't even wash your hands before you eat."

Second, Jesus doesn't really attack what we would expect. We expect him to go after the judgmental way in which they seek to impose their own human traditions on those around them. While he does do that, the main thrust of his attack is actually against their lawlessness - they "break the command of God," (Mt. 15:3) and they "nullify the word of God." (Mt. 15:6)

Finally, Jesus identifies the underlying issue. They don't actually like God's law, and they don't like God's law because they don't like God! Although they set themselves up to be the only legitimate followers of God, they don't even like him. Jesus says that their hearts are far from God (Mat. 15:8). 

Lawlessness is probably best captured by the question, "Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?" (Rom. 6:1) This was a common reaction to the message that God freely gives complete righteousness to any person, no matter how sinful, that puts their trust in Christ. "If that's the case," the skeptic asks, "what will keep someone from becoming even more sinful?" This is actually a legalistic response, based on the assumption that following the law is a necessary component of one's right standing before God. However, in an effort to avoid legalism, some groups in church history have actually embraced the mentality of "everything goes." 

The "Adamites" are an early example of this, dating back to the 2nd Century. They held that their actions could never be good or bad, so they considered themselves free to disregard moral laws. They did not marry because, they argued, Adam didn't get married. They also worshiped nude! 

This kind of behavior seems to be the opposite of the oppressive, rule-obsessed Pharisees. But Jesus is saying that they are actually one and the same. Here are the steps to full-blown legalism:

1. Dislike God's law. View it as a burden imposed on us by a tyrannical God.

2. React to the Gospel in one of two ways.

    A. One way is the classic, legalist response: "I've been sacrificing and straining under this law for years now. Certainly that must count for something!" Those responding this way will always seek to hold on to their own works as something that contributes to their salvation in some way. 

    B. The other is the classic lawless response: "I am completely forgiven no matter what I do? Yes Now I can do all the sins I want to do an not worry about any consequences!" This group will use "Legalism!" as the standard excuse to disregard preaching that emphasizes the importance of God's law or growing in holiness.

3. Replace God's law with human rules and traditions. Ultimately, both groups implement a law of their own making that replaces God's law. Jesus gives a specific example of how the Pharisees did this in Matthew 15. The "lawless" Adamites also did this. To "fit in" with them and join in their     worship you had to conform to their man-made rules: no clothes in worship and no getting married. In reality, both groups are motivated by the same thing and both groups wind up in the same place. They both insist on following man-made rules to truly "belong" among God's people. In short, I think the best definition of legalism is what Jesus says in Mat. 15:6, "nullifying the word of God for the sake of your tradition."

Roman Catholics also did this. Luther's 95 theses specifically responded to the idea of selling "indulgences," a way in which one could purchase an official document from the church that would

bring  an end to a person's suffering for sin (usually a deceased family member). Grace was for sale! Luther gave the same response that Jesus gave to the Pharisees, "You nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition." Here the legalists were creating a works-based salvation (pay money) in contradiction to the word of God (repent and believe in Jesus) in order to make the gospel more comfortable (and profitable) for those who don't truly love God's law from the heart. The root problem of legalism has come up again and again both before the reformation and since.

What is the remedy? In part, it is to remember that salvation is by God's grace and not our works. However, I would caution that most legalists will say that they believe in grace. The Pharisees believed that salvation was by grace. Jesus summarized the Pharisees' attitude with a parable in which the Pharisee was quoted as saying, "God, I thank you that I am not like other people - robbers, evildoers, adulterers - or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get." (Lk. 18:11-12). Notice that he is clearly a legalist. He thinks God will be impressed with his works. But he also believes in grace, crediting God that he is not sinful like others, "God, I thank you that I am not like..."

Roman Catholics also taught that salvation was by grace, and yet... you had to do certain things to get that grace. It wasn't simply receiving it by faith as the Bible proclaims, but attending mass, saying certain prayers to the saints, or even purchasing indulgences.

Grace will always devolve into grace + works (which isn't really grace) without one key component, which is to truly love God and thus love his law and his commands. The commands are not a burden but rather a gracious revelation of the way to true joy and peace. Jesus put it this way, "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest." (Mat. 11:28) Jesus was not taking about rest from a burdensome law, but rest in the law. He continued, "Take my yoke upon you and learn from me," learn what? His commands. God's commands. 

All of us are in danger of legalism, including those who are truly saved. Even Peter slipped into legalism. Even after preaching some of the greatest sermons on God's grace, Paul had to rebuke him for slipping into legalism (see Galatians 2:11-16). The way out is to renew our love for God. This is also what Martin Luther experienced in his life. After years of struggling, and I mean struggling, with the weight of the law, Luther suddenly shifted in his view of God while reading Romans 1:17. Once he saw God as primarily a loving God, rather than a judging God, he was free to see that salvation really is by grace alone by a God who is ready and eager to save the worst of sinners. We must always keep our eyes on Christ crucified, the ultimate demonstration that God is a loving God. "God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Rom. 5:8) 

Trust the Bible's purpose is to grow your confidence that the Bible is true and the ultimate resource for life." You can join the Facebook group by clicking here. Trust the Bible is a weekday radio program that begins at about 8:10 each morning on WDOG 93.5 in Allendale, SC. Listen to previous programs online: www.fairfaxfbc.org/trust-the-bible.html

Are Aliens in the Bible?

"This was the appearance and structure of the wheels: They sparkled like chrysolite, and all four looked alike. Each appeared to be made like a wheel intersecting a wheel. As they moved, they would go in any one of the four directions the creatures faced; the wheels did not turn about as the creatures went. Their rims were high and awesome, and all four rims were full of eyes all around." -Ezekiel 1:16-18

Many UFO enthusiasts have noted that Ezekiel seems to describe something similar to what many others report seeing in the sky. Are UFOs real? Yes! There are thousands of reports from people who see objects in the sky that they cannot identify, so technically, there are "Unidentified Flying Objects." But what are these objects? There are three basic views for us to consider:

1. The natural view. There is a reasonable, natural explanation for all observed phenomena.
2. The natural, extraterrestrial view. UFOs are sometimes reported because beings from another planet have travelled here and are occasionally seen. They are researching us for some purpose.
3. A supernatural view. The Bible teaches that invisible, supernatural beings are real and can sometimes be seen. This is a sufficient explanation for genuine reports of UFOs. 

I think the first view is insufficient to account for all the evidence. Certainly, in many cases a natural explanation is available. Someone saw a military aircraft at night, or there was a meteorite recorded at the same time as the sighting. However, many cases defy any known explanation. Supporters of the first view insist that fraud, drugs, mental illness, general confusion, or some other explanation exists even if we don't know what it is. You may think the idea of seeing an actual flying saucer is silly, but the evidence supports that something is going on. For instance, researchers have studied reported UFO landing sites and the resulting damage left behind. Sometimes the land is scorched or circular depressions are left behind. In one site the compression indicates a thirty-ton object. Vegetation is damaged in the form of extreme aging, with no known natural explanation that could produce such effects. Multiple and credible sounding eye witnesses often give complementary and convincing testimonies of seeing things at sights like this. (See Hugh Ross, "Lights in the Sky," Ted Phillips Jr., "Physical Traces Associated with UFO Sightings," and Richard Hall, "The UFO Evidence: A Thirty-Year Report," for more details).

The extraterrestrial view also doesn't work. If intelligent beings do exist outside of our planet, they would have to come from a distant solar system. Even very technologically advanced beings cannot break the laws of physics. The vast amounts of time required to travel such great distances make this theory unworkable, even if E.T. sounds like an attractive option!

The Bible offers an explanation that better accounts for all the data. There really are many supernatural beings that can influence our world but are generally invisible to us. Ezekiel is not confirming the existence of extraterrestrial flying saucers, he is saying that appearances of things like this are unusual glimpses of very real spiritual beings that the Bible either calls angels or demons (fallen angels). In 2 Kings 6:16-18, Elisha prays that his servant's eyes will open so he can see an entire army of angels surrounding the city that apparently were only visible to Elisha. The Bible frequently speaks of supernatural beings that are fighting and working in our world. (See Daniel 10:12-13, or 1 Corinthians 10:20 for a few other examples). The Bible tells us that some people can see these beings at special times, and that the beings are able to impact our world (they caused an army to go blind in 2 Kings 6). This matches what we would expect in the numerous UFO reports we hear about. Visual observations are made, but there is never any direct physical evidence, only impacts on the physical world such as changes in the condition of plants.

Those who report communicating with "aliens" also exhibit general patterns that fit in line with what we should expect from a biblical worldview. Many cults start with communication from aliens, such as Heaven's Gate. Religious ideas that come from these beings reject basic Christian teachings (see "The Urantia Book," for example). This is in perfect agreement with what we should expect from demons, who serve Satan and lie in order to lead people away from the true God. Jesus said the devil, "was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and he father of lies."

Once again, the Bible offers the most trustworthy explanation for our experiences. The Bible guides us to truth, and truth is most fully revealed in the person of Jesus Christ.


Trust the Bible's purpose is to grow your confidence that the Bible is true and the ultimate resource for life." You can join the Facebook group by clicking here. Trust the Bible is a weekday radio program that begins at about 8:10 each morning on WDOG 93.5 in Allendale, SC. Listen to previous programs online: www.fairfaxfbc.org/trust-the-bible.html

Is It Really Wrong?

Our culture increasingly says that nothing is really right or wrong. Although people say this, I don't think they really mean it, and the fact that people really do believe in morality tells us we can trust the Bible. Let me begin to explain what I mean by asking you to take a short quiz. Just tell me if each of the following statements is a fact or opinion:

1. The best ice cream flavor is chocolate. Fact or opinion?

2. George Washington was the first U.S. president. Fact or opinion?

Clearly #1 is an opinion. One person may agree, while another may disagree, and they can both be right. The answer depends on the tastes and preferences of the one you are asking.

Statement #2 is a fact. No matter how a person answers the question, there is only one right answer. An individual may claim a different person was president first, but that doesn't make it so. Only one person could actually be the first U.S. president.

Let's continue the quiz:

3. The University of Florida is the best place to go to college. Fact or opinion?

4. San Antonio is the capitol of the United States.

#3 is an opinion (one I happen to share). But our agreeing or disagreeing with the statement doesn't matter. The answer depends on what you value most. Are sports the most important thing in determining the answer to this question, and if so, which sports? What about average GPAs, or affordability? People will have different answers to this question depending on what they value the most. There is no one right answer.

#4 is a fact. Even though it is a false fact, it is still a fact. There is only one right answer to this question. Someone can't say, "But my opinion is that San Antonio is the capitol of the United States." It doesn't matter what your opinion is, the capitol is still Washington D.C.

How about this next one:

5. Abortion is always wrong.

This is where things get interesting. This is a statement about morality. Is it a fact -- is there only one right answer? Or is it an opinion -- does the answer depend on who you are asking? If you say "opinion," you are not alone. More and more people see it that way, especially among younger generations. But the Bible clearly teaches this is a fact (whether or not it is correct is besides the point), and I think you agree that it is a fact whether you are willing to admit it or not.

Take for example the horrible atrocities committed by the Nazis. Notice by the words horrible atrocities I have already declared that the acts were morally wrong. But the Nazis might argue that is just my opinion. In their opinion they were doing what was necessary and right for the good of the pure German race. If morality is merely opinion and there is no right or wrong position, then they would have a fair point. I have my opinion, they have theirs. Who's to say that one opinion is better than the other?

I emphasized "who's" because this is the crux of the debate. If there is no God, then there are no moral absolutes. Every person has an equal claim to authority on matters of morality. Only if there is someone above mankind in authority is there someone to say which side is right.

The Bible describes God as occupying this position. He created the universe, our world, and all living things. He is therefore the rightful authority over the world. He has decreed moral laws and will ultimately hold us accountable to those laws. Questions about morality are ultimately questions about the laws God has given to us. And God has not left us without evidence that he has indeed set up moral laws, just as he set up physical laws that govern the universe. Paul wrote:

"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them." -Romans 2:14-15

According to the Bible, we all know that there is a real right and wrong because God gave us a conscience so that we would know.

Consider the Nazis again. Do you think they were wrong to torture and murder young, innocent children? Yes, you do. Is that just your opinion? If you are honest, you know that it isn't. Suppose that the Nazis won World War II. Suppose they imposed their rule over the entire world. Suppose they rewrote every history book to celebrate their actions during the war. Suppose they killed anyone who disagreed. Suppose everyone alive today thought that what they did was good. Would that make it right? Of course not, it would still be wrong. You know it. You know when someone mistreats you that it is wrong. You know that it is really wrong, even though our culture pressures us to say it's just an opinion.

The only reasonable explanation for our awareness of moral absolutes is that God is real and that he is a real law-giver.

Trust the Bible's purpose is to grow your confidence that the Bible is true and the ultimate resource for life." You can join the Facebook group by clicking here. Trust the Bible is a weekday radio program that begins at about 8:10 each morning on WDOG 93.5 in Allendale, SC. Listen to previous programs online: www.fairfaxfbc.org/trust-the-bible.html

How to Defeat Evolution

1. Define "evolution." Evolution can mean many different things. Don't try to defeat every type of evolution, because everyone agrees in some kind of evolution. For instance, evolution can simply mean "change over time." Well, of course everyone acknowledges that life forms on earth today are at least somewhat different than they were thousands of years ago. At a minimum, some animals have gone extinct while some new variations of domestic animals (such as types of dogs) are now here. But when I talk about "defeating evolution," I mean the kind that undermines the claims of the Bible. I believe we have every reason to trust the Bible and not evolution. I am using the term evolution to refer to the theory that all life forms existing today came about entirely through natural processes. Chance, chemical reactions, and natural selection alone can account for the appearance of life and all variations of life that exist.

2. Explain the problem of evolution. God's Word tells us that "what may be known about God is plain," and that "his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made" (Romans 1:19-20). If we look at a famous painting of George Washington, we know right away that someone painted it. We know that the wind did not knock over a set of paints and -- out came a wonderful portrait! The painting is proof of a painter. In the same way, when we look at creation, it tells us there is a creator. The amazing complexities of life tell us there is a powerful and creative God who designed life on earth. I am saying evolution is a problem because it suppresses the truth about God. God warns against this, stating that "the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness" (Romans 1:18). This warning specifically targets those who suppress the truth about God that is evident in creation. God says creation itself makes it plain to us that He is real. Evolution tries to say, "No, that is not a necessary conclusion, it actually came about without any divine involvement whatsoever." If that is true, there really is little reason to believe in God at all, at least not like the God of the Bible. But if it is false, then we have every reason to believe in God.

3. Keep it Simple. You don't need to argue against every step in the process of evolution. Many Christians will object to the whole concept of "defeating evolution." They may say, "But I believe God used evolution to create life on earth." We could debate how much evolution played a role in creating different types of life. We all agree that evolution played some role. Debating the extent of evolution's role can get complicated. Tackling a broad range of topics is overwhelming and that is exactly why you must define evolution at the start. The moment a person says they think "God used evolution to create..." they are talking about a different kind of evolution. They are not talking about an evolution that seeks to explain how all life came about by purely natural processes. They are acknowledging that natural processes alone cannot account for the origin of life, and that is the most important point for people to see. A discussion about how much of a role evolution played is an important exercise in interpreting Scripture properly, but it is not necessary to defeat evolution the way that evolution is most commonly used and the way it is defined above.

4. Focus on the origin of life. With the "keep it simple" principle in mind, always focus on the origin of the first living thing when you are trying to defeat evolution. You could argue specifically against human evolution. Or, perhaps against the ability of natural selection alone to account for great advances in the complexity of life forms. But it is easy to get bogged down in the details. To defeat evolution, you only have to show that evolution is implausible in one area, and the origin of life is evolution's weakest point. Everyone agrees that at one time in history there was no life on earth. Then, in the next moment, there was a living thing. The trouble with evolution is that no one can explain how this happened through purely natural processes. You can see this come out in an interview with one of the world's leading proponents of evolution, Richard Dawkins.  Ben Stein asks him how life began in the movie, "Expelled." If you have not seen this before, it is only six minutes long and is well worth your time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc&t=287s
Dawkins has no ability to answer the question. Science has greatly advanced our understanding of how incredibly complicated even the simplest life forms are. Each one is a machine made of many separate machines with intricate parts working together to make an organism live. In the past it may not have seemed implausible that, given enough time, life could arise spontaneously. However, advances in our understanding of the cell demand some explanation as to how the first life could develop from non-life. There is simply no way to imagine it all coming together randomly.

Responding to Objections:
The "God of the gaps" argument: In this response the evolutionist admits that there is no known scientific explanation of where the first life came from. However, they add that this does not mean one should jump to conclusions that God did it. Such an approach is to find proof for God in every gap that exists in scientific knowledge. In time, science will find explanations that offer better solutions than God.
This argument has two problems. (1) It assumes that there is a scientific answer that is better, we just haven't found it yet. This is a "science of the gaps" argument. Every time a gap in our ability to explain things through nature arises, just assume that science is the answer and not God, even though no scientific evidence currently exists. This is nothing more than blind faith in science. (2) Gaps in naturalistic explanations for the origin of life are not shrinking, they are growing. The more we know about the processes inside the simplest organisms, the more difficult it is becoming to account for how these could have come about through natural processes alone. In other words, there is growing evidence that science will never close this gap. It is a gap that only grows bigger as science advances. It is much more reasonable to actually follow where the evidence leads, not put blind faith in what you want to be true. The evidence from the existence of life points to God, just as the Bible says.

"But there is so much evidence for evolution": Much of the evidence is not really evidence that favors evolution instead of creation. Rather, it is evidence that evolution is the best explanation if we assume there is no creator. Much of the argumentation for evolution states at the outset that science is the search for the best natural explanation. So evolution may win the argument that it offers the best natural explanation for the development for life, but that doesn't mean it is the best explanation, only the best explanation when the main competing argument, creation, is taken off the table from the start. For example, many textbooks supporting evolution contain charts pointing to similarities in the structure of different organisms, like the bones in the arm of a man, chimpanzee, and a bat. If there is no creator, than a physical relationship is the best explanation for these similarities. However, these comparisons make just as much sense if the same creator designed them all.

In addition, even if there is a lot of evidence for certain steps in the process of evolution, the theory still falls apart if one of the phases lacks support. I believe that is the case when it comes to the origin of life. There is no evidence for a natural origin of life, and loads of evidence that there could not be one. We can trust the Bible when it says "what may be known about God is plain." 

Trust the Bible's purpose is to grow your confidence that the Bible is true and the ultimate resource for life." You can join the Facebook group by clicking here. Trust the Bible is a weekday radio program that begins at about 8:10 each morning on WDOG 93.5 in Allendale, SC. Listen to previous programs online: www.fairfaxfbc.org/trust-the-bible.html

Revelation 12, The Eclipse, and Prophetic "Signs"

Along with the recent solar eclipse, a "sign" in the sky that will occur on September 23, 2017 is getting a lot of attention in social media. What is all the hype about and what does the Bible really say about it?

First, the Bible does say that God can use the sun, moon, and stars for signs. In fact, he appointed the lights to "serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years," in Genesis 1:14. But do they do more than signal changes in seasons and times? In Joel 2:31 God says, "The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD." The moon turning to blood is a phrase that has historically referred to a lunar eclipse (the earth's shadow covering the moon). Perhaps the "sun will be turned to darkness" description refers to a solar eclipse.

Does the recent solar eclipse contain a special warning related to end time events? No, for several reasons. The most important one is that the prophecy in Joel has already been fulfilled! As much as people speak about this being an "end time" prophecy, Peter quite clearly proclaimed that it occurred on the day of Jesus' crucifixion during his Pentecost sermon in Acts 2. He told a crowd gathered outside of the temple 50 days after the crucifixion that they all knew about the signs God performed to proclaim Jesus as the Messiah (Acts 2:22). This came right after announcing that the prophecy in Joel about the sun and moon had been fulfilled (Acts 2:15-20).

The Bible tells us that the sun did turn to darkness on that day. This and other signs led even the Roman centurion to proclaim that Jesus was "the Son of God!" (Mark 15:33-39) We also know from computer software that there was a lunar eclipse visible from Jerusalem on the night of April 3rd, 33 AD, the most likely date of Christ's crucifixion. The moon turned to blood that very day! The darkness that occurred during the afternoon hours was not a solar eclipse, for they only bring darkness for a few minutes, not hours as the Bible records. Also, we know that there was no solar eclipse that day. No, this was either a direct act of God or an indirect miracle through the use of volcanic ash associated with the earthquake that the Bible also tells us about. Joel even spoke of "blood and fire and billows of smoke" associated with the darkening of the sun (Joel 2:30).

So the prophecy of the sun turning to darkness was a specific sign that proclaimed Jesus as God's appointed savior. It occurred long ago and wasn't even a solar eclipse. In addition, solar eclipses occur frequently somewhere in the world and so far have not signaled the return of Christ or the apocalypse, nor can they.

What about the recent solar eclipse or the one that will occur in America in 2024? Maybe it is not a sign of the end of the world, but judgment on America. Again, no. Eclipses occur frequently, and there is no evidence that they are accompanied by terrible events. There is also no biblical basis for interpreting them this way, it is pure imagination.

But what about the "Revelation 12 sign" that will occur on September 23rd? I believe it is possible for God to make such a sign. The God who can place the moon in just the right place to be eclipsed the same day as the crucifixion may have "programmed" other special events in the sky on important dates. What is arguably happening on September 23rd is the fulfillment of the imagery written about in Revelation 12. This passage describes a woman, clothed with the sun, with the moon at her feet. There are also twelve stars crowning her head. The Revelation 12 sign is about the constellation Virgo, the "virgin" (a woman), with the moon at her feet, the sun just to her side, and a special formation of twelve stars above her. The 12 stars are made from nine stars from the constellation Leo (the lion) above her, and three additional planets that rarely come so close to Leo. The arrangement is particularly unique because the "king planet," Jupiter, will be "inside," and then pass "outside" of Virgo, representing the birth of a king on this date.

While I do not reject the possibility of a sign like this occurring that has prophetic significance, I do not think this one does for several reasons. The first problem is identifying its prophetic significance. If this is a sign, what is it a sign of? The apocalypse, the rapture, the revealing of the Antichrist, something else? There is no clear answer because the text itself points to a different kind of event altogether- the birth of Jesus. The text specifically tells us it is about the birth of the Messiah (Revelation 12:1-2). In addition, everything about the sign is about a birth.

This event happened more than 2,000 years ago. In fact, computer software reveals that this sign actually occurred around the time of the birth of Jesus. I say "actually occurred" because I don't think what is happening on September 23rd is really a fulfillment of the sign. There is no reason to assume that nine stars in Leo combining with three planets is the only possible or even best way to get a crown of twelve stars above Virgo. There are many other stars closer to the constellation that make better candidates. If anyone is looking for a "sign" in the sky to make a big deal about, they can often find something. But this particular sign seems like another active imagination at work rather than the fulfillment of a particular Bible prophecy.

Although this particular event may not indicate that Jesus' coming is near, that does not rule out many other noteworthy events that do. We should simply remain ready and watchful!

Trust the Bible's purpose is to grow your confidence that the Bible is true and the ultimate resource for life." You can join the Facebook group by clicking here. Trust the Bible is a weekday radio program that begins at about 8:10 each morning on WDOG 93.5 in Allendale, SC. Listen to previous programs online: www.fairfaxfbc.org/trust-the-bible.html

The Problem with Modern "Success" Books

"The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People," by Stephen Covey, has sold over 25 million copies. Countless people that society would view as successful report a dramatic positive impact from studying the book. Even a respected Christian leader has recommended it to radio listeners several times a week for years, claiming "If you want to be successful in life, you need this book in your library."

My passion through this blog and radio program is to help you see that the Bible is true and the ultimate resource for life. In other words, I want you to know that you can trust the Bible to lead you to true success in life. Since 7 Habits is such a popular book on the same topic, I decided to take a look at it and see how it compares with biblical teaching on how to live a successful life. I was shocked by what I found.

First, there is some good in the book. Covey warns against most success books that teach what he calls a "Personality Ethic." These are guides to success that merely give shortcuts to get people to like you or do what you want. Covey probably has How to Win Friends and Influence People as a key example. While these books may give good pointers on social skills, they fall short of any meaningful guide to true success. Instead, Covey supports "Character Ethic," which focuses on developing long term habits to improve character. For example, in conversations don't just try to make people think you are interested in what they have to say, actually be interested in them. So far, so good.

While this is an improvement on other success books, it still is woefully inadequate in pointing readers in the right direction. Covey claims his "Character Ethic" is based on "principles that govern human effectiveness" which he also calls "natural laws" which are just as real as physical laws like gravity. (page 40*) Really? How does he know? Next, he says we should work on discovering and improving on following these laws by starting with the self. (50) We do this by beginning "with the end in mind," which means to visualize your funeral and think about what you want people to say at the service. This exercise becomes the bases of how you evaluate everything else in life. (105) The path to success is to become "your own first creator," achieving victory by having "victory over self." (110-111)

If becoming "your own first creator" sounds like you are trying to make yourself like god, you are correct, and Covey explicitly states this in a different book! According to Jesus, we cannot start on the path toward success by starting with the self. We are dead in sin, and must be "born again," something only God can do through the Holy Spirit (John 3). Our ultimate guide to success is not what we want people to say about us at our funeral, but what God says about us in his word. No matter how many nice things people say about you at your funeral, it is God's evaluation of your life at the judgement that is much more important. You must trust in Jesus Christ and receive his free gift of forgiveness and righteousness. Otherwise, you will not please God. The goal of life is not to please people that speak at our funeral, but to glorify God, this is why he created us (Isaiah 43:7). Living for anything else is ultimately meaningless and unsatisfying.

As I read Covey's book, I became suspicious that Mormonism was behind it. So I read more about the author, and sure enough, I found that he is a Mormon. In an earlier book he authored, The Divine Center, Covey claims that those who follow historic Christianity have a false view of God and limit their potential for success. For him, true success is to become "like the Father, a god, capable of eternal increase." He professes his belief that "As man now is, God once was; As God now is, man may become." This teaching, so central to Mormonism, is actually the first lie of Satan back in the garden of Eden. Referring to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the serpent said, "God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God." (Genesis 3:5)

7 Habits is really a guide to success based on dangerously false Mormon teachings that simply removes any references to Mormonism in order to make the principles more acceptable to a wider audience. Any so called guide to success that starts off with wrong assumptions about God and man will necessarily end up with wrong conclusions.

Jesus taught that the Bible is the only true and necessary guide to success. He compares success to two houses, one that stood, and one that crashed. "Everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock." (Matthew 7:24) The problem with all modern "success" books is that when they agree with the Bible they add nothing meaningful to it, and when they disagree with the Bible, they ultimately lead to failure. Jesus said you cannot serve two masters. (Matthew 6:24) The Bible is all we need to tell us what we need to know about our purpose and how to achieve it in order to have success in life.

*Page References are based on the edition:
Stephen Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, 25th Anniversary Ed. (Simon & Schuster, New York, NY: 2013).

Trust the Bible's purpose is to grow your confidence that the Bible is true and the ultimate resource for life." You can join the Facebook group by clicking here. Trust the Bible is a weekday radio program that begins at about 8:10 each morning on WDOG 93.5 in Allendale, SC. Listen to previous programs online: www.fairfaxfbc.org/trust-the-bible.html