A total of fifteen questions are discussed. The questions are well-chosen for the target audience and flow in a logical fashion. The thing that stood out most to me about the answers was the extensive use of scripture. The answers never backed away from explicitly stating what God has already said on these questions.

The presuppositional approach the book takes is to be highly commended. The first question in the book is: “How can anyone believe hat the Bible is true since it was written so long ago when people didn’t know stuff?” The answer takes the reader through the presuppositional answer to this question. Here is one excerpt from the answer,

See, if the Bible weren’t true – we would have no basis for truth to even exist. Or for that matter we would have no basis for logic to exist. In fact, we would have no basis for knowledge at all! [1]

Furthermore, the answer says that Christianity must be true because all competing worldviews cannot account for knowledge and logic. In order to explain these things, these other worldviews have to “borrow” ideas from the Christian faith.

Question #4 asks, “Who has the most evidence – Creationists or Evolutionists?” The answer is well stated that both have the same facts! They only differ in the interpretation of those facts. The answer goes on to explain the role of presuppositions in interpreting facts. [2] Again, the use of biblical thinking and apologetics is to be commended. In fact, the transcendental argument for the existence of God is explicitly mentioned later in the book in response to the question, “With everything I hear about God not existing, how can we even know that He does exist?” [3]

Additional questions discuss racism and sexuality in the light of God’s Word. The biblical answers given deal with these issues in a straightforward and loving way.

The one concern I had with this book is that there are a few statements that seem to stem from Arminianism. Perhaps future books in the series will deal with God’s great salvation in a more careful and thorough way.

Overall, the book and its approach to answering questions that young people may have concerning the Faith are to be commended. The presuppositional apologetics are spot on. I would even recommend this book to a believer who needs a basic introduction to apologetics. If you give this book to a teenager, please follow-up with them on the answers. While they are more than just mere introductions, they are not and do not pretend to be exhaustive. They are just right to open up further discussions about our great God and His Word.

[1] Bodie Hodge and Tommy Mitchell with Ken Ham. Answers Book for Teens: Your Questions God’s Answers. Green Forest: Master Books, 2011. pg. 8.

[2] Ibid., pg. 27.

[3] Ibid., pg. 36.

Image via Wikipedia

In this final episode (for now), I simply give three reasons why I have made the decision to homeschool my children. I discuss some things from God’s Word that led me to homeschooling. I do not delve in to any circumstances or issues that individual families face in deciding their method of educating children. All that is discussed in this episode is how I arrived, at least in part, at this conclusion. Here are the three reasons I discuss.

1. God has entrusted parents with the education of children.
2. My children are God’s children.
3. I want my children to have a Biblically based education.

If you are a homeschooler, I hope this episode edifies you. If you have been considering homeschooling, I hope this discussion gives you some additional things to consider.

Download this episode here: TETC Episode 22

For the Christian that accepts a literal interpretation of Genesis, there is no lack of evidence for a Young Earth. Comets which disintegrate too quickly, carbon-14 in diamonds, and the law of Biogenesis are just a few examples evidences which support a recent Creation. Why, then, when Christians try to use evidences like these while witnessing to unbelievers are they so easily dismissed and ineffective? The reason is that the debate for a 6,000 year-old Creation (and Christianity, for the matter) is not, by its nature, evidentiary – rather, it is philosophical.

There is a stark antithesis between the Christian and the non-Christian – the two worldviews are counter to each other at nearly every point. The Christian worldview interprets human experience and reality in light of the fundamental assumption that the Bible is God’s Word. The non-Christian worldview interprets reality in light of the assumption that man’s reason is the ultimate authority. Because of this, any physical evidence that is to be interpreted by each respective worldview is going to interpret it differently depending on the starting points of their worldview. As such, the Christian will view one piece of evidence much differently than a non-Christian interprets it.

For example, consider comets in the Solar System. Creationists claim that comets are profound evidence of a Young Universe because each time a comet orbits close to the sun it loses material at such a great rate that they should not last longer than 100,000 years – a much different age than the evolutionary belief that they are around five billion years old. [1]  To account for this “age-problem”, evolutionists assume that there is an “Oort Cloud” beyond Pluto’s orbit which generate the comets and are knocked into our Solar System. Unfortunately, this Oort Cloud has never actually been observed, but, according to evolutionists, it must exist because otherwise comets would be much younger than evolutionary models of the Universe allow. It is a classic example of a worldview coming up with a “rescuing device” to explain away contradictory evidence.

Dr. Jason Lisle of Answers in Genesis once explained the power of a worldview in interpreting evidence by likening it to a man who was convinced he was dead. The man goes to the doctor to have the doctor prove to him that he is not dead. The doctor, of course, claims such talk is foolishness, and refers to the man’s medical charts to show that he is, in fact, alive. “Not convinced,” the man shrugs, “because you could have easily just thrown that together right before I showed up.” The doctor then tells the man he can’t be dead because he is talking, and dead men certainly do not talk. “Not so,” says the man, “for when one dies the muscles sometimes have involuntary reflexes which may form noise that sounds like human language.” The doctor, puzzled, begins to think of a concrete way to prove that the patient was still alive. “I got it!” the doctor exclaims. “Do dead men bleed?” The man thinks about it for a moment and politely responds, “No, dead men don’t bleed.” Promptly, the doctor takes a needle and pricks the man gently on the arm. As blood slowly trickles from the cut, the doctor proudly insists, “See? You’re bleeding! You’re not dead!” But the man shakes his head and, with a bit of a smile, replies, “Well, I’ll be. I guess dead men really do bleed!”

Like the “dead man”, everyone interprets evidence according to their worldview – even Christians! It is completely unavoidable and is necessary in attempting to maintain consistency within ones framework of reality. Unfortunately, it is also why evidence doesn’t truly decide anything in a debate between two conflicting worldviews. Creationists may see a fossil as testament to a Global Flood just over 4,000 years ago; Evolutionists, on the other hand, may interpret the same fossil as proof for millions of years of evolution.

How then are the Christian and the non-Christian supposed to resolve anything? By examining which can account for the evidence in the first place. Instead of looking at the evidence, get to the heart of the matter: the antithesis of the two worldviews. Can the non-Christian worldview consistently account for all aspects of perceived and abstract reality? When the non-Christian complains that teaching the Bible to children is “child abuse”, to what standard of morality are they referring to? When the non-Christian appeals to the scientific method, how do they explain the possibility of science (uniformity of nature)? When the non-Christian argues that Christians are illogical, how do the laws of logic exist if their worldview were true? Such philosophical observations can determine if a worldview is consistent and non-arbitrary, and thus determine if a worldview possesses the qualities of truth (what is truth in a non-Christian worldview, anyway?)

Is there no use for evidence in debate, then? On the contrary, evidence is quite useful in debates. Like the above example of comet disintegration, evidence can show unbelievers that the Christian worldview has support from the physical world. More so, many people do become convinced by physical evidence. A number of people have become Christians due to evidence. What is important to remember is that such conversions are due to the Holy Spirit working on an individual’s heart – not philosophical or evidential arguments. Still, understanding the limitations of evidence in a debate (and the worldview assumptions which interpret them) can aid the Christian in their earnest apologetic and defense of the Faith.

Fortunately, such an examination of the philosophical worthiness of worldviews is friendly to the biblical Christian. In fact, as one will discover, only the biblical Christian worldview can account for the entire sum of human experience and reality. Unlike unbelievers who have “exchanged the truth of God for a lie” (Romans 1:25) and, in their denial of God’s existence, become “fools” (Psalm 14:1), Christians can be confident in taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Corinthians 10:5) “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:3).

“Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” – 1 Corinthians 1:20

[1] Humphreys, Dr. Russel. “Evidence for a Young World”. Answers in Genesis. Jun. 2005. Online. Accessed 16 Apr. 2011. <http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp>.

Cover of Created in God's Image

Man is created in the image of God. We cannot classify man as another member of the animal kingdom. This is taught by those holding to the Biblical view of creation. But what are some implications of this truth? In this episode, we take a look at what our creation in the image of God means for our creativity and our use of the laws of logic. In the end, we learn that the implications of Biblical truth have far-reaching applications, from art and music, to philosophy and science.

One of my sources for this episode was Anthony A. Hoekema’s book, Created in God’s Image. This is an excellent resource for understanding this doctrine better.

Download this episode here: TETC Episode 21

Or listen using the built-in player:

You can subscribe to the podcast in iTunes at this link.

Related Articles

• TETC Podcast – Episode 20 – The Creator’s Glory (takingeverythoughtcaptive.com)
• TETC Podcast – Episode 19 – Life on a Non-existent Planet (takingeverythoughtcaptive.com)
• The Creation of Our Creativity (takingeverythoughtcaptive.com)
• A Christian Basis for the Laws of Logic (takingeverythoughtcaptive.com)

R. J. Rushdoony states,

The teaching of the sciences thus must be Biblically and theologically governed. No truth or any facts exist apart from the triune God. We cannot omit theology from the teaching of any science. The question, rather, is which theology? The theology of humanism, or the theology of Scripture? [1]

No teaching can be neutral. It will either be Biblical or unbiblical.  It will either acknowledge the Creator God and His Word, or ignore Him and the Scriptures. Rushdoony describes the consistency of humanistic education.

The science teachers in our humanistic state schools are consistent theologians: they teach the sovereignty of the creature and the autonomy of the mind of man as they teach every subject. [2]

Christian education should be different. In fact, it should be the complete opposite. The starting point for the Christian in every area of life should be the Word of God. Many in our day see science as the starting point for truth. This has led to many of the ills we as a society face today. More seriously, it robs the Creator of the glory that is His. Christians must teach their children that they live in God’s universe and that God has revealed Himself in the Bible. This is not only the foundation for science education, but all education.

May the Lord help us to fully understand and apply theology as the queen of the sciences, especially as we teach those God has placed in our care.

[1] Rushdoony, R. J. The Philosophy of the Christian Curriculum. Vallecito: Ross House Books, 1981. pg 65-66.

[2] Ibid., pg 66.

Over at Pilgrim Steward, Vaughn Hamilton has two blog posts related to art and modesty.

The first post, Christian modesty in art, begins to address how Christians are to think about biblical standards of propriety in art. The second post, Art, Nakedness, and Redemption, quotes from an article by Rev. William VanDoodewaard that discusses why nude artwork is against God’s law and contrary to God’s redemptive work. The truths and insights presented are very helpful to understanding a Christian view of art.

As a corollary to the above blog posts, I would like to discuss the origin of artistic abilities. To begin to understand anything about man, even his artistic and creative capacities, we must go back to the creation of man in the image of God. Anthony A. Hoekema writes,

Another quality is man’s aesthetic sense, whereby human beings not only can appreciate the beauty that God has lavished on his creation, but also can create artistic beauty of their own – in painting, sculpture, poetry, and music. In fact, the gifts of speech and of song are also qualities of man that belong to this aspect. Indeed, we could make this list much longer. In sum, then, we may say that by the image of God in the broader or structural sense we mean the entire endowment of gifts and capacities that enable man to function as he should in his various relationships and callings. [1]

The source of our artistic abilities is found in our creation by God. This is demonstrated in Adam’s response to God bringing Eve to him in Genesis 2:23.

And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Adam was endowed with the gift of artistic speech by fact of his creation in the image of God. Adam was struck by the beauty of the woman God had created for him. This also demonstrates what Hoekema goes on to say about our sense of beauty. He writes,

Our sense of beauty is a feeble reflection of the God who scatters beauty profusely over snow-crowned peaks, lake-jewelled valleys, and awe-inspiring sunsets. [2]

Our artistic capacities and our sense of beauty find their source in our creation in the image of God.  As demonstrated in the links at the beginning of this post, the standards of art are also found in the Lord. Therefore, our artistic and creative endeavors are to honor the Lord for three reasons.

1. The Lord is the source of our artistic abilities
2. The Lord’s law is the standard of our artistic abilities
3. The Lord’s redemption frees us to glorify Him with our artistic abilities

May the Lord give His people a greater sense of these things that we may honor Him and develop the abilities He has given us for His glory!

[1] Hoekema, Anthony A., Created in God’s Image. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986. pg. 70-71.

[2] Ibid., pg. 71.

Related Articles

• A Christian Basis for the Laws of Logic (takingeverythoughtcaptive.com)

Cover of Created in God's Image

What are laws of logic? What gives us the ability to employ them in our thinking? How does a Christian answer these questions?

First, we must recognize that the laws of logic are not God and they are not some standard above God. There is no standard above God. He is the highest. Logic cannot be equated with God. Instead, logic finds its source in the character and thinking of God.

…the laws of logic are a reflection of His [God's] thinking.

…the logical constraints of God’s thinking are the constraints of His own personal nature, which man is to emulate. [1]

That is, God thinks logically. He does not contradict Himself. He is perfectly coherent and His Word is perfectly coherent.

Logical laws are elaborations upon the fact that God does not contradict Himself (His word is not yes and no, 2 Cor. 1:18) and that it is impossible for Him to lie (Heb. 6:18). [2]

The two texts referred to are 2 Corinthians 1:18 and Hebrews 6:18, which state, respectively,

But as God is true, our word toward you was not yea and nay.

That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us.

God is true; He cannot lie.  His word does not contradict itself.

In short, when we ask, “What are the laws of logic?” the short answer is that they are how we express the thinking of God, the nature of God’s thoughts being determined by His nature.

The Christian Faith, then, can account for using these laws. Man is created in God’s image and has the capacity to think and reason. Man is to “think God’s thoughts after Him.” Anthony A. Hoekema writes,

Man’s rational powers, for example, reflect God’s reason, and enable man now, in a sense, to think God’s thoughts after him. [3]

The laws of logic are universal, invariant, and immaterial. Only the Christian Faith can give a sure foundation for them and their use in man’s thinking.

References

[1] Bahnsen, Greg, Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1998.  pg. 236.

[2] Bahnsen, Greg, Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith. Nacogdoches: Covenant Media Foundation, 1996. pg. 149, n. 10.

[3] Hoekema, Anthony A., Created in God’s Image. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986. pg. 71.

Related Articles

• Biblical Presuppositional Apologetics Lectures (christcollegeblog.com)

Isaiah 42:8: I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory I will not give to another, neither my praise to graven images

Download this episode here: TETC Episode 20

Or listen using the built-in player:

You can subscribe to the podcast in iTunes at this link.

Related Articles

• Giving the Creator His Glory (takingeverythoughtcaptive.com)

Cover of Genesis Flood

I am very thankful for the resurgence of a Biblical view of creation that has happened over the last fifty years. Many point to the publication of The Genesis Flood in 1961 as the beginning of the modern creation movement.

That book, in the sovereign plan of God, became the catalyst that opened the gates to the pent-up flood of Christian professionals who, like God’s loyal “seven thousand” in the days of Elijah, had not yet bowed their knee to the Baal of evolutionary compromise. A revival among scientifically trained Christians had begun. [1]

The use of Biblically based science to investigate the creation has done much for the kingdom of God. There are many organizations operating today that have a specific emphasis on teaching the truths of Genesis and their implications. Many involved in these organizations rightly desire to defend the truth of God’s Word against those who attack it. They understand that when the first few chapters of Genesis are attacked, the gospel is ultimately at stake.

But there is another reason, perhaps even the primary reason why we should believe and defend the truth of Genesis – God’s glory. We read the following in Isaiah 42.

⁵Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

⁶I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;

⁷To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.

⁸I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory I will not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

God will not give His glory to another, nor His praise to graven images, including false views of creation. These verses from Isaiah draw a clear connection between our Creator and His glory. I should also mention Psalm 104 in which the Psalmist praises God for His works of creation. After describing the works and wisdom of God for several verses, we read,

²⁴O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches.

The Psalmist connects creation with God’s glory and the Psalmist responds with praise.

³¹The glory of the LORD shall endure for ever: the LORD shall rejoice in his works.

³²He looketh on the earth, and it trembleth: he toucheth the hills, and they smoke.

³³I will sing unto the LORD as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being.

God made the universe and we should praise Him. God will not give His glory to another. Believing that man has evolved from primordial ooze takes glory away from God. God is the one who made all things out of nothing by the word of His power. He spoke, and creation came into existence. He created the universe over the span of six days. He created man in His image. Adam could walk, talk, and think. All of this displays the amazing power, wisdom, and glory of God. When the truth of creation is denied, God is not honored as He should.

The Big Bang Theory states that the universe was formed almost 14 billion years ago from a singularity. This singularity expanded and eventually galaxies and our own solar system were formed. The theory is inherently atheistic. To believe it is to deny God as the creator. It denies the creative power of His words. God spoke and things were created. It is God who “stretched out the heavens.”

In the days of Noah, the Lord brought a global flood and the account is given to us in Genesis. The flood is largely responsible for much of the fossil record and massive geological formations such as the Grand Canyon. To attribute these existence of fossils and the Grand Canyon to gradual processes (called uniformitarianism) that occurred over millions of years robs God of the glory He rightly deserves.

We should reject evolution because God will not give His glory to another.

We should reject the big bang because God will not give His glory to another.

We should reject uniformitarianism because God will not give His glory to another.

We should reject these things (and all other unbiblical views of origins) because they are false, contradictory to God’s Word, and compromise the gospel. I believe that these reasons all ultimately stem from one magnificent truth – God will not give His glory to another. May God give His people an unfaltering spirit of whole-hearted allegiance to the truths of His Word that we may praise and glorify Him.

[1] Morris III, H. 2011. A Flood of Influence. Acts & Facts. 40 (2): 4-5.

• Biblical Presuppositional Apologetics
• Christian Ethics

You can also find some information on their new online course program here.

The chances for life on this planet are 100 percent. I have almost no doubt about it. [1]

These words were spoken by Steven Vogt, an astronomer at the University of California in regards to his team’s ‘discovery’ of the exoplanet Gliese 581g. The announcement of this planet was widely reported due to the fact that it is supposedly resides in the ‘Goldilocks Zone’ where water could exist. For the evolutionists, this means that life could exist on the planet. However, further analysis of the data calls into question the existence of the planet. So why did Steven Vogt so prematurely state his own belief about the possibility of life on the planet? Is he motivated by pure scientific endeavor? Or is there some bias in his thinking? On this month’s episode, I discuss the discovery of the planet and some of the issues surrounding it, including the above words of Steven Vogt.

Download this episode here: TETC Episode 19

Or listen using the built-in player:

You can subscribe to the podcast in iTunes at this link.

[1] This Just In, http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/30/100-percent-chance-for-life-on-newly-found-planet/, accessed 1/29/11.

The star Gliese 581

Cornelius Van Til (Image via Wikipedia)

As many have pointed out, a Biblical doctrine of creation is vital to Biblical ethics. God is the Creator, and He sets the rules by which His creation must abide and laws by which man should live. Our first father, Adam, disobeyed God’s law and the human race fell along with him. Therefore, we cannot meet God’s righteous standards. We need the salvation offered in the Gospel to have communion with the One who made us. The saved Christian then desires to walk in God’s ways and makes the law of God his delight.

Christian apologist Cornelius Van Til emphasized the point that creation is a presupposition of Christian ethics. In a sense, creation lies as the foundation of Christian ethics.

…[as a] presupposition of Christian ethics we mentioned that Christian ethics deals with man as such, and not only with Christians. This presupposition is based upon the doctrine of creation which lies at the basis of Christianity. But all non-Christian thought denies this doctrine. Hence it can never have unity in its ethical interpretation. On what ground can anyone claim that a set of ethical teaching shall have compelling force for human beings if one does not believe the doctrine of creation? There is no other ground at all. There can be no more than a strange coincidental resemblance between the various ethical ideals of various peoples on any but the Christian basis. [1]

Unbelieving thought has put forth many solutions to the ethical problems men face. Just as Van Til describes, there is a vast cornucopia of ethical systems. None of these are compelling. They are just the opinions of men, not transcendent standards based in the character of God. As mere opinions they carry no weight. God’s standards apply to all men by the fact of creation.

The failures of unbelieving ethical systems over the last 6,000 years speak for themselves. The words of man are not living, active, and sharp.

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Heb. 4:12).

These man-made ethics do not point sinners to the One who knew no sin…

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (2 Cor. 5:21).

And that is their greatest failure.

May the Lord be pleased to bring His people a high view of creation and a high view of His law.

So it always is: a low view of the law always brings legalism in religion; a high view of the law makes a man a seeker after grace. Pray God that the high view may again prevail. [2]

[1] Van Til, Cornelius, Christian Theistic Ethics, Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., p. 65.

[2] Machen, J. Gresham, What is Faith?, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, p 141-142.

Related Posts

• Greg Bahnsen on Neutrality
• Van Til’s Two Circle Diagram

With a lifespan of 30,000 or so years, collagen should not exist in a 68-million-year-old sample… It would seem that the natural preservation of collagen for 68 million years would have required a miracle on the same scale as creation. [2]

Dr. Mary Schweitzer first discovered soft tissue in dinosaur fossils almost two decades ago.  She writes about her soft tissue findings in a recent issue of Scientific American.

Our findings challenged everything scientists thought they knew about the breakdown of cells and molecules. Test tube studies of organic molecules indicated that proteins should not persist more than a million years or so; DNA had an even shorter life span. [1]

Schweitzer’s work has caused many in the scientific community to question soft tissue degradation and look for answers as to how preservation is possible. In fact, some outright rejected her work before examining it.

In fact, one anonymous reviewer of a paper I had submitted for publication in a scientific journal told me that this type of preservation was not possible and that I could not convince him or her otherwise, regardless of the data. [1]

(c) David Monniaux

While evolutionists will continue to search for explanations that fit into their worldview, these discoveries pose no problem for the Bible-believing Christian, for these soft tissues cannot be older than the flood of Noah’s day.  Findings like these fit well with what we already know from Scripture – dinosaurs (along with the rest of creation) were created approximately 6,000 years ago. The Flood occurred approximately 4,300 years ago and most of the dinosaur fossils that we have recovered would have been formed at this point in history. These discoveries strike yet another blow to uniformitarian thinking. Dr. John Morris writes,

While not “proving” the young age for the fossil, the discovery is obviously much more compatible with recent rapid burial and fossilization than with an age of millions of years. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how soft tissue could have lasted even 5,000 years or so since the Flood of Noah’s day when creationists propose the dinosaur was buried. Such a thing could hardly happen today, for soft tissue decays rather quickly under any condition. Clearly, non-uniform processes must have been involved. [3]

1. Schweitzer, Mary H. “Blood from Stone.” Scientific American. December 2010: 62-69.

2. Thomas, B. 2008. Dinosaur Soft Tissue: Biofilm or Blood Vessels? Acts & Facts. 37 (10): 14.

3. http://www.icr.org/article/dinosaur-soft-parts/, accessed 12/28/10.

Related Articles

• Dinosaurs and Creationism (takingeverythoughtcaptive.com)
• Blood from Stone: How Fossils Can Preserve Soft Tissue (preview) (scientificamerican.com)

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. (Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.)

Download this episode here: TETC Episode 18

Were these layers laid down over millions of years or by a global flood? It all depends on your worldview.

Many of the quotes are decades old and their failure to come true could be explained by limitations in scientific knowledge at that time. However, do the environmentalists really expect people to believe their claims when many have been shown to be false?

Perhaps they need to heed the promise of Genesis 8:22.

While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

This [God's ownership and governing of all things] precludes the possibility of any neutral ground between the believer and unbeliever, but it assures us that there is abundant common ground (metaphysically speaking) between them, since all men are God’s creatures and live in God’s world.

As God’s creature, created in God’s image, and living in an environment which constantly brings the revelation of God to bear upon him, the unbeliever is always accessible to the gospel. The believer always has a point of contact with the unbeliever: (1) his being the image of God, and (2) the suppressed truth deep inside him. [1]

While the common ground is not neutral, it does exist. We must remember that it is God’s ground! We cannot reach out to unbelievers on their terms, or even pretended neutral terms, (which is impossible). Christians must point unbelievers to the Creator and Savior, who alone can remove the suppression of the truth by His grace. Using the tools of apologetics given in the Bible, we can show the unbeliever that only the Christian faith can account for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, and moral absolutes. The unbelieving worldview cannot and in fact borrows from the Christian worldview to explain these things, demonstrating that there is a knowledge of God within unbelievers. May God give us the wisdom and grace to carry out our task faithfully.

[1] Bahnsen, Greg, Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith, Nacogdoches: Covenant Media Foundation, p. 52.

Image via Wikipedia

What is the relationship between faith and knowledge? Are they opposed to each other? Or is there a vital and necessary relationship between the two? I recently read a book called What is Faith? by J. Gresham Machen that addresses this in the early parts of the book.

According to Machen, there is indeed a very important relationship between the two. We must not think that faith is merely assent to certain facts, but we must understand that certain propositions about God are necessary to faith. The denial of this truth can lead to many errors, including mysticism. In this episode, I discuss more of what Machen has to say about this and some objections that are raised.

Here is a little of Machen in his own words.

Assent to certain propositions is not the whole of faith, but it is an absolutely necessary element of faith. So assent to certain propositions about God is not all of faith in God, but it is necessary to faith in God; and Christian faith, in particular, though it is more than assent to a creed, is absolutely impossible without assent to a creed. One cannot trust a God whom one holds with the mind to be either non-existent or untrustworthy. [1]

Download this episode here: TETC Episode 17

[1] Machen, J. Gresham, “What is Faith?”, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1991, p 48.

Drew and his colleagues used models that showed that a wind of 63 mph (101 kph), lasting for 12 hours, would have pushed back waters estimated to be 6 feet (1.8 meters) deep. This would have exposed mud flats for four hours, creating a dry passage about 2 to 2.5 miles (3.2 to 4 kilometers) long and 3 miles (4.8 km) wide. [1]

Exodus 14 gives the account of the parting of the Red Sea, allowing Moses and the Israelites to pass. Verse 21 tells us that a pathway was made by “a strong east wind” that blew all night. Verse 22 tells us that they crossed on dry ground.

21 Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and all that night the LORD drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land. The waters were divided, 22 and the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left.

Could God have parted the Red Sea in the manner that the scientists described? The scientific work does not contradict anything in the historical account. Could it have been done a different way? Certainly. The text of Exodus doesn’t give us the details of the mechanics of how God operated. Even if the scientists have given an accurate description of the mechanics of how God parted the sea, it in no way removes God from events that took place. It does not make “Mother Nature” the cause of the parting. To better understand this, let’s look briefly at the doctrine of God’s Providence. An astute group of theologians once defined God’s Providence in this way:

God the great Creator of all things does uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy. [2]

These theologians go on to make a statement about how God uses “means.”

God, in His ordinary providence, makes use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at His pleasure. [3]

In God’s general governing of the universe, He uses means to accomplish His purposes. For example, rainfall causes crops to grow (Isaiah 55:11).  Could God cause crops to grow without rain? Yes! He is free to work without means. An example of God working against means is found in Daniel 3 when Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are not burned in the fiery furnace.

Returning the topic of the parting of the Red Sea, God used the means of a “strong east wind” to part the waters. It seems that the intent of the Our Amazing Planet article was to explain the parting of the Red Sea apart from the providence of God. As we have seen, this cannot be done. Showing that a certain wind event would have caused the Red Sea to part shows us nothing, since we know that God uses means. Also, if the Red Sea was parted in the manner that the scientists describe, did Moses just happen to be there at the right moment? How could he have known that this event was going to happen? Has anyone observed this phenomenon since the time of the Exodus? Most likely, it has never occurred since. This was a mighty act of God’s providence to accomplish an act of redemption for the Israelites.

We should praise God for His wondrous providence. He governs all things to the praise of His glory! He governs all things for the good of His people! How awesome! God made the world and He controls it. He upholds it. What a mighty and wise God!

[1] Israel, Brett. “Parting of Red Sea Jibes With Natural Laws.” Our Amazing Planet, http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/wind-possibly-parted-red-sea-100921-0552/, accessed 11/26/10.

[2] Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter III, “Of Providence.”

[3] Ibid.

Brian Thomas of the Institute for Creation Research writes,

Its unique and well-fitted features–including the length of its tentacles, the tiny muscles in its skin, the special color-generating skin cells and connected nerves, the appropriate cognitive processing programs used to coordinate all those features, and the instinct to mimic specific creatures–had to have been put in place by a person. In John 1, the Bible identifies that person as the Creator and Lord Jesus Christ. [1]

Praise God for the wonders He has made! How many more undiscovered creatures are out there, waiting to show us the amazing wisdom and design of the Creator?

[1] Thomas, Brian, “Where Did the Mimic Octopus Get Its Amazing Abilities?”, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/5670/ (accessed Nov 18, 2010).

To celebrate the one year anniversary of the Taking Every Thought Captive Podcast, we are giving away a copy of Creation Without Compromise by Dr. Don Crowe.

Mandatory Entry:

Read either my review of the book here or Dr. Crowe’s article on why he wrote the book here (you can read both if you like). Then come back to this post and leave a comment telling me why you would like to win this book.  Or, you can send me an email at takingeverythoughtcaptive@gmail.com if you prefer.

Additional Entries:

Be sure to leave a separate comment for each additional entry or they won’t count.

Like the Taking Every Thought Captive Podcast on Facebook

Subscribe to the podcast in iTunes

Share this giveaway using the “Share this” buttons at the bottom of the post

Subscribe to the feed (use the “Feed Headlines” box on the right side of the homepage)

Subscribe to the blog by email (use the “Email Subscription” box on the right side of the homepage)

This giveaway ends Tuesday, November 30th. The winner has 2 days to claim their prize after being contacted. If they do not, another winner will be chosen.

It is for these reasons that Christ College exists. Chris Strevel, interim president of Christ College says, “…Christ College is attempting, albeit, perhaps, at the eleventh hour of American education, to revive and restore the true university, with theology as the “Queen of the Sciences” and the Bible providing the unifying structure for every academic pursuit.” The degree programs at the college emphasize exegetical, theological, and practical Bible knowledge. Students specialize in an area of their interest, but these areas derive their significance and standard from the infallible Word of God.

The faculty members all share a common theological perspective so the students can be rest assured there is no disparity between instructors. Some members of the faculty were taught by Greg Bahnsen, the noted Christian apologist, famous for his debate with atheist Gordon Stein.

In addition to the classes held on-site in Buford, GA, the school has recently begun offering classes online. Students can take classes from their own homes, all while maintaining close family ties and not having to leave their local church. Christ College also enthusiastically encourages homeschooled individuals to enroll.

For more information you can visit the school’s website at www.christ-college.edu or on Facebook.

Christ College

Promote Your Page Too

Feel free to send any comments to: takingeverythoughtcaptive@gmail.com.

Download this episode here: TETC Episode 16

Red Sea

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Red_Sea_37.95521E_21.41271N.jpg)

Whatever some people may say with respect to the demand for neutrality in the Christian’s thought – the demand that believers not be set apart from other men by their adherence to God’s truth – the fact is that Scripture sharply differs with this demand. Contrary to neutrality’s demand, God’s word demands unreserved allegiance to God and His truth in all our thought and scholarly endeavors. [3]

After all, Colossians 2:3 declares that in Christ “are hidden all treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” Indeed, Jesus Christ is the truth (John 14:6).  Proverbs 1:7 tells us that the “fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.” How then can the we set aside the faith in any circumstance?  Bahnsen warns that putting aside Christian commitments is to “steer away from the only path to wisdom and truth found in Christ.” [4]

In the next chapter, Bahnsen discusses the immorality of neutrality for the believer. He explains that there is no compromise between believing and unbelieving thought. No neutral ground can be found. (This does not however make apologetics and evangelism impossible as Bahnsen goes on to explain in Always Ready.) The unbeliever is at enmity with God.  When a Christian puts aside their Christian presuppositions, they commit an act of immorality.  Bahnsen explains,

It should come as no surprise that, in a world where all things have been created by Christ (Col 1:16) and are carried along by the word of His power (Heb. 1:3) and where all knowledge is therefore deposited in Him who is The Truth (Col. 2:3; John 14:6) and who must be Lord over all thinking (2 Cor. 10:5), neutrality is nothing short of immorality. [5]

Christians should never seek to bridge the gulf between unbelieving and believing thought by neutrality. Some may claim that neutrality is necessary  or unbelievers will not listen. They say unbelievers don’t want to deal with Christians who bring their Biblical presuppositions to the table. However, when Christians attempt to be neutral, they become “impotent in their witness, aimless in their walk, and disarmed in their battle with the principalities and powers of this world.” [6] When Christians leave their sword behind (Eph. 6:17) they leave their most powerful weapon, not only for the defense of the gospel, but for its propagation. If we are to see souls converted to the Lord Christ, we must never try to be neutral. Instead, we must humbly confront the futility of sinful, unbelieving thought, and present the gospel of grace from God’s Word.  Let us be those who submit all of our thoughts to the revealed Word of God. Let us have the “mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:16), not the “vain mind of the Gentiles” (Eph. 4:17).

1. Bahnsen, Greg, Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith, Nacogdoches: Covenant Media Foundation, p. 4.

2. Ibid., p. 3.

3. Ibid., p. 4.

4. Ibid., p. 5.

5. Ibid., p. 9.

6. Ibid., p. 4.

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson recently called this ‘cosmic connectivity’ and stated that it has a ‘spiritual’ quality on Earth Sky Podcast. [2] He believes that not only are we in the universe but the universe is in us. The tagline for Earth Sky is “A clear voice for science.” However, some of Mr. Tyson’s statements sound more like New Age religion than science! Tyson’s statements are reminiscent of Carl Sagan who wrote in Cosmos, “We are, in the most profound sense, children of the Cosmos.” [3] Sagan goes on to say,

Our ancestors worshiped the Sun, and they were far from foolish. And yet the Sun is an ordinary, even a mediocre star. If we must worship a power greater than ourselves, does it not make sense to revere the Sun and stars? [4]

Let’s first ask a few questions in regards to Mr. Tyson’s statements. What spiritual qualities are here? The fact that mankind is a cosmic accident? That a star went supernova at just the right time to provide the elements for our solar system to evolve life? That man is essentially a chance by-product of cosmic activity? The only spirituality that can be found here is empty and false. This is essentially a-spiritual since it is atheistic. There is no hope, no meaning, and no salvation with this kind of spirituality. True spirituality can only be found in the pages of Scripture which give us the account of God’s creation of the universe and mankind. The Scriptures tell us why we exist. An exploded star did not give us life, it was the breath of the Almighty. This true spirituality can only be experienced when one has been changed by the saving power of Christ.

What can we say in regards to Sagan’s comments about the sun and stars? The Holy Spirit inspired the Apostle Paul to write about people who make such statements in Romans 1:25 which says, “…who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.” The first chapter of Romans described the unbeliever and states that the wrath of God is being poured out against such godlessness (Rom. 1:18). God alone is to be worshipped.

What answer can we give concerning the elements in our bodies? What does the Bible say? It should always be our starting point. God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed life into him (Genesis 2:7). So we are made up of the same stuff as the earth. We have carbon, iron, calcium, etc in our bodies just as the earth does. We must remember that according to Genesis 1, the stars were made after the earth, not the other way around. The elements found in the human body and in the earth are the same because of how God created man.

Those who deny the one true God often substitute false spirituality in His place. As we have seen, even scientists can be guilty of this. Let us as Christians never be guilty of exchanging the truth of God for a lie.  Let us never give praise to the creation instead of the Creator.  Let us be those that praise Him forever.

[1] Sagan, Carl. Cosmos, New York:Random House p 218

[2] http://earthsky.org/space/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-cosmic-connectivity, accessed 5/17/2010.

[3] Sagan, p 242

[4] Sagan, p 243

Supernova Remnant (courtesy NASA/nasaimages.org)

Feel free to send any comments to: takingeverythoughtcaptive@gmail.com.

Download this episode here: TETC Episode 15

Click on the image below to go to www.creationevangelismtools.org!

Image via Wikipedia

This post will continue with the theme of “Confessional Creationism” that the site has featured this month.  If you missed them, a podcast and a post on a Biblical doctrine of creation using the Westminster Confession of Faith were put up earlier this month.

The same godly men that produced the Westminster Confession in the 1640′s produced the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms. These catechisms are tools used to instruct in Biblical doctrine and piety by questions and answers. The Shorter Catechism is meant mainly for children. In 1840, the Catechism for Young Children was prepared by Joseph Engles as an introduction to the Shorter Catechism. [1]  The first three questions and answers are:

Q. 1. Who made you?  A. God.

Q. 2. What else did God make?  A. God made all things.

Q. 3. Why did God make you and all things?  A. For his own glory.

These are glorious truths for little ones to learn! This catechism starts with a foundational issue of creation.  The child is asked, “Who made you?”  From this the child learns of the One who made him. This God is to be loved and served as the Creator. The second questions extends the fact of creation to all things. The child is taught not only who made them, but who made the universe. The Creator God made the “heavens and the earth.”  Everything that we see and even the things that we cannot see were made by God. Hopefully, this will instill awe in the child. God is powerful if He made everything!

From the foundation laid in these two questions, the child can learn that since God is the Creator, He sets the rules by which creation acts, and by which the child is to live.  God sets the standards.  God is the sovereign Lord over all.  His Providence governs all things for His own glory and the good of His people (Eph. 1:11-12; Rom. 8:28). Also, this lays the foundation for the child to learn of redemption. God set the standards by which we are to live. Our first father, Adam, disobeyed and therefore we cannot meet God’s righteous standards. We need the salvation offered in the Gospel to have a right relationship with the One who made us.

The third question makes the ultimate reason for God’s creative acts clear – His glory. God’s works bring Him glory, so ours should as well (1 Cor. 10:31). This does serve as a very good introduction to the first question and answer of the Shorter Catechism, which says,

Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

A proper belief about creation is foundational for the rest of the truths found in God’s Holy Word. May God’s people endeavor to instill these truths in the hearts of little ones that they may remember their Creator in their youth (Eccl. 12:1).

1. Johnson, Terry L. The Family Worship Book. Fearn: Christian Focus Publications, 1998.

The Westminster Standards… are the richest and most precise and best guarded statement ever penned of all that enters into evangelical religion. [1]

In a recent podcast, we looked at Chapter 4 of the WCF which deals with Creation. It states,

I. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,[1] for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness,[2] in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good.[3]

II. After God had made all other creatures, He created man, male and female,[4] with reasonable and immortal souls,[5] endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after His own image;[6] having the law of God written in their hearts,[7] and power to fulfil it;[8] and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change.[9] Beside this law written in their hearts, they received a command, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil;[10] which while they kept, they were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures.[11]

Please note that clicking on the bracketed numbers will take you to a website with the Scriptural footnotes at the bottom of the page. The confession gives us a wonderful statement of the Bible’s teaching on creation. Each person in the Trinity was active in creation. The main reason for creation is clearly spelled out – God’s glory. “Creatio ex nihilo,” that is, creation out of nothing is affirmed. God spoke the heavens and earth into existence. There was no preexisting matter. God’s work of creation was accomplished in six literal days. The confession (like the Scriptures) knows nothing of millions of years.

The second paragraph deals with the creation of “man, male and female.” It is clear that the WCF affirms the historicity of Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden. After describing the circumstances of man’s creation, the confession describes the situation in the garden. They were given a law to keep. If they obeyed, they would enjoy happy communion with God.

These truths are vital to the Christian faith. We must understand why God created the heavens and the earth. We must view Him as the all powerful Creator who sets the standards by which are to live and the standards by which we are to be judged. We must not capitulate to unbelieving thought and compromise the integrity of God’s Word with naturalistic scientific views.

In order to understand redemption in Christ, we must understand the conditions of Adam’s creation and his subsequent fall (Rom 5:12ff). God made man upright (Eccl 7:29) but man could only stay that way if he obeyed. He did not obey and therefore all mankind is now born dead in sin. Thus, we need the God-Man, the Lord Christ, to perfectly keep the law of God on our behalf and pay the penalty for our sins.

I have only begun to scratch the surface of the many applications of the Biblical doctrine of creation. Suffice to say, what you believe about creation will affect how you view the rest of God’s Word, even redemption itself. May God grant all His people a clear and proper understanding of Genesis and the rest of the Scriptures.

Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding. Isaiah 40:28.

[1] Benjamin B. Warfield, “The Significance of the Westminster Standards as a Creed,” Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield, vol. 2 (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1973) 660.

The WCF was written at Westminster Abbey in London

Image copyright takingeverythoughtcaptive.com

Please note that I have recently blogged on this subject as well.  Click here to read that post.

Feel free to send any comments to: takingeverythoughtcaptive@gmail.com.

Download this episode here: TETC Episode 14

The WCF was written in Westminster Abbey in London

Image copyright takingeverythoughtcaptive.com

There are numerous examples of petroglyphs of dinosaurs that have been found all over the world that have shown to be authentic. [1]  Ancient man knew about dinosaurs, enough to draw pictures of them. This fits well with the history revealed in Scripture. Land dinosaurs were created on the sixth day of creation along with the other land animals. Noah would have taken two of each “kind” of dinosaur on the ark (more on this later). Then sometime after the flood, most of the dinosaurs perished. It’s very likely that dinosaurs in some form survived well past Biblical times. Could the numerous legends of dragons that are found in many cultures stem from dinosaurs? It’s possible. It’s also likely that the following passage in Job 40 refers to a dinosaur.

15 Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. 16 What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! 17 His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. 18 His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. 19 He ranks first among the works of God, yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.

Going back to the ark, many question how dinosaurs could have fit on the ark. It’s important to remember that Noah took two of every “kind” of dinosaur. Some estimate this would have been about 50 actual kinds. [2] Additionally, many dinosaurs were small (the size of typical barnyard animals). Those that grew large could have been taken on the ark when they were young. Thus, creationists believe there was plenty of room on the ark for dinosaurs.

Scientific discoveries made by secular scientists also testify to the creation account. Dinosaur soft tissue, namely blood cells, has been found intact. [3] This does not fit within the evolutionary scheme. How can soft tissue survive for over 65 million years? Brian Thomas writes,

With a lifespan of 30,000 or so years, collagen should not exist in a 68-million-year-old sample… It would seem that the natural preservation of collagen for 68 million years would have required a miracle on the same scale as creation.

Discoveries like these fit well with what we already know from Scripture – dinosaurs (along with the rest of creation) were created approximately 6,000 years ago. The dinosaurs are a true testimony to the wisdom and power of the Creator God.

1. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/stone.asp, accessed 8/17/10.

2. Ham, Ken with Malott, Cindy, The Answers Book for Kids, Volume 2. Green Forest: Master Books, 2008.

3. Thomas, B. 2008. Dinosaur Soft Tissue: Biofilm or Blood Vessels? Acts & Facts. 37 (10): 14.

Tyrannosaurus Rex

Genesis 7:17And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. 18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. 24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

The Flood was a catastrophic event. It was a mighty display of God’s power and His hatred for sin. It also represents His covenant love towards His people, for He saved Noah (“a righteous man” Genesis 6:9) and his family. This catastrophic event resulted in the rapid burial of “all flesh…that moved upon the earth” and created most of the fossils we have discovered.

I recently came across an article in Scientific American that discussed a mass dinosaur burial ground in Madagascar.  The authors attributed the preservation of the fossils to mudflows.

But how were the animals’ bodies preserved, many of them so exquisitely?  Biological remains tend to fare poorly at the ground surface, where scavengers hold sway and the sun slowly but inexorably bleaches even the largest of bones until they splinter and eventually turn to dust. When long-term preservation in the fossil record is at stake, burial should occur as soon as possible after death.  Indeed, it could be argued that from a fossils’ perspective, rapid burial is the single most critical key to immortality. [1]

There is actually not much debate between evolutionists and creationists on how fossils are formed. If you think about it, when animals typically die and fall to the ground, they decompose and are eaten by scavengers. They don’t ordinarily turn into fossils.  There are numerous examples that show fossilization is due to a quick process. A fine example of this is an ichthyosaur that was “fossilized while giving birth.” [2]

Evolutionists and creationists agree how the fossils were made – rapid burial. What they disagree on is the cause of the rapid burial. Creationists see the global flood as creating most of the fossils in the record. Evolutionists do not believe in this global flood so they tend to rely on local flooding events, such as the one described in Scientific American. Their commitment to naturalism and uniformitarianism will not allow for the revelation of the catastrophic global flood nor will it allow the evidence that supports it to be acknowledged.

If evolution were true, all sedimentary deposits would be found in small areas with few or no fossils. It really takes catastrophic, continent-covering flooding such as Noah’s flood to produce vast horizontal sheets of fossil-rich layers; and that is what is found piled on top of the pre-Flood rocks at the Grand Canyon. Running underground, these layers of Flood rock stretch for thousands of square miles across much of North America! [3]

May God open the eyes of those who oppose His Word, which is the only infallible source of history.

1866–1870 engraving by Gustave Doré (1832–1883), entitled “Le Lâcher de la colombe” (“The dove sent forth from the ark”).

-

[1] Rogers, Raymond R., and Krause, David W., “Tracking an Ancient Killer”, Scientific American Feb. 2007: 51.

[2] Sarfati, Jonathan, Refuting Evolution, Green Forest: Master Books, 1999, pg. 107.

[3] Parker, Gary and Mary, The Fossil Book, Green Forest: Master Books, 2005, pg. 29.

Feel free to send any comments to: takingeverythoughtcaptive@gmail.com.

Download this episode here: TETC Episode 13

The logo of this website is an image of two white circles connected by two white lines with a green background. What is this image?  Why did I choose it for the website? Let me explain the meaning of the image and then you will understand why I use it. If you have read or listened to any of the content on this website you know that I believe the presuppositional method of apologetics is the most Biblical. While elements of this form of apologetics can be found throughout church history, Cornelius Van Til is largely responsible for developing it into the school of apologetics we know today. While a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, Van Til would draw the two circle diagram in class.

“Van Til . . . always taught that a Christian worldview should be represented by two circles (for Creator and creature), clearly distinct from one another, with the larger one (representing God) on top. One circle alone referred to the non-Christian worldview, in which man and God (if he exists) are on the same level, part of one reality.” John Frame, Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought, (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1995), p. 27.

This diagram illustrates a very important truth of the Christian faith. God is the Creator and is distinct from the creation.  As the Creator He is sovereign over it and all truth is derived from Him. He alone is the authority. On the other hand, unbelieving worldviews, if they acknowledge any kind of god, place man on the same plane of existence as god. Those who deny the existence of God will replace Him with science, human reason, or something else, which effectively becomes their god.

The two lines that connect the two circles in the representation of the Christian worldview signify God’s works of creation and providence. Van Til stated,

“The doctrines of creation and providence imply that God originates and arranges all the facts of the universe according to a “logic” that is above man. Man’s systems must therefore be consciously analogical to the system of God.” The Reformed View of Education, http://www.the-highway.com/articleFeb04.html, accessed 7/16/10.

We must think God’s thoughts after Him. All truth is derived from Him.  The facts of the universe are derived from Him and have no meaning apart from Him.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.  God is the uncreated Creator. He is from everlasting to everlasting (Psalm 90:2). He alone is worthy of praise and adoration. As His creatures, we should take every thought captive to Him. However, as fallen creatures, we can only do so if we have been saved by the work of the only begotten Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ.

I use this image to remind me and anyone who visits the site of these vital truths.

Note: A helpful resource for understanding Van Til’s thought is Van Til Diagrammed. The image used in this post is courtesy of that website.

Many unbelievers object to Christian doctrine of “self-authentication,” which is the belief that the Bible is to be believed because it is the Word of God.  Two main objections are:

1. That is circular reasoning.
2. Other religions claim the same thing.

In this post, I will discuss the first objection.  Let me begin by quoting E. J. Young who puts this “circular reasoning” in context.

In reply we may answer that in the nature of the case, if we are but creatures, and God is the Creator, this is the only way in which it is possible to reason. If God has actually created us, it follows that all we know we must recieve from Him. He must tell us what we are to believe about anything. Apart from Him there is no other source to which we may go. God alone must be the fount of all our knowledge.  If, therefore, He tells us, as He does in the work of the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit, that the Scriptures are His Word, we must obey His voice. On the other hand, because He has thus identified that Scriptures as His Word, we must in turn listen to them when they tell of Him. They point to Him and reveal what we are to believe concerning Him and what duty He has required of us. There is no other way. Any other way is a deception and will ultimately lead to the point where we shut God out of our thoughts. [1]

Since God is the creator and the fountain of all knowledge, we must begin our reasoning with Him and His revealed will.  There is no other way for the Christian. To do otherwise would be unfaithful to God and it would contradict the teachings of Christianity. Biblical apologetics makes use of this fact.  The presuppositional method of apologetics defends the faith by using the “impossibility of the contrary,” that is, unless you assume the Christian faith and worldview, you cannot prove anything. Greg Bahnsen explains,

Differing worldviews can be compared to each other in terms of the important philosophical question about the “preconditions of intelligibility” for such important assumptions as the universality of logical laws, the uniformity of nature, and the reality of moral absolutes. We can examine a worldview and ask whether its portrayal of nature, man, knowledge, etc. provide an outlook in terms of which logic, science and ethics can make sense. It does not comport with the practices of natural science to believe that all events are random and unpredictable, for instance. It does not comport with the demand for honesty in scientific research, if no moral principle expresses anything but a personal preference or feeling. Moreover, if there are internal contradictions in a person’s worldview, it does not provide the preconditions for making sense out of man’s experience. For instance, if one’s political dogmas respect the dignity of men to make their own choices, while one’s psychological theories reject the free will of men, then there is an internal defect in that person’s worldview.

It is the Christian’s contention that all non-Christian worldviews are beset with internal contradictions, as well as with beliefs which do not render logic, science or ethics intelligible. On the other hand, the Christian worldview (taken from God’s self-revelation in Scripture) demands our intellectual commitment because it does provide the preconditions of intelligibility for man’s reasoning, experience, and dignity. [2]

Unless we reason in a circle, we cannot prove anything.  We must reason in a circle so we can show the consistency of the Christian faith and worldview and how it alone can account for the foundations of logic, science, and ethics.  The truth of the Bible is a presupposition of Christianity.  It is an assumed premise. All worldviews hold to presuppositions, those things which are assumed to be true from the outset. Apologetics seeks to show the validity of the Christian’s presuppositions, one of those being self-authentication, while at the same time showing that the unbeliever’s presuppositions are invalid in that they do not account for the preconditions of intelligibility. This is how the “circular reasoning” of the Christian differs from the classical use of the phrase.  Using inductive reasoning to justify induction would be circular in the classical sense. For example, you are asked the question, “How do you know that a ball when thrown up in the air for the one hundredth time will fall back down to earth as it did the previous ninety-nine times?” That is, how can you generalize your experience to the hundredth time or even to other balls that are thrown up in the air at different times all over the earth? How can you justify your use of inductive reasoning? If you seek to justify it by using past experience were it has been successful, that assumes the future will be like the past. Therefore, induction is justified by induction. This is circular reasoning in the classical sense. Christians on the other hand are appealing to the authority of God since He has saved them and they can do no other. They cannot deny their Savior. Christians also make use of this fact when testing the consistency of worldviews. In order to do so, you must assume the premises of that worldview are true. Every worldview has presuppositions, so this is not something that is unique to the Christian faith.

This discussion leads to the second argument raised against self-authentication. We will save that for a future post. For now, let us hold fast to the authority of God as revealed in the Holy Bible.  He is the Creator and the Redeemer of His people. He alone is the authority. Let us give Him all the praise and glory. Let us use these truths to witness to others that they might be pointed to the Savior.

For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen. Romans 11:36.

I will end this post with a quote from Cornelius Van Til who states the following after having an imaginary conversation with an unbeliever in his pamphlet, Why I Believe in God, “Well, my meanderings have, to be sure, been circular; they have made everything turn on God.” [3]

Indeed, everything does turn on God.

References

[1] Young, E.J., Thy Word is Truth. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1957, pg. 188-189.

[2] http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/PA099.htm, accessed 7/4/10.

[3] Van Til, Cornelius, Why I Believe in God. Philadelphia: Great Commission Publications, pg. 16.

Download this episode here: TETC Episode 12

Image courtesy of http://www.christianciv.com/VT_Diagrammed.html

In preparation for that episode I have been reviewing the works of one of the greatest Christian apologists of the 20th century, Cornelius Van Til. Below is a link to a pamphlet that we wrote where he has an imaginary dialogue with an unbeliever.  This work is a good introduction to Van Til’s thought.

Why I Believe in God

One of his closing statements gives you an idea of Van Til’s thinking.

I hold that belief in God is not merely as reasonable as other belief, or even a little or infinitely more probably true than other belief; I hold rather that unless you believe in God you can logically believe in nothing else.

]]> http://takingeverythoughtcaptive.com/2010/06/29/van-tils-why-i-believe-in-god/feed/ 0 takingeverythoughtcaptive http://takingeverythoughtcaptive.com/2010/06/10/a-review-of-in-god-we-trust/ http://takingeverythoughtcaptive.com/2010/06/10/a-review-of-in-god-we-trust/#comments Fri, 11 Jun 2010 02:08:42 +0000 Taking Every Thought Captive http://takingeverythoughtcaptive.com/?p=506 ]]> A Review of In God We Trust by Steve Ham

Authority matters. That is the central theme of the new book by Steve Ham entitled, In God We Trust.

In Chapter One, Mr. Ham opens by discussing the lack of authority in the thinking of many Christians. He desires for this book to help Christians hang their faith on God’s authority. This matters not only for apologetics and evangelism, but for our personal relationship with our Heavenly Father.

Chapter Two discusses the “narrow” message of the Gospel and why many do not embrace it. They have turned to a false authority, whether it be science or personal feelings, or some type of religious leader. However, the gospel should be believed since it comes from the highest authority, God. We need to demonstrate this in our evangelism.

Chapter Three continues the train of thought from Chapter Two and discusses false authorities. Mr. Ham critiques several false authorities including human reason/philosophy, science, experience, government, and culture/tradition. His use of presuppositional apologetics is to be commended and studied. For example, he points out that “Betrand Russell was certain there is no God, but based on his own definition of philosophy he could not authoritatively say so.” (34). This is a fine example of a presuppositional critique.

Chapter Four then points the reader to the ultimate and true authority, God as He has revealed Himself in the Bible. “The Bible claims absolute authority.” (44). The Bible declares itself to be authoritative and it is so because it is the Word of God, and God is the final authority. This authority cannot be proven by a higher authority since there is no proof higher than God. This is called “self-authentication.” Mr. Ham does an excellent job of explaining this concept in simple terms.

Chapter Five discusses the authority of Scripture and how it needs to be the starting point for all of our thinking. Ham states, “The Bible is the final authority in every single matter in which it deals, for it is the Word of God.” (62). We must presuppose the truth of the Bible and not use the “evidential” approach which purports to be “neutral.” Mr. Ham points out that there is no neutrality since we can only serve one master, God or man. The use of the scholarly work of Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen is very helpful in driving some important points home to the reader.

Chapters Six, Seven, and Eight discuss the authority of God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Mr. Ham describes some of God’s attributes and discusses the authority of the Father. He then turns to the authority of the Son. Mr. Ham makes an important point in that all of the Bible is the teaching of Jesus; He is the Word. The Holy Spirit converts the hearts of sinners and He does not require us to water down the Gospel message. To do so would undermine the authority of the Spirit.

The last section of the book focuses on practical application. Chapter Nine deals with God’s authority and our everyday living. Ham says, “The authority of God in the Christian life can be summed up this way: our lives are completely transformed when we are saved by Christ through faith in Him.” (143). Chapter Ten deals with worship. Our response to our authoritative God should be one of praise and adoration. I very much appreciated Chapter Eleven’s discussion of authority and the Christian family. His discussion of authority in the teaching of our children was refreshing. Mr Ham warns us, “If we don’t indoctrinate them [our children] with an axiom of biblical authority in our homes, Christian schools, and churches, the world will indoctrinate them with anti-God humanism.” (179). This teaching is the responsibility of Christian parents. Chapter Twelve discusses authority and the church. Mr. Ham has many helpful things to say here. But I must disagree with some of the statements made on the use of modern ministry methods. I believe the Scriptures give all the ministry methods that are needed for all time – preaching, prayer, sacraments, fellowship, love, accountability, etc. There is also an appendix that discusses how God’s Word makes accurate sense of the world. However, there is no proof needed for the Bible. It is true. But as Mr. Ham says, “I thank God that His Word allows me to confirm the confirmable.” (225).

Overall, I would recommend this book. It has many strong qualities that will challenge the reader to think about how God’s authority should affect our worldview and daily living. Mr. Ham does an excellent job of discussing God’s authority in a Biblical and reverent way and at the same time discussing some very practical topics for everyday Christian living.

In God We Trust is available at Amazon and from Master Books.

Don’t forget to send an email with your thoughts to takingeverythoughtcaptive@gmail.com.

Download this episode here: TETC Episode 11

Pastor Strevel is the pastor of Covenant Presbyterian Church in Buford, GA and is Interim President of Christ College.

Why Should Anyone Believe Anything at All?  Part 3

The Certainty of the Christian Worldview

___________________________

The Apologetic Implications of Certainty

The Impossibility of Certainty (for the unbeliever)

Because the unbeliever rejects God’s word, he is a fool (Proverbs 1:7). In biblical terms, a fool is one who builds his life upon the shaky, constantly shifting foundation of human reason and understanding. Such reasoning will not stand up under the pressure God will bring to bear upon him (Matthew 7:24-27). This foolishness is not just spiritual, though it is fundamentally that. Paul writes that God has made foolish the wisdom of this world. God has consigned all unbelievers and unbelieving philosophical to wallow in the mire of their own foolishness until they repent of their rebellion against God and are transformed by the renewing of their mind (1 Corinthians 1:20). Accordingly, as long as the unbeliever seeks to build upon the house of knowledge upon the foundation of autonomous logic, materialistic science, and subjective experience, he is doomed to intellectual skepticism and despair. There is no certainty for man apart from his recognition that he is a creature of God, totally dependent upon God for his next breath and for his next right thought, and that epistemic certainty is found only in self-conscious submission to the Law-Word of the Creator. One important aspect of the apologist’s task is to demonstrate this folly, to demonstrate that all unbelieving systems, whether religious or non-religious, are intrinsically foolish, not simply because the Bible says they are, but because they are filled with internal contradictions and logical impasses that are manifestations of the consequences of unbelief.

The Defense of Epistemic Certainty

The absolute certainty of the Christian worldview leads to several important implications for the apologetic encounter with unbelief. First, we do not encourage men to become Christians simply because it is the best possible option, gives the best answers to difficult questions, or brings man the greatest happiness. All of these are true, but such a methodology fails to do justice to the Bible’s insistence on the objective truth and certainty of the Christian worldview. Embracing Jesus Christ is far more than one stage in the personal quest for meaning. Second, we may not allow that the unbeliever’s problem is a lack of facts; his basic problem is his rebellion against natural revelation. Third, we may not follow the unbeliever’s methods, i.e., autonomous logic, science, etc., for they are foolish and undermine the foundations of knowledge, experience, and reason. Fourth, we must insist that unbelief is immoral and will bring the judgment of God. There is no such thing as intellectual neutrality. A man is either for God or against him. Fifth, we must rejoice in the fact that objective truth and certainty is available to man through faith in Jesus Christ and submission to God’s Word. There are answers for man and his culture to the difficult problems facing him, the vast majority of which are directly due to sin and modern apostasy from the Christian worldview. Science, logic, and philosophy, while useful, are tools. They serve man, but they cannot serve as the foundations for certainty in any realm. They must submit to God’s revelation in Scripture. Then and only then are they given a foundation upon which they may function effectively. Then and only then is man rescued from his uncertainty and despair so that the great task of cultural dominion for the glory of God and through faith in Jesus Christ may be pursued with every tool God has provided for man’s pursuit of his high calling.

The Charge of Circularity

The Christian answer to the question, “Why should anyone believe anything at all?” is in four parts. (1) Failure to believe anything at all leads to intellectual, moral, and cultural suicide (2) The triune God of the Bible is alone the source of all wisdom and knowledge. Man is God’s creature, and through self-conscious submission to his Creator, he may possess a foundation for knowledge. (3) Due to sin, this foundation must be rebuilt in man through submission to Jesus Christ as the Word of God, the Way, the Truth, and the Life. (4) The Christian must boldly give this answer; it is the hope of men individually, culturally, and eternally. The fundamental objection to this answer, of course, will be its perceived circularity. In setting for this the Christian theory of knowledge, we have freely utilized the Scriptures. We have not sought independent, psychological, or expert vindication of them apart from their own self-witness. Admittedly, there is a degree of circularity in this approach, yet all creatures necessarily reason in circles, meaning that their foundation, methodology, and conclusions are intertwined. For unbelieving systems of thought, this is hopeless or vicious circularity, for man’s reason, experience, or a combination are the authorities at all three points. The Christian does not reason in a vicious circle. The self-attesting authority of God is the beginning point; his revelation provides our methodology and conclusions. There is no other circle in which the creature may operate to avoid intellectual skepticism and cultural collapse. This circle is the offense of the cross. The very fact that men reject this circle is the reason they need to be redeemed from their sin, their arrogance, and their autonomy. If we fail to provide this circle, we capitulate to the rebellion of man that caused the fall in the Garden and finally demanded the gory scene at Golgotha.

Pastor Strevel is the pastor of Covenant Presbyterian Church in Buford, GA and is Interim President of Christ College.

Why Should Anyone Believe Anything at All?  Part 2

The Certainty of the Christian Worldview

_______________________________

The Biblical Foundations of Certainty

The Source of Knowledge

The foundation of a consistently Christian theory of knowledge and apologetic method is that certainty is to be found in the triune God’s infinite, comprehensive, and creative knowledge of all things. Whereas for man there is mystery, in that many truths are imperfectly known in this life, giving an eschatological element to all knowledge, with God there is no mystery. God is not in Plato’s cave of obscurity, groping, and uncertainty. He knows himself, man, and the universe exhaustively. This truth lays a foundation for the authority and certainty of the knowledge God has revealed of himself in Scripture. God’s perfect knowledge of all things is the foundation of the creature’s search for certainty. To leave man without any excuse for doubt on this matter, the Bible repeatedly emphasizes that God, the Creator of all things, is the source of all wisdom and knowledge. In Deuteronomy 32:4, he is revealed as the “God of truth, without iniquity.” David proclaims that the word of the Lord is right, not only intrinsically good but objectively true, and all his works are done in truth (Psalm 33:4). Accordingly, God is the One who teaches man knowledge; apart from him there is nothing but darkness, uncertainty, and skepticism (Ps. 36:9; 94:10). God’s law, which should be taken foremost in the broadest sense of his revealed will for man’s life and salvation, is truth and endures forever (Ps. 100:5; 117:2). It has transcultural authority and relevance. God has revealed his word to man so that he may certain knowledge of God’s will (Proverbs 22:17-21). The conclusion of the matter is that God alone is the source of wisdom (Romans 16:27). The Christian worldview is not based upon an ultimate skepticism, probability, or possibility. It is based upon the infallible word of the Creator, whose knowledge creates reality and provides a foundation for certainty in the world.

Two Levels of Knowing

Objective and certain knowledge is available for man, however, only as he recognizes his creatureliness, repents of his autonomy, and submits his mind to God’s revelation in Scripture. In other words, in order to possess true knowledge of God, the world, and himself, man must submit to his Creator’s authoritative interpretation of life. To the extent that the creature “thinks God’s thoughts after him,” he possesses the truth. This must be the comprehensive claim of the Christian apologist. Submission to God’s word is the presupposition apart from man cannot have objective and certain knowledge. Accordingly, faith in God is not an intellectual crutch; it is the absolute prerequisite for knowledge and certainty. Postmodernism is simply a sophisticated attempt to justify modern skepticism by stating that since man has not been able to attain true and absolute knowledge, such knowledge is unavailable to man. According to this view, man must accept the groundlessness of his being, formulate his own meaning, and avoid the tendency to hold personal views dogmatically. This is special pleading, begging the question, and utterly unscientific. Contrary to this view, the Bible establishes in a variety of ways that objective knowledge and creaturely certainty are possible for man. David wrote that the acceptance of God’s word gives light and understanding to the simple (Psalm 119:30). Solomon identified the fear of the Lord, a holy reverence and adoration of God that leads to the hatred of sin and a life of service to him, is the foundation of true knowledge (Proverbs 1:7). He adds that God alone gives wisdom and that knowledge and understanding come from him (Proverbs 2:6-9). It is only when we dedicate ourselves to God’s wisdom that we will come to understand life. The prophet Isaiah wrote that God’s ways and thoughts are high above man’s (Isaiah 55:8-11). Man is the creature of God; his knowledge is true and accurate to the extent they reflect God’s thoughts.

Christ and Knowledge

The Bible presents Jesus Christ as the eternal Son of God, the divine Logos, the personal and ultimate revelation of God to man (John 1:1-18). Accordingly, Jesus Christ is not only the source of all wisdom and knowledge, but he is also the restorer of man to knowledge and truth (John 8:31). This he does by his priestly office, in which he died to satisfy the wrath of God against sinners and obeyed God’s law perfectly in order to provide the sole basis of our justification. He also accomplishes this through his prophetic office. He preached the Word of God during his earthly ministry, and commissioned the twelve through whom the canon of the New Testament was written, supervised, and completed. He promised and gave the Holy Spirit to the twelve, who guided them into the truth; he continues to operate in the church and world today, bearing witness to the Word of God, opening the hearts of men to receive the truth, and guiding the church into ever deepening understanding of the faith once for all given to the saints (John 3:3-5; 14:17; 15:27,27; 16:7; 18:37; Ephesians 1:17,18). Christ, therefore, not only saves men from hell but also from ignorance, skepticism, and despair. Submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ necessarily entails obedience to his word and looking to him for wisdom and knowledge. For he is the truth of God (John 14:6), the One in whom all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are deposited (Colossians 2:3-8). Therefore, the Christian apologist must present Jesus Christ in all his saving significance and epistemological necessity. Men need saving from their intellectual autonomy and must renounce it, or they will never arrive at a true and objective knowledge of God, the universe, and man, much les attain to a saving knowledge of God or the blessedness of everlasting life.

Faith and Knowledge

The previous components of the Christian worldview combine to form one irresistible conclusion: faith precedes knowledge. Before man can know, he must believe. Even in his pre-fall condition, Adam was to pursue knowledge in faith and submission to God’s Word. Sin has intensified the need for faith, for it has exerted comprehensive effects upon man – spiritually, intellectually, and morally. Our conclusion does not imply that faith is devoid of knowledge or that it is unhistorical. Faith is based upon knowledge of God’s character, the saving work of Jesus Christ, and the life-giving and directing word. Faith, moreover, is not a leap into the void of mysticism. Faith is essentially a looking away from man as the source of truth and knowledge, repentance of intellectual and spiritual autonomy, and receiving and resting upon Christ alone for grace and knowledge. When Christian apologists insist that faith precedes knowledge, they are asserting that only the triune God revealed in the Bible can give man true and objective knowledge. This brief formula challenges both the intellectual idolatry of modernism and the prevailing skepticism of postmodernism, based as it is upon the acceptance of the ultimate irrationalism of the universe and the utter unknowability of objective truth. As no unbelieving system can embrace the comprehensive claims of biblical Christianity except at the cost of intellectual repentance, it is exactly here that the work of the apologist must begin, by demonstrating that faith in the Creator’s Word is the absolute precondition of true knowledge.

Scripture and Knowledge

One cannot provide a meaningful answer to this question without stressing that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the sole foundations of certain knowledge for man. The triune God is the Creator, Governor, and Sustainer of the universe. He spoke the world into existence. He created language as a suitable medium to convey transcendent truth to man his creature. Through every stage of man’s development since the Garden, the Word of the Lord has been his guide. It is true that some groups pursued alternative religious paths, but this was in rebellion against God’s covenant word and suppression of God’s clear revelation of himself in nature. The consequences were cultural suicide. As history progressed, he gave his chosen people additional revelation that built upon and expanded earlier truth, in order to create and sustain faith in his original promise to save the world through a coming Deliverer. In the fullness of time, that Deliver, who by this time had been progressively identified in the Old Testament revelation as the Prophet who would declare God’s word infallibly and consummate previous revelation, the Priest who would atone for man’s sin and restore him to fellowship with God, and his King who would rule over him, subduing his heart to teachableness and making him a willing servant of the kingdom of God. He is thus the supreme Word of God, the Logos of Christian Scripture and theology. His earthly ministry was short, but during his lifetime he commissioned his chosen apostles to be the authoritative conveyors of his word. To fulfill this calling, he promised them a special endowment of the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity, who would guide them into all the truth (John 16:13). In their oral proclamation, personal writings, and supervision of the writings of their close associates, God’s final word became enscripturated, an inspired, all-sufficient, and infallible record of the will of God. The chain of authority is clear: God sent his Son, his Son commissioned the apostles, the apostles left behind the written Scriptures that were inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is to this word that all men and nations must give faith and obedience if they are to understand God, the world, and themselves. Apart from these Scriptures, man is reduced to skepticism, uncertainty, and despair, as the history of men and nations that have rejected this word makes clear. It is only as western culture recovers its faith in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament that the dilemma of uncertainty in philosophy, morality, and science may be resolved.

Don’t forget to send us an email with your thoughts at takingeverythoughtcaptive@gmail.com.

Download this episode here: TETC Episode 10

Mount Ararat, Turkey

Pastor Strevel is the pastor of Covenant Presbyterian Church in Buford, GA.

Why Should Anyone Believe Anything at All?  Part 1

The Certainty of the Christian Worldview

________________________________

The Defense of the Gospel in Conflict

The Crisis of our Times

Statism in governmental theory and practice, logical positivism in the courts, hedonistic materialism among the masses, and a return to pre-Christian forms of pagan thought forms and rituals are like the seven demons in Jesus’ parable that have rushed into to fill the void left by the self-conscious abandonment of faith in God, his enthroned Son, and his all-sufficient Word. We are living in the twilight of American culture, intellectually, politically, and spiritually. To the present collapse the church has been both a contributing factor and a blind follower. Sustained criticism of the Bible has completely undermined the authority of the canon, confidence in the Christian Scriptures, and the practical authority of the Bible. Even in generally evangelical churches, considered by many to be the last bastion of the older Christianity, it is not uncommon to hear church leaders endorse theological positions, social agendas, and spiritual paradigms that radically depart from the traditional positions of the Christian church as expressed in its creeds, confessions, and catechisms. If statistical surveys and personal experience are correct, the average professing believer has embraced the skepticism and relativism of his unbelieving counterpart. Our departure from a generally Christian past, while gleefully heralded by many as ushering in a new era of individual freedom, social equality, and scientific advancement, has created enormous tension in virtually every area of society. The family has never been weaker. The illusory strength of our economy is subject to constant regulation and manipulation by the ubiquitous federal government. Education has become indoctrination in the tenets of the reigning political agenda of secularists, pluralists, and social engineers. Moral absolutes are non-existent, unless one considers the oxymoronic “principled pragmatism” an acceptable foundation. Scientifically, new discoveries abound, but many of them are pursued without the slightest regard for their moral implications. Entertainment enslaves the masses, who choose political candidates, educational paradigms, and religious authority based upon the contrived facades of attractiveness and success. Sexually, there are no more taboos. Skepticism, individualism, and hedonism are the dominant worldviews of a culture that has become trite, irreverent, and narcissistic. It is not that we do not recognize our problems. We no longer possess, however, a unified, coherent worldview that provides moral authority to address them.

Whether men realize it or not, there is one inescapable question that lies at the foundation of these problems and their symptoms: by what authority? The inability to locate a meaningful answer to that question is the crisis of our times. Is there an absolute standard by which political decisions should be made? Is there an authority higher than science by which science can be regulated and directed? What is the difference between pornography and art? Should homosexual unions be granted a legal status and included in the definition of “marriage?” Should morality be more than an enlightened pragmatism, in which each individual must find a workable standard of behavior that enables him to function in his environment? If there is such an authority, what is its nature? Is it religious? Philosophical? Scientific? Political? Individual? Communal? Some men say one thing and others say another. How can I know for sure? When philosophy has largely abandoned the quest for truth and certainty, politics is concerned supremely with the acquisition and retention of power, and science is concerned merely with what works, how can I be sure that what I believe is true? This question is further compounded by the current dominance of postmodernism, a paradigm that embraces uncertainty, doubt, and diversity, and above all insists upon the right of individuals and groups to develop their own worldview, which in turn is right for them and above the criticism of other groups that are not operating within in their specific context. The necessity of finding an answer to the question, “Why should anyone believe anything at all?” has become a life and death necessity for the segment of our culture that cannot find solace in language games, banal celebrityism, and religious hucksterism.

Facing the Consequences of Principled Uncertainty

For others, these developments are warmly embraced. Unbelieving man desires to avoid the implications of a self-existent God, who created this world by his power, upholds it by his providence, and directs it by his word. Paul is clear that this man constantly suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. He deceives himself into believing that he does not believe in the existence of God, that he owes his life to him, and that his word is objectively true and certain. Accordingly, many elements in our culture welcome the supposed openness of modern western society, for it provides a context to pursue personal priorities and agendas with a spirit of autonomy. What must be pointed out, however, is that issues of certainty and moral authority cannot be dismissed with such a cavalier attitude. Their claims may be denied for a while, but they inevitably surface with an irresistible force that demands resolution. For example, if marriage is to be defined purely in terms of love and commitment, then it is unjustified to place any limitations upon the participants in a “marriage.” Fathers and daughters may marry. Polygamy is just as acceptable as monogamy. If there are no moral absolutes, then one cannot posit that murder is wrong, for that is evidence of arrogant, unjustifiable dogmatism that some cultures have chosen to disregard. One cannot find condemn pedophilia or bestiality. One may not prefer them, but preference is not the same thing as moral imperative. If God does not exist, human freedom is illusory. We live in an ultimately unknowable universe, in which man is the product of eons of time and blind chance, absolutely determined by his environment, over which he may seek to exercise control, but in which he is as much a part of the “muck” of existence as frogs, rocks, and bacteria. Dostoyevsky was correct. If God does not exist, anything is possible. We might equally affirm that nothing is possible, including moral absolutes, personal unity, and scientific explanation. This is not to say that men who embrace the reigning dogma do not continue to operate as if moral absolutes, scientific laws, and objective truth exist, but they cannot provide a rational explanation for them. This is unacceptable. It is not how the real world operates. Chance cannot produce order; time cannot produce truth. Scientists operate with the belief that their conclusions explain the “real world.” Engineers assume the existence of physical laws that are not the products of time and chance. Judges, even the most radical, operate on the assumption that moral absolutes exist. Even postmodernists, who vociferously deny the objectivity of language, do not generally welcome a scenario in which their comments are taken out of context or intentionally twisted. Men everywhere operate on a foundation of certainty, rationality, and coherence that the entrenched worldview of our culture denies. Accordingly, the Christian is in the position in this culture of calling it out of its juvenile, wishful thinking that ideas do not have consequences, that the denial of absolute truth bears no evil fruit, and that science can consistently operate on the foundation of evolutionary hypotheses. In a culture committed to radical relativism, it is our high and challenging calling to posit afresh an answer to the question, “Why should anyone believe anything at all?” Faithfulness to the Lordship of Jesus Christ over area of human life, submission to the inspired Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, and obedience to the Great Commission demand an answer. By God’s grace, they also provide the answer.

The Implicit Skepticism of Popular Apologetics

It would seem that in such a cultural milieu, the message of the church would remain relatively unchanged. “Thus says the Lord” is absolutely true and certain, not simply because the Christian faith works intellectually, satisfies emotional needs, and provides a basis for communion with likeminded individuals in an otherwise impersonal society, but because God and his word have an objective existence, authority, and certainty independent of man’s acceptance of them. Hence, we may even in this culture present the truth with conviction and courage, believing that the Lord’s word provides the only legitimate basis for certain knowledge, human experience, and the scientific disciplines, will expose the foolishness of unbelief, and ultimately result in the discipling of the nations to Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, this sort of presentation is not typically provided. Postmodern ways of thinking have increasingly infiltrated the church, paradigms for thinking and defending the faith that start from a position of uncertainty, or that deny that certainty is available for anyone. Others, thinking to salvage Christianity while doing justice to logic and philosophy, have adopted the postmodern paradigm that Christianity is true for us, and that if you will become one of us, the faith become your truth as well.

In his popular book Why Should Anyone Believe Anything at All, James W. Sire demonstrates this sort of reasoning. Because he uncritically accepts the canons of autonomous logic and philosophy as providing the necessary criteria for truth, he denies the very faith he is seeking to proclaim, or at best, reduces it to a private, meaningful experience, that provides him with needed answers, psychological fulfillment, etc. He writes, “But – and this may be hard for firm Christian believers to accept – we could be wrong. Our experience as such does not full justify our belief” (58). According to Sire, why should we accept Christianity? “In the final analysis, Christianity gives the best explanation of all the tough issues of life” (179). In his concluding chapter, “The Challenge of Belief,” he writes, “The task before each of us is awesome. We human beings face the world without the perfect mental equipment to know and discern with philosophic certitude just who we are, what our role in life should be, whether there is a God, if so which God and how we might find him/her/it” (209). His comments throughout the book demonstrate confusion over the nature of certainty. Accordingly, though he purports to answer the interrogative title of his book, he largely fails because he never issues a direct challenge to unbelief to repent of its autonomous foundations, does not demonstrate a consistently Christian approach to the subject, and allows for the possibility that Christianity is wrong.
 Apologetic methods that allow for the possibility that Christianity is false or that it is not certain, cave in to methods of unbelieving philosophy and logic, blunt the claims of the gospel, and compromise the theology of the Bible. They fail to posit the absolute truth of the Christian-theistic position, fail to give a compelling reason for men to repent of their sins and turn to the Lord in faith and repentance, and inevitably reduce biblical Christianity to just another competing voice on the already crowded smorgasbord of available worldviews. If biblical Christianity is to remain viable and distinctive in our age, and more importantly, if God is to be glorified by yielding to his Word the authority and certain conviction that it demands, the believer must understand that certainty is not only possible, but it is also demanded. It can only be attained, however, as man recognizes his creatureliness, submits to the authority of God in his Word, and engaged in an all out battle against the forces of skepticism that are aligned against the church and the gospel.

Toward a Christian Definition of Certainty

At the outset, it is important to define what we mean and do not mean by certainty. By certainty is not meant an indubitable proof for God’s existence, the deity of Christ, and the truth of Scripture that compels acceptance through man’s autonomous use of reason, experience, or scientific observation. This definition of certainty fails to remember that man is a creature, that there are some things he will never know or understand, and many things that he will always know imperfectly or incompletely. The Christian view of certainty must take into account that man is a creature, and that as such, his knowledge is always limited and fallible. This definition of certainty also fails to consider man’s fallen condition. The Achilles heel of all unbelieving forms of thought is the failure to distinguish man’s original intellectual and moral integrity with which he was originally endowed by God from his present spiritual deadness in sin. All unbelieving thought assumes that man is now as he always been, albeit perhaps on a higher level of the evolutionary chain; it denies that there is a radical moral and intellectual discontinuity between pre- and post-fall man. These two caveats do not consign man to skepticism or relativism. What is necessary for man to know for life and salvation may be known as man the creature submit to God’s the Creator’s revelation of himself in nature, Scripture, and ultimately, Jesus Christ. While his interpretation of the Creator’s word is subject to his sinfulness and finiteness, this revelation is nonetheless objectively true and certain. We might say that the Christian view of certainty attributes absolute certainty and knowledge to the Creator alone, while allotting to man objectivity and certainty to the degree that he yields himself consistently to God’s word and interpretation of reality.

Genesis 1-2 is a special revelation from God explaining how and why He created the universe.  It must be taken as an actual historical account, as relating to the events that actually occurred, for three reasons.  (1) Genesis 1-2 stands in close relation to the rest of the book of Genesis.  The remained of the book presupposed that creation account just as the creation account prepares for what follows.  (2) The characteristics of Hebrew poetry are lacking; and the marks of historical narrative characterize it.  (3) The New Testament and the Old Testament regard specific events mentioned in Genesis 1-3 as actually having taken place: the creation of light by God’s Word (2 Cor. 4:6); the presence of thorns as a sign of the curse in Genesis 3 (Heb. 6:7, 8); the creation of the world by a Divinely-spoken Word (Ps. 33:9); the separation of land and firmament by God’s Word (2 Pet. 3:5); the creation of the universe out of nothing (Heb. 11:3); the creation of the world in six days and a Sabbath (Ex. 20:11); the creation of Eve out of Adam (1 Cor. 11:8) [2].

We must take Genesis 1-2 as a historical account because that is how it is written and because the whole of Scripture affirms the historicity of the passage.  This is a fine example of the Protestant principle of Scripture interpreting Scripture.  Any other view is contrary to the Word of God.  May God be pleased to sanctify the Church and call her back to a right understanding of creation.  Let all people of the world stand in awe of God, like the psalmist.

By the Word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth and all their host.  Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him.  For He spoke and it was done; He commanded and it stood fast.  Psalm 33:6-9

NASA/courtesy of nasaimages.org

1. Dr. Joe Morecraft is pastor of Chalcedon Presbyterian Church.  The first volume of his five volume commentary on the Westminster Larger Catechism in now available.  You can still get the entire set at the preorder price at American Vision.

2. Morecraft III, Joseph, Authentic Christianity: An Exposition of the Theology and Ethics of the Westminster Larger Catechism Volume 1, Powder Springs: American Vision Press, p 533.

]]> http://takingeverythoughtcaptive.com/2010/04/15/the-historicity-of-creation/feed/ 0 takingeverythoughtcaptive Whole Earth http://takingeverythoughtcaptive.com/2010/04/06/tetc-podcast-episode-9-in-the-news-2nd-edition/ http://takingeverythoughtcaptive.com/2010/04/06/tetc-podcast-episode-9-in-the-news-2nd-edition/#comments Tue, 06 Apr 2010 22:35:15 +0000 Taking Every Thought Captive http://takingeverythoughtcaptive.com/?p=415 ]]> The podcast is back with some interesting news items to discuss.  The first item is on a Newsweek article that discussed if science can explain heaven. We take a look at that and discuss a problem with how the article defines “heaven.”  The next news item discusses the extinction of the wooly mammoths. The final item is on global warming and climate change.  This has a been a very hot topic lately and I don’t get too deep into the subject here since I want to devote and entire episode to it, but I do discuss an article on this topic by Pat Buchanan.  Don’t forget to send in an email with your thoughts on the episode at takingeverythoughtcaptive@gmail.com.

Download this episode here: TETC Episode 9

Out of thankfulness for what God has done, the saved individual seeks to honor, glorify, and obey the Lord (1 Corinthians 10:31; 1 John 2:3). They seek to do this in every area of their life, including science.  Indeed, Colossians 2:3 tells us that in Christ “are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”  Greg Bahnsen states concerning this verse, “Note he says all wisdom and knowledge is deposited in the person of Christ – whether it be about the War of 1812, water’s chemical composition, the literature of Shakespeare, or the laws of logic!  Every academic pursuit and every thought must be related to Jesus Christ, for Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6).” [1]  The wisdom and knowledge of science is hidden in Christ!  This is exactly what we should expect to be the case, since Christ is the 2nd Person in the Trinity and was active in creating the universe.  So Christians who have been saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone are called to live a life in which they submit to the Lordship of Christ in every aspect of life and conduct.

This brings us to the area of science.  How should a redeemed individual view science?  What is the purpose of science?  Let’s briefly look at answers to these questions. The redeemed person sees science as a means to glorify God, just as they do all other areas of life (1 Corinthians 10:31).  Pursuing science for the glory of God is one way we love Him with all our mind (Luke 10:27).  The redeemed person also sees that God in His great love and mercy has made mankind to pursue scientific endeavors that he might learn more about the creation and seek to have dominion over it (Genesis 1:26-28).  Part of this entails pursuing technology to make God-honoring work more efficient and productive.  In all pursuits of science and technology, Christians should never compromise the truth of the Bible, for it is the supreme authority by which all science must be judged.  Christians should not seek to advance unbiblical theories of science such as evolution and big bang cosmology. They should however learn about these things in order to better point out their errors and defend the truth of the Scriptures.

Also, the proper response to scientific discovery is humility and worship (Psalm 104:24).  We can gain understanding about the greatness and majesty of God through learning about what He has made.  We can praise God for His infinite wisdom.  In Revelation 4:11, we find the 24 elders praising God, saying, “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.”  This should be the praise of every Christian, especially those who are involved in pursuing, learning, and teaching science.

1. Bahnsen, Greg, Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith, Nacogdoches: Covenant Media Foundation, p. 4-5.

2 Corinthians 10:3-5

3For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: 4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) 5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Download this episode here: TETC Episode 8

Click in the image to view the podcast in iTunes!

Crowe does an excellent job of speaking of the creation-evolution debate in terms of presuppositions.  Crowe explains, “For both the creationist and evolutionary worldviews, the presupposed axioms of thought determine what is allowed as evidence and what constitutes proof or truth.” [2]   He also explains that evolution must be challenged as a religiously held worldview.  Presenting ‘data’ to the evolutionists will not suffice, since at heart the theory is an expression of man’s fallen nature to exclude the Lord from scientific thought.

Rightly so, Crowe also emphasizes the authority of God’s Holy Word.  We cannot interpret the Bible using the latest so-called scientific theories.  The Bible is the supreme authority and it is the standard by which all things are judged.  The extended quote below is one of my personal favorites from the book.

“The straightforward reading of Genesis 5 and 11 prevailed universally in Christendom for more than eighteen centuries.  Only when one was convinced by ancient evolutionary thought (Babylon, Greece, or Egypt) or modern evolutionary thought (Darwin), was any other ‘interpretation’ suggested.  Most of those today who advocate a non-literal view of Genesis admit that their view did not arise from the text itself (exegesis), but was determined by the outside (‘scientific’) considerations.  Those who try to fit millions of extra years into the genealogies, usually also deny the worldwide flood of Noah, and the literal days of Genesis One.  These are indications that for them so-called ‘science’ is a higher authority than divine revelation.  This triumph of empiricism over Scripture is destructive to maintaining a consistent Christian worldview.  It also makes the interpretation of Scripture an impossible task, since they can make a word mean what they want it to mean.” [3]

The book concludes by giving four way Christians can avoid compromise. I won’t give those here, you’ll have to buy the book!  But I will say that I found the conclusion humbling and challenging.  May the Lord give His people more love for Himself, His Word, and the amazing creation that we live in.

1. Crowe, Donald, Creation Without Compromise, Brisbane: Creation Ministries International, p 65.

2. Ibid., p 275.

3. Ibid., p 159.

Why I Wrote Creation Without Compromise

By Donald D. Crowe, Ph.D.

Used with permission.  This article first appeared in the Counsel of Chalcedon magazine.

The book is available for purchase here.

One way I look at church history is to see the Word of God and the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ being challenged by the “intellectual elite” or “politically powerful” God-haters. It is not hard to find church history text for the early period. The focus is on the champions of the faith: martyrs, pastors, theologians, and apologist. Polycarp, Athanasius, Augustine and a host of others are sure to be included. The heretics always lose.

Good histories of the Reformation are also available. Again the focus will likely be on reformers like Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin. We are pointed to the best of the theologians.

But a typical church history or history of doctrine text covering the 19^th and 20^th centuries passes over the faithful defender of biblical Christianity. The persons most praised are those religious anthropologists (wrongly called theologians) who could accommodate the Christian faith to be more in step with the cultural norms. In particular, I wondered why even the Reformed and evangelical churches seemed to compromise with Darwinism and the evolutionary worldview.

Two big failures for the 19^th American church were compromising biblical creation, and failing to deal biblically with the issue of racial slavery. I chose to write about biblical creation since the evolutionary worldview also contributed heavily to the problem of racism and race-based slavery.

One thing that became clear is that evolution is not just a theory about the ages of rocks, but a comprehensive worldview to which all thought must conform. Even the Bible was re-interpreted to fit the evolutionary worldview. But the anti-Christian evolutionary worldview is not new! It has been in existence long before “modern science.” (In fact modern science was made possible on the basis of the Christian biblical worldview.)

1. There is Nothing New About Evolution.  Some kind of evolutionary worldview has always been the refuge of rebels against God. For example, Epicurus (341-270 BC) asserted that tranquility of soul was the highest virtue. To achieve such tranquility we must rid our minds of troubling thoughts. Nothing was more troubling to Epicurus than the thought of having to give an account to “God” in an afterlife. Therefore, excluding such possibilities from his mind, he went on to postulate a very evolutionary story of the origins of life over long ages of time. As with evolutionism today, his worldview was in no way the result of “scientific” investigation. Some kind of evolutionary story has always been the preferred presupposition of those who will not have God in their thinking.

2. The Epicurean-Evolutionary worldview could not prevail where the confidence in the Word of God was strong. The apostle Paul stood strong against the Epicureans at Athens. The anti-Christian strategy then was to undermine the Christian confidence in Scripture. Hobbes, Spinoza, and Baur were just three of those who rejected the biblical doctrines by their distorted pretense of “reinterpreting” the Bible.

3. The first and fatal compromise on the part of the church was on the issue of Chronology. Would Christians accept biblical Chronology as recorded plainly in Genesis 5 & 11 and other historical books of the Bible? Or would they feel it necessary to “reitnerpret” the Bible so it would fit the new “science”? In the 19^th century we would expect the find our champions at Princeton Seminary. Charles Hodge wrote What is Darwinism? He correctly concluded that it is atheism. Hodge was hindered by his evidentialism (we must “prove” the Bible by appeal to more certain “evidence”) and their confusion of pagan philosophy of origins with operational observational science. As a result Hodge made the rather absurd claim the Bible may be reinterpreted several times to bring it into agreement with “science” without any damage to the Bible’s authority. At Princeton is was only downhill after that.

4. A closer exegetical look at the text of Genesis is required. W.H. Green’s incredible twisting of the Genesis genealogies was repeated without question by the rest of the Princeton giants. Even Robert Reymond claims in his mostly excellent systematic theology that Genesis 5 & 11 “ should be understood as: X lived a number of years and begat [the ancestral father that begot] Y. And X lived after he begot [the ancestral father that begot] Y a number of years, and begot [other] sons and daughters.” Such preposterous treatment of the God-breathed chronology of Scripture illustrates our need of a total commitment to Scripture as the ultimate authority that judges all ideas of men and is judged by none. Incidentally, in every case where we know more about the persons mentioned in the genealogies they are direct sons. We know of none who were merely remote descendants totally unknown to the one who ‘begat” them. This is unbelievably absurd as a desperate measure to accommodate the Bible to evolutionary speculation. The biblical genealogy has 20 names covering the period of 2,000 years from Adam to Abraham. Of what possible value could it be if the time is stretched to 2 billion years to meet the demands of evolutionary thought? This would mean that only 20 names are given where there should have been 20,000,000 names if the evolutionary chronology is correct. We are overdue to stop letting atheists do our thinking, then trying to salvage what is left of the Bible. Instead let us govern every thought and every subject by the infallible word of the living God.

5. There are three powerful explosive Biblical truths that bring down the condemned house of evolution:

• Creation ex nihilo in six calendar days
• The world-wide Flood in the time of Noah
• Biblical chronology, the structure of real history.

Incredibly these are the very things evangelicals so easy dismissed just so they could have the smile of the pseudo-scientific academics. If naturalistic philosopher came in the guise of ‘science’ they compromised at once.

We must hold to every word of the God-breathed Scripture. The consequences of compromise have been quite severe. The application of the evolutionary worldview to life issues like abortion, euthanasia, forced sterilizations, and eugenics show that evolution is a worldview, not merely a limited science theory. Social Darwinists sought to ‘speed up’ evolutionary progress through government intervention. History reveals the theological decline and the societal decline that follows the abandonment of the Biblical worldview. Soon after Darwin’s Origin of Species, German intellectuals were applying ‘survival of the fittest’ principles to their society. I describe some of the horrendous results of such thinking when Hitler attained the power to carry out Darwinist-inspired policy. Or own United States was not without its ‘scholars’ advocating the same kinds of things.

The Biblical worldview must not be traded away for the mess of pottage that is the evolutionary anti-Christian worldview.

The opening sentence of Carl Sagan’s famous book Cosmos is, “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” [1]  This statement reflects the naturalistic worldview of its author. Naturalism holds that the physical universe is all that exists. All things that exist in the cosmos are material. Even things such as emotions are reduced to biochemical processes in the brains of evolved organisms. The universe began with the big bang and has since evolved to its current state by natural processes. The Sovereign Creator God is not a part of this worldview, in which science is defined to exclude the Lord and His Word.

In Revelation 4:8, we read of the four creatures that praise God continually saying, “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, Who was and is and is to come!” This is in stark contrast to Sagan. The Bible declares over and over again that the Lord God is the eternal One, who had no beginning and will have no end. Psalm 90:2 states that “from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.” It is this God who created the cosmos (Genesis 1:1) and brought everything into existence by His Word (Hebrews 11:3). He is the Creator and the cosmos is His creation. God is also the One who providential governs and upholds the universe (Colossians 1:7; Hebrews 1:3). This is the foundation for a biblical understanding of cosmology.

What we find in Carl Sagan and Revelation 4:8 are two opposing worldviews that are mutually exclusive. In discussing creation and evolution, Jonathan Sarfati states, “The debate between creation and evolution is primarily a dispute between two world views, with mutually incompatible underlying assumptions.” [2] These words are also true for our present discussion, as creation is part of the Christian worldview and evolution is part of the naturalistic worldview. For the naturalist, it is presumed that God does not exist, since God is outside nature. On the contrary, the Christian must start with the assumption that God exists and has revealed Himself in the Bible. Indeed, one must presuppose the Christian worldview in order to account for the universe as we know it. Naturalists cannot account for the basis of the science that they use. Greg Bahnsen explains, “It is the Christian’s contention that all non-Christian worldviews are beset with internal contradictions, as well as with beliefs which do not render logic, science or ethics intelligible.” [3]

For example, if in a naturalistic worldview, the material cosmos is all that exists or ever will, how does it account for the uniformity of nature? When scientists conduct experiments, it is assumed that the laws of physics are the same in Albuquerque as they are in Tokyo. It is also assumed that an experiment performed under controlled conditions will give similar results when repeated in the future. How does a naturalist account for the uniformity of nature that science hinges upon? This is an assumption in every scientific endeavor, or else the pursuit of science would be impossible. An atheistic, naturalistic worldview cannot account for the uniformity of nature. Someone who holds this worldview can still do science with great success, but cannot account for its foundations. When pressed, the best answer this worldview can give is that things have been that way in the past, so they will be that way in the future. They use their previous experience to account for the uniformity of nature. The question then arises, how can one trust their previous experiences? The naturalist answers, because it has worked in the past. They must rely on the uniformity of nature to account for the uniformity of nature. This line of argument is circular and shows that the uniformity of nature is a principle that scientists take by faith.

The Christian expects the cosmos to behave in an orderly, logical fashion since God has created all things (John 1:1-3) and upholds all things (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3). God has created the universe with certain behaviors that we call “laws.” We can expect these laws to be consistent throughout the universe since God is immutable (James 1:17; Malachi 3:6), omnipresent (Jeremiah 23:23-24; Psalm 137-8), and omnipotent (Revelation 19:6; Psalm 115:3). This is the Christian’s basis for the uniformity of nature.

In conclusion, we can see that the conflict between naturalism and Christian supernaturalisms to be ultimately one of worldviews. Naturalism cannot give an adequate account for the basis of science. Only in the God of the Bible do we find a firm foundation for science. As Christians, we can take great joy in knowing that the omnipotent Triune God of the Bible who created the cosmos has created us to learn and discover wonderful truths about the universe for His glory. Even more wonderful is that this same God has given His only Son that whoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16).

1. C. Sagan, Cosmos, New York: Random House, 1980, p. 4.

2. J. Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, Master Books, 1999, p. 15.

3. G. Bahnsen, Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith, ed. Robert R. Booth, Nacogdoches, Covenant Media Foundation, 1996, p. 121.

(c)  Copyright Dustin Crider 2010

]]> http://takingeverythoughtcaptive.com/2010/02/27/carl-sagan-and-revelation-4-8/feed/ 0 takingeverythoughtcaptive http://takingeverythoughtcaptive.com/2010/02/22/tetc-podcast-episode-7-the-anthropic-principle/ http://takingeverythoughtcaptive.com/2010/02/22/tetc-podcast-episode-7-the-anthropic-principle/#comments Mon, 22 Feb 2010 12:21:23 +0000 Taking Every Thought Captive http://takingeverythoughtcaptive.com/?p=337 ]]> Most scientists agree that the universe has the “appearance” of design.  That is, although the physical constants of the universe appear finely tuned in order that life may exist, this is really the product of chance.  It is by chance that the big bang resulted in a universe that makes life possible.  They state that if the universe were not conducive to life, we would not be here to observe it.  This is known as the anthropic principle.  However, the Christian views the universe as having been designed by God.  The universe does not just appear to be designed, it was designed by the God of the Bible.  In this episode, I discuss these things and more.

Download this episode here: TETC Episode 7

NASA/courtesy of nasaimages.org

1. Now I Paul myself beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, who in presence am base among you, but being absent am bold toward you: 2. But I beseech you, that I may not be bold when I am present with that confidence, wherewith I think to be bold against some, which think of us as if we walked according to the flesh. 3. For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: 4. (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) 5. Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; 6. And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.

John Calvin on 2 Corinthians 10:5

“I am of opinion, that, having previously spoken more particularly of the conflict of spiritual armor, along with the hinderances that rise up in opposition to the gospel of Christ, he now, on the other hand, speaks of the ordinary preparation, by which men must be brought into subjection to him. For so long as we rest in our own judgment, and are wise in our own estimation, we are far from having made any approach to the doctrine of Christ. Hence we must set out with this, that he who is wise must become a fool, (1 Corinthians 3:18,) that is, we must give up our own understanding, and renounce the wisdom of the flesh, and thus we must present our minds to Christ empty that he may fill them. Now the form of expression must be observed, when he says, that he brings every thought into captivity, for it is as though he had said, that the liberty of the human mind must be restrained and bridled, that it may not be wise, apart from the doctrine of Christ; and farther, that its audacity cannot be restrained by any other means, than by its being carried away, as it were, captive.Now it is by the guidance of the Spirit, that it is brought to allow itself to be placed under control, and remain in a voluntary captivity.”

Calvin’s Commentaries, Vol. XX, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2003, p. 324.