Notice here that this Psalm puts a great emphasis on the fact that if you want to be blessed, if you want it to be said that you are a blessed person, true blessedness comes from the righteousness that we not only receive in justification and in salvation, but also in the living out of this righteousness that Christ gives us. It is walking in this blameless way.

It’s walking or conducting yourself in submission to the law of the Lord and to Scripture. The word “walk” means “the way you conduct your life.” This is about the habitual pattern of your life.

The blessed person patterns their life in a consistent submission to scripture. You won’t be able to do it in sinless perfection. Obviously, we still reside in sinful flesh, but you will be able to grow in your consistency in walking in this righteousness.

And so I encourage you today: if you want to be blessed, if you want to be thought of as a blessed person, you need to walk blamelessly and righteously. You can do so by walking in submission and obedience to the law of God, of the Lord. Amen.

Watch The Video Here:

Turbo Scribe! Yes, Turbo Scribe!

This is the AI Transcriber you didn’t know that you needed. For the past week, I have been using the free version, and yesterday, I paid the $120 annual subscription for unlimited access!

Turbo Scribe Website

This is the best balance between transcriber and pricing I have found online. One can upload audio or video files, and then I suggest choosing the highest accuracy setting, which is the Whale Setting, and it will transcribe your files in just a few minutes!

When the files are done, you can export them in a variety of formats, including Word, and it even separates the text into quite accurate paragraphs.

This service is excellent for the following items:

• Transcribing sermons for a commentary or book.

• Transcribing podcast episodes for a book.

• Transcribing notes from a meeting.

• Transcribing with a high-quality AI service rather than manually transcribing large files.

• And much more!

Turbo Scribe, when signed up for a paid subscription, gives one access to unlimited transcriptions. It can also recognize different speakers and translate into many languages!

Check out Turbo Scribe today!

Turbo Scribe Website

You’re worthless.

Nobody cares.

It will never get better.

You’re a failure.

No one loves you.

It’s hopeless.

Or, as it pertains to me in my life…

Your ministry is worthless.

You’re not making an impact.

You’re wasting your time.

Other people are successful, but not you.

Other men preach well. You do not.

They had a good reason to reject you.

You might as well delete everything, quit, and hide because nobody cares what you have to say.

I could go on.

Let me say this loud enough for the people in the back…

Depression Lies Like No One Else!!!

Just in case you did not hear me the first time, let me repeat…

Depression Lies Like No One Else!!!

This post is for those who struggle with and are victims of varying levels of Depression. Mine is Major Depressive Disorder. I was diagnosed back in 2016. Trust me, I had it long before diagnosis. However, for far too long, especially in Christian circles, the Mental Health Pharisees have been allowed to sinfully disuade good Christians from seeking quality mental health treatment, causing many to suffer in silence, afraid to be judged by the Mental Health Pharisees.

Now that I have been receiving mental health medical treatment, including medication and therapy for a decade, I know firsthand that it does make your life better. It has not cured my condition any more than some physical diseases can’t be cured either. And no, faith healers do not exist. So, I have not sought out one.

What I have found is that over the past decade, I have been equipped with tools to help me have a far higher quality of life than I had before seeking treatment. Now, when I have a depressive episode, I can more readily recognize what is happening and put certain measures into place to protect myself from giving in to the lies.

Why is this important?

Because depression is a liar.

Depression lies to you.

Depression lies like no one else.

Depression does not care who you are.
Depression does not care if you have money.
Depression does not care how old you are.
Depression does not care if you seek treatment or not.
Depression does not care if you have the tools to fight it or not.

Depression is going to lie to you every time. It tells you all those things that you know down deep are not true, but your mind has to work overtime to learn how to combat the intrusive thoughts that depression causes one to think.

Nobody wakes up and wants to start thinking that they are worthless, unwanted, or unloved. Major Depressive Disorder causes one to think in these terms.

I can have depressive episodes that seemingly come out of nowhere, and other times, I can link them directly to a triggering event. Granted, in therapy, I have uncovered why I have the triggers I do, and I would encourage you all to do the same, as it has proven useful in my struggle with depression.

I have learned, when I feel a depressive episode coming on, to immediately begin telling myself, “Nope, that is a lie. No, you do not feel that way. No, you will not feel that way forever. No, that is not true.” I have to be proactive when combating a depressive episode. This does not make it necessarily go away. It certainly does not make it go away immediately. However, it can shorten the duration and intensity at times.

Then, there are those times when my tactics prove ineffective. It is in those times that I have to tread carefully. Since one of the lies my depression tells me is that my online ministry is useless and nobody cares, I have to avoid getting online almost entirely. I avoid logging into my various platforms to avoid the depressive temptation to quit and delete everything. I know, from past mistakes, that if I do give in to that lie and delete everything, I will feel better in that moment, but when I come out of the depressive episode and return to my clear thinking, I quickly realize that depression has lied to me and I have made a huge error.

This sort of thing may seem strange to a mind that does not suffer from depression, and I get it. I do. We all do things we otherwise wouldn’t do when we believe a lie.

And… trust me… depression is a liar.

If you suffer from depression, if you have suffered silently for whatever reason from depression, you are not alone, you are not weak, it is not failure to seek treatment, and it can and does get better. I am living proof.

Which is it going to be? You can’t build on man’s wisdom and expect God’s results. If you build on God’s Word, man’s wisdom will not stand.

I have been saying for years that it matters not what man thinks but what God has said. This does not mean man does not engage his mental capacities and think through things. It also does not mean that at times man uses sound judgment in an area that God’s Word may not address. It does, however, mean that the foundation upon man’s decision making and life must be built on God’s Word and not his own understanding.

⁵ Trust in Yahweh with all your heart
And do not lean on your own understanding.
⁶ In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He will make your paths straight.
(Proverbs 3:5-6 LSB)

This text in Proverbs really brings out the point. We are to trust in God with all of our hearts, meaning with all that we are. Our minds, our bodies, our emotions, our spirit. Everything that makes up who we are as created beings is to trust God fully.

Notice the contrast: “do not lean on your own understanding.” This is key! If we rely on our own fallen and finite understanding, we will be dominated and enslaved to our preferences because we will be relying on what man thinks. However, if in our lives we properly acknowledge Him, meaning we know, recognize, and submit to the wisdom of what God has said, then we will find our paths to be straight because God will make them straight.

This ultimately comes down to “who is calling the shots?” Is it man? Is it you? Or, is it God? Who has control? Who is the supreme authority?

We see a similar contrast in Matthew chapter 7.

Build Your House on the Rock

²⁴ “Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and does them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. ²⁵ And the rain descended, and the rivers came, and the winds blew and fell against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. ²⁶ And everyone hearing these words of Mine and not doing them, may be compared to a foolish man who built his house on the sand. ²⁷ And the rain descended, and the rivers came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.”

Notice that in Matthew 7, Jesus also proposes a contrast. He states that building one’s life upon the rock of God’s Word is wise and that type of life will not fall. However, the one who builds on man’s wisdom will have a great fall.

We see this sort of thing play out in Christian’s lives all the time. Part of our sanctification, our growth in Christ, our growth in spiritual maturity, and our growth in mental maturity is learning to build the foundation of our lives on God’s Word.

We see the same error in the church. Churches that build their foundation and their decision-making on what God has said will stand and not fall. In contrast, those churches that build their foundation and decision-making on man’s wisdom and what man has said will die and fall. It is not a matter of “if” but a matter of “when.” In fact, there are dying churches right now that may not be showing most of the symptoms, but they are still there. In time, they will reach the surface.

I have seen it time and time again. When man’s preferences and what man thinks and says rule, there is only time between that point and certain death. Man’s wisdom can’t and won’t be allowed to rule in Christ’s Church. If Christ does not rule your local body of believers, God will not allow that to stand forever. There will come a day of judgment on that body that has forsaken God’s Word for what man thinks.

Keep in mind, everybody has traditions. Everybody has preferences. These things, in and of themselves, are not inherently sinful unless they take the place of or stand in contradiction to God’s Word.

Anyone who claims to have no traditions is enslaved to their traditions and doesn’t know it. - Dr. James R. White

The key is not whether man has preferences and traditions. The key is whether he openly admits it and then submits those preferences and traditions to God’s Word. Churches get themselves in trouble and begin to die when Christ no longer reigns, but man’s word reigns.

We see this in the following ways:

• Oh, we can’t do that! That will upset brother so-and-so. Or, that will upset sister so-and-so.

  • In this case, whoever the “so-and-so” is, they rule the church. If your decision-making is founded on not upsetting a particular individual or group, then they are the ones who rule, not Christ. Nobody is talking about being callous and not caring about upsetting folks in general. Anyone honest in their evaluation knows of what I speak.

• Oh, we can’t do that! Some folks will be upset and stop giving their money, and we need their money!

  • We call this financial manipulation, and it is a serious and disgusting sin. While New Testament Christians are not commanded to tithe, ministries do need funds to operate. Thus, it is important for us all to financially support our local body of believers. So, to use money as a means to gain power, maintain control, or manipulate a church is a grossly sinful behavior that should not be tolerated.

• We used to have a great choir! Now, all we have are those contemporary songs. If they don’t start singing my kind of music, I will leave!

  • Once again, this comes from someone assuming that their opinion and preference should reign and dominate the decision-making.

• We have to do what we have to do. We don’t have time to wait. We need to grow now!

  • This comes from someone whose priorities are not submitted to Christ and His Word. They see numeric growth as the capstone of success or failure and do not put the need for spiritual growth in its proper place. Compromise is born out of man’s wisdom, taking the place of God’s Word.

I could go on and on with more examples. We have all seen it. In fact, many have seen it and have chosen not to do anything about it because they don’t want to “upset the apple cart,” as I have been told. I can’t find that nonsense in my Bible. This doesn’t mean we are seeking to be unkind or going around looking to stir trouble. This is about setting the proper foundation, and I don’t care what you fill in the blank with; if you choose man’s opinion over God’s Word, you will not bring glory to His name, and you will answer for it one day in front of Him.

Man easily comes up with excuses to disobey God’s Word. He is an expert at it. However, when the problems and suffering come from following what man has said, they then turn and blame everything but themselves.

Church, let’s chart a better path. Let’s chart a path founded on God’s Word. Have the courage to stand for Christ, even in the Church.

There are none of the following in Scripture.

Youth Pastors

Executive Pastors

Pastor Of Care (Whatever that one means?)

Pastor Of Administration

Pastor Of Preaching

Women Pastors

Children’s Pastor

Music Pastor

Senior Pastor

Associate Pastor To Families

Student Pastor

Associate Pastor of Worship, Children & Youth (Wow! Just… wow!)

Pastor Of Technology

Pastor Of Global Missions

Associate Pastor

Associate Pastor Of Worship And Family Ministry

Ok…

I think you get the point. Now, let’s discuss why.

My whole life, it has been my experience, and my observation that, for example, when a man is titled a “Youth Pastor,” many just assume that is all he does. Further, many see him as not a “Full Pastor” or even a “Real Pastor.” He is more of a glorified babysitter for children and teens.

What is even worse is when you view “Job Descriptions” online for these sorts of positions, they may even actually state, “Youth Pastor answers to Senior Pastor.” Or, even worse, “Youth Pastor answers directly to the Deacons.” (Wow! I just got a heretical shiver down my spine just typing that!)

This sort of unbiblical thinking is part and parcel with the world’s thinking. This is why it is so dangerous. The world looks at titles and positions as a hierarchy. Certain individuals hold positions of power over other individuals. We section things and categorize people into lovely little slots we can slide them into and expect them to never attempt something outside of what we have determined for them.

This way of thinking and approach to Christ’s Church is not only unbiblical but also very destructive to the body and to the Elders/Pastors who are forced to fill these roles, restricted from living out their full calling by the labels and limits we place on them.

As is the case with all God-Centered Theology, if we let the Scripture speak and speak consistently, we find a more appropriate and God-Honoring way of doing things.

1 It is a trustworthy saying: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a good work. ² An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, ³ not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but considerate, peaceable, free from the love of money; ⁴ leading his own household well, having his children in submission with all dignity ⁵ (but if a man does not know how to lead his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), ⁶ and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation of the devil. ⁷ And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. (1 Timothy 3:1-7 LSB)

Notice that in the primary passage where the office of Pastor is identified, we see no text separating Pastors into categories or divisions. The qualifications are for Elders. The qualifications are for Overseers. (Note that congregationalism loves to ignore this and put itself as the overseers. That is a story for another day.)

It notes the “office of overseer,” meaning that each man who aspires (reach out after, reach for, move towards) to be an overseer is to be inspected and found qualified for the office or not based on his own life and calling. If Scripture intended to have so many different forms of Pastors, then Scripture would and should have addressed it.

If Scripture were consistent with the modern church’s way of conducting business, it would have said something like the following…

If any man or woman aspires to be a Pastor, then…

If anyone desires to be a Youth Pastor, then…

If anyone desires to be an Executive Pastor, then…

If anyone desires to be a Student Pastor, then…

Further, in terms of the labels we put on things, it would say something to the effect of “Now, if you, as a Pastor, desire to become a Senior Pastor and move up the ranks, then…

Scripture knows nothing of this categorical nonsense. There are two offices in the church. That of Pastor/Elder and that of Deacon. Here are some other things to keep in mind that we find in Scripture:

1. Scripture teaches oversight by a plurality of biblically qualified Elders who are men. We see this in Titus, 1 Timothy 3, the book of Acts, and more. When Scripture addresses the Elders, it is plural.

2. Now, a church is not “sinning” by having only one qualified Elder available to it. However, a church should never limit itself to only one Elder if more are available. Part of the reason we see the unbiblical “single Pastor model” in so many churches is because of how we have turned our churches into American businesses and places that emulate American politics far more than Scripture. In American politics, the people elect a representative to do what they want to see done. This is not the case in a biblical church. However, that is what it has turned into, and not people mistakenly think they “elect” a Pastor to do their bidding.

3. The purpose of a plurality of Elders is beautiful. Every qualified Elder is equally a biblical Elder. There are no ranks or divisions among them. However, we do see that each Elder will bring a unique background, gifts, talents, and abilities to the role. This means that one area where one Elder is weak, another may be strong in order to balance the team out.

4. While all Elders are required to be able to teach, this does not mean all Elders have to teach equally in terms of quantity or even quality. Yes, some Pastors/Elders will teach better than others. I have encountered several Elders who teach far better than I do. Granted, all Elders should be teaching, but not all Elders will teach as often or on the same level.

5. Having a plurality of Elders shares the burden of leadership. God never expected the congregation to conduct oversight, and He certainly never expected one Elder to do it by himself. Shared leadership among Elders is the model. Also, as a church grows, and Elders delegate areas of leadership to individuals or teams, those teams need to share leadership as well. This keeps Christians from burnout and taking on too much for one person.

6. All Elders have the same authority in their oversight. This is why it is important to verify the qualifications before placing one in the role. This is especially concerning when placing a younger man into the role. The younger the man is, the more likely he is to lack the life experience that other older Elders possess. This is why the qualifications mention that an Elder should not be a new Christian. There is a lot to learn and demonstrate before being inserted into the office.

There is more to be said at a later date. However, this presents the basic biblical pattern for Elders. Now, what about the various tasks, assignments, or areas that Elders may help oversee? I can hear it now…

What about the Youth?

What about paying all of them?

What about this or that?

While there are no Youth Pastors, for example, there may and can be a biblically qualified Elder who has a specialization in leading and overseeing ministry for younger people. This would not prevent or exclude him from Pastoring and overseeing Christians who are not in that category, and it certainly would not make him less of an Elder, but it may be an area in which he is especially gifted. There is nothing wrong with this.

If you feel like I am splitting hairs, I am, to a degree. Just refer to what I said above about how the church has already grown to see these various “titles” as divisions among Elders. That is what needs to change.

There may also be situations where you have Elders who are not paid but have another job or are retired. Then, you may have 1 Elder who spends the bulk of his time in the church working and therefore would need to be compensated for that time since it is not spent out in the world providing for his family by other means.

Associating each Elder with a certain area of oversight distributes leadership responsibilities without placing too much on one man, leading to ministry burnout. So, ultimately, what we have here is the need to treat Elders how Scripture sees them: as equals.

We need to refrain from placing titles on Elders beyond what Scripture gives them. However, within a local body, it would be perfectly acceptable to identify and assign certain Elders to particular areas as long as each Elder is equal in their standing and is not limited to just those areas.

Thus, to avoid all the confusion that our current situation brings us, a church could have the following as an example:

Pastor Bob - Oversees Worship Services

Pastor Tim - Primary Worship Service Preacher

Pastor George - Oversees Youth and Children

Pastor Joe - Oversees Technology

Now, keep in mind that Pastor Joe has every right to assist and provide input in other areas that are not technology-related. It is just that his primary attention will be on the technology. The same is true for the rest of the Pastors outlined above. This will look slightly different in every church, with some overlap.

A Brief History Of Biblical Cosmology

In the past, creation was not a “hot topic,” but in modern history, several things have happened to bring this issue to the forefront. Years ago, before the emergence of biological evolution and modern atheism, most people in Western culture believed in God. Naturally, they assumed that God made the world. The bib­lical account was simply taken at face value, and little attention was devoted to the analysis of the Bible’s account of creation. It is unfortunate that in the absence of controversy, some biblical truths are neglected.

This pre-scientific Christian conception of the ori­gin of the Universe was very simplistic; most people simply believed that God had created the Universe a few thousand years earlier. Bishop James Ussher calculated the date of creation at 4004 B.C., and that date appeared in many Bibles until the mid-twenti­eth century. The emergence of the theory of biological evolution challenged the assumption that the world was recently created.

After all, if evolution were true, it would have taken long ages for life to evolve from simpler organisms, and longer for the first life forms to emerge in the first place. With the grow­ing acceptance of evolution, people began to look for evidence of the Earth’s antiquity. In this regard, geology and biology de­veloped together. The ages of various rock formations were dated based on the assumed time necessary for evolution, or the evolution of the creatures embedded within them; evolutionary biologists then used the “findings” of geol­ogy to support biological evolution.

Biblical conservatives, who tend to understand the Bible more literally, rejected biological evolution as incompatible with the teaching of the Bible, but most eventually accepted the proposition that the Earth might not be so young. In an effort to square this emerging realization with the Bible, various theories were put forth.

One was the “Gap Theory.” The Gap Theory pro­posed that God created the Earth (Genesis 1:1), and at Satan’s fall God judged the Earth, which lay in ruins for a long time (Genesis 1:2) until it was renovated by God (Genesis 1:3-2:3). According to the Gap Theory the six-day account in Genesis 1:3-2:3 is the account of the Earth’s renovation along with the creation of plants, animals, and man.

According to this view, the Earth could be any age, since no one knows how long the gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 might have been. In a very simplistic way, this seemed to square the Bible with modern thinking about the age of the Earth, while at the same time rejecting biological evo­lution. This view became one of the dominant views among biblical conservatives and remained so up until the 1960s. Many of the leading conservative Bible expositors of the early twen­tieth century held to one form or an­other of the Gap Theory.

Other ideas, designed to reconcile the Bible and scientific observations about the age of the Earth, were suggested, too. One theory proposed that God created the materials of the Universe and then let natural processes unfold for a while, possibly millions or billions of years, before recently “forming” them to support life on Earth during the six days of Genesis 1:3-31 (a fairly recent set of events).

Theistic evolution was also pro­posed by those who took a less-than-literal view of Genesis. This theory not only attempted to square the Bible with the presumed antiquity of the Earth, but went a step further, attempting to reconcile the Bible with biological evolution. Theistic evolutionists proposed that God used evolution as the means of creating life, at least partially. Another view called “progressive creationism” suggested that the days of Genesis One were actually long geologic ages in which God performed his work of creation in “bursts.” This view was essentially non-evolutionary in that it did not attempt to account for the rise of the various species through evolution; rather, it simply sought to square the Bible with current thinking about geology and paleontology.

More recently, since the early 1960s, the trend among some biblical conservatives has been back to the original conception of a young Universe, in the range of eight to ten thousand years old. Recent Creationism began to gain ground in the 1960s and ’70s. There were several reasons for this. The Gap Theory was in trouble with proponents, beginning to acknowledge serious exegetical (interpretive) flaws in the biblical support.

Christians found their backs to the wall with the explosion of evolution in schools, colleges, and universities, and they desperately needed to mount a serious challenge to evolution. Finding support for a recent creation would be the surest antidote for evolution. It was also simple. Time is to evolution what fuel is to a fire; take away the fuel and a fire dies; take away time and evolution dies. Other theories seemed to have fallen by the wayside or clearly had serious problems. Perhaps be­cause it mounted a serious challenge to evolution, Recent Creationism quickly coalesced into a highly focused and organized movement.

Organizations like the Institute for Creation Research have been prolific producers of educational materials, most of which have been distributed in churches, Christian col­leges, and seminaries, where they have had a significant impact. Part of the appeal of Recent Creationism is that it seems to bring together a “literal” and non-evolutionary interpretation of the Gene­sis account, and to harmonize the Bible with the complexities of modern science. Ac­cording to Recent Creationism, God created the Universe in a ma­ture state perhaps eight to ten thousand years ago; the Universe appears old not because it is old, but because it was created ma­ture, imparting to it the appearance of being much older.

As has been pointed out, Recent Creationism has serious flaws of its own. Although the early geological evidence offered for the age of the Earth was suspect due to its inherent evolutionary bias, since the mid-1900s, a growing body of evidence points to a Universe that is much older than eight to ten thousand years. Also, as we have seen, the validity of Recent Creationism hinges on the ability of a mature creation to fully account for the Universe’s appearance of age. However, that explanation is seriously flawed (see Parts 2 and 3). We will now take a little closer look at some of these views.

The Early Christian (Pre-Scientific) View Of Creation

The pre-scientific view of creation held before the mod­ern period is that the world was created out of nothing approximately six thousand years ago. The nice thing about this view was that it did not require any elaborate explanations to ac­count for why the Universe appears to be old. To the pre-scientific mind the Universe looked to be about six thousand years old, and as they say, “that was that.”

The pre-scientific view was based on a simplistic reading of the Old Testament that did not consider the problem of the apparent age of the Universe. By adding up the genealogies and reigns of the Old Testament kings and any other available chronological data, some biblical scholars thought they could ar­rive at a fairly accurate date for creation. Using this method, Bishop James Ussher (1581-1656) dated creation at 4004 B.C., or more precisely, the evening before October 23, 4004 B.C. Bishop Ussher’s chronology was so widely accepted that his dates ap­peared in the margins of many Bibles until recently. While this chronology is no longer considered to be valid, primarily be­cause of issues with the pre-flood portion, it was still an amazing piece of work.

Of course, there were problems with the pre-scientific view. First, it didn’t entirely fit with the biblical text. As we have seen, the creation account in Genesis does not claim that everything re­corded in Genesis 1:1-31 occurred within six days, lit­eral or otherwise. Genesis says that the creation ex nihilo occurred sometime before the first of the six days. Second, this view did not account for the apparent age of the Universe.

Reconciliation Theories

Only recently have we become aware that the Universe appears to be much older than a few thou­sand years. In fact, estimates of the age of the Universe now extend about 13.8 to 20 billion years. Before the modern period, there was no need to reconcile the Genesis account with scientific observations. However, with new evidence for the age of the Universe, it became necessary to speculate how the Genesis account and science might be squared. This need gave rise to numerous “reconciliation theories.”

A reconciliation theory is a speculative understanding of the Genesis account and how it fits with modern science. While many Christians are convinced that there is adequate scientific evidence that the Universe is old, most con­servatives reject biological evolu­tion as both incompati­ble with the Bible and unsupported by scientific evidence. Nevertheless, there have been some within Christendom who have embraced biological evolution, and that is reflected in at least one of the theories that will be mentioned.

Naturally, the degree to which each theory attempts to reconcile Genesis and modern science varies. Some theories provide for reconciliation between Genesis and science, both in regard to the age of the Universe and biological evolution. Other theories reject biological evolution, at least at the macro-evolutionary level, and simply attempt to reconcile Genesis with the apparent age of the Universe. It is important to under­stand that all of these theories are speculative.

It is also essential to make a distinction between what the Bible actu­ally says and rea­sonably implies, and a theory that attempts to show how that in­formation relates to modern science. A particular reconciliation theory might prove to be incorrect, but just because a the­ory proves unworkable does not mean the Bible is incorrect. Recon­ciliation theories are simply speculations about how Genesis might fit with modern science.

It is also worth pointing out that such theories come and go in popularity. From the early nineteen hundreds to the nineteen-sixties, the Chaos (I prefer the term “Preformative”) Theory and the Gap Theory were predominant among biblical conserva­tives, whereas since the 1960s, Recent Creationism has become dominant, especially among fundamental Christians. Just as there was a paradigm shift among biblical conservatives in the 1960s and 1970s, we are now on the verge of another shift as difficulties inherent in Recent Creationism are being brought to light.

It is important to keep in mind that Christian teaching on creation contains two distinct streams of information. One stream is what the Bible actually says, primarily the Genesis account; the other stream is what we think that biblical information means in light of our present understanding of the Universe (i.e., science). Often, both streams are combined and presented as one. This has certainly been the case with Recent Creationism. Unfortunately, such a procedure doesn’t distinguish the biblical facts from the theoretical component.

Most of the theories we will survey have significant, indeed fatal problems, yet it is possible to find individu­als who still subscribe to these views. In fact, there are some whose view of Genesis has not moved beyond the pre-scientific. While such laxity is not necessarily fatal to our faith, it may be fatal to our witness. If we refuse to acknowledge what others see clearly, we can hardly expect our message to be taken seriously.

Day-Age Theories

Day-age theories state that the days of Genesis were not literal twenty-four-hour days, but long geologic ages—millions, or billions of years, possibly of variable length. There are two basic forms of day-age the­ories: theistic evolution and progressive creation. These differ in that while theistic evolution accepts macro-evolution (transmutation of one species) progres­sive creation attributes the origin of species to creative “bursts” spaced out over long geologic ages. Much of the current paleontological evi­dence and modern radio­metric dating is consistent with progressive creationism, or perhaps we should say that the theory has been conformed to the data, except for dates for human existence ex­tending beyond the range of bibli­cal his­tory.

Theistic Evolution

Theistic evolutionists speculate that God created the mate­rials of the Universe and the physical laws, and then used evolu­tion (chance interaction, mutation, and natural selection) to complete the process. They offer basically the same evidence for theistic evolution that is offered by atheistic evolutionists. There are varieties of theistic evolution. Some proponents suggest that God created the first life and allowed evolution to run its course; others hold that life arose as a result of natural processes from the materials that God created.

From the biblical point of view, there are two major prob­lems with theistic evolution. First, it isn’t compatible with a nor­mal/objective understanding of the Genesis account. Genesis states that man was a direct creation of God; it also states that God created all of the animals “after their kind” (Genesis 1:24,25). This statement clearly seems to preclude the idea that all life has arisen from simpler forms.

Secondly, the account of man’s fall into sin and the plan of redemption, of which the rest of the Bible is largely occupied, are based upon a normal/objective under­standing of the first few chapters of Genesis. If the creation ac­count were to be regarded as mythical, or even allegorical, then the entire message of the Bible would be questionable.

Third, there are fundamental scientific problems with the Theory of Evo­lution itself, for example: abiogenesis (life from non-life), the problem of irreducibly complex systems, the complexity and apparent design of organisms, the problem of how non-intelligence produced the in­formation necessary for the pattern of living things, and the lack of evidence from the fossil record and nature for the existence of species intermediates.

Progressive Creationism

Progressive Creationism states that God’s creative activity extended over long ages. This non-evolutionary view re­gards each of the days of the Genesis account as representing an era of inde­terminate and possibly variable length, during which God progressively created living things in bursts. According to this view, the species arose in the time frame that modern science claims is indicated in the fossil record, but not as a result of macro-evo­lution. Con­sequently, the days of Genesis are understood as a lit­erary struc­ture representing the creative epochs. In the past, some proponents of day-age theories used 2 Peter 3:8 as support. (In this passage, Peter indicated that with the Lord, a thousand years is “as one day.”) However, as we will see further along, a closer look at 2 Peter 3:8 does not sup­port this use.

There are several difficulties associated with progressive creationism. First, it isn’t compatible with a normal understanding of Genesis. However, the theory cannot be entirely ruled out on that basis; it is possible, albeit unlikely, that the days of Genesis were intended simply to represent indefinite time periods, not 24-hour days.

There are numerous instances in the Bible where the term “day” represents a time period other than a 24-hour day; for example, the frequently used expression, “the day of the LORD.” In this case, the reference to “evening” and “morning” would simply form a kind of literary inclusio for each metaphorical day. Second, as to the use of 2 Peter 3:8, where Peter said, “…one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day,” this statement does not mean that when scripture indicates a day, we are at liberty to interpret that to mean an indefinite amount of time.

Peter was simply saying that God, as an eternal being, is unaffected by time. He was not saying that when scripture indicates a time relationship, we are at liberty to take that figuratively. Oddly, 2 Peter 3:8 would be chosen to support the idea that time ref­erences in the Bible are somewhat elastic. Actually, this passage indicates quite the opposite. If a day in this passage were not liter­ally a day, and a thousand years were not literally a thousand years, this passage would make no sense, since the meaning only comes into sharp focus when we understand that Peter is saying that a literal twenty-four-hour day and a literal thousand years are all the same to a timeless God.

However, the fact that 2 Peter 3:8 does not support the day-age concept is not a negative for this view; it is more the lack of positive biblical evidence. Third, it is sometimes suggested that Exodus 20:11 seems to preclude this view by stating that everything was created in six days. Of course, if Exodus 20:11 simply reflects the Genesis account, then whatever “day” means in Genesis is also meant in Exodus 20:11. Progres­sive Creationism still does not solve all the scientific problems, since there are incompatibilities between the record of biblical history and modern science in the area of scien­tific dating, especially the dates of human existence. Unfortu­nately the scien­tific dating process is itself theory-bound, and those theories are based on naturalism.

Literary Theories

Various literary theories claim that the days in Genesis are merely a literary structure in which the creation story is either told or set. According to one of these views, the six days of Genesis were not six days in which creation took place, but six movements in the creation story, like “acts” in a play. One variation on the liter­ary framework theory is that God revealed the account of creation in six days, and that Genesis contains a synopsis of what was re­vealed on each day.

In either case, the six days are not viewed as a timeframe for the work of creation, but simply a structure for the story of creation. These theories do not speak directly to the issues of the age of the Universe or evolution. The various literary framework theories can stand alone as vague general theories or as adjuncts to another more detailed theories, such as progressive creationism or theistic evolu­tion.

The Gap Theory

Once very popular among biblical conservatives, this the­ory proposed that God created the world, which was subse­quently judged with devastating effect when Lucifer (Satan) fell. This theory proposes that the six-day account in Genesis is the account of the Earth’s reconstruction after its creation and subsequent judgment. Ac­cording to this view, the original creation is mentioned only in Genesis 1:1. Genesis 1:2 describes the condition of the Earth following its judg­ment, and Genesis 1:3-31 describes the Earth’s subsequent re-crea­tion, or renovation.

Several arguments were offered in support of the Gap Theory.

First, it was assumed that it would have been out of charac­ter for God to create the Earth “formless” and “void” (Genesis 1:2); therefore, something must have happened to cause the Earth to become that way.

Second, the terms “tohu” (“form­less”) and “bohu” (“void,” or “empty”) are used together in only one other instance in the Bible, where they clearly indicate judg­ment (Jeremiah 4:23).

Third, the idea that the original creation was judged by God could be made to fit with the biblical description of the fall of “Lucifer,” presumably recorded in Ezekiel 28:11-19 and Isaiah 14:12-21. (Al­though the name “Lucifer” is often used to refer to Satan, it is not likely a personal name as the AV indicates in Isaiah 14:12, but should be translated “morning star,” or “bright one.”)

Fourth, the Gap Theory appears to reconcile the Genesis ac­count with the apparent age of the Universe. A variation of the Gap Theory even sub­scribed to a pre-Genesis 1:3 plant and animal kingdom, also at­tempted to square Genesis with modern fossil dating.

There are three principal problems with this view. First, the grammar of Genesis 1:1-2 does not allow for a gap be­tween verse 1 and 2. Quite interestingly, this fact was brought to light by one of the foremost gap theorists of the time, Dr. Merrill F. Unger, in an article that appeared in the theological journal Bibliotheca Sacra (January 1958), titled: “Re­thinking the Genesis Account of Creation.”

The reason, as Dr. Unger explained it, is that “In the original language [Hebrew] Genesis 1:2 consists of three circumstantial clauses, all describing conditions or circumstances existing at the time of the principal action indicated in verse 1, or giving a reason for that action.”

To put it simply, what Dr. Unger pointed out was that the timing of the main verb of the sentence (v. 1, “created”) controls the timing of the three cir­cumstantial clauses describing the conditions in verse 2. (Verses 1 and 2 are one sentence in the Hebrew.) This means that at the time God created the Heavens and the Earth,

<clause #1:> “the Earth was [at the time of its creation] without form, and void;”

<clause #2:> “and [at the time of creation] darkness was upon the face of the deep;”

<clause #3:> “and [at the time of creation] the Spirit of God moved upon (or better, “was moving upon” {participle}) the face of the waters.”

When read as the grammar indicates, there is no way that verse 2 can be a descrip­tion of the Earth having been judged after its creation in verse 1, because verse 2 describes the conditions of the Earth at the time of its original creation in verse 1. This understanding of the text com­pletely rules out any notion of a gap between Verses 1 and 2.

Interest­ingly, Dr. Unger remained committed to the Gap Theory, albeit a modified version. His solution was to theorize that the creation referred to in verse 1 was not the original creation, but the re-creation of the Earth after its origi­nal creation and judgment, which he suggests, must have occurred before verse 1; thus placing the original creation, the Earth’s judg­ment, and the gap before the opening verse of the Bible.

While a highly crea­tive solution, this had the unfortunate effect of making the Gap Theory an extra-biblical theory, since it pushed the gap right out of the Bible! It took about twenty years for Dr. Unger’s obser­vations to take hold, but the shot had been fired, and ultimately the Gap Theory died, a victim of friendly fire.

The second problem is that the Gap Theory was never well supported biblically. The creation passage says nothing about the fall of Lucifer (Satan), or the Earth being judged. All of that material had to be imagined as having a connection with the creation account.

The third problem is that a great deal of weight was placed on iden­tifying the terms tohu (formless) and bohu (empty) with judg­ment. While it is true that the only other place these terms are used together in the Bible is a picture of divine judg­ment (Jeremiah 4:23), it is also true that one example does not establish a norm. There simply isn’t enough biblical evi­dence to conclude that these terms must refer to judgment when used to­gether.

Recent Creationism

Having already dealt extensively with Recent Creationism in this series, I will only mention here that there are two forms: what might be called “Classic Recent Creationism” and “Relativistic Recent Creationism.” As the names imply, both of these views subscribe to a young Universe, but they propose different solutions to the problem of the apparent age of the Universe.

As we have seen, the classic or standard view, as held by virtually all of the major recent creation organizations, makes use of the mature creation argument to account for the apparent age of the Universe. However, the relativistic view proposes a relativistic explanation to account for this apparent age. Again, Classic Recent Creationism will not be discussed here since it has already been critiqued in detail in previous articles. I will only briefly mention the relativistic view since it has gained little support among Recent Creationists.

In 1998, Dr. Donald Humphreys, a recent creationist, in acknowledgment of the major problems associated with the Appearance of Age Theory appealed to by most recent creationists, proposed another solu­tion to explain why the Universe looks so old (see: Donald Humphreys, Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe, Master Books, 1998).

Dr. Humphrey’s theory was complex, being based on relativity and the fact that gravity distorts time. His theory, which could be termed “white hole cosmology,” postulates that the Universe expanded out of a “white hole” (a theoretical “hole” with a gravitational event hori­zon from which matter and light can escape, but not re‑enter, essentially a black hole in reverse).

According to this theory, the Earth is at the center of the Universe, and since an event horizon affects time, making it run incredibly fast, as the Universe ex­panded and the event horizon shrank due to the loss of matter, the entire Universe, except the Earth, eventually passed through the event horizon. Since the event horizon would weaken as it shrank, the greatest aging effects would be seen in the galaxies furthest from Earth, since they would have passed through the event horizon first while it was still strong.

On the surface, white hole cosmology seems to explain the age differential between the Earth and more distant parts of the Universe; however, the specifics as proposed by Dr. Humphreys faced enormous problems both with the text of Genesis 1:1-31 and science, especially since the existence of white holes is purely speculative. Unlike black holes, no evidence of the existence of white holes has ever been discovered. According to this theory, ninety-nine percent of the Universe is much older (point of presence time) than even the maximum figure generally al­lowed by Recent Creationism (ten thousand years).

In other words, this view acknowledges that the bulk of the Universe was not cre­ated recently. And if it is acknowledged that the Universe does, in fact, appear to be old, not just mature, why postulate such an unlikely theory just so one can contend that the Earth is young, a claim the Bible nowhere makes.

The Preformative (Chaos) Theory

This view is generally called the “Chaos Theory”; however, I prefer the term “Preformative” because it’s a more accurate and descriptive term. This view proposes that God created the Universe ex nihilo sometime before the first formative day of Genesis. The six days of Genesis describe God’s subsequent activity in preparing the Earth as a home for man.

According to this view, all of the work done by God during the six days of Genesis was “formative” (i.e., using already existing materials) rather than creation ex nihilo, and it’s not possible to determine from the Bible how much time might have passed between the original creation ex nihilo and the first formative day. Accordingly, it is not possible to determine the age of the Universe from the Bible.

The Preformative View is based upon a literal under­standing of the Genesis account, and it does not impose any age assumptions on creation, whether young or old, nor does it re­quire any corollary theories, as is the case with Recent Creationism. It simply states that God created the materials ex nihilo in Genesis 1:1-2 and then subsequently formed those materials (hence the term “preformative”) during the six days of Genesis 1:3-31.

This should not be confused with the Gap Theory. The Preformative View allows for an unspecified time between Genesis 1:2 and 1:3, where the grammar presents no problem, but unlike the Gap Theory, this view suggests no particular events between Genesis 1:2 and 1:3 other than natural physical processes.

Additionally, it should be noted that the Preformative View is compatible with a biblical history that places the literal twenty-four-hour days of Genesis 1:3-31 within the last eight to ten thousand years, just as in Recent Creationism, only without the obvious problem of having to explain how the Universe could be just ten thousand years old. This view seems to track closest to the literal statements and structure of Genesis, and interestingly, while it does not require an old Universe, it fits well with current scientific evidence of the Universe’s age.

Historically, the main objection to this view has been to pose the question: “Why would God create the Universe and then allow so much time to pass before filling it with living things?” The answer to the question is: “We don’t know.” “Why” ques­tions involving God are very diffi­cult to answer unless the answer is revealed in scripture. How­ever, it is possible to venture a re­sponse: Maybe the “cake” wasn’t ready to be iced immediately.

At this point, someone might say, “But why would God need to wait for the completion of physical processes before forming and filling his creation?” Couldn’t God simply command everything to be in­stantly ready? The answer is “Yes, he could,” but that does not mean that he did, and there is no reason why he should have done so. God is the one who or­dained the physical processes at the creation ex nihilo, and being timeless, he would not be the least inconvenienced by the pas­sage of any length of time in creation, even if it were billions of years. It has also been suggested that Isaiah 45:18 implies that the six-day forming and filling activity of God had to be closely associated in time with the creation ex nihilo.

However, there is nothing in that passage that implies the forming and filling of the six days of Genesis had to occur immediately on the heels of the creation ex nihilo, only that the forming and filling had to occur eventually because that was God’s ultimate purpose for the creation.

Occasionally, one sees this objection: If this view were cor­rect, it would mean that God, contrary to his nature, created the world in a chaotic (disordered) state. This objection is why the view was originally called the “Chaos Theory” by its detractors, who at that time were mostly Gap Theorists.

The flaw in this objection is fairly obvious. Even though the original creation was as yet un­formed, or we might say it was in a “preformed” state, it was far from chaotic, for all of the ingredients of creation (time, matter, energy, space, and the physical laws governing them) were pre­sent. It certainly may be characterized as incomplete, but not cha­otic.

The fact that all of the creative work was not done in­stantly does not imply that the job was inferior, chaotic, or in any way beneath the majesty of God; even the plan of redemption is being accomplished over thousands of years, and that certainly isn’t beneath the dignity of God.

The History Of Modern Scientific Cosmology

While the discussion here has been principally concerned with what the Bible says about the origin of the Universe, it is important to know how this information fits with modern theoretical (scien­tific) cosmology, since any biblical theory that is seriously at odds with sound scientific observations would be highly problem­atic. We must not forget that the God of the Bible is also the God of science, whether scientists choose to acknowledge him or not.

From the time of Aristotle (c. 300 B.C.) to the early Nineteenth Century, the secular view of the Universe was that it is infinite and eternal. This was very convenient, since an eternal Universe requires no explanation of its origin. However, this theory posed problems. Scientists theorized that if the Universe were infinite in all directions, there should be stars visible at every point in the sky at some distance, and if it were eternal, there would have been sufficient time for the light from all those stars to reach the Earth. Therefore, if the Universe were infinite and eternal, the night sky should be much brighter.

Since the night sky is not bright, it is apparent that the Universe could not be infinite and eternal. This realization in the early 1900s led to another view called the “Steady State Theory.” The Steady State Theory claimed that the Universe is eternal, but stars are being born and dying in a perpetual cycle. This theory accounted for why the night sky is not bright, since stars eventually die out, and it required no Creator and thus fit with purely naturalistic assump­tions.

The problem with this theory turned out to be the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which implies that over time in any physical system, there is an increase of entropy (spent, or dissi­pated energy, which has no potential to do useful work). If the Universe were eternal, then it would have had eternity for the use­ful energy level to reach zero; thus, the Universe should be cold and dark, which is not the case.

Despite this diffi­culty, most physi­cists continued to subscribe to some form of the Steady State Theory well into the 1950s and ‘60s, perhaps because this best fit with their natu­ralistic assumptions. In the early 1900s, a growing body of evidence had begun to point to an expanding Universe, but this evidence was largely ignored.

In 1914, Vesto Slipher presented evidence that several nebulae were receding from the Earth. In 1915, Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity predicted an expanding Universe; however, Einstein simply zeroed out this expansion with a purely arbitrary “cosmological constant.” In 1922, Alexander Friedman, a Russian mathematician, predicted the expansion of the Universe, and in 1929 Edwin Hubble proposed the law of red shifts, based on the observation that the light spec­trum of a galaxy is more shifted toward the red (long wave­length) end of the spectrum the further that it is from the Earth.

The problem with an expanding Universe is that it implies a defi­nite age limit for the Universe, since it could not have been ex­panding forever. To see the problem, simply imag­ine a movie of the Universe’s history run backwards; it could only shrink so far. Of course, if the Universe is not eternal, then it must have had a beginning. This is precisely what was penned in the opening verses of the book of Genesis, and scientists and natural philosophers recognized that a Universe with a beginning was problematic for naturalism, scien­tism, and atheism.

Obviously, if the Universe had a beginning, it could not have created itself. So, the implication is clearly that something, or someone outside of the Universe, something eter­nal, must be responsible for the exis­tence of the Universe. Of course, the implications of an absolute beginning of the natural realm would be a stunning defeat for naturalism, a defeat that the naturalistic scientific community absolutely could not allow to happen. In fact, one of the classic arguments for the existence of God, the cosmological argument, says just that, that the existence of the Universe implies the exis­tence of something, or someone eternal, since something cannot come from nothing.

As best they could, scientists tried to avoid the inflationary Big Bang view. However, in 1965, two Bell scien­tists measured a 3 de­gree Kelvin excess antenna temperature in all directions in which they pointed their microwave antenna. This figure coincided very closely with the predicted residual tem­perature that would have been left over from a cosmic big bang origin. Later evidence pro­vided by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite in 1990-92, and the Wilkinson Micro­wave Anistrophy Probe (WMAP) has confirmed even more closely the theoretical pre­dictions of a hot big bang origin of the Universe.

Since the mid-1960s, naturalistic scientists have found themselves in a dilemma. They cannot, under any circumstance, acknowledge an absolute beginning of the Universe, yet all the available evidence points to the fact that the Universe did indeed have a beginning. They have been left with only one alternative: to con­tinue to argue that some natural process is eternal and there­fore no supernatural cause is required.

Of course, the perceptive reader will recognize that this discussion crossed over from sci­ence to philosophy long ago. [I have often wondered over the fact that many, if not most, conservative Christians dismiss the “Big Bang” Theory as a ploy on the part of atheistic scientists to explain the origin of the Universe apart from God, when precisely the opposite is true. Most atheists, whether scientists or not, are appalled at the implications of the Big Bang, and not a few have been motivated to reconsider the existence of God as the Creator.

Of course, the teaching of Recent Creationism is probably responsible for this state of confusion on the part of so many Christians, and as such has prevented us from effectively participating in one of the biggest discoveries of our time and leveraging that discovery in the proclamation of the Gospel; for the “Big Bang” Theory, in its essence, parallels Genesis 1:1-2.]

The fact that scientific cosmology has landed precisely in the same spot as the Bible has indeed been disturbing to naturalistic scientists and philosophers, most of whom are atheists and have an obvious in­terest in the issue far beyond the bounds of science. Since an ab­solute origin is highly problematic for them, several ideas have been put forth to try to get around the implications of a be­ginning to the Universe. One theory has been the “Oscillation The­ory.”

This theory suggests that the Universe has gone through an infinite number of expansions and contractions (crunches) and is, after all, eternal, needing no explanation for its origin. Not sur­prisingly, the problem with the oscillation theory is the same as with the Steady State Theory. The Second Law of Ther­modynamics implies that no physical process can go on forever; it will eventu­ally “wind down.” Two other problems with this the­ory are that the Universe doesn’t seem to have enough mass to contract, and if it did, it is believed that its low mechani­cal efficiency would not likely result in a subsequent re-expansion.

More re­cently the Hartle-Hawking model suggests that some eternal phe­nomenon was in place before the emergence of the present physical laws, and this phenomenon accounts for the ori­gin of the Universe. Dr. Stephen Hawking called this phenomenon “imaginary time,” and as we will see, it is quite appropriately named. Given imaginary time, Dr. Hawking hypothesized that the Universe could have emerged out of nothing, all by itself, with no need for a Creator. In his book, The Universe in a Nutshell (Bantum Books, 2001), Dr. Hawking assured his readers that imaginary time does exist (see chapter four).

This assertion has confused many people, including some scientists who simply assume that Hawking would not make such a statement if it were not prov­able, yet that is exactly what he did. One of the fundamental concepts of big bang physics is that no scientific statements can be made about any­thing before time zero (the beginning of time). Why? —Because one cannot make any sci­entific statements about anything before the exis­tence of the present physical laws. So, how did Dr. Hawking conclude that imagi­nary time exists?

In the first three chapters of The Universe in a Nutshell, he delicately wove an assumption into his discussion; that assumption is that science demands a natural (i.e., non-supernatural) explanation for everything. However, Dr. Hawking’s assumption is not science; it was nothing more than cleverly disguised natural philosophy.

Given the com­pel­ling evidence for an inflationary big bang origin of the Universe, any natural explanation would likely require a quantum event, since the Universe would have been very small when it emerged from nothing, and since quantum events require time (as do all other events), Dr. Hawking hy­pothesized that some kind of time must have existed (hence, “imagi­nary time”) before the emergence of real time which began at creation. With this, Hawking proceeded to explain how the Universe might have emerged out of nothing, that is, nothing other than imaginary time and quantum mechanics, which, of course, isn’t “nothing.” Dr. Hawking did nothing more than a clever job of concealing his naturalistic assumptions and hoping his readers would get lost in the myriad of details, as apparently many did.

The present state of scientific cosmology is this: The Universe, as we know it, as described by the laws of physics, had a beginning. That beginning encompasses everything we know, including: time, matter, energy, space, and the properties we call physi­cal laws, which include quantum mechanics (if true) and relativity, and any as yet undiscovered unification principles (if they exist). Sci­ence can make no authoritative statements about what might have pre­ceded the Universe’s creation, since such statements would have no basis in known physical laws.

As far as theoretical cosmology is con­cerned, we have finally reached “the end of the road.” While scien­tists will undoubtedly continue to suggest what might have happened “if such and such were true,” they cannot go back further than the moment of creation, actually a few moments afterward, when the properties we call physical laws originated. Therefore, science will never know any more about conditions before crea­tion than it knows right now, which is absolutely nothing. This is a permanent limitation.

Original Article Link

https://biblicalreadercommunications.com/2019/09/14/recent-creationism-and-the-bible-part-5-a-brief-history-of-creation-views/

Subscribe now

In writing this series of articles, I have repeatedly stated that…

I am a Bible-believing Christian with over 45 years of Bible-teaching experience and 22 years in Christian education (Bible and science).

I believe every word of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation.

I believe that the six days of Genesis were literal, twenty-four-hour days, likely less than ten thousand years ago.

I believe that God made all of the living kinds during the six days of Genesis, and that no new kinds have emerged through any natural (evolutionary) processes, though considerable variation within kinds has occurred.

I believe in all of the miracles recorded in the Bible, including the worldwide flood of Noah’s time.

I believe that Moses parted the sea in which the Egyptians subsequently drowned, and that Jesus rose bodily from the dead and will one day return.

But one thing I do not believe is that the Bible teaches a recent creation ex nihilo (i.e., a young universe).

I do believe that even though life is fairly recent in cosmic history, simple observation of the physical Universe provides abundant attestation to the fact that the Universe is much older, almost certainly on the order of many billions of years.

I believe that to deny the obvious is to deny common sense and one’s ability to think, or even understand the Bible, and I believe that if we train a generation of Christian youth not to think, we will reap what we sow.

Sadly, this is precisely where much of Christian education at the elementary, secondary, and Sunday school levels is headed.

In previous articles, the case has been presented that

• The Bible does not teach a recent creation ex nihilo (out of nothing).

• That a recent creation ex nihilo is inconsistent with observed astronomical facts.

If the case for these two points has not been made by now, there is no need to continue reading, for no additional evidence will be presented. What I would like to do here is to implore pastors, parents, Sunday school teachers, Christian school teachers, and anyone involved in the education of Christian youth to consider the outcome of teaching Recent Creationism.

I do this with mixed feelings because I believe that recent creationists have done much good in refuting biological evolution, and I know many recent creationists who I believe to be devout, sincere, well-intentioned people. Nevertheless, I am convinced that while refuting one error, they are promulgating another, which I believe to be a ticking time bomb in the minds of Christian young people. Let me share with you why I say that.

Recent Creationism Distorts The Message Of The Bible

One of the great appeals of Recent Creationism is that it’s fairly simple to understand, and there is a certain appeal in simplicity. Another attraction is that it’s promoted as “biblical.” What “Bible-believing” Christian wouldn’t want their beliefs to be “biblical”? The problem is that Recent Creationism isn’t what it professes to be because it isn’t biblical. I demonstrated this in the first article.

Remember, recent creationists don’t claim that a recent creation could be “compatible” with Genesis; they claim that a recent creation is what Genesis teaches, and as I demonstrated, they then proceed to restructure the Genesis account to fit that view. This is how virtually every false teaching in church history started: someone got what they thought was a great idea and decided to find biblical support for it, whether that support existed or not.

Please stay with me here; if we take the position that what recent creationists have done is okay because they say they claim to believe the Bible and they are refuting evolution, then where does this ultimately lead? I’ll tell you: It ultimately leads to the inability to distinguish truth from error. In such a mindset, motives weigh more than truth, and that’s dangerous ground. Why would we want to teach our children that facts don’t matter?

Recent Creationism Teaches A Theory Of Origins At Odds With The Physical Universe

Evolutionists claim to have evidence for biological evolution, but they don’t. In the forty-five years since I graduated from college, I have yet to learn of even one piece of physical evidence proving that even one transmutation has been documented scientifically. The problem is that many scientists, and especially science educators (I’ve been one), have difficulty distinguishing between an observation (a fact, if proper) and a theory (which by definition is not a fact).

This is almost universally the case with teachers of biology (again, I’ve been one). So when I say “physical evidence,” don’t think of the kind of evidence to which biologists appeal in support of Darwinian-type evolution. I’m talking about a different kind of evidence, “hard” evidence, the kind that in a court of law could send a person to prison for life; and there is no better evidence that an event happened a certain way than a clear, detailed video of the actual event.

If biological evolutionists had that kind of evidence (say, a verified and unbroken video of an actual transmutation as it occurred in the past), they would really have a slam-dunk case, but they don’t. Such is not the case with astronomy. Astronomical evidence is unfamiliar territory for most people, so let me state a basic concept: When we look at a distant heavenly body, we are looking backwards in time.

For example, if we were to look at the Sun (not a good idea), we would see it as it appeared approximately eight minutes ago. Why? Because it takes that amount of time for the light of the Sun to reach Earth. If we extend this further out into the Universe, it should be obvious that the further out we look, the further back in time we are looking.

In essence, the Universe allows us to actually observe the past just as if it were happening right now! There is no biological or geological equivalent to this type of evidence. The physical evidence for an old Universe (older than ten thousand years) is incontrovertible. Some of this evidence was discussed in the previous article. Dismissing the so-called “evidence” for biological evolution (often an amalgam of data and hypothesis), and dismissing the evidence of an old Universe (based on actual observation) are two entirely different things, and we must understand the difference.

The difference is in the type of “evidence.” Have you ever wondered why recent creationists seldom focus their discussion on astronomy? Well, your kids are about to find out when they get to college, and what they will find is that the Universe of the recent creationists and the real Universe are not the same! The light images from space constitute a visual record of the Universe’s history, and that history is clearly much longer than ten thousand years.

What will our young people do when faced with that evidence? I don’t have to guess; as a teacher, I’ve seen it. They might deny the obvious (there’s a name for that), or more likely, they’ll just put their Bible on a shelf with their other books, or perhaps they might decide to somehow try to live with the contradiction (very uncomfortable). In any case, they are likely to feel betrayed by churches and schools that failed to give them a proper understanding of the creation. I have seen all of these scenarios played out; don’t let this happen to your child! We can stick our heads in the sand and hope for the best, but the Universe is too big to hide, and sooner or later, your son or daughter will likely be confronted with this evidence, so don’t put a ticking time bomb in your kid’s backpack because that’s exactly what Recent Creationism is, a ticking time bomb.

Recent Creationism Establishes A False Conflict Between The Bible And Science

There is an irreconcilable gulf between the biblical view of creation and the view of modern naturalism, which currently dominates science. Of course, if the God of the Bible is also the God of creation, there should be no conflict between the Bible and true, objective science. The Bible, when properly understood as the original authors intended, will always be in harmony with facts uncovered by true science.

The problem with Recent Creationism is that it sets up students to distrust not just naturalistic theories, but factual evidence. To be suspicious of or to reject a theory is one thing, but to refuse to fairly consider factual evidence is something else. In my years as a Bible and science teacher in a Christian school, I have seen the effect this has on young minds; they have been systematically trained to disbelieve, or at least to disregard facts that fall outside of their very limited worldview. This does not bode well for the future of Christianity.

Recent Creationism Conditions Students To Accept Nonsense As Truth

As Christians engaged in an ongoing conflict with Neo-Darwinian evolution, we frequently have to remind evolutionists of the difference between facts and theories, but there seems to be a lot of confusion on this point among recent creationists as well. Recent creationists recognize that the Universe appears to be very old, in fact, billions of years old; that’s why they have proposed various explanations of how it could look so old if, according to them, it’s fairly young.

One of the early suggestions made by some recent creationists was that since creation, the velocity of light has slowed to its present level. It was proposed that this could explain how light from distant stars could have traveled so far in such a short amount of time. Such theories are now generally dismissed by knowledgeable recent creationists, since they lack experimental support and would violate the Law of the Conservation of Matter and Energy as it relates to special relativity. According to Einstein’s famous formula, E=MC², any change in the velocity of light would have to be compensated by a change in proton mass, which would have resulted in a Universe with a very different chemistry than the one in which we live.

Currently, the dominant theory among recent creationists is the “Appearance of Age Theory.” As has been pointed out in previous articles, this explanation attempts to account for the apparent age of the Universe by claiming that, because it was created in a mature state, it naturally looks older than it is. While such an explanation might sound okay at first glance, it actually doesn’t address the real problem.

As I said in the previous article (Recent Creationism: Astronomy Tells a Different Story), if the Universe appeared “mature” such a theory might not be a problem, but the Universe doesn’t simply appear mature, it appears to be old, with all of the “scars” associated with countless billions of events having happened through the progress of time (stars having exploded, galaxies in collision, intergalactic gravitational interference, etc.).

To rescue the Appearance of Age Theory, which in turn rescues Recent Creationism, recent creationists have been forced to the conclusion that the Universe must have been created with the appearance of events that never actually happened (i.e., a false history); and to make it all look very real, all of those events that never happened seem to have obeyed all of the laws of physics, including gravitation and motion within a uniform temporal context! This conclusion, from which recent creationists have been unable to escape, is truly the most bizarre explanation imaginable.

Frankly, it’s every bit as bizarre as the idea of life from non-life! If this theory were true, we could throw science, theology, philosophy, and common sense out the window, for we could never be sure that anything is what it appears to be, or that common sense has any relation to reality. Sadly, this is precisely the message that Recent Creationism is sending to Christian young people, unintentionally, of course.

The only redeeming factor in all of this is that many people never think deeply enough to see these problems, so they live their lives oblivious that the two ends of the proverbial “string” don’t meet in the middle, so to speak. Is this the kind of intellectual environment in which we want to raise our young people, in which any explanation, no matter how bizarre, is acceptable as long as it serves the purpose of refuting evolution? Roads that have ditches usually have them on both sides. It’s time to realize that Recent Creationism is simply the other ditch.

Recent Creationism Consigns Christian Students To Academic Oblivion

Christian students in higher education already face a lot of headwind academically regarding such issues as the nature of faith, the reliability of the Bible, miracles, etc. Do we really want to send them off to college with a totally “off the rails” view of the Universe, too? If we choose to do so, we risk making their lives far more difficult and their academic success far less likely. If they were suffering for the sake of truth, such a sacrifice would be commendable, but that’s not the case; to the extent that they will suffer due to a belief in a recent creation ex nihilo, they will be suffering for something that the Bible nowhere teaches, and for which there is abundant physical evidence to the contrary.

Recent Creationism Severely Limits The Advancement Of Christians In The Physical Sciences

Bible-believing Christians are facing increasing obstacles to entry and advancement in the physical sciences, especially fields like physics, cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, and space science. Adding Recent Creationism to their resume is the proverbial “kiss of death.” Ask yourself how many Christian schools offer degrees in these areas, and if they do, how many of their graduates obtain jobs outside of Christian education.

Again, if Christians were suffering academic and professional isolation for the sake of truth, that would be a worthy cause; sadly, some of the social, academic, and professional isolation that recent creationists experience is brought on because they have espoused some truly bizarre ideas as truth. If Christian students in higher education are suffering due to their belief in a recent creation ex nihilo, they’re suffering because their churches, schools, and in some cases even their parents, have let them down.

Is Anything “Right” With Recent Creationism?

While most of what I’ve said about Recent Creationism is negatively critical, some of the work of recent creationists has been very positive. Recent creationists have, for the past sixty-plus years, been at the forefront in pointing out the fallacies of biological evolution, and they have done a truly excellent job. They have also helped to provide a better understanding of the geologic and fossil records and the problems associated with modern scientific dating.

In addition, the recent creationists whose presentations I have heard over the years appear to be dedicated, sincere, and well-educated people. All of this is commendable. If the movement were named “Biblical Creationism” or some such title, and if there were not an insistence on a recent creation (i.e., a young Universe), I would have nothing but positive things to say, but the reality is that Recent Creationism is called “Recent Creationism” for a reason.

I don’t recall ever attending a seminar where a recent creation speaker, no matter what the topic, didn’t bring in the concept of a young Universe; that is by design. Time is to evolution what fuel is to a fire; take away the fuel and a fire dies, take away time and evolution dies. The problem with this approach is that we should have realized early on that even if the Universe is old, even infinitely old, which virtually no one now believes, the evolution of life from non-life would still be impossible.

Adding time to the impossible does not make it possible; life is no more likely to develop from non-life in billions of years than it is in ten thousand years, because life is not a natural condition in the Universe, despite what many scientists now believe. It seems that recent creationists took an unnecessary shortcut to refute evolution and, in the process, unintentionally, I’m sure, did damage both to the Bible and to science. The real question is: Will the church and Christian education continue down this path, and in the process lose all credibility?

Original Article Link

https://biblicalreadercommunications.com/2019/09/14/recent-creationism-and-the-bible-part-4-please-stop-crippling-your-kids/

Subscribe now

God Centered Theology

https://www.youtube.com/@GodCenteredTheology

Of course, we have to recommend our own channel! Be sure to Subscribe to watch all of the latest God Centered content!

Alpha & Omega Ministries

https://www.youtube.com/@AominOrg

Alpha and Omega Ministries is a Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona. James White, director, is a professor, having taught Greek, Systematic Theology, and various topics in the field of apologetics for numerous schools.

Apologia Studios

https://www.youtube.com/@ApologiaStudios

Welcome to Apologia Studios! Our mission is to get the Gospel into all areas of culture. From theology to politics. We discuss everything from modern culture to Mormonism and the cults, and do it all in a reformed and relevant way.

Berean Bible Church

https://www.youtube.com/@BereanBibleChurch

The purpose of Berean Bible Church is to influence people to grow in a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ through expository teaching, discipleship, fellowship, and treating others as we would like to be treated.

Exploring The Bible With Dr. R. Jay Waggoner

https://www.youtube.com/@exploringthebiblerjwaggoner

Founded to take the exposition of God’s Word to all people, Exploring The Bible is a local and global ministry outreach of Dr. R. Jay Waggoner. In his work as a pastor, evangelist, conference speaker, and author, Dr. Waggoner has impacted thousands since 1974.

Grace Fellowship Church

https://www.youtube.com/@gracefellowshipchurch1689

Grace Fellowship Church exists for the glory of God, and every sermon, study, and resource shared here flows from that ultimate purpose (Eph. 3:21). Pastor Kyle Kearbey.

Long For Truth

https://www.youtube.com/@LongforTruth1

Long for Truth exists to expose the wacky, crazy, and blasphemous things being said and done by much of the modern Evangelical Church.

Mr. Don Preston

https://www.youtube.com/@MrDonPreston

Preterist Research Videos by Don K. Preston, consisting of Morning Musings, Responding to the Critics, and Now Network TV.

Receive Them Ministries

https://www.youtube.com/@ReceiveThemMinistries

Hi there! My name is Tyler, and welcome to my channel! I was diagnosed as Autistic as a child and became a Christian in my teenage years. Receive Them is a result of the convergence of those two worlds: Autism and the Church. This channel is part of an endeavor to help equip churches with the knowledge and wisdom to receive and minister to Autistic people with Christlike love and compassion.

Revelations In Grace

https://www.youtube.com/@revelationsingrace

Revelations in Grace is a personal blog and YouTube series that focuses on Christianity, the unmerited grace of God, understanding the Bible, and Preterism.

The Christian Heritage Center

https://www.youtube.com/@christianheritagecenter

The Christian Heritage Center is a ministry dedicated to honoring, preserving, and learning from the heritage of godly figures in the past to better serve the church today.

Wise Disciple

https://www.youtube.com/@WiseDisciple

Wise Disciple began with Nate Sala on an old PC in a small corner of his living room. Nate was teaching his local youth group about how to properly engage arguments against Christianity. He created the website for his church to go deeper into each of those early lessons. Today, Nate is equipping thousands of Christians to live like Christ, have confidence in their faith, and communicate why Christianity is true.

YourCalvinist (Podcast) With Keith Foskey

https://www.youtube.com/@ConversationswithaCalvinist

Keith Foskey (@YourCalvinist) is a pastor, podcaster, and humorist. If you want to learn more about Pastor Keith and his ministry at Sovereign Grace Family Church in Jacksonville, FL, visit www.SGFCjax.org.

I was diagnosed with major depressive disorder in 2016. Before that, I still had major depressive disorder but was not able to receive treatment because I had not sought it, and frankly, did not think to seek it. Further, I came up in the cult of the IFB (Independent Fundamentalism), where talk of “mental health” or depression was a sign of weakness. According to the IFB cult, all you had to do was repent of whatever sin was plaguing you and believe the gospel more. This sinful point of view is not limited to the IFB. We still see this destructive way of thinking in our world today.

For those who do not have major depressive disorder, it may be hard for you to imagine what it feels like. Anybody and everybody can become depressed. Anybody and everybody can experience anxiety. Anybody and everybody can be plagued by seasonal or situational depression. However, major depressive disorder is a completely different beast.

Right now, I am actually suffering through a depressive episode. So, while the symptoms are fresh in my mind, allow me to guide you through some of what it feels like. This is not an exhaustive list, but it hits on the most common ones.

What Major Depressive Disorder Feels Like For Me

Loss of pleasure and desire to do the things I normally enjoy.

I am usually plagued by thoughts about quitting all of my online ministry work. I am bombarded with thoughts that nobody cares about what I am doing, and that I am wasting my time, and I should delete it all and do something else. This is a particularly hard thought to combat, and I have given in to this thinking several times over the last decade. Then, when the depressive episode lifts, I regret giving in and deleting everything because I realize that not only do I enjoy it, but I am good at it.

Feeling Like There Is A Dull Ache Down Deep In My Soul

I get a feeling, and it is not even in the pit of my stomach. It is an ache, a pain, a feeling of loneliness, and a dull, depressing feeling that feels as if it is right in the middle of my very soul. You can’t get rid of it. You can’t make it stop. It makes you feel sad, lonely, and basically immobile. It is amazing how I can be sitting somewhere and in my mind, I can have some gumption to get up and get moving, and my body simply will not respond due to the depression.

It Feels Like A Fog Is Hovering Over My Body

Depressive episodes are much like fog. You either wake up, and it is just there. Or, you wake up and see it moving in over the horizon. Once it arrives, it seems to hover and stop. Everything is tinted by the fog, and I feel like it will never lift. Then, when it lifts, it does so slowly, but I know when it is lifting, and when it has lifted, because I feel so much better.

It Amplifies Low Self Esteem

Depression really attacks my self-esteem and makes me feel as if I am worthless. Not in an entire sense but in a very real general sense. Granted, I have had enough years of medication and therapy to help me know this is not how I really feel. However, this disorder will amplify any levels of low self-esteem that one has.

Makes Me Feel Very Lonely

Depression has a way of making you feel very lonely. I tend to mistakenly feel that I am the only person in the world who feels this way when a depressive episode hits. I have had depression and have received treatment for it long enough now that I can discern the difference between general and normative depression or when I am just sad versus an actual major depressive disorder episode.

What Do I Do When This Happens?

Honestly, the best I can. However, I do have tools available to me to make sure I do not give in to the false things my mind is telling me during a depressive episode. For example, I avoid working on any of my online ministry stuff to a degree so that the depression won’t tempt me to think that I am wasting my time. There are other ways I combat this illness as well.

I pray that if you have major depressive disorder or if you think you may have it, please seek treatment from a qualified healthcare professional. You are not alone. You can feel better. I can’t promise you that treatment will heal you and remove the depression, but as I have, you can learn to live with it in a much healthier and stronger way.

By the way, to all the mental health Pharisees out there, no, I am not weak. No, I do not lack faith. I have a legitimate illness/disorder, and just like any physical one, I need and receive treatment for it. Is there a form of anxiety and depression that can be sinful? Yes, but as it is outlined in Scripture. Major depressive disorder is not something we sign up for, and the way we feel during an episode is not a sin because we literally can’t help it.

Subscribe now

An understanding of the moral fall of man and its consequences is essential to understand many other important biblical truths. We can­not understand or accept the concept of original sin, referring to the initial sin of Adam, apart from a literal (objective) understanding of the Genesis account of man’s direct creation by God. Those who hold to an evolutionary view of man’s origin almost invariably deny the fall. Apart from an understanding and acceptance of original sin, it is impossible to understand both man’s historic and current dilemma—spiritual, intellectual, and physical. Also, apart from an understanding of the fall, we have no basis for understanding and appreciating the work of Christ on the cross (cf. Rom. 5:12-21). Our entire concept of the message of the Bible, and hence Christianity, rests on our view of the fall of man, and that view rests on the validity of the account of man’s crea­tion.

Although Satan tempted Eve, his real target was Adam and Adam’s race. Satan struck at Eve because he knew he could leverage Adam’s relationship with Eve against his relationship with God. Satan deceived Eve by casting doubt upon God’s good­ness, suggesting that God was withholding something desirable from her (Gen. 3:4-5). Satan’s deception also involved a direct contra­diction of God’s word to Adam and Eve (v.4). Satan attrib­uted evil motives to God, suggesting that God told Adam and Eve to leave the tree alone because he did not want them to discover they could be like him (v.5). He made deceptive promises to Eve, telling her that if she ate of the fruit she would be like God (v.5).

Satan’s tactic, as seen in this temptation, has been re­peated count­less times down through history. He attacks where we are weak­est. His method is simple but effective: He pits one af­fection against another, entices us to disbelieve God’s goodness, incites us to actions that contradict God’s clear commands, and holds out deceptive promises about the outcome of our actions.

The Consequences of Man’s Fall

In surveying the consequences of the fall, we need to dis­tinguish between different kinds of consequences. Immediate consequences happen instantly, and remote consequences follow in time. Some conse­quences are natural (i.e., cause and effect), others are the result of divine judgment (imposed). Adam and Eve’s sin involved all of these kinds of consequences.

Immediate Consequences of the Fall of Man

Adam and Eve immediately sensed that something had changed. Whereas previously they had no self-consciousness, they now felt vulnerable, exposed, naked, corrupt, and ashamed (Gen. 3:7). Of course, there was nothing wrong with their nakedness; they were naked before. The problem now was that in their fallen state, they experienced alienation, both from God and from one another (vv. 8-10). For the first time, they experienced fear and dread of God and repulsion to his holiness. They didn’t want to be in his presence. This was evidence of their spiritual death, for at the very moment of their sin, the indwelling presence of God was withdrawn. Their fellowship (the life-giving union that existed) was instantly terminated. There arose within Adam and Eve a self-serving and self-preserving instinct. They began to pass the blame for their actions (vv. 12-13).

Before their sin, Adam and Eve had experienced a deep unity at every level (spirit, soul, body); now they were left with only a psycho-physical unity. The flame of their relationship withered to merely a smoldering ember of what it had been. The relationship between the man and woman would now be strained and burdensome as a result of the fall (v.16). Any worldview that minimizes the distinct and complementary nature of men and women denies the truths taught in the account of man’s creation and fall.

(Note the connection between modern feminism and homosexuality: If woman is not a distinct, uniquely designed complementary mate to man, then male/male, or female/female relationships differ little from male/female rela­tionships.)

In addition, the environment was cursed and became hostile to man’s survival; the serpent was cursed, perhaps as a symbolic remembrance of the fall; and finally, Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden forever (vv. 23-24).

Regarding man’s spiritual condition, the fall rendered Adam and Eve completely unable to redeem themselves, or even to assist God in their redemption; this condition is called “total depravity.” Total depravity does not mean that a fallen man is as bad as he or she could be; it simply means that sin has affected every part of his being (spirit, soul, and body). A depraved person will naturally recoil from God just as Adam and Eve did after their sin. Therefore, fallen men in their natural state do not seek God; God must seek them (Rom. 3:9-18).

Remote Consequences of the Fall

Adam and Eve began the long process of physical degen­eration and death. While it took many centuries for Adam to die, we may assume that the effects of physical degeneration were soon noticeable. There were additional physical complications for Eve and women after her; reproduction would be burdensome (v. 16). Since in Adam the entire human race fell (Rom. 5:12-21), every descen­dant by natural conception would be born in sin, already spiritu­ally separated from God (i.e., spiritually dead). This is usually referred to as the problem of “original sin.” While the fall of the human race was immediate, its full effect would only be seen in the course of time.

Questions Concerning the Fall of Man

The fall of man raises several important questions that need to be addressed.

First, how could the impulse to sin arise within a sinless being?

In the post-fall world, we sin because we have a sin nature that is inclined toward sin. To put it another way, we have a tendency, or propensity to sin, just like a ball under the influence of gravity tends to roll downhill. Of course, Adam had no sin nature, and thus no propensity to sin; so, how can we explain his action? If he did not incline to sin, what moved him in that direction? The answer is like choice, or what we call “free will.”

All sin is first commit­ted in the heart before it is acted out. Since Adam was created with free will (the ability to make moral choices freely), he had within him the God-given ability to move in either moral direction. Today, man no longer exercises complete free will. He has a will and exercises a degree of free choice, but because of his fallen na­ture, his choices have become limited to choices consistent with his sin nature.

For example, before the fall, Adam could have cho­sen to do a truly righteous act, but the natural, unregenerate person is incapable of producing righteousness (Rom. 8:5‑8). A righteous deed is motivated by a heart that sincerely desires to please God above all else. Even redeemed people can per­form righteous deeds only by the enabling of the indwelling Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:9-10).

Second, how could a good God permit man to be tempted?

It is because God is good that he designed man with the ability to choose and allowed him to experience real-life choice. Remember, God did not tempt Adam and Eve to sin (James 1:13); he created them with the ability to make moral choices. So why did God deliberately place a tree in the Garden and command them not to eat from it? Wasn’t God placing a stumbling block in their path?

The answer is that for Adam and Eve to be truly free to choose to obey God and become righteous, they had to be free to reject him and become sinful. If God had created Adam and Eve with the ability to choose, but had provided no practical way for them to express their choice, they still would not have been able to choose. In that case, their actions would have been determined by the lack of an alternative. God provided a choice for Adam and Eve, and warned them of the consequences of disobedi­ence. God knew before he created Adam and Eve that they would fall, but their choice was nonetheless free.

Third, how could such a great penalty be imposed for so small a sin?

The problem here is the assumption made in the question, that is, that sin is finite. If we consider that every sin is committed against an infinitely holy God, then every sin is an infinite offense and merits eternal consequences. In under­standing the nature of sin, we must always seek to understand it against the backdrop of God’s holiness. We cannot minimize sin without also minimizing God’s holiness.

Original Article Link - https://biblicalreadercommunications.com/2017/04/16/the-fall-of-man-into-sin/

Subscribe now

As a conservative Bible teacher, I could not be more emphatic in stating that Recent Creationism is potentially one of the most dangerous doctrines facing the contemporary church. It fills minds, young and old, with a fairy-tale‑like view of creation that is neither biblical nor scientific. To the extent that it is accepted as fact by young people, it is a ticking time bomb set to go off as soon as they learn, as many inevitably will, that it simply doesn’t fit the facts of the known Universe.

Understandably, many conservative Christians have come to distrust origin science. This is due in large part because many scientists, as well as others, have promulgated a naturalistic view of origins under the guise of science. Since such a worldview is clearly at odds with a normal understanding of the Bible, many Christians have simply written science off as having little of value to say about the origin of the Universe.

Sadly, naturalistic philosophy has been allowed to masquerade as science. The problem is that in the wholesale rejection of origin science, some Christians have quite literally “thrown out the baby with the bathwater.” We must bear in mind that there are two streams of information that proceed from science: observations (normally understood to be “facts”), and theories, which tentatively suggest what might be true, but which are as yet unproven.

The Law of Gravity is an example of an observation (a fact), though how gravity works is still a theory. For all of the dust kicked up by science educators who claim biological evolution to be a fact, it simply isn’t, because there is no observational evidence to back it up. I’m sorry to be the one to tell any evolutionists who don’t already know this, but observation of fossils, be they mollusks or australopithecines, is not observation of evolution, since fossils don’t evolve (because they’re dead), and no living organism has ever been observed to transmutate. Thus, the suggestion of a hierarchical relationship between any two fossils is not an observation; it’s merely a theory regarding the relationship between two observations (the fossils). Regrettably, even many scientists seem unable to distinguish between facts and theories.

While there is much that could be said about both the origin of the Universe and the origin of life on our planet, here we will be focusing on the origin of the Universe as it relates to Recent Creationism, i.e., the theory of a young Universe. With that in mind, let me say that we now possess a great many observations about the physical Universe which could, and should, be regarded as facts even by recent creationists, and those facts are unequivocally telling us that the Universe has been around for a long while, certainly far longer than recent creationists are willing to acknowledge.

Here, we will offer a few examples and discuss what that evidence means. Understand that for every observation given, there are quite literally millions, perhaps billions of examples throughout the Universe, and there are other types of observations that will not even be mentioned here. Nevertheless, the examples that are mentioned should be sufficient for a reasonable person to conclude that the Universe appears to be quite old, and as we saw in the previous article, recent creationists have no plausible theory to explain why the Universe appears so old if, as they believe, it is less than ten thousand years old.

Starlight

Galaxies are made up of stars and other materials. When we observe a distant galaxy, we are actually seeing the combined light of billions of stars in that galaxy, though the individual stars are usually not discernible at such a great distance. Astronomers generally agree that the furthest galaxies now visible were, at the time the light left them, on the order of 13.8 billion light-years from Earth [This figure is currently under revision, but still huge.]

In case you might be inclined to question this figure, don’t bother; most knowledgeable recent creationists have already stipulated its general correctness. A reasonable person who wasn’t trying to defend a preconceived theory about the origin of the Universe would, most likely, assume that it had taken 13.8 billion years for the images we now see of such galaxies to arrive here and flow into our telescopes, since light travels one light-year (about six trillion miles) in one year.

However, if one wanted to defend a preconceived theory, say, that the Universe was really less than ten thousand years old, they would need to come up with some reasonable explanation of how this light could have traversed such a great distance in so short a period of time. Unfortunately for recent creationists, such explanations inevitably fall short, even those explanations that propose it was a miracle. We now know that the maximum velocity of light is a fundamental constant in the Universe.

According to Einstein’s equation, E=MC², time, matter, energy, space, and the velocity of light are all integrally related. Alter the maximum velocity of light and you get not only a different Universe, but a different history because the Universe is now out of time-synch, or if not out of time-synch it would have to be discontinuous, i.e., with a break in historical continuity (in this case the starlight we see never originated from the source from which it appears to have come).

Think of it this way: Light traveling through the Universe, carrying a record of astronomical events with it, travels in a time stream that corresponds precisely to the timing of the events themselves, like a movie; in essence, light traveling through the Universe acts as a natural clock. The timescale of such a clock could not help but be greatly distorted by either the acceleration of light or the stretching of starlight, as has been proposed by some recent creationists.

The real question is: Why propose such an unlikely scenario to rescue a theory that has no biblical or observational support? If God created the light in situ (in place), or significantly altered the maximum velocity of light, or somehow “stretched” light, then man could never learn the truth about the origin of the Universe by observation, for the time-scale of the Universe would have been irreversibly corrupted; and even still, as we will see, that would not solve all of the problems.

Large-Scale Events

Thanks largely to the Hubble Space Telescope, we now have many amazing pictures of the Universe, and especially detailed images of distant galaxies. A look at some of these images reveals a history of events having taken place that could not have occurred within the ten-thousand-year time frame allowed by recent creationists. I will briefly describe a few of those events further along, but for now, let’s try to understand the problem this poses for Recent Creationism.

If it can be demonstrated that events occurred in the history of the Universe which could not have transpired within ten thousand years, then that alone should suffice as proof that the Universe could not be just ten thousand years old, unless one postulates either that time has run differently in the past, or that God created the Universe with the appearance of events having already taken place. This is, to be sure, a very bizarre scenario, but it is precisely what many recent creationists propose.

We have already addressed the “creation with maturity” theory in the previous article and seen that creation with maturity could not account for the apparent age of the Universe, unless God created the Universe with a false history of events that never occurred (because there wasn’t enough time for them to occur). As we discussed, to suggest that God did that raises very serious epistemological and moral/ethical problems, since it puts God into the position of deceiving man about the nature of the Universe and its origin and history.

The one who thinks seriously about these epistemological and moral/ethical issues will readily see the problem. The notion that God wrote into creation a history that never was is both logically and theologically absurd. What should also be obvious is that anyone who suggests such a solution to support a theory has clearly not thought through the profound implications. Why is it not preferable to accept the obvious—that the Universe appears old because it is old?

Consider the following large-scale phenomena for which only an old Universe, much older than ten thousand years, could be responsible.

Gravitational Interference Between Galaxies

We know that nothing in the physical Universe travels faster than light, absolutely nothing; even gravitational influences cannot travel faster than light. Having noted that, there is clear evidence (i.e., pictures) of many types of gravitational influences between galaxies. One such influence is where the outer spiral arms of rotating galaxies have attracted the spiral arms of other nearby galaxies, causing distortions in the shape of their arms that are predictable by the general laws of motion and gravitation acting over time (as normal), yet it would have taken hundreds of thousands, or millions of years for such features to form through time; and very importantly, such features are not essential to maturity; rather, they are a consequence of time, so the idea that God created the Universe mature can’t account for these features. (See the discussion in the previous article on the difference between “maturity” and “age.”)

Merged And Partially Merged Galaxies

Thanks to the Hubble/ESA Space Telescope, we now have some pretty good pictures of partially and completely merged galaxies. Astronomers can identify completely merged galaxies due to their gravity and angular momenta merging, forming a shape predictable by the laws of classical physics. That two average-sized galaxies could merge in the space of ten thousand years is not plausible.

Even if they were created touching each other at the edge (odd), and even if they were moving toward each other at the speed of light (impractical), for galaxies a hundred thousand light-years in diameter, it would take at least fifty thousand years for them to merge (likely the actual figure is several hundred million years). If you’re inclined to appeal to miracles for a solution, don’t bother; as was said earlier, even miracles leave residual evidence. Anyway, why would God perform countless such miracles just to make the Universe appear older than it is, and even have that history that never was obey all of the laws of classical physics just as if the events had actually happened?

Galactic Collisions

Still not convinced? Take the case of the Cartwheel Galaxy. The Cartwheel Galaxy, approximately five hundred million light-years from Earth, is a galaxy somewhat larger than our Milky Way. The really interesting thing about this galaxy is that another, smaller galaxy has passed right through the center of the Cartwheel Galaxy and out the other side. That this event took place in time (i.e., since creation) is clear: the evidence of shock-waves having swept dust and gases tens of thousands of light-years is clearly visible, and new stars are now condensing from matter that was vaporized in the collision.

Even if these galaxies were moving at the speed of light relative to one another (not so), it would have taken many hundreds of thousands of years for such an event to transpire. Given the estimated velocities of these two galaxies, this event likely required about a hundred million years, plus an additional five hundred million years for the light images to traverse the distance to Earth, unless, of course, it never happened and God simply created the Universe with a “history that never happened.”

Conclusion

Some simple observations and a little common sense lead inevitably to the conclusion that the Universe has been around for a long time, certainly far longer than recent creationists are willing to admit. In the first article in this series, we saw that Recent Creationism’s central claim of being “the biblical view” isn’t true. In the second article, we noted the logical, observational, and ethical problems engendered by Recent Creationism, and in this article, we noted abundant evidence of an old Universe, not simply a “mature” Universe. In the next article, we will discuss the damaging effect that the teaching of Recent Creationism could have on Christian youth, and what it might be saying about our churches and Christian educational institutions.

Original Article Link

https://biblicalreadercommunications.com/2019/09/14/recent-creationism-and-the-bible-part-3-recent-creationism-astronomy-tells-a-different-story/

Subscribe now

It took me until about the age of 40 to realize the value of emotional and spiritual maturity. By far, one of the most valuable resources one can have is humility combined with strong maturity. I remember reading a book years ago entitled “Emotional Intelligence 2.0.” I remember thinking it was academically stimulating, but it didn’t connect with my heart or actions. For most of my life, I was riddled with pride and a sinful self-confidence. The idea that I needed humility, combined with a growing emotional maturity, never crossed my mind.

Then, one day, I finally figured it out. Through trials, suffering, and intense hardships, I learned what true God-Centered humility looks like in the mind and the heart. After being diagnosed with major depressive disorder, I began a journey towards a stronger mental health and maturity that would bring me joy and confidence that is rooted in Christ and not in myself.

A few things began to change as I moved along the path in this journey:

Disposition - My base disposition changed dramatically. I went from a person with general angst and irritability towards life, and began to see all the beautiful colors that life has to offer.

Depression - My depression and depressive episodes, while not healed, have dramatically reduced in quantity and duration. It is amazing what stress can do to a body!

Devotion - I am far more devoted to God and His Word than I ever was before. I find that I am far more concerned with His will than mine.

Patience - My ability to demonstrate patience is far higher. I remember when just about anything could set me on a path of anger and stress. Now, I shrug things off far better. I patiently let things develop and “marinate,” if you will. It is amazing to me how many things naturally take care of themselves, or God takes care of when we chill and don’t force things.

One of the things that most people don’t want to admit is how easily angered we are when we are emotionally and spiritually immature. If one wants to, one can find just about anything to be angry about. Trust me, I know!

However, it takes self-control, resistance to circumstantial anger, and a good dose of humility to overcome this repeated pattern. Take, for example, the person who goes into a store or place of business and berates the person working in there over a problem they did not create nor has any real control over, and then has the audacity after treating them disrespectfully, and in some cases, like trash, to say, “Oh, I know it is not your fault.” Well, if you knew that, then you would not have treated that person in that manner.

First of all, Christians should NEVER do this. There is no excuse for it. You do not get to treat people however you want just because you are a consumer. So, stop it!

Secondly, you can tell a person’s lack of maturity by how they act in public because what they show you in public is actually who they are, but to a lesser degree than what they are privately. So, if someone is willing to publicly berate someone, then I really don’t want to see what you would do privately.

Pride, combined with emotional immaturity, convinces us that we are far more important than everyone else and that whatever we deem to be important at any given moment should be handled immediately and to our liking. Self-centeredness is the root of sinful pride and immaturity.

Sadly, in my view, the thing that plagues the church today far more than anything else is emotional and spiritual immaturity. Look at how often people are willing to bash and berate Pastors, Deacons, or fellow congregants when they “don’t get their way.” It is sickening and pathetic, to be quite honest with you.

We need to chart a different course. I am charting a different course. I don’t want to be marked among the immature anymore. I don’t want to pridefully put myself above everyone else anymore. By God’s grace, I will continue to grow in greater emotional and spiritual maturity.

Subscribe now

Below are some principles that have helped me enormously. I can’t say that I have mastered them, but I do think they lead to a good life.

Be generous. You can never out-give God. What you give to God (or to others in His name), you will always have plenty of.

Generosity extends to all that we have, including money, time, and talent.

Integrity matters. Be honest; don’t covet what God has not given to you.

Put people first. The only things around you that will last forever are people.

Never give up on people. Allow others to correct mistakes and grow. Didn’t someone do that for you?

Build relationships; they will encourage you in good times and sustain you in difficult times.

Don’t try to run away from problems. They always seem to know where you’re going, and seem to get there ahead of you!

Keep your promises. There’s nothing more disappointing to others than broken promises.

Don’t let failure get you down. God’s strength is perfected in our weakness.

Thomas Edison was once told by a teacher that he was “too stupid to learn anything.”

Walt Disney was fired by a newspaper editor because he “lacked imagination and had no good ideas.”

Abraham Lincoln’s long path to success:

• 1832 Lost job

• 1832 Defeated for the legislature

• 1833 Failed business

• 1836 Had a nervous breakdown

• 1838 Defeated for the speaker of the Legislature

• 1843 Defeated for nomination to Congress

• 1849 Rejected for Land Officer

• 1854 Defeated for Senate

• 1856 Defeated for nomination for Vice-President

• 1858 Defeated for Senate again

• 1860 Elected President of the United States

Be merciful and gracious, especially when you have every right to be angry instead; these are “God-like” qualities.

Look for the inner person in others. Focus on their character, priorities, values, goals, and also their inner worth as having been made in the image of God.

Don’t worry about anything that God isn’t worried about.

From one of my professors, Dr. Howard Hendrix… Life is full of opportunities disguised as “impossible problems.”

You’ve probably heard that “you can’t change the past.” Well, it’s not true; you can change the past. How? Remember that today is tomorrow’s past. By making the right choices today, you still have the opportunity to change tomorrow’s past.

It’s impossible to coast uphill. If you’re coasting, the likelihood is that you’re going downhill. Do you really want your future to be downhill from where you are?

(I make no claim of originality for any of these principles; If you find them helpful, please feel free to share them.)

Original Article Link - https://biblicalreadercommunications.com/2020/12/08/things-ive-learned-from-fifty-five-years-of-being-a-christian/

Subscribe now

Three primary passages in the New Testament provide instruction about church discipline. They are Matt. 18:15-22, 1 Cor. 5:1-13, and 2 Thess. 3:6-15.

Care must be taken not to add or subtract from what the Word of God says in these three passages based on preconceived ideas, tradition, or faulty interpretation.

Matthew 18:15-22 is the most recognized of the three key passages. It provides a template for dealing with private sins associated with interpersonal conflict.

In Matt. 18:15a Jesus said, “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you.” Jesus was referring to a personal matter between two individuals. That much is clear. However, some translations add the phrase “against you” after the word “sins.” This would lead to the conclusion that Jesus was referring to an interpersonal conflict or offense. This interpretation is further bolstered by Peter’s question in Matthew 18:21.

Having heard what Jesus said in verses 15-20, he asks, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? There is no question as to the words “against me” in this verse. Peter clearly understood that verses 15-20 concerned interpersonal conflict or offense. Of course, there is a process outlined, Matt. 18:15-17 that could eventually come to the attention of the church if not resolved.

In contrast to the Matthew passage, the other two New Testament passages that deal with the matter of discipline contain plural pronouns in the Greek text that are translated as “you” in English (1 Cor. 5:1; 2 Th. 3:6). These two passages cover matters of public sin that concern the whole church.

In 1 Cor. 5:1-13, Paul lists six specific public sins. They are sexual immorality (1 Cor. 5:1), greed, idolatry, slander, drunkenness, and swindling (1 Cor. 5:11). All are openly identifiable. Sexual immorality can only be addressed if it is openly undeniable. Greed would only be apparent from acts of stealing or embezzlement. Idolatry would only be obvious from idolatrous public worship. Slander would be open for all to see. Likewise, public drunkenness is in view.

Finally, cheating or swindling others would involve observable acts. Other unnamed public sins are also in view based on what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 5:11, “Do not even eat with such people.” Paul means in such cases as he has already named. However, there is no step-by-step process such as found in Matt. 18:15-22 that is mentioned in this context. It is often assumed, but we must not impose something on this passage that is not mentioned. Paul simply commands the church to act on matters of public sin. This does not mean that church leadership should not follow a pattern such as specified in Matthew eighteen, but that it is not required. This is important because oftentimes those involved in open sin have already separated themselves from the church, and the steps of Matthew 18 may not be possible to execute.

In addition to Paul’s list of public sins in 1 Corinthians 5, there is another specific public sin mentioned in 2 Thessalonians. 3:6-15. In this passage, Paul addressed the practice of some who refused to work and imposed on other Christians to provide for them. Paul called this sin “disorderliness (2 Thess. 3:6), and it should be handled like the other public sins mentioned in First Corinthians five.

There is also nowhere in scripture that indicates that it is the church’s role to discipline internal attitudes, emotions, lusts, sinful thoughts, and the like. However, we must keep in mind that such internal sins are subject to God’s discipline of the individual and will go unaddressed (Heb. 12:5-8).

Whether it is a personal sin that reaches the final stage of church discipline or a more overt act that is dealt with more directly by the church's leadership, the result is the same. Matthew 18:18 requires the disciplined party to be considered an unbeliever. First Corinthians 5:5 recognizes the same reality in terms of delivering someone to the realm of Satan. The practical consequence of both private and public sin is the withdrawal of fellowship (Matt. 18:18; 1 Cor. 5:9-10; 2 Th. 3:6; 10).

Original Article Link

https://explorethebible.us/what-sins-are-subject-to-church-discipline/

Subscribe now

Mental Health Matters!

I repent, mental health matters. Mental health matters to every single person. Whether one has a diagnosed mental health disorder or disease, one still needs to be actively improving one’s mental health. It is always funny to me that the ones who say, “Oh, we need to be mentally tough!” but then want to pretend like those who openly admit to struggling in that area are somehow weak or broken and beyond repair. Hypocrisy in the subject of mental health abounds!

It is my argument that even outside of diagnosed mental health disorders, intellectual and emotional maturity is lacking greatly in our world today. I will deal with this specifically with examples in future posts.

Granted, as is the case in most areas of life, we need to avoid extremes.

Extreme #1 - Mental Health Pharisees

These people are the ones who insist that all mental health disorders and diseases are just made up, and the person just needs to stop being lazy or needs to toughen up. They typically have never had to endure the pain and overwhelming nature at times of a diagnosed mental health disorder, which I can assure you, none of us signed up for.

The mental health pharisees proport themselves to be some great example of mental health where they place themselves as the one’s with all the answers when inside they are usually very insecure and in need of greater emotional maturity themselves.

Mental health pharisees will even pretend to care about you while secretly judging you and using you as an example of why they are so great and you are not. Mental health pharisees want to pretend like there is no such thing as depression or any other mental health disorder. They will question why one would seek treatment when they would never question seeking treatment for a physical condition.

Extreme #2 - Abusing Claims Of Mental Health Needs For Sinful Reasons

This is what the mental health Pharisees think all of us who suffer are doing. While they are dead wrong and need to repent for their sinful posture towards their brothers and sisters in Christ who do suffer, they are not completely wrong. Some seek to claim that some level of mental health is needed to avoid consequences or the need for personal growth. And, yes, in some cases, because they want to remain in whatever state they are without putting forth the effort to change.

The clearest example of this is the one who brutally murders someone or commits some heinous crime and then claims “insanity” to avoid real consequences. This is typically easy to spot. Granted, these need to be handled on a case-by-case basis, and hopefully, the people involved would be honest enough to spot the truth of the matter.

I agree that some are impostors and will throw words around like OCD, depression, anxiety, etc., to explain or otherwise excuse behaviors on their parts. Narcissists are legendary for this.

Not everybody has OCD.

Not everybody has ADHD.

Not everybody has Major Depressive Disorder.

Not everybody has diagnosable levels of anxiety.

Just because not everybody has these things does not mean they are not real. So, in light of all of this, allow me to tell you what I am and what I am not, considering my diagnosis of major depressive disorder.

What I Am

• I am strong. Somedays I do not feel strong, but I am. I have had to endure and overcome many times of overwhelming stress, depression, anxiety, etc. Granted, this does not mean that one has to have a diagnosable mental health disorder to experience these things. That is not true and would be wrong to make this claim.

  • Everybody can be depressed at times. Some struggle with anxiety and depression and it just does not rise to the level of being on the diagnosable level. I recognize this greatly and I am in no way saying I have a struggle that is only unique to myself. However, what I am saying is that I am one who has been diagnosed with major depressive disorder and that is something that I personally have had to live with and learn to live better with. So, even if you do not have a diagnosable disorder but have dealt with depression and have learned tools to live well with it or even overcome it, you are strong too!

• I matter. I am not cast off to the side, so people do not have to deal with me. People who are intellectually and emotionally immature love to remove from their lives any person and anything that threatens their perceived level of harmony. Far too many will say things like, “I don’t have time for this.” Or, “You need to get over this if you want to be around me.” These are dangerous and extraordinarily sinful statements to make that are damaging and hurtful. Those who live with genuine and diagnosed mental health disorders did not sign up for them and would gladly give them up if they could. It is not something we can just “get rid of.”

• I am a work in progress. Just like all those who do not live with a mental health disorder, I, too, am a work in progress. I have a different set of layers and hurdles to work through and get over, but just because mine look different, it does not mean yours don’t matter. Your work in progress is just as important. My work in progress has certainly been delayed, as I did not even get diagnosed until I was either 35 or 36. So, I had to receive treatment later in life, and now that I have had proper medication and therapy for many years, I look back and wonder how much more I could have done had I been healthier earlier in life.

What I Am Not

• I am not broken. My world may feel broken sometimes, but I am not broken. God made me specifically this way so that I could learn to grow in Christ, become strong, and endure despite my suffering. It is through experiential suffering that we can look someone in the face and say, “I know how that feels!” People are going to listen to someone who has been through what they have, far more consistently than those who have no clue. Nothing worse than someone trying to tell you how you should feel or act when they have no clue what you are experiencing. I don’t need fixing. I need Christ. I don’t need fixing. I need to keep growing stronger in my mental health with the proper treatment and reliance on the power of the Spirit of God so that I can be a proper representative of Christ and be a help to others who are struggling. One day, in heaven, when this body of sin is done away with, and I receive my new eternal body, I will no longer have to endure this. For now, this is my calling, and God is glorified in my endurance.

• I don’t lack faith. One of the worst things you can say to someone who is legitimately struggling with a mental health disorder is that they just “lack faith.” This type of thinking is borne out of the legalist mind and the independent fundamentalist cult that still exists today. I can’t tell you how many times I would hear that someone just “lacked faith” because they were struggling in some area. They would tell you that any sickness or adverse consequences were there because of your sin, but what they really meant was that you were being punished because you did not unquestioningly obey them. It is sick and twisted for sure. I have great faith. I would argue that one who lives with a mental health disorder or a physical disease has to have great faith in order to endure daily.

• I don’t need your “easy answers.” It is amazing to me how so many people love to prop themselves up as having “all the answers.” This is why I am largely hesitant to speak openly about my own disorder and struggles. When I open up, I take a chance that I am dealing with one of these Pharisee types that will just tell me, “Oh, yeah, all you have to do is this or that, and you would not have that problem!” Spare me! If I have learned anything over the past decade, it is that the key to stronger mental health, with or without a mental health disorder, is the consistent and gradual growth over time, utilizing proper treatment and a growing closeness with Christ and a reliance upon the power of the Spirit. Keep your fake “easy answers” to yourself.

I could say far more, but this will suffice for now. Trust me, if you are struggling with depression, anxiety, or more, you are not alone. Many of us know what it feels like, and we know how strong you are, how much faith you have, and we don’t think you are broken. We want to see you endure, overcome, and find success as your mental health grows stronger over time. I can’t promise you any easy answers, but I can promise you that our Savior saves perfectly, His Spirit is the best Helper there is, and with proper medication and therapy, you can see improvement depending on your unique situation.

Don’t give up.

Don’t give in to the madness.

Get trusted doctors and friends who will be by your side and stick with you through every moment.

Be an advocate for people in your community and church who need help.

Maybe God gave you your unique set of mental health circumstances because He wants you to commit your life to helping others like you?

Subscribe now

Nobody wants their church to die. Or, do they? Granted, when I speak of those who are either indifferent to death or actively seeking it, I am dealing with a very small percentage of people in any given church. However, in a church that is progressively dying, it is not uncommon to find individuals or a small group of people who would rather have the church die under their control than for it to live outside of their control.

In light of this, here is a major red flag of a dying church. Keep in mind, this is not the only red flag. This is just the red flag in view for this post.

Dying Church Red Flag - The Pastor Is Viewed/Treated Like An Employee That “Works” For The Congregation

First of all, Elders are accountable to the people they shepherd, but only in the ways that Scripture outlines. That is a subject for another day. Elders are biblically prescribed as the overseers. Whether people’s sinful inclinations like that or not, that is what Scripture prescribes. But it does not stop there. Scripture does not just prescribe Elder oversight willy-nilly to anyone who wants to be an Elder or is “elected” to be an Elder (don’t get me started on the nonsense that is church elections). No, it prescribes oversight to QUALIFIED Elders, which is vitally important.

Nowhere in Scripture do you see Elders “working for,” “employed by,” or submitted to oversight by Deacons or the congregation. Now, this is where folks either ignorantly or intentionally fail to think in categories. This does not mean that within the function or leadership, Elders can’t or won’t learn from non-Elders or that they are “better” than non-Elders. It also doesn’t mean that Elders will never demonstrate humble submission to another’s leading or gifting especialy if a group of Elders has assigned and delegated oversight over a particular area to an individual or group. Clearly, Elders do not need to be micromanaging because that does not produce maturity, unity, or progress.

When an Elder or group of Elders is treated like employees or someone that answers to the whims of various maturity levels, biblical knowledge, and salvation statuses of church members, what they are saying is that the Elders are not “part of us.” What they are saying is that the Elders “work for us.” They are not equals. They are servants who are not a part of us. This is outright sinful. When proper biblical Eldership is in place, both the Elders and non-Elders are all equally unified in Christ, and each person has a role to carry out as a part of the same team.

What this really comes down to is that people want to be in charge when they are not. They want control over things, and their sinful pride won’t let them release that desire to have a say in everything. Granted, any group of Elders worth the title will always seek input on important decisions, and Elders should never move forward on anything where a majority of the congregation is against it unless it is specifically prescribed in Scripture.

However, Scripture does not vest oversight in Deacons or in the congregation in terms of ensuring that the church is operating properly and the correct decisions are being made. God ultimately will not bless any church that is specifically and intentionally operating counter to His prescription. This is why so many congregationally ruled churches split over the color of the carpet and always have some level of infighting.

I was told once that “This is our church, and you need to realize that. You work for us, and whatever we want you to do, you need to do it.” I immediately told this person to their face that I wanted a record of every single penny the church had ever paid me, and even if it took me the rest of my life, I would pay back every cent and would never take another penny from them because they would not wield money as a weapon to manipulate me in any way. I was there to serve God, and they were too.

Treating the Pastor like an employee, where the congregation is seen as the “employer,” is a dangerous recipe. This creates a level of consumer-based church members who operate as if the local church were a country club where members pay dues for certain outcomes.

If a qualified Elder or Elders are put in a position where they must answer to church members as if it is a place of employment, then they will constantly be in unfair positions, having to decide whether to obey God or man.

This is why an ideal situation would be a plurality of qualified Elders who do not take any compensation from the church, so as to remove that burden. However, it is not wrong or sinful for a man to be compensated for his time, especially if it keeps him from using that time to provide for his family elsewhere. However, compensation does not give a congregation any “power” over an Elder. Otherwise, one will hear as I have heard, “We pay your salary. You'd better do what we want.”

This type of sinful thinking has no place in God’s church. Should Elders be qualified before engaging in oversight? Yes! Should Elders be disqualified and removed if they violate those qualifications? Yes! Because some Elders become disqulified does this mean we know better and need to enter our version of how the church should be run? No!

As one who has lived this unbiblical experience for 2.5 years at my first church, I can assure you it is not fun mentally, spiritually, or physically. It wore me down over time to the point that I finally had to give up and resign for my health. One can only handle so many secret meetings behind your back, people openly telling you in a meeting that “we have deaons, why do we need you?”

I stayed longer than I likely should have, but when you are called to be an Elder, you love it and never want to leave. However, the Lord made it clear to me one day that it was time, and I obeyed His will. When I went into the church and realized the locks on the sound booth had been changed to keep me out of it, I knew the Lord was releasing me from that assignment. I can still see myself in that sanctuary turning the key several times before I realized it was not going to open the door.

It was the final straw. I had endured long enough. Granted, as a younger Elder, I did not always endure the way I should have. I certainly had areas of growth that were needed.

Looking back, I pity the Christians who are there because they are in a dying church that shows no signs of repentance or willingness to submit to God and remove the power groups that are ruling them all in the name of “saving the church.” They will have to answer to God for that one day. I did all that I could do at the time I was there.

The situation both humbled me and thickened my skin and spine (metaphorically speaking, of course). I now have greater patience for things, but I also have less tolerance for that type of dysfunction and sin when I encounter it.

Power groups in a dying church love to claim that they want to “save the church” or see it “grow.” However, I am convinced that they would rather see the church die under their collective grasp rather than see it truly thrive, released from their clutches.

Your Pastor is not your employee. To think this about him is utterly sinful. Your Elder is there to be an under-shepherd for Christ. The group of men, if you are fortunate enough to have multiple Elders, are there for the reason of helping you grow in the faith, learn to be discipled, and make disciples.

Elders are there to oversee the church and make the important decisions. Deacons are there as assistants to the Elders, focusing primarily on the physical needs of the church, visiting sick people, taking care of the grounds, etc. The congregation is there to discover, develop, and use their gifts to edify the body. The congregation is also there to be discipled and learn to make disciples. The Deacons are not prescribed oversight. The congregation is not prescribed oversight.

Subscribe now

I have been saying this since July of 2016, when I started in online ministry. I could see where things were headed, and I believed that God wanted me to be a part of it. I started with “By His Grace,” and it has evolved into its present state, “God Centered Theology.” Being God-Centered is so vitally important, and I know this because it has been an area in which I have struggled for most of my life.

Learning to be God-Centered instead of man-centered, or even self-centered, is not an easy task, but it is possible! It just takes time, effort, a reliance upon God, and a deep dive that is consistent into His Word. Then, followed up with a heavy dose of application.

Take, for example, a plant. It takes several steps for it to reach maturity. It must be planted, watered, receive plenty of sunshine and nutrients, pruned and trimmed at times, and protected as it goes into the ground as a seed, grows up out of the ground, and then grows larger into full bloom.

The same is true for our lives. The world preaches right now, right away, no delay, no waiting, microwave it, etc. However, any honest observer will see that this is not the way true satisfaction comes. This is not how true maturity is developed. It certainly is not how God sanctifies us.

The Holy Spirit raises us to spiritual life, and we are a new creation in Christ. We begin as babes in Christ. We begin as small seeds or saplings, if you will. From there, we are to receive the good milk of the Word, where we begin to grow. As we increase in our repentance, we decrease in our sin, and we move towards greater maturity.

The same can be said about our ministry endeavors. One of the areas I have struggled with since July of 2016 is being patient, staying consistent, and being obedient with whatever God has put in front of me at the time.

Therefore, I developed a Philosophy Of Ministry that has put guardrails in place to assist me with overcoming some of my faults. I have applied this philosophy to all areas of life. It is amazing how it applies to so many areas.

Andy’s Philosophy Of Ministry

Start Small

Start small in scale because Rome was not built in a day. It is ok to dream big and have long-term goals, but one must start with something that is manageable so that we do not burn ourselves out trying to do too much too quickly.

One needs to have bite-sized, manageable, and achievable goals so that one does not become burned out before starting. This protects you from taking on too much too quickly. Not all of us, but many of us, try to go the full 100 yards and score a touchdown on the first play (sorry for all of you non-sports folks).

There is so much that we miss when we get caught up in the end result and fail to enjoy the process and the journey. In fact, I would argue that as I have learned to start smaller in scale, I have found far more joy in the simple processes of preparation, study, and just enjoying life than I ever have in any end result. The reason for this is that we have become conditioned to never truly enjoy or celebrate anything. We finish one goal and then almost immediately move on to the next. There has to be a better way.

Do Something

One can have all the dreams in the world, but if nothing is accomplished, they are wasted. This is why starting small in scale is vitally important, allowing us to achieve smaller, manageable goals and have something in place to evaluate.

Some of the best plans, ideas, and dreams this world has ever known never came to fruition because nothing was ever done about it. Dreams don’t create. People create. Will all your creations be grand? Nope! Take it from a guy who has failed more than he cares to admit at times. However, it is in creation and the pursuit of goals and dreams that we find God working in and through us for His glory.

We were created for good works in Christ, and we were meant for working and doing and creating. Sitting around, doing nothing, is not our purpose. I enjoy discussing and planning with other Christians just as much as the next guy, but without actual accomplishment, what does it really matter?

We are to take action. We are to make things matter. We are to accomplish much for the Kingdom. The Kingdom of God is full of people who truly live and work, and accomplish much for God’s glory. This can’t be done until you do something.

Sometimes the hardest step is the first step. We can’t live in fear of whether we will fail, because we will at times. We can’t live in fear that nobody will read/listen/watch our content because they won’t at times. Remember, the goal is to be consistently faithful and obedient to God. Our task is not to produce or guarantee any particular set of circumstances. That is part of God’s sovereignty. Not ours. We are not sovereign.

Our goal is to utilize the gifts and abilities that God has given us to grow in righteousness and maturity, edify the body, evangelize the lost, make disciples, and expand the Kingdom. God has given each of us a unique set of gifts, circumstances, trials, sufferings, and more to be sanctified and be useful in the Kingdom. Just because one’s journey looks different from yours doesn’t mean yours is not vital. Do what God has called you to do and do it one step at a time.

Build And Grow

Once one has started small and accomplished something, then one can evaluate and make decisions about what is working and what is not. From here, we will see growth in those areas that are succeeding. We can also find those areas that are not leading us to success and either adjust them or leave them behind altogether.

Wise counsel is important in this area. We need good Pastors/Elders in our lives to help us with some of this. We also need wise Christians who are not Elders to help us in these areas. Some of the best ways we are discipled is by other Christians who help us along the way as we grow into maturity and live out our calling.

Some people come into our lives for a season. Others are there for the bulk if not the entirety of our lives. No matter where we find ourselves and no matter who surrounds us at any given moment, we need to be honest in our evaluations. Sometimes that will mean giving up something we may enjoy because God is leading us in a different direction. The key is our faithfulness and consistent obedience.

God is sovereign and knows exactly where He is taking us. Therefore, we have no one to trust more than God Himself. If He is moving us to build in a particular area, we will never truly be satisfied or joyful if we are stubborn and refuse to move in that direction. TRUST ME!

Once, I was considering a church local to us. After preaching the first service, I had a horrible feeling deep down in the pit of my soul that it was not for me, even though there was much to be liked about the position. In fact, most people from the outside looking in would have questioned my decision to choose a far smaller church over this one. However, I could tell that it was God, through the power of the Spirit, instructing me not to choose this route.

Now, one may say, “Well, if God didn’t want you to go there, why would He let you go there at all to begin with?” Ah, the classic refrain of little faith. You see, the reason God had me go there in the first place was not to Pastor the church but to see if I would be obedient in not going there because He had something better in mind.

God does not download all the files and folders into our brains for what He wants us to do and then winds up our strings and says, “Ok, go!”

We grow in our obedience.

We grow in our sanctification.

We grow in our trust.

We grow in our faith.

This takes time. It takes effort. It takes evaluation. It takes self-reflection. It takes repentance. It is all worth it.

My friends, what you will find as you build and grow is that the true joy doesn’t come from seeing one’s particular ministry “grow.” This is why one of the hallmarks of a dying church is its obsession with growing numerically or growing its budget, or whatever. No, the true joy in the Christian life even as we carry out our mission and ministry is the growth that comes in us as God molds us into greater Christ-likeness.

That is what I want for myself, and that is what I want for you!

So, if you need a reset. If you need to chart a new course. If you need to have a better plan moving forward. I encourage you to start small, do something, and then build and grow.

Subscribe now

Editor’s Note

The following letter comes from John Newton (1725–1807), a seasoned spiritual guide for Christians. In it, he is addressing a question that every Christian eventually faces: How may we rightly expect the Lord’s guidance in the decisions and duties of life?

Written with theological balance and pastoral insight, Newton carefully distinguishes between false expectations of divine guidance and the ordinary, gracious means by which God guides His people. In an age prone to confusion and over-realized subjectivism, this letter remains very relevant.

For the sake of clarity and readability, I have made the following limited, non-substantive revisions:

• Section headings have been added and refined to reflect the structure and argument of the letter

• Paragraph breaks and formatting have been adjusted for ease of reading

• No changes have been made to the substance or wording of Newton’s text

The content that follows is otherwise presented word for word, to help modern readers more readily grasp the careful reasoning and pastoral wisdom of Newton.

Divine guidance

Question: In what manner are we to expect the Lord’s promised guidance to influence our judgments and direct our steps in the path of duty?

Dear Sir,

It is well for those who are duly sensible of their own weakness and fallibility, and of the difficulties with which they are surrounded in life, that the Lord has promised to guide his people with his eye, and to cause them to hear a word behind them, saying, “This is the way, walk in it,” when they are in danger of turning aside either to the right hand or to the left. For this purpose, he has given us the written word to be a lamp to our feet, and encouraged us to pray for the teaching of his Holy Spirit, that we may rightly understand and apply it. It is, however, too often seen that many widely deviate from the path of duty and commit gross and perplexing mistakes while they profess a sincere desire to know the will of God and think they have His warrant and authority. This must certainly be owing to misapplication of the rule by which they judge, since the rule itself is infallible, and the promise sure. The Scripture cannot deceive us, if rightly understood; but it may, if perverted, prove the occasion of confirming us in a mistake. The Holy Spirit cannot mislead those who are under his influence, but we may suppose that we are so when we are not. It may not be unseasonable to offer a few thoughts upon a subject of great importance to the peace of our minds, and to the honor of our holy profession.

Mistaken Expectations of Divine Guidance

Many have been deceived as to what they ought to do, or in forming a judgment beforehand of events in which they are nearly concerned, by expecting direction in ways which the Lord has not warranted. I shall mention some of the principles of these, for it is not easy to enumerate them all.

Some people, when two or more things have been in view, and they could not immediately determine which to prefer, have committed their case to the Lord by prayer, and have then proceeded to cast lots: taking it for granted, that, after such a solemn appeal, the turning up of the lot might be safely rested in as an answer from God. It is true, the Scripture, and indeed right reason, assures us, that the Lord disposes the lot; and there are several cases recorded in the Old Testament, in which lots were used by Divine appointment; but I think neither these, nor the choosing Matthias by lot to the apostleship, are proper precedents for our conduct. In the division of the lands of Canaan, in the affair of Achan, and in the nomination of Saul to the kingdom, recourse was had to lots by God’s express command. The instance of Matthias likewise was singular, such as can never happen again; namely, the choice of an apostle; who would not have been upon a par with the rest, who were chosen immediately by the Lord, unless He had been pleased to interpose in some extraordinary way; and all these were before the canon of Scripture was completed, and before the full descent and communication of the Holy Spirit, who was promised to dwell with the church to the end of time.

Under the New Testament dispensation, we are invited to come boldly to the Throne of Grace, to make our requests known to the Lord, and to cast our cares upon him: but we have neither precept nor promise respecting the use of lots; and to have recourse to them without his appointment, seems to be tempting him rather than honoring him, and to savor more of presumption than dependence. The effects of this expedient have often been unhappy and hurtful: a sufficient proof of how little it is to be trusted as a guide of our conduct.

Others, when in doubt, have opened the Bible at a venture, and expected to find something to direct them in the first verse they should cast their eye upon. It is no small discredit to this practice that the Heathens, who knew not the Bible, used some of their favorite books in the same way; and grounded their persuasions of what they ought to do, or of what should befall them according to the passage they happened to open upon. Among the Romans, the writings of Virgil were frequently consulted upon these occasions. And indeed Virgil is as well adapted to satisfy inquirers in this way as the Bible itself; for if people will be governed by the occurrence of a single text of Scripture, without regarding the context, or duly comparing it with the general tenor of the word of God, and with their own circumstances, they may commit the greatest extravagances, expect the greatest impossibilities, and contradict the plainest dictates of common sense, while they think they have the word of God on their side.

Can the opening of 2 Sa. 7:3, when Nathan said unto David, “Do all that is in your heart, for the Lord is with you,” is it sufficient to determine the lawfulness or expediency of actions? Or can a glance of the eye upon our Lord’s words to the woman of Canaan, Mat. 15:28, “Be it unto you even as you will,” amounts to a proof that the present earnest desire of the mind (whatever it may be) shall be surely accomplished? Yet it is certain that matters big with important consequences have been engaged in, and the most optimistic expectations formed, upon no better warrant than dipping (as it is called) upon a text of Scripture.

A sudden strong impression of a text, that seems to have some resemblance to the concern upon the mind, has been accepted by many as an infallible token that they were right, and that things would go just as they would have them: or, on the other hand, if the passage bore a threatening aspect, it has filled them with fears and disquietudes, which they have afterwards found were groundless and unnecessary. These impressions, being more out of their power than the former method, have been more generally regarded and trusted to, but have frequently proved no less delusive.

It is allowed, that such impressions of a precept or a promise as humble, animate, or comfort the soul, by giving it a lively sense of the truth contained in the words, are both profitable and pleasant; and many of the Lord’s people have been instructed and supported (especially in a time of trouble) by some seasonable word of grace applied and sealed by his Spirit with power to their hearts. But if impressions or impulses are received as a voice from heaven, directing to such particular actions as could not be proved to be duties without them, a person may be unwarily misled into great evils and gross delusions; and many have been so. There is no doubt but the enemy of our souls, if permitted, can furnish us with Scriptures in abundance in this way, and for these purposes.

Some people judge the nature and event of their designs by the freedom which they find in prayer. They say they commit their ways to God, seek his direction, and are favored with much enlargement of spirit; and therefore they cannot doubt but what they have in view is acceptable in the Lord’s sight. I would not absolutely reject every plea of this kind, yet, without other corroborating evidence, I could not admit it in proof of what it is brought for. It is not always easy to determine when we have spiritual freedom in prayer. Self is deceitful, and when our hearts are much fixed and bent upon a thing, this may put words and earnestness into our mouths. Too often we first secretly determine for ourselves, and then come to ask counsel of God; in such a disposition we are ready to catch at everything that may seem to favor our darling scheme; and the Lord, for the detection and chastisement of our hypocrisy (for hypocrisy it is, though perhaps hardly perceptible to ourselves), may answer us according to our idols; see Eze. 14:3-4.

Besides, the grace of prayer may be in exercise, when the subject-matter of the prayer may be founded upon a mistake, from the intervention of circumstances which we are unacquainted with. Thus, I may have a friend in a distant country; I hope he is alive; I pray for him, and it is my duty so to do. The Lord, by his Spirit, assists his people in what is their present duty. If I am enabled to pray with much liberty for my distant friend, it may be a proof that the Spirit of the Lord is pleased to assist my infirmities, but it is no proof that my friend is certainly alive at the time I am praying for him: and if the next time I pray for him I should find my spirit straitened, I am not to conclude that my friend is dead, and therefore the Lord will not assist me in praying for him any longer.

Once more: A remarkable dream has sometimes been thought of as decisive as any of the foregoing methods of knowing the will of God. That many wholesome and seasonable admonitions have been received in dreams, I willingly allow; but, though they may be occasionally noticed, to pay a great attention to dreams, especially to be guided by them, to form our sentiments, conduct, or expectations upon them, is superstitious and dangerous. The promises are not made to those who dream, but to those who watch.

Upon the whole, though the Lord may give to some people, upon some occasions, a hint or encouragement out of the common way; yet expressly to look for and seek his direction in such things as I have mentioned, is unscriptural and ensnaring. I could fill many sheets with a detail of the inconveniences and evils which have followed such a dependence, within the course of my own observation. I have seen some presuming they were doing God service, while acting in contradiction to his express commands. I have known others infatuated to believe a lie, declaring themselves assured, beyond the shadow of a doubt, of things which, after all, never came to pass; and when at length disappointed, Satan has improved the occasion to make them doubt of the plainest and most important truths, and to account their whole former experience a delusion. By these things, weak believers have stumbled, cavils and offenses against the Gospel multiplied, and the ways of truth have been evil spoken of.

The Ordinary Way God Truly Guides His People

(Scripture, Prayer, and the Sanctifying Work of the Spirit)

But how then may the Lord’s guidance be expected? After what has been premised negatively, the question may be answered in a few words. In general, God guides and directs His people by affording them, in answer to prayer, the light of His Holy Spirit, who enables them to understand and to love the Scriptures. The word of God furnishes us with just principles and right apprehensions to regulate our judgments and affections, and thereby to influence and direct our conduct. Those who study the Scriptures, in a humble dependence upon Divine teaching, are taught to make a true estimate of everything around them, and are gradually formed into a spirit of submission to the will of God. They thereby discover the nature and duties of their several situations and relations in life, and the snares and temptations to which they are exposed.

The word of God dwelling richly in them is a preservative from error, a light to their feet, and a spring of strength and consolation. By treasuring up the doctrines, precepts, promises, examples, and exhortations of Scripture, in their minds, and daily comparing themselves with the rule by which they walk, they grow into a habitual frame of spiritual wisdom, and acquire a gracious taste, which enables them to judge of right and wrong with a degree of readiness and certainty, as a musical ear judges of sounds. And they are seldom mistaken, because they are influenced by the love of Christ, which rules in their hearts, and a regard to the glory of God, which is the great object they have in view.

In particular cases, the Lord opens and shuts for them, breaks down walls of difficulty which obstruct their path, or hedges up their way with thorns, when they are in danger of going wrong, by the dispensations of his providence. They know that their concerns are in his hands; they are willing to follow where and when he leads, but are afraid of going before him. Therefore, they are not impatient, because they believe they will not make haste, but wait daily upon him in prayer; especially when they find their hearts most engaged in any purpose or pursuit, they are most watchful of being deceived by appearances, and dare not move farther or faster than they can perceive his light shining upon their paths. I express at least their desire, if not their attainment: thus they would be. And though there are seasons when faith languishes, and self too much prevails, this is their general disposition; and the Lord, whom they serve, does not disappoint their expectations. He leads them by the right way, preserves them from a thousand snares, and satisfies them that he is and will be their guide even unto death.

Original Article Link - https://christianheritagecenter.us/john-newtons-letter-on-divine-guidance/

The Christian Heritage Center

The Christian Heritage Center is a ministry dedicated to honoring, preserving, and learning from the heritage of godly figures in the past to better serve the church today.

CHC Website

Subscribe now

A lot of teaching on “mountains and valleys” in regards to the Christian life is not “Mountain and Valley” accurate. One usually only hears sermons on the “mountain tops of life,” or “the valleys of life,” as if those are the only two choices. Rather, this earth has mountains, valleys, winding roads that lead up mountains, and winding roads that lead down into valleys.

Mistakenly, people refer to the valleys as being “trials,” but actually, when you are in a valley, it is flat and calm, and one can view the mountains on either side. Also, people speak of mountain-top experiences as if they are free from concern, when in reality, they must traverse a winding road going up the mountain, which is indeed a climb.

No, I prefer reality, and to make sure my metaphors are properly balanced by it. Scripture’s teaching on the Christian life is consistent with the reality of our mountains and valleys on Earth. The mountain and valley metaphorical language should include all of the following…

Mountain Tops - Yes, they feel good. Yes, they provide relief. Yes, they can be very triumphant. However, they are not permanent. Further, one is not free from concern on a mountain. One still has to look out for cliffs, predators, adverse weather conditions, and more. Also, much of what we need in life won’t be easily found on top of a mountain due to the lack of space. One typically has to travel down into a valley for supplies, food, and other needs.

Valleys - Valleys are typically flat, and one valley I know of in Natural Bridge, VA, has a very long and straight road between two mountains. The weather is different down in a valley. The air is different. One has to watch for falling rocks, flooding, and other dangers. While valleys may have more area for buildings, supplies, etc., there is a reason the population in valleys is not as high as in other places.

Winding Roads Going Up The Mountain - It is very rare that one takes a road up or down a mountain that is straight. Many of the roads we ride up the mountain are the same ones we ride coming back down. We see some of the same things. Going up a mountain takes more time because of the incline, and one has to keep an eye out for others coming down the mountain, going too fast, or driving out of control due to loss of brakes.

Winding Roads Going Down The Mountain - Once again, rarely straight traveling going down a mountain. Also, one has to worry about speed and braking while traveling downward. Go too fast, and one can’t see what is around the corner quickly enough, leading to great danger, like running into someone going up the mountain.

Spiritual Application

Mountain Tops - When we are on the mountain, we need to rest, we need to regain our strength, and we need to survey the road we just came up. What needs to change? What should we learn? Was the road more rocky or dangerous due to any sin? Did we handle our rise appropriately? Far too often, Christians so eagerly await a mountain-top experience that they neglect to experience and learn from the travel up the mountain.

Valleys - You may have just come rushing down a mountain and face much danger as you entered into a trial, time of suffering, or consequence for your sin. Take heart, because now you are in the valley where it is flatter, calmer, and the dangers are minimal. Take this time to rest, think about what God is teaching you from the winding road you just came down, and also take time to appreciate the mountains in front of you and behind you.

These mountains represent your growth and your life, and you can learn from the ride up and down. On the mountain top and in the valley, one can rest, enjoy the temporary peace, and learn from their experience going up and down the winding roads of life. Our lives were never meant to remain on a mountain or in a valley. Life is lived on the roads going up and down, and they are rarely straight!

Sometimes, when in a valley, the problems do not cease. Sometimes, being in a valley just means the problems are not escalating or deteriorating. It means one has to endure, tolerate, or grow in the midst of what is going on around them. I just recently went through a period like this where I was stuck in a horrible work situation. I had no way out for a long time and had to learn to endure during that valley. I could not see the roads to lead out of it because they were encased in fog. However, the fog did lift, and I was finally able to get out!

Winding Roads Going Up The Mountain - Going up and coming down have their own unique challenges. In both, there can be trials and suffering. However, the experience can feel a little different. Much like literally traveling up a mountain, the climb can be slower, and it can even feel like an eternity at times. We can carry scars with us from the previously traveled road down and the valley we are coming out of. However, much like real valleys where there tends to be more commerce and activity, we can gain the requisite knowledge, experience, and supplies for our travel back up another mountain.

I know in my life traveling up the road to the mountain top can feel like a long process, and then you turn one corner, and you reach the summit! Now, I can breathe fresh air, I can see the beautiful views, and I can exhale and rest!

Winding Roads Going Down The Mountain - This one can be tricky. Sometimes it can be very obvious that one is going down a winding road into a valley. Other times, it can sneak up on you. Even still, sometimes everything can seem fine, and then a sharp curve comes out of nowhere and surprises you.

For example, I recently left a job where I was employed for almost 5 years. The first year and a half seemed perfectly normal, and I saw no issues on the horizon. Then, one day, out of nowhere, I was pulled into a meeting where my production was not only questioned but legitimately lied about in writing. When I asked for examples, they had none. I would come to find out that I was working for a female narcissist and an insecure micromanager. From this point on, the winding road down the mountain turned into a literal crash course! When I finally reached the valley, I had to hold up and endure in this situation for a few more years before God provided a way out.

The key is that I thought at the time that my mountain had plateaued, and I would be in what appeared to be a great situation for good. Little did I know that God was about to allow this burden to come upon me for a variety of reasons.

What Did My Mountains, Valleys, And Winding Roads Teach Me?

The last 5 years of my life were used by God to teach me how to hold up and endure under a very toxic work environment. I found that I had endurance that I did not previously know that I had. I also learned the practice and necessity of keeping one’s mouth shut in the midst of toxic circumstances. It is a vital thing to learn how to recognize that, sometimes in life, saying something will be far worse than not saying anything. I got real-world experience in this area.

Did I want to respond to what was happening around me? Sure!

Did I respond to what was happening to me? No. In fact, it is the most I have bit my lip in my entire life! I believe in many ways that God, through the power of the Spirit, protected me from bringing further harm by learning in this period to recognize what I was dealing with and respond appropriately.

There was never going to be any changing of that environment. Sadly, many companies put people “in charge” who do not have the skill set. I was not there to make any changes. I was there to learn how to exist and endure in that environment. Now, this flies in the face of the so-called “Prosperity Preachers” who would say that God only wants me to have mountain tops and never any valleys, let alone any winding roads going up or down a mountain. However, reality and Scripture tell me that all of these things work together for my good, and my good is being more Christ-like.

God, in His infinite wisdom, knew that I needed this time period to mature and learn how to experience this sort of thing. Now, if anyone comes in my path who is going through something similar, I can tell them that I know what it feels like and help them through it.

Needless to say, it was a period of great stress, depression, anxiety, and much more. I had to keep my mouth shut when being yelled at and belittled because even though I knew I could respond and, in some cases, would have responded, in this situation, I truly felt that God wanted me to remain quiet and endure the suffering.

It taught me a lot about myself, and it taught me a lot about God and how He uses life, suffering, trials, and much more to mature us, to strengthen us, and to ready us for our future.

So, even if this sounds extreme or insane to some, I thank God for my mountain tops, my valleys, my winding roads going up the mountain, and my winding roads going down into the valleys. Why? Because I am more Christ-like as a result. I am a better Pastor as a result. I am a more mature Christian as a result.

Current Situation

I have reached a place of calm. I am on a mountain of peace at the moment. I have a far better job that is not toxic. I am an interim Pastor at a local church. Overall, my stress levels are near 0 most days. I am enjoying the calm. I am enjoying the peace. I am laughing more. I am sleeping better. I thank God for bringing me to this place.

I can get back into online ministry more consistently again. I am enjoying being back on YouTube and Substack once again!

What Does My Future Hold?

Life tells me that there will be another winding road going down at some point in the future. The older I get, the less shocked I am when they come. Sometimes, God gives us short seasons on the mountain. Sometimes, the mountains can last a few years. It is all dependent on God and His sovereignty in our lives.

The key is being far more satisfied in knowing Christ and living for Him than it is about one’s personal comfort. I always learn more about God in hard times because He reveals Himself to be faithful at all times, even if I am not.

Will there be another winding road, valley, and yes, other mountains in my future? Sure, and I embrace it now. I am sure it will be hard. I am sure that it will look different, and I am sure that I will grow from it.

I trust the God that brings me Mountain Tops.

I trust the God that brings me Valleys.

I trust the God that brings me Winding Roads Going Up Mountains.

I trust the God that brings me Winding Roads Going Down Into Valleys.

Subscribe now

The misapplication of “Creation Science.”

While Recent Creationism claims to be a biblical view, its support is almost entirely from creation science. The following are examples of the kind of scientific infor­mation used:

1) Decay of the Earth’s magnetic field indicates it is less than ten thousand years old.

2) The amount of helium in the atmosphere, given that it is generated at a con­stant rate, indicates that the Earth could not be more than about ten thousand years old.

3) The presence of oil under pressure cre­ating oil gushers, indicates a recent creation, since otherwise the pressure would have been relaxed over long ages through dissi­pation of pressure in permeable rock.

4) The amount of dust found on the Moon suggests that the Moon is seven to eight thou­sand years old, based on assumed levels of annual deposit.

5) The amount of cosmic dust deposited on the Earth indicates an age of less than ten thousand years.

6) The Earth’s rotational velocity indi­cates that the Earth could not be old; given a constant rate of de­cline in velocity, if the Earth were billions of years old, the original high rotational velocity would have produced a very dif­ferent looking planet: land masses would have formed primarily around the equator.

7) The existence of comets indicates a young Universe. Since comets give off particles as they travel through space, if the Universe were billions of years old, the comets would al­ready be completely spent.

8) Diamonds have been found that have measurable amounts of carbon-14, which should be unde­tectable if they were more than a hundred thousand years old. This is only a sampling of creation science examples cited by recent creationists as evidence of a recent creation ex nihilo.

The difficulty in attempting to use the above and similar observa­tions as evidence of a recent creation is that they do not prove, or even support, a recent creation ex nihilo. All of these factors, even if assumed to be correct, could be fully accounted for by the recent “forming” of previously existing materials as described in Genesis 1:3-31 during the six days of Genesis 1 (see the previous article). They do not require a recent creation ex nihilo, only a recent six-day formation.

This illus­trates a deep methodological flaw in the case for Recent Creationism; since re­cent creationists mistakenly assume that the creation ex nihilo occurred within the scope of the six days of Genesis (within the last ten thousand years), they therefore conclude that the Universe could not be older than ten thousand years. The reason this line of reasoning is illogical is that the Genesis account clearly places the creation ex nihilo before the first formative day of Genesis 1; as such, we don’t actually know how much time might have lapsed between the original creation and the first day.

In other words, recent creationists fail to acknowledge that a creation ex nihilo before the first day, as the structure of Genesis clearly indicates, com­bined with recent formative days, would fit all of the data they point to; and it certainly fits the structure of the first chapter of Genesis far better than anything recent creationists have proposed.

We should also bear in mind that evidence against biological evolution is not evidence for a recent creation. Genesis 1 indicates that the Universe was created before the first of the six days of formation, but that life on Earth was created on the third, fifth, and sixth formative days (see the previous article). Thus, the Universe could be far older than life on Earth.

Why Recent Creationism Doesn’t Make Sense

Recall that in the previous article, it was pointed out that the first chapter of Genesis does not teach a recent creation. Here, I would like to address three fundamental problems with the recent creation theory itself. These problems fall into three categories, though they are closely related.

There is: 1) an observational problem, 2) a logical problem, and 3) an ethical problem. All of these are fatal problems, and any one of them individually should be sufficient reason to reject the entire theory.

The Observational Problem

The unique qualities of light are very helpful in under­standing the size and age of the observed (i.e., currently visible) Universe. The current scientific estimate of the size of the observed Universe is a radius of about 13.8 billion light-years. [Recently, this figure has been questioned. Some calculations now put the radius at about 11.2 billion light-years; the verdict is still out. Also, the “observed Universe” should not be confused with the “observable Universe.”

Since the furthest galaxies that can now be seen have moved since the light we now see left them, the size of the potentially observ­able Universe has greatly increased in the meantime.] If, as astronomers estimate, we are seeing light from galaxies perhaps 13.8 billion light-years dis­tant, this would lead to the common sense conclusion that the Universe could not be just a few thou­sand years old, since it would take 13.8 billion years for that light to have reached Earth. (Light travels one light-year in one year.)

We have to be tentative with such numbers; nevertheless, even most knowledgeable recent creationists gener­ally accept the cur­rent estimate of the size of the Universe, and even if these figures were off by ninety-nine percent, which no cosmologist, Christian or non-Christian, believes, the indicated age of the Universe would still be far older than ten thousand years.

Some recent creationists have suggested that perhaps the solution to this problem is that the speed of light was faster in the past than it is now, allowing the light to reach Earth more quickly; of course, any theory that requires a wholesale adjustment to one of the fundamental constants of the Universe is probably going to be dead on arrival.

Remember, the velocity of light is specified in Einstein’s formula, E=MC² (“C” is the velocity of light). Any change to the velocity of light would likely have profound implications for the very nature of the Universe. In any case, a change in the velocity of light would not account for the apparent long history of events in the Universe, as we will see.

A Logical Problem

Recent Creationism depends upon maturity having been built into creation from the beginning to account for why the Universe looks so old; this relationship can be expressed as: appearance of age = maturity. In other words, according to recent creationists, the Universe looks old, not because it is old, but because it was created in a mature state, and mature things naturally look older than things that are not mature.

When recent creationists look at the Universe and see features that appear to be millions or billions of years old, they account for that apparent age by virtue of the Universe’s maturity at creation. In effect, recent creationists posit that maturity and age are indistinguishable qualities. The problem with this reasoning is that it can easily be shown to be false. If maturity fully accounts for the appear­ance of an object’s age, it should be impossible to distinguish between a newly created object and an object having reached the same level of maturity through the process of time.

Let’s imagine a thought ex­periment to see how this logic breaks down. Objects that reach maturity through the process of time not only appear mature, but they also exhibit the accumulated effects of events having taken place through the passage of time. For example, suppose it were possible to have the newly created Adam in the Garden stand beside a man who had reached the same level of maturity through the passage of time. Would a person who had never met either man be able to distinguish between them without asking them any questions?

Absolutely, an examination of growth plates, scars, worn teeth, fillings, broken bones having healed, stretch marks, skin dam­age due to Sun exposure, etc., would make the identification rather straightforward. Why? Because maturity and the appear­ance of age are not equivalent, as recent creationists assume.

The same is true in regard to the Universe. The Universe exhibits not only maturity (fully formed galaxies, stars, planets, solar systems, etc.), it also bears the scars of great age (galaxies having collided and merged, stars having spent their fuel and having exploded across light-years of space, gravitational interference between galaxies, countless intragalactic and intergalactic streams of light images and radio signals containing the record of millions and billions of years of time-bound events).

So, if what we see when we look at the Universe cannot be fully explained by virtue of a mature creation, and it absolutely cannot, Recent Creationism is left with no explanation of why the Universe looks so old or how it got that way. This one area of Recent Creationism is so seriously out of touch with reality that it might turn out to be “the” greatest reason for the rejection of the Bible on the part of students educated in a recent creationist environment.

The Universe is too big to hide, and it’s just a matter of time before Johnny and Suzy, who were taught such a logically incoherent theory in Sunday School, get into college and discover that the wealth of physical evidence in the Universe doesn’t fit the picture painted by recent creationists.

The Ethical Problem

Finally, there is the ethical problem. This is a little more difficult to describe. Let’s begin with an obvious point upon which all Christians should agree: God cannot lie, nor can he deceive; yet Recent Creationism implies, I’m sure unintentionally, that God has deceived man about the funda­mental nature of the Universe and its origin. How so? Astronomers, using simple common-sense observations es­timate that we are seeing light from distant galaxies billions of light-years away. Those estimates are not seriously challenged, even by recent creationists.

Common sense dictates that the Universe could not be any younger than the amount of time it would have taken that light to traverse the distance from its point of origin to Earth. Of course, this implies a not-so-recently-created Universe. Now, lest anyone think I’m putting common sense ahead of the Bible, let me say that simple common sense is what allows us to understand the Bible in the first place; it is, in fact, how we distinguish natural events from miracles. If one throws out common sense, they are going to have to throw out their Bible, too!

At this point, some recent creationists have suggested an alternate solu­tion: God created the light stream in place, i.e., in situ. This is sometimes referred to as the “creation in transit theory.” If this were true, any image we see through a telescope of an object greater than about ten thousand light-years away never originated at the source from which it ap­pears to have come; for according to this theory, there would not have been enough time for the light to have arrived on the Earth. The epis­temological impli­cations of this would be staggering to say the least!

If God created the Universe in this way, how could we ever have confidence in any observations of the physical Universe? Such an explanation, as recent creationists give plants doubts as to the true nature of the Universe, its history, and what can actually be known by observa­tion. This would be highly problematic since God clearly in­tended that our observation of both nature and the Universe should lead to a better understanding of his nature, power, and wisdom (Psa. 8:3; 50:6; 97:6; Rom. 1:19-20).

However, we have not yet come to the ethical problem posed by this theory. If the fore­going explanation were true, then for a galaxy five billion light-years distant from Earth, the light stream at the moment of creation would have been five bil­lion light-years long, assuming that at creation it reached all the way to the Earth.

So, what’s in a light stream five billion light-years long? The answer is five billion years of history recorded in images. Yet that’s nearly five billion years more history than is possible if the Universe is only ten thousand years old! Taking this one step further, if this were the case, one of two things would have to be true: either the Universe is discontinuous (i.e., more like a stage prop, in which case observa­tions mean nothing, because the observer is not seeing what he, or she thinks they are seeing, and common sense is a fairy tale), or God has recorded a history in star­light of events that never happened! Either of these alternatives would be disturbing, because they imply that God has intention­ally misled man about the nature and origin of the Universe.

If that were not enough of a problem, it gets worse. Today, we have clear pictures of large nebulae, galaxies in collision, some even completely assimilated, and large intergalactic gravitational effects for which only an older Universe (i.e., older than ten thou­sand years) can account. Take the merger of two galaxies as an exam­ple: two galaxies, each with a breadth of about a hundred thou­sand light-years, could hardly merge in the space of ten thou­sand years.

Even if God created them such that their outer edges were already in contact (odd), and even if they were moving toward one another at the speed of light (not feasible), the mini­mum time required for a complete merger would be fifty thou­sand years (one moves fifty thousand light-years to the “left” while the other simultaneously moves fifty thousand light-years to the “right”). Add to that the amount of time required for their angular momenta and gravity to merge and for the images to arrive on Earth, and we can see that ten thousand years doesn’t begin to be enough time for such large-scale features to form, even in this greatly oversimpli­fied ex­ample.

Thus, recent creationists must contend that the Universe was created with all of these scars, scars depicting a history that never was; and to make it all look very realistic, those events that never happened appear to have obeyed the general laws of motion and gravitation! In some cases, nearby galaxies have scattered stars in their spirals across tens of thousands of light-years. In the case of the Cart­wheel Galaxy, one galaxy has passed completely through another, blowing out a huge ring of gas over a hundred and fifty thousand light-years in diameter that is now condensing into new stars. It is impossible that such structures could have formed in the time allowed by Recent Creationism. If God put his omniscience to work to devise a plan to thoroughly deceive man about the origin of the Universe, he couldn’t have devised a better plan than what the recent creationist proposes!

The “bottom line.”

Here is the bottom line with respect to recent creationist thinking:

1. The Universe looks really old, billions of years old. Recent creationists readily admit this fact; that’s why they proposed the mature creation theory in the first place, to explain how the Universe could look so old and yet be so young.

2. At present, creation with maturity is the only theory that recent creationists have in their attempt to explain the difference in the way the Universe looks and their belief about its age.

3. The creation with maturity theory as a way of reconciling the Universe’s appearance with a recent creation is illogical because maturity and age are not the same, which leaves recent creationists with no logical explanation of why the Universe appears to be billions of years old.

4. If God created the Universe such that either he readjusted the physical constants of the Universe in the past or planted images in starlight of a history that never existed, then God skewed the physical evidence of creation such that no observations of the physical Universe can ever be trusted to yield truth about its origin or age; odd for One who bids man to look at creation to see His works and worship Him.

As John Adams, one of the founders of the United States of America once observed, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence” (as quoted in: Conspiracies of the Ruling Class, by Lawrence B. Lindsey, p.27. Simon and Schuster, 2016). No matter how convenient a recent creation might be in refuting evolution, for that was the original motive behind the movement, it simply does not fit the facts, neither the facts of the Bible nor those of science.

Sadly, Recent Creationism has been fused with many other areas of the Bible and theology, which will be difficult to untangle. Even the study of the biblical flood is frequently presented in concert with Recent Creationism, when in fact there is no direct connection between the two events. Also, Recent Creationism has found its way into the doctrinal statements of many churches, Christian schools, and other Christian organizations. It’s time to recognize the obvious: Recent Creationism is a failed theory that has become a false doctrine, no matter how well-intended it might have been.

Original Article Link

https://biblicalreadercommunications.com/2019/09/14/recent-creationism-and-the-bible-part-2-why-recent-creationism-is-illogical/

Subscribe now