When is a Christian not a Christian?

There’s an old joke about George Washington’s hatchet, the one that he allegedly used to chop down the infamous cherry tree. The story goes that a museum claimed to have Little George’s actual hatchet. It was totally authentic except for the fact that the handle and the head had been replaced.

It strikes me that some Christians are like George Washington’s hatchet. They remove and replace one doctrine with another until sooner or later they bear little resemblance to traditional Christians except in name.

A look at the Roman Road provides a quick overview of basic Christian theology. First, Romans 3:10-12, 23 makes clear that all men are inherently evil and fall short of God’s perfection. Romans 6:23 states that the penalty for our sinful failure is death. Romans 5:8 brings the good news that “while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” This sets the stage for Romans 10:9-10, 13, which explains exactly what is required to become a Christian: To “declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead….” Romans 5:1, as well as several verses in Romans 8, reiterate that it is this faith that our salvation is built upon.

Even this simple formula is sometimes a bit much for our modern minds. The root of the problem for many people seems to be an attempt to reconcile a belief in Christ with unbelief in any unseen, supernatural world.

We’ve been taught that seeing is believing, yet some things cannot be seen. No one can see how the world was created. There is much diversity of thought on the subject, yet Christians can expect to be ridiculed if they state their belief in Biblical creation, sometimes even by other Christians. Similarly, the story of Noah’s flood is also commonly doubted. The idea of a global flood whose only survivors were aboard the Ark seems too fanciful even for some Christians.

If we look to the Bible we can see what Jesus himself believed. For instance, in John 5:45-47 Jesus vouches for the veracity of the writings of Moses. In Exodus 20:11, Moses states that God created the earth in six days. Even more explicitly, in Matthew 19:3-6 Jesus specifically referenced the creation of Adam and Eve. In Luke 11:50-51, Jesus refers to the death of Abel, the son of Adam and Eve, in Genesis 4. In Matthew 10:15, Jesus uses the fates of Sodom and Gomorrah as a warning to towns that would reject the disciples. Jesus even held up the story of Jonah as a foreshadowing of the three days that he would spend in the grave in Matthew 12:40-41.

A close look at the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament leaves little doubt that Jesus knew and believed the stories of the Old Testament. This leaves Christians who doubt the old Bible stories in a conundrum. If Jesus is the Son of God then he is all-powerful and all-knowing. If he is all-powerful and all-knowing then he would not allude to stories that he knew to be false. If Jesus is God then the stories of the Old Testament must be true.

An alternate route is to simply throw out the verses that challenge one’s preconceptions of Jesus. A common claim is that the Gospels cannot be trusted because they were written down so long after the time of Christ. This argument ignores two facts.

The first is that the books of the Bible are not in chronological order. Many of the epistles of Paul and the disciples were put to paper years before the Gospels. Paul is believed to have been killed in AD 64, but the book of Acts closes before his death. Therefore, the year 64 would be the late date for Acts and the Gospels that preceded it. The letters, written earlier than the Gospels, share their message and teachings.

Second, contained within the books of the New Testament are early church creeds that are believed to date back to shortly after the death and resurrection of Christ. One of these creeds, found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, is believed to have been written down by Paul as early as AD 54. The creed would have existed in oral tradition long before that.

Skeptics of the supernatural must cut out much of the Bible to fit their worldview. Jesus also spoke about Satan (Mark 3:23), hell (Matthew 5:29-30), demons (Matthew 12:43-45), and his ultimate return as judge of the world (Matthew 24:30-31). Skeptics must choose to ignore Jesus’ teachings on all of these topics. Peter recorded a warning to such “scoffers” in 2 Peter 3:3-10.

The question is why would a believer in God not be able to believe that he would be able to create and intervene in the world. If God really is God then creation, the virgin birth, the resurrection, and all of the other stories of supernatural intervention are not hard to believe. If they are unbelievable, then do we really believe in God?

Prominent Creationist to speak in Atlanta

Kenneth Samples, a senior researcher at Reasons to Believe, a ministry that uses science to defend the Bible and Christianity, will have two speaking engagements in the Atlanta area later this month.
Samples will appear at Christ Fellowship Church in Carrollton, Ga. on Tuesday, January 24 at 7:00 p.m.  The topic will be "Is Jesus a Man, Myth, Madman, Menace, Mystic, Martian, or the Messiah?"  For more information, call the church office at 770-834-1772.

The following night, Wednesday, January 25, at 6:30 p.m., Samples will speak on "Blaise Pascal and the Wager" at Johnson Ferry Baptist Church in Marietta.  The church phone number is 770-973-6561.

Kenneth Samples is the author of "Without a Doubt" and "A World of Difference."  He cohosted the "Bible Answer Man" radio show and takes part in number of RTB podcasts.  He has also contributed to a number of other books, including the UFO book, "Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men."  Samples has undergraduate degrees in philosophy and social science and an MA in theological studies.

Reasons to Believe is a ministry started by Dr. Hugh Ross, a physicist and astronomer, who, according to reasons.org, "studied the world’s religions and 'holy books' and found only one book that proved scientifically and historically accurate: the Bible."

The mission of Reasons to Believe is to demonstrate that "sound reason and scientific research—including the very latest discoveries—consistently support, rather than erode, confidence in the truth of the Bible and faith in the personal, transcendent God revealed in both Scripture and nature." 

Read this article on Examiner.com:http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/prominent-creation-apologist-to-speak-atlanta-area

Nobel Prize winner beat scientific consensus

When the 2011 Nobel Prize winners were announced this week, the Nobel Prize in Chemistry went to Israeli scientist, Dan Shechtman. Shechtman’s prize was the culmination of thirty years of struggle against conventional scientific wisdom.

According to a profile of Shechtman’s discovery in Business Week, Shechtman’s discovery was originally made on April 8, 1982 at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology. After Sheckman rapidly chilled a molten mixture of manganese and aluminum, he noticed, while looking through an electron microscope, that concentric circles of ten dots each had formed. The formations violated the laws of nature.

When he reported his findings to his fellow scientists, most did not believe him. Shechtman was ridiculed. The head of his laboratory suggested that he read a textbook on crystallography to understand why what he saw could not be. A two-time Nobel Prize winner, Linus Pauling said at a conference, “Danny Shechtman is talking nonsense. There is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasi-scientists,” according to Shechtman’s recollection in Haaretz.

Shechtman said in an interview reported in the Atlanta Journal, "I was thrown out of my research group. They said I brought shame on them with what I was saying. I never took it personally. I knew I was right and they were wrong."

Shechtman persisted and published his findings in 1984. Soon, other crystallographers were discovering previously unheard of crystal patterns. In 1992, ten years after Shechtman’s discovery of quasicrystals, the International Union of Crystallography changed its definition of crystals. In 2009, naturally occurring quasicrystals were discovered in Russia.

In Shechtman’s case, there was a scientific consensus that quasicrystals could not exist. This is not the first time that a scientific consensus has been wrong, nor will it be the last. Men of reason and logic once believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. The science of medicine once involved bloodletting to heal the sick. Astronomers mapped Martian canals that were not really there. The theory of eugenics, which was once widely accepted, held that some races were naturally inferior to others.

As Shechtman said in an MSNBC article, “A good scientist is a humble and listening scientist and not one that is sure 100 percent in what he read in the textbooks."

Being wrong occasionally doesn’t mean that scientists are bad or that science is not valuable. It does mean that scientific claims should be questioned and verified. In two of today’s most controversial scientific topics, evolution and global warming, one side tries to shut down debate by arguing that there is a scientific consensus. Those who are skeptical of this so-called consensus are ridiculed. Scientific journals blacklist scientists who question the consensus and refuse to publish their papers.

As Shechtman said in Haaretz, “In the forefront of science there is not much difference between religion and science. People harbor beliefs.”

Science is based on seeking the answers to questions about our world. To shut out skeptics of the consensus is contrary to the whole purpose of science. Many of the greatest discoveries in human history would remain unknown if independent thinkers had not questioned the consensus of their day. As in the case of Shechtman’s crystallography text, science books often have to be rewritten when the consensus changes. Not all skeptics are destined to win a Nobel Prize as Shechtman did, but those who would close off scientific debates are decidedly ignoble.

Thanks to Don Thornton for providing the idea for this article.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/nobel-prize-winner-beat-scientifc-consensus

Meet the candidates: Jon Huntsman

Jon Huntsman was born in California, but grew up in Utah. His father is the founder of Huntsman Corp., a global chemical company.

Huntsman dropped out of high school in his senior year in order to pursue a music career as keyboard player for his band, “Wizards.” His website notes that with “priorities adjusted,” he earned a G.E.D. and entered the University of Utah the next fall. After taking two years to serve as a Mormon missionary to Taiwan, Huntsman returned to enroll at the University of Pennsylvania where he graduated with a bachelor’s degree in International Politics.

His political career began almost immediately, first as an intern for Senator Orrin Hatch and then as a staff assistant to President Reagan. Huntsman has served in a variety of appointed diplomatic positions beginning with the first Bush administration. He served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Trade Development, and Ambassador to Singapore for President George H. W. Bush. In the administration of George W. Bush, he was a Deputy Trade Representative and a Trade Ambassador. He also served as President Obama’s Ambassador to China until he resigned to run for president. While in China, Huntsman’s name was censored from internet searches by the Chinese government after he was captured on video at a Jasmine Revolution protest.

Huntsman has also held elected office, serving two terms as governor of Utah. He was a very popular governor, winning re-election with more than 70 percent of the vote. According to the Deseret News, his approval ratings were as high as 90 percent.

Huntsman’s tenure as governor was marked by business-friendly policies and tax cuts. He introduced an optional flat tax with a lower rate and cut the state sales tax on food according to the Cato Institute. The institute also notes that spending increased 10 percent annually during his tenure, however.

Huntsman also has a business experience with the family firm. According to Project Vote Smart, he has served as CEO of the Huntsman Family Holdings Company and the Huntsman Cancer Foundation as well as Chairman of Huntsman Corp. He has also served as a board member for numerous charitable organizations.

Huntsman has a strong record on diplomacy and economic policy, but his record on social issues will cause problems with many Republican voters. He is a supporter of civil unions for homosexual couples, although he does believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. He has also stated in a tweet that he believes in evolution and global warming. In a 2007 video clip, Huntsman also said that he was “comfortable” with a “requirement” for health insurance.

Huntsman does have a conservative position when it comes to abortion. He supports a right-to-life amendment according to the Salt Lake Tribune. As governor, he signed several bills that limited abortions including a parental notification law and a law that required that women be informed that a fetus can feel pain.

In the most recent Real Clear Politics average of polls, Huntsman placed second to last with 2.2 percent of respondents supporting him. The only candidate to fare worse was former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum. In an Insider Advantage poll of Georgia voters, Huntsman received only one percent. He may boost his numbers in Georgia when he comes to Atlanta this week. He will attend fundraisers on August 23 and meet with Georgia Republican leaders on August 24.

Jon Huntsman has a strong economic and foreign policy background, but his moderately liberal stance on social issues is troubling for conservatives. He would likely appeal to libertarian-leaning Republicans if Ron Paul were not already in the race and more well known. Nevertheless, his deep pockets make it possible for him to continue the race even with little support.

 

Read this article on Examiner.com

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/meet-the-candidates-jon-huntsman

In defense of miracles

Statue of Jesus Christ in Carrollton, Ga.

In modern America, we live in culture in which religious thought and beliefs are often ridiculed and discarded in favor of secular thought.  All religions are commonly derided as myths.  A new generation of atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, is not content to coexist with religious believers, but seems determined to drive all religious thought from the public forum.

Yet in reality, a belief solely in logic and reason is not logical or reasonable.  Atheists must realize that, given the immense amount of available information in the universe, we cannot know everything.  Yet if we cannot know everything, how can we even be sure that we can’t know everything.  We cannot know for sure what we can and cannot know.  What we don’t know may change or contradict something that we think we know.  This is why science books are constantly being rewritten.  It is foolish to arbitrarily rule out the existence of God if we cannot know that he actually does not exist.

As Rabbi Derek Leman of Stone Mountain’s Tikvat David Messianic Congregation discussed on his podcast, naturalists, people who reject the supernatural, have a self-defeating philosophy.  Drawing on C.S. Lewis’ book Miracles, Leman notes that reasoning refutes itself:  “If reasoning is nothing more than moving particles of matter or energy in my brain, then I have no basis to trust knowledge as a valid concept...  Reasoning used to not exist, at least in the naturalist worldview and the evolutionary creationist worldview.  So we should ask the question:  how did it come into existence?  There was no designer according to this theory, and indeed until there were thinkers, there was no such thing as truth or falsehood, so thinking must have evolved by natural selection.  But how could this happen when our thoughts and sensations were subrational?  What mechanism made them capable of knowing truth and making inferences that are fact?  This is a real problem and it imposes on the naturalist the very embarrassing task of trying to show how randomly evolved reasoning could also be a power of seeing truths.  In other words, if reason developed through random means, why should we believe that anything that comes to us through reason is actually what we would call truth?”

People who reject the supernatural constitute a minority of the world’s population.  According to Adherents.com, only 8 percent of the people in the world are atheists.  That number holds true for the United States.  A USA Today/Gallup poll from 2010 reports that 92 percent of Americans believe in God.  In Georgia, deep in the Bible belt, only 2 percent do not believe in God according to Pewforum.org.  Even political partisanship doesn’t make a very big difference in belief in God.  According to Gallup, eight percent of Democrats and independents do not believe in God.  This is consistent with the national average.  On the other hand, Republicans are more theistic than average with a rate of only one percent of nonbelievers. 

What these statistics demonstrate is that naturalists exhibit a superior attitude, deriding the majority for their belief in God, without any evidence that their atheistic beliefs are correct.  In effect a small part of the population, without any additional information or evidence that the majority lacks, is taking the position that they have special knowledge and enlightenment.  In fact, more and more of this minority is feeling the need to evangelize their faith, the belief that God is nothing more than a myth and can be replace by something as contrived as a “Flying Spaghetti Monster.”  There is both an arrogance and an irony to this position, especially in light of the lack of evidence against a deity.

Christ the Redeemer in Rio (Sean Vivek Crasto)

The belief in God by an overwhelming majority of the world’s population would seem to bear out the Bible’s contention that knowledge of God is “made plain by God” and that “since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (Romans 1:18-23).  The people of the world may not have seen or read Judeo-Christian scriptures, but they can see the evidence of God’s existence from his creation.  Those who reject this obvious truth “claimed to be wise, [but] they became fools” (v. 22). 

Further, as Christian apologist Chuck Colson points out, naturalism and logic cannot adequately explain the four major questions of life.  Colson points out that secular naturalists cannot explain how the universe originated.  Their only answers toward how to solve the world’s problems are utopian ideals that, when put into practice by less than perfect human beings, often result in piles of dead bodies.  They view the purpose of life as self-fulfillment, but cannot explain the evolutionary purpose of altruism.  In light of Darwin’s ideal of survival of the fittest, it makes no sense to help the poor and the weak at your own expense.

On the other hand, if God does exist, then it is both reasonable and logical to believe in miracles.  If God created the world, whether by speaking it into existence as it presently appears or through the process of evolution, then it follows that he has the power to intervene in nature.  It would be a simple matter for the God who created the world to part the sea or resurrect the dead.  It would be more difficult to believe that God would be unable to effect miracles.

As John Leonard, Atlanta Creationism Examiner, recently wrote, “It makes perfect sense that a supernatural God could, and would employ explicable, reproducible natural world phenomena to confirm His awesome power by His ability to predict, control and manipulate nature.”  Because a miracle can be explained by the scientific method does not mean that it is devoid of the supernatural.  Even if we find a rational explanation, the supernatural should not necessarily be discounted.

As an example, Leonard cites scientific rationales for the plagues that God sent upon Egypt in the days of Moses (Exodus 7-12).  Each plague plus the parting of the sea (Exodus 14) can be explained and corroborated scientifically.  However, the timing of these miracles and the resulting freedom for the Israelites implies a divine hand at work for specific purpose.  The fact that God used natural phenomena to work his will does not make his control over nature any less thorough or the result any less miraculous. 

God’s greatest miracle was the sacrifice and resurrection of his son, Jesus Christ, but not because of the mere triumph over death.  If God is truly the creator of life then he would obviously have control over life and death.  The difference in the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ is that it granted the gift of eternal life to anyone who chooses to accept it. 

Without Christ we are all living under a sentence of death for our sins.  The miracle of Jesus is that God has offered us a free pardon, a get-out-of-jail free card.  By accepting God’s offer and Christ’s sacrifice, we all have the chance to escape eternal death (as a few have returned to speak of).  The miracle is that God freely offers love, redemption, and salvation to us in spite of our sins.  This is the miracle of Easter.

Belief in God and science are not mutually exclusive.  Many scientists and educated people are Christians and believers in God.  In Atlanta, those who are interested in science and God can attend the monthly meetings of the Atlanta chapter of Reasons to Believe.  The group meets on the last Thursday of each month at Johnson Ferry Baptist Church in Marietta.  The group is also on Facebook.

Readers not in the Atlanta area can find local chapters on the Reasons to Believe website.

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/in-defense-of-miracles"> 

Is it foolish to argue with fools? A new perspective on the evolution debate

Walter J. Pilsak, Waldsassen

While on a recent trip to Florida, I visited the church of a friend and coworker.  The guest speaker that day was Eric Hovind, an evangelist with DrDino.com.  Hovind preached at several services and, while I expected to hear a sermon about proofs for creation, the message that I heard was very different.

I am a Christian.  I believe that God created the world and everything in it.  Most Americans believe as I do.  By extension, since Georgia is a central part of the Bible Belt, most Georgians likely believe in Theistic Creation, the idea that God created the world “pretty much in its present form,” as well.  In fact, a majority (40%) of Americans believe in Theistic Creation.  That statistic has declined very slightly over the past twenty years.  Theistic evolution, evolution directed by God, is America’s second most popular view of origins with 38%.  That number has remained relatively constant.  The percentage of Americans who believe in Naturalistic Evolution, evolution without input from God, is a small minority (16%) that has grown slightly in past decades.

I have examined the evidence for both evolution and creation.  Evolution in terms of adaptation is a fact.  Evolution in terms of life coming from nothing to one-celled organisms and eventually to higher life forms is unconvincing for many reasons.  I am unconvinced, but I have an open mind and have looked at a lot of the evidence from both sides.

Ultimately, I came to a realization that neither side can prove their theory.  The origin of earth and man happened a long time ago and there were no witnesses.  All we can do is to look at the evidence and try to interpret it.  This is why I normally don’t get involved in the creation-evolution debate.  When I have done so in the past it has taken a lot of time and effort and nothing was ever decided in the end.  If either evolution or creation could be conclusively proved, it would be a scientific law rather than a scientific theory. 

Charles Darwin

As with other topics, the ridicule and scorn by evolutionists of those who hold a skeptical viewpoint is itself a motive for questioning their claims.  If evolution is so easily proven, then evolutionists should welcome debate rather than subjecting skeptics to ridicule.  Yet repeatedly they attempt to shut off debate, even in classrooms where a free exchange of ideas should be welcomed.  For instance, a few years ago a federal judge ruled in favor of six parents who sued Cobb County because the school system placed a sticker in science textbooks that read “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”

The judge ruled that the sticker was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.  There were several problems with the ruling.  First, the sticker did not mention creationism or religion.  Second, evolution is by definition a theory.  Lastly, it would seem that people who truly support science and critical thinking would want to encourage keeping open minds, careful study, and critical consideration as opposed to blindly accepting the prevailing wisdom without question.

Nevertheless, what Hovind said interested me.  Preaching from Romans 1:18-23, Hovind explained that God has written His truth in plain sight and that those who deny His existence and His creation are denying the truth that they know in their own hearts.  Essentially, everyone can see from creation that God exists and is in control.  The skeptics think themselves wise, but are really fools (v. 22).  I do not make the claim that atheists are fools, but God does.

In effect, atheists and evolutionists shape the argument.  As Hovind said, God created logic and science and apart from Him there can be no logic or science.  Nevertheless, atheists and evolutionists start with a preconceived belief that there is no God and then attempt to use science and logic, God’s own creations, to disprove His existence.  It is a fallacy to believe that with the brain that God gave you and using laws of logic, science, and morality that God created, you can disprove the existence of God.  The very fact that people have the ability to reason and question is a proof that God exists.

In essence, Hovind says that atheists and evolutionists have made up their minds and will continue to believe their theories regardless of what evidence is arrayed against them.  It isn’t a matter of science; it is a matter of worldview.  Therefore, skeptics will almost never be convinced by evidence and arguing with them is useless.

As I listened to Hovind make his case, I realized that his argument could apply to other areas of debate as well.  For example, many of the same people who are atheists and believers in evolution are also believers in socialism and Keynesian economic theory.  These systems are recurring failures yet they still have many supporters in spite of the overwhelming evidence against them.  This evidence is even more apparent than the evidence in the evolution debate.  The failures of socialism and Keynes have occurred in front of our own eyes.  We don’t have to rely on a fossil record.

John Maynard Keynes

The disintegration of the Soviet Union and communist Europe, as well as the current collapse of Western Europe’s social democracies and the utter failure of the New Deal and President Obama’s Keynesian stimulus, should easily convince everyone that we should try something else.  Yet many people remain convinced that there is merit to the ideas of Marx and Keynes.  Why?  Because they have a preconceived belief that their ideas are correct and interpret everything else through this worldview.

In any case, it seems logical to focus persuasion efforts on people who are undecided and have open minds.  People who have an open mind can look objectively at the evidence against naturalistic evolution and central economic planning and some of them can and will be convinced.  People with an agenda and a closed mind cannot be convinced of anything.  Arguing with them is like talking to the proverbial stone wall.  The only recourse in this case is prayer that God will soften their hearts (which should be the first resort and not the last in any case).

Ironically, believers in creation probably make better citizens.  Someone who believes in naturalistic evolution have no incentive to do anything for anyone except themselves.  It is survival of the fittest.  To them, there is no God to encourage charity and no evolutionary reason for altruism.  Why help someone else if doing so does not help them?  To do so would be irrational. 

On the other hand, people who believe in creation often believe that God wants them to help the poor and sick.  Christians are also taught to be obedient to governmental authority and to pay taxes.  In their personal lives, religious believers are taught to be moral and ethical, even if it is to their disadvantage.  If everyone looked out only for himself, our country and world would be a much different, darker, place.

Dragon art is found around the world 
by sean in japan

In the interest of reaching out to people with open minds, here are a few of the issues that raised questions about evolution for me.  I encourage everyone to do their own investigation with an open mind.  God is rational and doesn’t expect us or want us to have blind, unquestioning faith. 

Entropy:  The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that a system moves from high to low order.  The Theory of Evolution contradicts the Law of Entropy.

The Cambrian Explosion:  The fossil record shows that large numbers of organisms appeared rapidly and fully formed rather than over millions of years of slow evolution.

Irreducible complexity:  The idea that Darwin provided to refute his own theory.  It holds that some organs are so complex with specialized parts that will not function without all parts.  Similarly, the parts are useless without the whole system in place.

Timelines:  There are many indications that fossils, canyons, geologic strata, etc. don’t take millions of years to form.

The possibility of humans and dinosaurs coexisting:         Dragon fables around the world and references in the Bible as well as cave paintings of dragons and dinosaurs suggest that people may have had contact with dinosaurs.  If true, this would be a major blow to evolutionary theory.

Logical proof that God Exists:  proofthatgodexists.org

Mike Huckabee in a 2008 Republican debate answering a question about evolution.