"He [Jesus] answered, 'Have you not read that He who created them in the beginning made them male and female?' " (Matt 19:4).

"For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man" (Matt 24:38-39).

Matthew surely does seem to be showing us that Jesus believed that Genesis was literal history, doesn't he?  Jesus said God made people "in the beginning" of the creation, like on day six, not after several hundred million years of evolution!  Jesus cited the real historic event of Noah's flood as a way for us to discern when the world is nearing His return / second coming.  So, if the flood narrative is poetry or allegory (which it's not), then Jesus' second coming must also be allegory (which it's not).

In the decades after Darwin gave atheists a seemingly viable vehicle to explain the world apart from God, even very well-meaning theologians jumped on his bandwagon and tried to perform interpretive gymnastics with Genesis.  They were trying to accomodate the Bible to Darwin's theory, which at the time looked so legit.  They tried to squeeze in millions of years by inventing the gap theory, or the day-age theory, or the framework hypothesis.  In short, they were all too eager to accomodate God's Word to man's word, and they invented ways of reading Genesis that were not even dreamed of for thousands of years prior.  This is called eisegesis, or reading into a text what is not really there.  It is never recommended for Bible believers, and the more time that passes since Darwin's lie, the more it becomes clear even to secular scientists that this theory's days are numbered!  There simply is no need for any Christian to feel obligated to somehow "reconcile" Genesis and the Bible with Darwinian  theory and the geologic epochs (million/billions of years).  Why would we want to reconcile God's absolute truth with unscientific lies? 

Though we might spend hours discussing the various accomodationist theories, the blunt fact is that every New Testament writer quotes or refers to Genesis 1-12 in his Spirit-breathed writing.  Every single NT writer assumes that Genesis is a literally true, narrative history of the origins and beginnings of the world and universe.  Friends, when we presume to know how to better interpret the Bible than those NT writers being borne along by God's Spirit, we are on the hermeneutical Titanic!  Simply put, we're wrong.

But what is so darned important about Genesis 1-12 anyway?  I mean, big deal if it's poetry (which no Hebrew scholar worth his salt would claim) or allegory (ditto)?  As long as we trust in Jesus, isn't that all that matters?

Not so fast.  Consider the doctrines (teachings) that have their foundation in the first chapters of Genesis.  Here are just a few:

1. Creation ex nihilo.  God made everything out of nothing.  He spoke and it was so.  This goes to God's omnipotence and eternal nature.
2. God as the Source of all life, all energy, and all power.  All life, energy and power is derived from Creator God.  Is it insignificant that Gen 1:2 tells us God's Spirit "hovered" or "vibrated" over the initially formless, watery mass called earth?  I think not.  God is imparting energy and motion and power to His creation!
3. Manhood and womanhood, or gender roles.  The gender confusion plaguing our nation is easily resolved by a return to Genesis 1-2.
4. Human dominion.  God gave people stewardship over the earth and all its resources.  He commanded us to rule over the animals and plants, and to cultivate and beautify it.  PETA, contrary to the thinking of cultural elites, is not exercising proper dominion by elevating animals to human status.  They are defiling God's created order and mandate.
5. God's creation of marriage.  One man, one woman for life.  Any questions?
6. God's love for children.  God's first command to people?  "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth."  God loves children!  But we do not.  We medicate ourselves to ensure we do not have children, or at least so that we only have them when it's most convenient for us.  We surgically alter ourselves in order to avoid obeying God's mandate.
7. The joy of work.  God made us to work!  Work was not a part of the curse of sin entering the world.  Adam was told to cultivate the garden from the word "go."  The curse of sin, however, has ensured that the earth and its resources fight back now, making our work toilsome.  Nevertheless, people are created to find joy in work.  Is our culture living up to this, or are we idolizing work and letting it ruin our lives?
8. God as the Supreme Lawgiver.  Our nation's founders grasped this concept well.  Today,  our leaders do not so much as acknowledge that all truth and right and good finds it standard in God and His Law.
9. God as Covenant-Maker and Covenant-Keeper.  It was Adam, and by extension us, that broke covenant.  Not God.
10. Mankind as fallen, helpless, spiritually dead sinners.  When Adam and Eve rebelled, they carved out a massive chasm between their rebel hearts and their Creator God.  The chasm is so wide and deep that no mortal can cross it on his own power, by his own wit, will or wisdom.  God promised if Adam sinned, "Dying you shall die."  We've been dying ever since.
11. God's gracious initiative to atone (cover) our sin and rebellion.  God made animal skin clothing for Adam and Eve, a clear foreshadowing of the truth that only God can atone for sins.  Our sewing fig-leaves has never worked to patch things up with God, and it never shall.
12. God's promise of salvation which would come through a seed (offspring) of Eve and would one day reverse the curse and crush Satan's evil head.  Genesis 3:15 is known as the proto evangel, or first gospel.  Indeed, it is the first time in Scripture where we are told as sinners to hope in a merciful Savior-Warrior-King who would come as one of us, yet deliver us.
13. God's wrath and holy anger against sin, as seen in the global flood of Noah.  Why do atheistic scientists hate the idea of a global flood?  NASA has theorized that there once was a global flood on Mars (which as far as we know has no water today).  Why would they have no problem with the idea of a global flood on a waterless planet like Mars, but despise the same idea here on the planet earth, where we have water, water, everywhere?!?!  Gets to the heart of the matter, doesn't it?
14. The reason for the various people groups (not races, as the Bible teaches we are all one race - Adam's race).  The Tower of Babel provides the explanation for the people groups of the world, the languages of the world, different cultures, etc.  This is something Darwinian theory simply cannot effectively explain.
15. The plan of redemption unfolding through a man named Abram, to whom God promised "all the people of the earth will be blessed" through you.  See Galatians 3:15-22.

Friends, you may think all the above is meaningless or not important.  But if you do, you have to also admit the gospel is not important.  To make Genesis allegory is to make the gospel of a holy God reconciling unholy sinners through His perfect Son, the God-man Jesus, a farce and allegory.  Was the cross of Christ where an allegorical Jesus died for our allegorical sins and provided allegorical salvation for those who trust in this whole big allegory? 

I can't speak for you, but as for me and my house, we're not about to give up "In the beginning God."

"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day" (Ex 20:11).

A few years ago, a college student in our church gave me a copy of a book that was being handed out on her campus like cotton candy.  It's titled Pro Evo: Pro Evolution - Guideline for an Age of Joy.  The author is Asama?  The book represents a tragic attempt to formulate an ethical system founded upon Darwinian evolution.

Were it not so serious in its approach, one would find it comical.  A system of ethics founded upon the notion that we are all cosmic accidents and originated from pond slime?  Is this Asama guy kidding?

No.  I'm afraid he's not.  Let's consider some of the concepts in this demonic book:

"the meaning and purpose of man's existence, is to be a transition and step in the course of evolution" (p. 26, his emphasis).

Now doesn't that make you feel warm all over?  You are just a stepping stone.  A cog in the impersonal, mindless Darwinian machine.  Your life has no real significance except to perhaps advance the cause of a process that has never been observed by any scientist anywhere at anytime!  Wow!  That's something worth living and dying for, isn't it?

"A person's thoughts and actions that impair his own evolution and that of his environment work against - obstruct - cosmic evolution; they are anti-evolution"  (p. 27, his emphasis).

Hmmm.  I wonder if Christianity, by this definition, is anti-evolution and therefore should be eradicated?  And what of homosexuality under these parameters?  It would seem to be anti-evo, would it not?

"Anti-evo behavior - impoliteness . . . envy . . . hostility . . . hate . . . killing people and animals . . . cowardice . . . anger . . . arrogance . . . lust . . . rage and so on - disappear of their own accord, or do not arise at all, if a person sets only pro-evo goals and persistently seeks to achieve them" (p. 59, his emphasis).

Who knew ridding ourselves of our sin nature and all its ill effects was so easy?  No need for a Savior.  No need for God and His grace.  Indeed, no God to even be concerned with, only yourself and self-mastery.  Only one problem, God is on record saying, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin color or the leopard his spots?  Then you who are accustomed to doing evil can do good" (Jeremiah 13:23).  Let's see, should I trust God or some unknown author named Asama?

On page 65 Asama argues that destroying all human life with an atomic bomb would be of no real consequence, since in "a few tens of millions of years beings with minds and consciousness will probably have developed on our planet again."

Don't you feel safe living amongst people who think like this?

"impairing consciousness with . . . misinformation . . . is the greatest wrong" (p. 74, his emphasis).

Again, one must believe the author considers the Bible a source of "misinformation," and thus "the greatest wrong."

"Man is not an independent being with his 'own' strength and his 'own' thoughts and actions.  Whatever he may think or do consciously or unconsciously; all is behavior that occurs automatically within the energy-organism of the universe" (p. 78-9).

Translation: You are an automaton.  You cannot be held responsible for any of your thoughts or actions.

Lest you think I have mistranslated above, hear this from page 85:

"Even when a person . . . deliberately acts in an anti-evo way, he is innocent.  His regulating structures and environmental influences are responsible for his actions.  'Trapped in error,' he will not have been able to think or act otherwise."

Darwinian ethics allow for no individual accountability.  No one can be held responsible for anything, period.  We are all just doing what the mindless, impersonal time machine of evolution has programmed us to do - be it rape, theft, murder, torture, mutilation, sexual perversion, etc. 

One final quote from this book from hell:

"Man will cease dying of old age - this will no longer be necessary for human evolution" (p. 125).

Don't hold your breath waiting for this day to come, dear people.  The only way death will no longer visit us sinful rebels under the curse of a holy God is when the King of kings returns and makes all things new (Rev 21-22).  Then, and only then, "there shall be no more death."

But for those who have lived in rejection of God, His Christ and His gospel, there will be perpetual death and decay.  As the Greek philosopher Philo put it: "The punishment of the wicked is to live forever dying."

The spirit of anti-Christ is alive and well, particularly in Darwinian evolution.  Renouce this godlessness, fight it at every level of the corrupt educational systems of our land, and look to Christ and live!

P.S.  You are sending your children off to college fully equipped for this fight, aren't you?  And are you comfortable sending tens of thousands of your dollars to pay the salaries of professors who teach this satanic mess?

"For we walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Cor 5:7).

Does God call people to follow Him in "blind faith?"  Does Christianity demand a "blind faith?"  At first glance, this verse might seem to imply so.

The matter of "blind faith" has much to do with the creation v. evolution debate.  After all, most Darwinians accuse Christians of having a blind faith, while they claim to be the sole possessors of evidence-based science.  Simply put, evolution is based on reason, they say, while religion is based on faith.

To fully examine this topic, however, we need to do two things.  First, we need to define "blind faith."

Typically what we mean when we use the term "blind faith" is a dumb faith, or a belief that rests on something that simply is unreasonable, illogical, and non-evidentiary.  This kind of dumb faith is clearly not what Paul had in mind, nor does any other Bible writer.

The Apostle Peter wrote in his letter, "But set apart Christ the Lord in your hearts, always being prepared to make a defense [a reasoned argument or logical defense] to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15).

No dumb faith here.

The Apostle Paul also employed well-reasoned, logical arguments when he presented the gospel to people (Acts 17).  Luke made it a point to tell his reader that he carefully investigated all the truth claims of which he wrote in his Gospel (Luke 1:3).

So, it is obvious 2 Cor 5:7 is not a call for a dumb, blind faith in something that has no evidence or logic to it at all.  If that were the case, we would not expect the New Testament writers to go to such pains to offer eye-witness proofs of Jesus' resurrection from the dead (1 Cor 15).  As Paul argued before King Agrippa, "for this [Jesus' life, death and resurrection] has not been done in a corner" (Acts 26:26).  Faith in the Risen Lord Jesus is anything but dumb.  Nor is Christian faith blind.  Quite the contrary, Christians of all people have been graciously given "eyes to see" who Jesus really is (Matt 16:17).

Second, then, we need to think carefully through what Paul did mean by 2 Cor 5:7.  To that task we now turn:

• Context, context, context!  Paul is addressing the issue of persecution and suffering among the saints at Corinth (4:16-18).  He says the motivation  to endure physical hardship is the hope of heaven, eternity, which cannot be physically seen.  (It is worth noting how at odds this is with the "health and wealth" false gospel so popular in some circles.)
• Paul continued the line of thought into chapter 5, verses 1-5, and shifted his focus specifically to the contrast between our present physical flesh and our promised resurrection body.  He says here God actually designed us for eternal life in an incorruptible body (v. 5).  God always begins with the end in mind, doesn't He?
• In verses 6-8, Paul discussed the conflicting emotions of a Christian that arise from knowing so long as we remain in our physical bodies, we simply cannot be with our Lord.  This makes us long (in a weird, non-suicidal way) for death.  That is, we long for removal from this corrupted, sin-scarred life because we understand it's the only way we'll get to live with and "see" the Lord!
• This, then, is what the phrase "we walk by faith, not by sight" directly refers to in this passage.  Right now, we cannot physically see God.  But one day, by grace, we will see Him.  Until then, we press on with a burning desire to please this God who we cannot presently see with our fleshly eyes.  But we do now see Him with our spiritual eyes given to us by grace through faith. 
• Our hope is one day we will see Him just as He is, which is both a joyful and fearful thought (vv. 9-11).

So, it is clear Paul's point is not that Christians have no good reasons to believe in God and His Christ.  Rather, his point is things that are not seen are actually more real than temporal things we can now see.

And this truth, dear friends, flies in the face of the materialism and naturalism of evolution. 

I contend it is the Darwinist that has blind faith.  Stay tuned for more reasons why I simply do not have enough faith to be a Darwinist!

Fitness nut Jack Lalanne died yesterday.  He was 96 and looked incredible.  Read about his death here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41225595/ns/us_news-life/?gt1=43001

It is not my intention to mock anyone's death, or make light of the obvious grief his wife and children are experiencing right now.  My condolences to them.

When I heard the news of his death, however, it simply drove home to me in a powerful way the truth of Hebrews 9:27.

"Just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment."

And 1 Timothy 4:8.

   "For while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come."

Friends, at this time of the year when we bow down to the idols of the NFL, when Christian parents push their children into sports as hard as they can go, when young adults bronze their bodies in salons at the risk of deadly cancers, when Christian beach bums lay nearly naked on vacation hot spots, at this time, we need to be reminded . . .

"The wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23).

God has appointed a day for our death.  While I am not encouraging laziness or abuse of our physical bodies through negligence or gluttony, the point is clear.  Isn't it? 

Jack Lalanne is dead.  I hope and pray his soul was in as good a shape as his body (3 John 2).  Nothing else matters now, except Jesus, or the conspicuous absence of Jesus, in the fitness guru's life. 

We ought to think on these things, beloved.

"Your science class is going on a field trip, but this trip is a little out of the ordinary.  You're going to travel back billions  of years to the earliest days on earth . . . Enter the time machine and strap yourself in . . . a dial on the dashboard shows the number of years before the present.  You stare at the dial - it reads 4.6 billion years" (Science Explorer, Pearson Prentice Hall, 8th Grade textbook, p. 338).

Thus begins the section in the public school textbook titled "Early Earth."

The kids reading this fantasy are more likely  to actually hop in a time machine and strap themselves in than they are to find solid proof of anything stated in this entire chapter!  I do not even know where to begin to critique this section of the text being foisted on our children (assuming your children are in state run schools).  I have already pointed out that this section begins by refuting the premise already stated in the same textbook concerning the definition of "hypothesis."  Even though the first chapter laid down the law that a hypothesis must be testable, the rest of the book keeps using the term in contradictory ways.  So much for scholarship.  (See my previous post, "Weeping in the New Year.")

Let me quote some stuff from this section:

"How do sceintists know the age of Earth?  Using radioactive dating, scientists have determined that the oldest rocks ever found on Earth are about 4 billion years old . . . According to this hypothesis [misuse of the word again] Earth and moon are about the same age.  When Earth was very young, it collided with a large object.  The collision threw a large amount of material from both bodies into orbit around the Earth.  This material combined to form the moon.  Scientists have dated moon rocks that were brought to Earth by astronauts during the 1970s.  Radioactive dating shows that the oldest moon rocks are about 4.6 billion years old.  Scientists infer that Earth is also roughly 4.6 billion years old - only a little older than those moon rocks" (pp. 338-9).

OK, there is so much trash and non-sense in that one paragraph that it is mind boggling.  Let's see . . .

• Scientists "know" the age of the earth by radioactive dating?  Are you speaking of the dating method that has proven horribly inconsistent and inaccurate time and again?  The same method that says rocks exploded from Mt. St. Helens in the early 1980s are ridiculously old?
• Dr. Andrew Snelling in a lecture this past summer pointed out that 90% of the dating methods available to scientists indicate the earth is young.  But, Darwinian scientists choose to use only those methods (10%) that typically render a "billions of years" verdict.
• The only thing scientists can "know" about radioactive dating is it stinks as a scientific tool.  Why?  Because it assumes "the present is the key to the past," a principle spread by Charles Lyell (Darwin's mentor) that stated that if we observe slow processes today, that's how things have always been.  There are tons of scientists (many even non-Christian) who now call that theory into question.  Why?  Because the EVIDENCE of past global catastrophe's is strong, to put it mildly.  Large-scale cataclysms wreak havoc on any "radioactive clocks."
• I like how things are stated in the textbook so "matter of factly."  Like, "When Earth was very young, it collided with a large object."  And we know this how?
• While the text makes sure to tell students about scientists' dating moon rocks to 4.6 billion years old, it does not bother to relay the little factoid to students concerning the "surprise" NASA received when Armstrong set foot on the moon.  You see, many Darwinian scientists who assumed the moon was billions of years old assumed there would be a big, thich layer of dust on the moon.  They knew, based on their present observations, that exposure to the sun destroys rock layers and makes them into dust at few ten-thousandths of an inch per year.  At this rate, the billions of years old moon may very well have had a dust covering a few miles deep!  Armstrong was actually quite concerned about that "one small step for man."  Would he step off the module and instantly be buried alive in moon dust?  But alas, there was not much dust at all on the moon . . .whew!  Calculations showed there were only a few thousand years of dust accumulation on the moon (Douglas F. Kelly, Creation and Change, Mentor Books, 1997, p. 150-1).
• So, why so little dust?  Why the HUGE discrepancy between the radioactive dating and the dust accumulation methods?  More importantly, why are students not being told these things in their textbooks? 
• I also like how they imply all scientists are in universal agreement on these matters of origins and dates!

Friends of Christ, the issues with this one little paragraph in a school "science" text are myriad.  The paragraph I cited above is totally incompatible with the Bible's account of creation.  For example, the textbook assumes materials were already present before earth formed, asserting, "Scientists think that Earth began as a ball of dust, rock, and ice in space.  Gravity pulled this mass together" (p. 339).  The Bible says God created the whole universe out of nothing.  God did not need nor did He use pre-existing matter to create all that is or ever will be.  The textbook further claims the sun was in existence prior to formation of Earth (p. 339).  The Bible teaches God made the sun after the earth (Genesis 1:1-2, 16).  The list goes on.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too in this matter.  The Bible and this Onslow County public school textbook are diametrically opposed. 

Students of America - cry out!

Parents of America - cry out!

Public school teachers of America - cry out!

As for me and my house, we will take our view of origins from the only One who was there:

"In the beginning God . . ."           

Answers in Genesis, led by Ken Ham, is causing quite a stir in the `rank`s of atheism, secularism, Darwinism, and sadly Christianity, with the announcement that they are planning to build an exact replica of Noah's Ark.

If Noah's flood is a myth, why do Darwinists care so much about this theme park scheduled to open in 2017? I don't hear any evolutionists or Popes or Christians getting frothy at the mouth about all the secular, mythological theme parks already in existence. (You do realize the Castle at Disney World is mythological, don't you?). Nobody wrote disparaging remarks in popular newspapers when "The Wizarding World of Harry Potter" debuted!

Ah, friends, "we wrestle not against flesh and blood."

The accusations made against Ken Ham and The ARK Encounter are outrageous. Three professors essentially blame him for our children's poor math and science performances!  But wait a minute, I thought what our children are being taught in public schools is Darwinism, not Biblical Creation!  How can something that has not been allowed in classrooms in many decades be the reason for our students' dismal aptitude?

I cannot say it better than Ken Ham, so please click Here and read his blog to see his rebuttal.

"Let marriage be held in high honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous" (Hebrews 13:4).

Sports build character.

NOT!

If sports icons like Brett Favre and Andre Agassi are any indication of the morality and character produced by sports, parents are well-advised to keep their children out of sports and away from the lockerrooms. 

Favre's "sexting" scandal was not really considered truly scandalous by most of the media outlets or the typical sports fans or the NFL.  We're calloused to it by now, aren't we? 

I wonder if Ms. Favre is calloused to it?  And his children?  Grandchild?  Nothing to inspire pride in a grandpa like knowing he sends nude photos of himself to some random woman, huh?!

And now, add Andre Agassi to the ever-growing list of the maritally-challenged.  According to Fox Sports (http://msn.foxsports.com/tennis/story/Andre-Agassi-auctions-glimpse-of-Steffi-Graf-naked-photo-011011) Agassi offered to show a nude photo of his wife to the highest bidder at an auction.  I'm sure it was all for charity, which of course justifies it.

NOT!

In the end, Agassi ended up selling out his wife, and possibly his own soul, for $4000. 

Men of God, Dads, brothers and sons, rise up and renounce this puny, fake, filthy excuse for manhood!  Do not allow your sons and daughters to become sports idolaters.  Sports heroes will inevitably let them down, and apparently will also lead them to glamorize defiling their marriage beds.

Defiling a marriage is an ugly thing.  Agassi welcomed another man into his private sanctuary, his marriage bed, when he "showed off" his wife's nude body.  Favre, too invited another woman into the sacred chamber which should have been exclusively reserved for his marriage. 

Men and women, God does not look kindly into allowing a third party into our marriages, be it by way of simple interference / split allegiance, or by way of sexual immorality / infidelity.  (The only third party we should desire in our marriages is Christ Himself, and He belongs in the center, first place.) 

Friends, The Judge is coming one day.  Only one way to resolve defecating on your own marriage bed . . .

"Repent and believe the gospel" (Mark 1:15).  Renounce your sexual sin and filth and cry out for mercy to Jesus who never defiled anything ever, period. 

And lest some of us get high-minded here, let's not forget the words of the God-man, Jesus: "I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matt 5:28).

Forgive me, O Lord.  I plead the blood of Jesus over all my sins.  Give me grace to hate the stain of sexual immorality.  Give me courage and strength as a man to honor my wife and never invite, by any means whatsoever, another human partner into the sacred relationship you have given me with my wife.  Lord, please heal broken marriages today.  Please grant repentance to that man or woman who has invited someone else into their marriage.  Help them give that 3rd party the boot swiftly!  Restore the joy of sacrificial love to them.  In Jesus' Name. 

"Be wretched and mourn and weep.  Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom" (James 4:9).

While millions partied and puked the New Year in, I slept.  But going to bed at a normal hour was not the only thing I did to ring in 2011.  In recent weeks, I have been weeping and praying for God to move in great power in my own heart, and the in the hearts of others in my church and community to reverse the wretched condition of our souls.

Now, if weeping and mourning does not sound like anything you're interested in, if you claim the name of Christ, you had better reconsider.  Isaiah foretold Jesus would be a "man of sorrows, acquainted with grief."  How sadly ironic, then, that those of us who say we're His followers are given to doing everything possible to avoid sorrow and grief.  Why, we do not even grieve over our own sins.  Instead, we flaunt them on facebook.

I cannot help but wonder what a Youth Ministry that truly understood the gravity of sin would look like.  Would games, activities, and super team-building object lessons still have prominence?  Or, would teens be meeting together to weep and pray for revival together on their knees, confessing their sins to one another and begging for some genuine accountability in their lives?

Fun and games.  Smiles and laughter.  Nothing wrong with them in their time and place, but friends, this is what the church and her ministries now center on and relish above all else!  Meanwhile, neighbors and friends plunge into hell every day.  People starve.  War rages.  Sin is promoted in governments and in school houses.

So, in 2011, what will make you weep?  What will finally bring you to obey James 4:9 on your knees?

There are many things over which I weep, but in the weeks ahead I want to hone in on one BIGGIE - the ongoing indoctrination of thousands of young students in the Satanic lies of the religion known variously as Darwinism, Atheistic evolution, naturalism or materialism.  Whatever the label, the source remains the same - the Father of Lies (John 8:44).

Darwinian evolution is not science.  It is a religion, dare I say a cult.  It is atheism.  It is faith in naturalism.  I shall in weeks ahead offer words from the mouths of Darwinists themselves (and Darwin himself) to prove my assertion.  But for now, let me begin by quoting from an 8th grade public school textbook titled Science Explorer  (Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005).

Chapter 1 "Scientific Inquiry" lays the foundations:

"Scientific inquiry refers to the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence they gather" (p. 6, emphasis original).

"In science, a hypothesis must be testable" (p. 7, emphasis original).

So, I understand from this that science deals in evidence and in testable propositions.  Fair enough.

Fast forward to Chapter 8 "A Trip Through Geologic Time."  Section 5, "Early Earth" states:

"Scientists hypothesize that Earth formed at the same time as the other planets and the sun, roughly 4.6 billion years ago" (p. 338, emphasis original).

Wait a minute!  Time out!  How is it that scientists "hypothesize" about something that is not testable?!?  On page 7 this science text flatly stated a hypothesis must be "testable."  Therefore, the claim that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, or got its start "roughly 4.6 billion years ago" is not a hypothesis.  It is an anti-hypothesis.  What scientist was around 4 billion years ago to put this assertion to the test?

If this is the best "science" we have to offer our kids, then is it any wonder our students simply cannot compete in the global markets?  This is not science.  This textbook has just violated the law of non-contradiction (do they still teach logic in schools?).  This is senseless.  Absolute non-sense.

Funny, the statement about the earth's age is not even a true hypothesis!  It is simply an opinionated sentence.  And, tragically, it is a false sentence.  It is a lie, and it came from the "father of lies."

Oh, but this is just the tip of the iceberg in this so-called science textbook.  Stay tuned . . . we're just getting started.

"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them" (Exodus 20:11).

Jesus said the greatest commandment we could possibly endeavor to obey is to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Matt 22:36, emphasis mine).

Loving God with our minds surely means engaging our minds in the things of God.  Thinking about God involves us in the highest of activities.  And surely we cannot think of God at all properly apart from His revealed Word. 

Reading God's Word (the Bible) is the paramount way to love Him with our minds; for where the Bible speaks, God speaks.  There simply is no subsititue for daily reading and meditating and praying and thinking on God's Holy Word.  When we take up this task, the Lord meets with us, engages our heart strings, and powerfully impacts our souls.  It seems we human creatures must first get something into our heads before it has any hope of sinking deeply into our hearts and souls.  So dear readers, in 2011, I urge you to resolve to spend more time in the Bible than ever before.  You are reading through the Bible this year, aren't you?

Assuming your Bible reading is vibrant, then may I also recommend a few books for you in 2011?  Reading gospel-centered books is yet another way to love the Lord with our minds.  In 2010, I read about 42 books, give or take.  From those 42, I want to commend these to you in 2011:

Marriage/Parenting/Family       

Family-Driven Faith - Voddie Baucham

Biblical Manhood

The Masculine Mandate - Richard D. Phillips

Doctrine / Theology 

What is the Gospel?  Greg Gilbert; The Cross-Centered Life - C. J. Mahaney 

Personal Evangelism

The Gospel and Personal Evangelism - Mark Dever; Evangelism and the Sovereingty of God - J. I. Packer

Personal Devotion 

Jesus Keep Me Near the Cross - Ed. Nancy Guthrie; Radical - David Platt; The Red Feather - Tom Ellif

Apologetics

I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist - Normal Geisler & `rank` Turek; Why Pro-Life? Randy Alcorn; Grave Influence - Brannon Howse

For Preachers

The Priority of Preaching - Christopher Ash; Spirit-Led Preaching - Greg Heisler

May the New Year find you loving King Jesus with all your mind.

"Thanks be to God for His inexpressible gift!" (2 Cor 9:15).

"For to us a child is born, and to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:5-6, emphasis mine).

As I drove I-75 and then I-40 returning from visiting family recently in Kentucky, I reflected on two questions:

1. What is the Gift of Christmas?
2. What does the giving of this Gift say to us?

Christmas is a time of giving and receiving gifts.  Few in the Christian or non-Christian realms would disagree.  But perhaps it escapes some as to why we give gifts during this holiday.  More tragically, far too many fail to ponder the true Gift of Christmas. 

Humanly speaking, we often assume the nature of a gift says something of the value or worth of the gift recipient, at least in the eyes of the gift-giver.  In other words, if I give someone an extravagant (either financially or otherwise) gift, it means I think they are worthy of whatever the gift cost me.  I sacrificed because I valued the recipient.  And, it is expected that the recipient would respond to me with gratitude.

But what of God and Christmas?  First, what is the gift of Christmas?  Isaiah prophesied of the Gift of a Son 700 years prior to the birth of Jesus.  This son would not be ordinary by any stretch.  This Son would be none other than the "Mighty God, Everlasting Father."  So, for 700 years, all who had been given spiritual eyes to see were looking for God to come as a son, a ruler, a king on earth!

But Isaiah was merely echoing Moses, and Moses was merely reporting on God's promise made all the way back in the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:15).  God declared war on Satan and sin after Adam's trangression.  God promised to fight and win this war, to crush Satan's head, and He said He would do so through a child (offspring or seed) of Eve.  What?  A human baby would conquer Satan and sin?  Yes, He would, and He has (Gal 3:15-29).  This He could do because His humanity served to conceal, as it were, His majesty. 

As the story of redemption unfolds in the Bible, it becomes clear that the promised "seed" is Jesus, and Jesus is no ordinary baby boy.  He is the "Word made flesh" who made the worlds and had glory as God before the worlds existed (John 1).  He is Immanuel.  God with us.  Jesus came to "save His people from their sins" (Matt 1:21).  Jesus - God in the flesh - He is the Gift of Christmas.

And wow, what a Gift!  Jesus is the greatest gift the universe had to offer, and Father God gave Him up for wretched sinners like you and me.  We cannot even dream up a more extravagant Gift than the grace of God in the face of Jesus Christ.  This "inexpressible gift" comes to us by the hearing of the gospel - the mesage that Holy God has made a way for unholy sinners to be reconciled to Himself through the person and bloody cross-work of His Son, Jesus. 

Typically, a costly, extravagant gift speaks to the value of the recipient.  But we must approach with caution if we attempt to apply the same logic to the Gift of gifts - the Son of the living God.  So, what does the giving of Jesus say to us?  Let me offer a few thoughts that I pray spur you to deeper reflection this week.  God giving the Gift of gifts, Jesus, says . . .

• God loves sinners.  While I do not think this is the primary lesson of Christmas, I cannot escape John 3:16, nor do I wish to!  When the Bible speaks of God's holy hatred towards evildoers (Psalm 5:5), I can easily understand.  But friends, I shall never grasp why God also chooses to set His love on sinners.  God so loved . . . that He gave.  He gave the Gift of gifts.  Clearly, the Lord does value His human creatures, His image-bearers, and His love proves intensely personal and worship-inducing to those of us who have been wooed to faith in Christ by His amazing merciful Spirit.  Christmas is expressed succinctly in Romans 5:8, isn't it?
• We need a Savior.  We need a Substitute, a Redeemer, a Divinely-initiated atonement, a Mediator, a King.  You and I are fallen sinful people.  If this is not so, then the giving of Jesus was the most absurd and useless act in all of history.  God sending Jesus, the Treasure of treasures, makes no sense at all; that is unless we are truly "dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph 2:1) and helpless to stand justified before Holy God on our own two feet (Psalm 130:3).  God gave Jesus because we need Him!
• God takes sin seriously.  Jesus was not sent to live in the lap of luxury.  Oh no, Jesus was given as the One and Only perfect Law-Keeper, the Wrath-bearing Redeemer of sinners.  Jesus was crushed for our sins.  God gave His Son to drink from the cup of His wrath, instead of visiting our filth on our own heads.  Were God not absolutely, severely and inflexibly holy, Jesus would not have had to come and die on a tree between two hated criminals.  But, God is holy.  His holiness demands all sins be punished.  And all will be punished.  For those God saves, their sins were punished in the body of Christ on the cross, and God's wrath was fully satisfied there (Rom 8:1; 1 Peter 2:24).  For those who do not repent and trust in the righteousness of Christ, God's wrath will fall on them forever (2 Thess 1:5-11).  The Gift of Jesus says God is holy and serious about sin.
• Jesus is risen from the dead and lives forever to save His people from their sins.  Isn't it ironic how many people get enamored with the baby Jesus wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger?  Yet, these same people gag at the thought of the bloody, battered Jesus hanging on the cross because of how much God truly hates the sin in their hearts and lives.  Even more revealing is how many of these same people who put up manger scenes at Christmas really do not believe Jesus rose from the dead.  But friends, if Jesus did not rise, Christmas is not worthy of ever mentioning again (1 Cor 15).  But, because this Son that was given was indeed "Almighty God," the grave was helpless to hold Him.  Thus, our final enemy as mortal sinners has been crushed by this "seed of Eve."
• God is forever determined to see His Son, the Gift of gifts, exalted and praised and adored and worshipped as the Sovereign Lord and King (Col 1:18).  This is why God planned in eternity past to give this Gift (Eph 1).  God has always purposed to see Jesus have "preeminence in all things" (Col 1:18).  God will not be denied!  He will get glory by saving sinners through the life, death and resurrection of His Son.  This is where the rubber meets the road for Christmas.  The Gift was given to ensure "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father" (Phil 2:10-11).

Here's praying God grants you grace to receive the Gift of Christmas, the Life of Christmas, the Treasure of all treasures.  His name is Jesus.  God gave Him for wretches like me, not because I am worthy, but in order to reveal to me how vastly and immeasurably worthy He is and ever shall be.  "He who has the Son has life" (1 John 5:12). 

I love you Jesus, and only because You first loved me (1 John 4:10). 

Merry Christmas!