A Reminder and Some Updates

I just wanted to remind everyone that all of my posting is still taking place on We Want a Christian President...

Also, I'm officially suspending The Kingdom Courier. I hadn't sent an issue out since late November, and it simply did not pan out the way I had hoped. However, I am happy with what I am accomplishing on WWCP.

I will be leaving The Christmas Watch up for now, but it looks very improbable that I'll ever re-start that effort. If someone--preferably whom I know--would like to take it out of my hands, I'd gladly hand it over.

Just a Thought....

If it wasn't a Merry Christmas, it wouldn't be a Happy Holiday!

Think about it.

~Kingdom Advancer~

p.s. Check out this site to see what Kingdom Advancer is up to right now.

New Blog Now Open to the Public

Whether it's ready or not, it's open. My new blog, We Want a Christian President..., is waiting for you to check it out and become a part of the effort it is espousing.

Remember this URL: http://christianpresident.blogspot.com

So what are you waiting for?

~Kingdom Advancer~

New Blog Under Construction.

Just so you know, I have been blogging the past couple of days--just not for Kingdom Advancing. I have been designing a new blog entitled "We Want a Christian President." I believe it has a lot of potential to unite Christians in search of a quality, Christian presidential candidate.

I'm not going to give you the URL now, because I want the blog to be in fully functioning condition before I open it for business, so to speak.

~Kingdom Advancer~

Decluttering and Updating....

Hey everybody, or, perhaps, nobody.

Preparing, after long last, for a resurgence of activity, I've been cleaning up and updating the blog by removing outdated or unnecessary elements, adding Mike Huckabee widgets, and updating the links sections. Also, I changed the blog's template, for two reasons. First, because some sort of glitch was affecting the format of the blog. And secondly, because a change is good now and then. I feel like the new template expresses the theme of Kingdom Advancing very well.

Hopefully, these actions will make the blog faster-loading, more user-friendly, and more attractive as I try to get the ball rolling in time to make an impact on the 2008 elections, among other things.

~Kingdom Advancer~

The Kingdom Courier

I want to take this chance to thank those of you who contributed to the poll about a Kingdom Advancer/Advancing e-mail update newsletter. Although I would, naturally, have liked a greater response, I will "not despise small beginnings," so to speak, so, upon my next post on Kingdom Advancing, I will be publishing the inaugural edition of The Kingdom Courier. For more information or to sign up, visit the online home of the newsletter, The Kingdom Courier, where I will be posting editions of the publication.

Hopefully, I will be posting a new article on Kingdom Advancing soon, entitled Naturally Optimistic: It's Easier to See God When You Look on the Bright Sides and at the Silver Linings. So, if you want to receive the very first edition of The Kingdom Courier, you need to sign up fast.

~Kingdom Advancer

Consensus and Credibility

In the Creation/Evolution Debate, evolutionists and their sympathizers (like the liberal, secular media) will often point to "scientific consensus" or "what most scientists believe" about the Theory of Evolution as supposed "proof" for its veracity. Three of the most common high-school biology textbooks state that “Evolution is believed by most scientists and is the unifying theory of biology.” (Evolution Exposed, Pg. 53) You may read about creationists that “they believe in a relatively young earth of 6,000-8,000 years, despite scientific consensus to the contrary.” The National Science Teachers Association has stated, "There is no longer a debate among scientists over whether evolution has taken place." ("A Tale of Two Journalists," Answers Magazine, Volume 2, Number 3, July-September 2007, Pg. 32) The implications are clear, but one textbook is unmistakable when it says that “Biblical creation is religion, and evolution is science.” (Evolution Exposed, Pg. 21)
Now, I’m not going to deny that most scientists believe in Evolution. But that concession is no more than what I stated: they believe in Evolution. Although scientific consensus and fact are closely related and interconnected, that does not make Evolution true. That does not make Evolution irrefutable. Creationists should not be intimidated by this ploy. It is an argument littered with logical fallacies, general illogic, and half-truths. The fact is, it's a bad argument.

It’s amazing to hear the liberal media consistently point to “experts” when covering the Creation/Evolution controversy. Rather than cold, hard evidence, we get a 15-second clip of some either painfully dull or hatefully militant "expert" saying, essentially, “We all know that the earth is such-and-such years old and all life originated from a single ancestor. There is indisputable evidence of this and almost all reputable scientists agree.” What evidence? Oh, I guess you don’t have time to go into that one, eh?

It's really a waste of time, and it's a harsh testimony of the short attention-span, "highlight reel" society we live in. These sonic soundbites prove nothing (as I will demonstrate). In their stead, I would like to see an honest argument from the evolutionists, not a propaganda machine piggybacking on the willing participant of the liberal media (and school system, for that matter).

When one points to a consensus or a majority to prove a point or argument, two logical fallacies are committed. First of all, there is the fallacious “bandwagon” argument. The belief that “if everybody is doing it (or everybody believes/says it), it must be right,” is not a case proof. First, we must note that a 100% consensus is almost impossible to achieve. Secondly, the haunting words of my mother inevitably pop into my mind: “If everybody jumped off a cliff, would you, too?” The thinking here is that the masses can err. Let me state, for the record, that I will not jump off the evolutionary cliff.

The other logical fallacy is the “appeal to authority.” Laymen may not know what they are talking about, and experts may not know what they’re talking about (or they may intentionally deceive). Pointing to their opinions en masse, without exterior (other) evidence, does not prove anything, other than, of course, that scientists' opinions line up with evolutionary theory.

Allow me to demonstrate these fallacies further:

In America, we have a governmental system known as a democratic republic. (I know, I speak profound and unknown things, but hang with me.) To simplify a description, one can say that, in such a system, the majority of common people (citizens) elect representatives and leaders—the majority of which legislate the nation’s laws and make other important decisions. In combination with our Constitution and the separation and decentralization of powers, it composes one of—if not—the best system of government that can be attained and maintained on this fallen earth. While protecting core principles and avoiding anarchist chaos, it successfully transmits the will of the people.

But we should not make the mistake of thinking that the “will of the people” is indisputably “right.” We accept the consensus of the people and the politicians because they (usually) do reflect the “will of the people,” but it does not mean they are good decisions. It does not mean they are "correct" or "moral" decisions. In a righteous society, the view of the majority will likely be cohesive with what’s moral and just. However, even in such a case, one must not concede that at face value.

It is easy to visualize the fact that the majority consensus is not universally veracious. For one thing, public opinion can change. Abortion can be looked down upon, then accepted, then (hopefully) condemned. The same sort of thing can happen in the scientific community. The majority can’t always be right if it changes so dramatically, unless one accepts the premise of moral relativism, believing that the majority can be “right” all the time, no matter what it determines, since there can be no real right anyway.
In addition, a consensus can be formed on any level of emotion, misinformation, or presupposition, again compromising its trustworthiness.

Some might claim that these basic truths don’t apply to the elites of society—the politicians and “experts.” But all human beings are fallible (Romans 3:23), and the elites in society may be driven by corruption and agendas, as well as the influences on the common man. For instance, the educational establishment is firmly in the evolutionary camp. So what kind of scientists do we expect to be churned out but that of evolutionists?

This is not to mention that when someone references a majority, they imply the existence of a minority of a varying size from forty-nine to less-than-one percentile. Suffice it to say, the existence of a minority does not automatically eliminate a majority view’s trueness. But considering the minority may consist of a substantial amount of minds, it must be taken seriously, harkening back to the fact that majority opinions are fluid.

It is disingenuous for evolutionists to make it appear that all (or "virtually all reputable/qualified/real/educated") scientists accept the Theory of Evolution. There are many who, in the least, are skeptical of Evolution (See List of Intellectual Doubters of Darwinism. According to the site, "The purpose of this document is to list individuals of high academic training who have publicly expressed serious doubts about Darwinism, other naturalistic theories of life's origin, or have expressed support for intelligent design theory, either in scientific journals, books, web-documents, letters, or other public statements. Our criteria for this page is that each individual must either 1) have a PhD, 2) be a professor at a university or 3) be moderately published in scientific journals, or 4) is a member of a mainstream scientific society.) The organization Answers in Genesis has publicly educated scientists who espouse creationism. In fact, they just gained another one in the form of Dr. Andrew Snelling, who received a Ph.D. in applied geology from the University of Sydney. Others include Dr. David Menton, who holds a Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University and is Professor Emeritus at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis; and Dr. Georgia Purdom, with a doctorate in molecular genetics from Ohio State University. You can click here to read a list compiled by AiG of well over one hundred "modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation" as well as scientists in the past who believed in a Creator God. This is not to mention proponents of Intelligent Design. For instance, there is astrophysicist/-biologist(?) Guillermo Gonzalez, co-author of the book-turned-DVD The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery, who, as Assistant Professor of Astronomy, was recently denied tenure at Iowa State University, potentially—or should I say probably—because of his strong arguments for I.D. According to the Discovery Institute, he is "a world-class expert on the astrophysical requirements for habitability and on habitable zones and a co-founder of the 'Galactic Habitable Zone' concept, which captured the October 2001 cover story of 'Scientific American.' Astronomers and astrobiologists around the world are pursuing research based on his work on exoplanet host stars, the Galactic Habitable Zone and red giants." Another prominent pioneer of Intelligent Design is biochemist Michael Behe, a professor at Lehigh University, who advanced the idea of "irreducible complexity," and authored Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. A third example is William Dembski. "A mathematician and philosopher, [he] is Research Professor in Philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft. Worth." He has written The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities. In all probability, there are many others, not listed in the anti-Darwin ranks, who doubt Evolution, but do not possess the fortitude to place their scientific reputations on the line.
(Note: There is some amount of overlap between the List of Intellectual Doubters of Darwinism, AiG's list of creationists, and proponents of Intelligent Design.)

Another problem for the “consensus" argument is the possibility for a “bait-and-switch” technique. A person can honestly say that “most scientists believe in Evolution” (though this proves nothing), and then genuinely follow that up with supposed “evidence” for Evolution. But here’s the potential underlying problem with that: just because most scientists believe in Evolution does not necessarily mean that they accept all of the proposed (and frequently debunked after-the-fact) “evidences” for Evolution. A truly objective scientist never would. Yet, when “most scientists believe in Evolution” is paired with “here’s the evidence for Evolution,” a natural connection of the human mind is that “most scientists believe…in this evidence.” That may be true in some or even most cases, but certainly there are more scientists who are skeptical of some proofs of Evolution than people who reject Evolution as a whole. This is point which should not be underestimated.
It’s kind of like this: if someone said “Kingdom Advancer believes the Bible is God’s inerrant, inspired Word,” and then stated, “One proof some use for the Bible being God’s Word is that it consists of black ink printed on white paper,” someone may make the reasonable inference that “Kingdom Advancer believes the Bible is God’s Word because it consists of black ink printed on white paper.” Now, don’t get too deep philosophically on me, but that "evidence" probably wouldn’t be one of my first couple hundred proofs, if it ever were a proof at all.

What is the end result of this “bait-and-switch?” Well, in the case of Evolution, people may believe in it, because they believe the “evidences” for it are preponderance, because they think most scientists believe in all or most of the “evidences.”
Worse yet, some of the "evidences" most or perhaps even all scientists may reject--believing they don't even need them to prove Evolution--might still linger in the minds of laymen and women. Consider Lamarckism, Darwin's finches, and discredited "missing link" hoaxes--two of which were actually mentioned by my barber one day as "proofs" of Evolution.

In spite of the utter inadequacy, already demonstrated, of these arguments, we can dig still deeper. We must look at underlying biases of the scientific community. And they do exist. For instance, look at Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion. Am I going to leave my eternal destiny in the hands of someone who expresses such vitriol for an entity he claims he believes does not exist? I don’t think so. But the scientific community as a whole--not as vehement as Dawkins--also has underlying convictions. Naturalism is one. It is “a belief denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically, the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena.” (Evolution Exposed, Pg. 22) Materialism is another, a “belief claiming that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all organisms, processes, and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or interactions of matter.” (Evolution Exposed, Pg. 22) It's great when a scientist honestly confesses, "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." (Dr. Scott Todd, quoted in Evolution Exposed, Pg. 19)

Of course, I'm not going to attack the Theory of Evolution on the basis of scientists' preconceived notions, because that itself would be a logical fallacy: I would be "attacking the person." An idea cannot rightly be discredited just because the person espousing said idea is not credible, just as an idea cannot be verified just because persons endorsing it are credible. However, this fallacious technique is useful in proving the unreliability of the "consensus" argument. In addition, similar to how scientific consensus is closely interrelated to scientific fact (but not interchangeable inandof themselves), an individual's personal bias can be a key to unlocking the truth behind an ideology, though not sufficient standing alone.

Often, the "attacking the person" cannon is aimed at creationists. Obviously, we're told, since Christians like Ken Ham live by faith, independent of scientific permission (if you will), he cannot be trusted to carry out an intelligent scientific discourse. This is absolutely preposterous. First of all, everyone has preconceived notions, if, in the least, the notion of relativity or inability to decipher absolute truth at all. I already mentioned the secular strongholds and foundations of naturalism and materialism.
Secondly, as I said, "attacking the person" is a logical fallacy. Address the issues, not the person.
Furthermore, this accusation is at odds with Christian theology. Jesus said, "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:32) People don't know the truth and remain in chains. We cannot expect an outsider to vouch for the truthfulness of a six-day creation six thousand years ago. That's why Christians are told to be ready to make an argument for their faith (1 Peter 3:15). No one else will. No one comes to a true knowledge of the Truth (John 14:6) without being set free. The Bible tells us that “a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.” (1 Corinthians 2:14) Paul calls Christians to be "transformed by the renewing of your minds." (Romans 12:2) We cannot expect someone "conformed to this world" (Romans 12:2) to validate the Genesis account of creation.

However, this does not mean that evidences for creation cannot be confirmed by non-creationists. Indeed, the Bible makes it clear that a Creator's existence--or necessity--is self-evident (Job 12:7-9; Psalm 19:1; Romans 1:20). That explains why I.D. can be supported by non-creationists, and why there can be so many doubters of Darwin, in general.

I hope this article explains well why the "consensus" argument falls so short on so many levels.

~ Kingdom Advancer

Meshing and Threshing Advantageously and Arbitrarily

There's an old saying which states that the "winners write the history books." Though this doesn't ring 100% true (or else we wouldn't be able to trust any history--nor would there be "two sides to every story"), it makes the point that the one who's victorious often gets to decide how things "were," are, and will be. It's something along the lines of the philosophy that "might makes right," whether true, just, or not.
However, in the field of science, dissenting views can be the spur to the horse of progress. The earth is round? The earth revolves around the sun? These weren't popular ideas at one time or another, but underdogs barked long enough and loud enough, backing their barks with sufficient evidential "bite," to dethrone reigning theories. Even if the primary theories aren't entirely innaccurate, minority positions can be the "cream" that cures imperfections.

Secularists have largely won the battle over science thus far. Quite frankly, they've been winning the battles for society at large, too. Unfortunately, they've left the battlefield quite damaged. Some of science is in a state of disrepair for the sake of secular domination. Despite what we know about "iron sharpening iron" and "gold being refined by fire" in the scientific fields, creationists and proponents of Intelligent Design are relatively silenced in the public sphere. The ever-spreading infectious Theory of Evolution is a disease that wants no competing virus. It's suspicious, isn't it? If evolutionists were really confident in their belief, they would encourage creationists to publicly make fools of themselves--to be "put to shame" (1 Peter 3:16) if evolutionists had a "good conscience." But they know that creationists are "always being ready to make a defense to everyone..." (1 Peter 3:15) Therefore, silence, not debate, is the preferred method of confrontation. The scientific elite, who wants to tell us "how things were," may cry out that we devious creationists will "deceive people," therefore efforts like the Creation Museum must be shut down. But if the evidence for evolution is so compelling and overwhelming, just show it to all, and creationists should have no answer. ...Still waiting... Speak and listen; don't filibuster and hush, which is essentially what the scientific establishment is doing when they continually point to "experts" and "scientific consensus" and never to cold hard facts and refutations of creationism. Besides, you would think that, if the veracity of Evolution is so irrefutable, creationists would be useful tools in simply polishing and solidifying the theory. That's my perspective, anyways, as a creationist, toward evolutionists. They challenge Christians to think more of God's thoughts after Him. They produce endurance. "Consider it all joy...when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance..." (James 1:2-3)

But, no, that's not the attitude of evolutionists. They decry the private Creation Museum, while controlling virtually every other outlet, including the school system.

Of course, all theories do not hold the same weight and thereby do not require the same level of recognition. If I say that both the earth and moon are made of cheese and only cheese, my voice won't carry very far--and rightfully so. But only the most ardent, arrogant, and ignorant atheists and evolutionists would place creationism in that category.

However, that's the point, isn't it? Those on that side of the spectrum--if not so extreme--do the categorizing, don't they? That brings us to the real gist of this post: Meshing and Threshing... But what do I mean? Simply that the secular, scientific elites artificially, arbitrarily, and advantageously separate and make inseparable what they so please in the fields of science.

In the first place, they collaborate--intentionally or not--historical, origins science and operational, observational science. If you hang around the Creation/Evolution Debate, you may often hear that creationism is unscientific because it "doesn't follow the scientific method." This statement is factual, but it is also inconsequential. It violates the laws of logic with its irrelevance and false dichotomy.

Now, let me clarify that--to believe in creation--one must have faith. Faith is intrical to salvation (Ephesians 2:8) and essential to God's approval (Hebrews 11:6). So I am not denying the faith aspect. "The heavens declare the glory of God" (Psalm 19:1); they do not prove His existence by the scientific method or prove the Creation Account. Christians have faith that the Bible is inspired by God (1 Timothy 3:16), regardless of what scientists may hypothesize. I have no problem saying that, especially when I consider some of the preposterous theories and "evidences" that have arisen before being debunked.

What I do have a problem with is the proverbial "holier than thou" attitudes of evolutionists--that somehow believers in Evolution are "more scientific" than creationists, or that believing in Evolution or in no God doesn't take faith. Both creationism and Molecules-to-man Evolution fall outside the bounds of the scientific method, beyond the scope of observational science, and faith is a requirement for belief in either.

Operational (Observational) Science: a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves.
...
Historical (Origins) Science: interpreting evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical point of view.

(Evolution Exposed, Pg. 24)

Really, it's very much common sense that we can't repeat, control, test, or observe the origin of the universe and the things therein, no matter how it happened. It's just not possible. It goes back to the basic premise, "Were you there?" No one was...except God, who told us how it happened in His Word. But, yes, that's my presupposed philosophical point of view, which places this type of science in an entirely different category than, say, technology, yet Lawrence Krauss, an outspoken evolutionist, in a scathing article, called creationists hypocrites for driving cars!!! According to the book Evolution Exposed, three of the most common high school biology textbooks state that it "is not necessary to distinguish between historical and operational science." (Pg. 21) How can this be?

Some may say that we can "see Evolution all around us." But this falls short on a couple of levels. Adaptation/speciation/micro-evolution--observed, observable, and compatible with creationism--are NOT synonymous with Molecules-to-man or Macro-evolution. The former does not prove the latter. Nor does either (micro- or macro-) prove theories such as the Big Bang or the eternality of the universe.

It is obvious that we do not--and will not--see macro-evolutionary changes, even if they do/did occur. Scientists may say that we simply "have not been observing for long enough." It's rather convenient, when you think about it. One can rid oneself of a plethora of bothersome questions about Evolution by this technique. After all, it "takes massive amounts of time." We'll all be long gone before enough time will have elapsed to expect anything dramatic to transpire.

But this very excuse illustrates the point that Evolution cannot lay a legitimate claim to testable, repeatable, observable science. In fact, even if we did observe, say, humans evolve into "extra-humans," it does not necessarily follow that amoebas definitively evolved all the way up to humans. That conclusion would be based upon the belief that the "present is the key to the past," just like a creationist conclusion would be based on the belief that the Bible--or God Himself--is the "key to the past."

Apparently, evolutionists recognize that this approach of stalling--you could even call it filibustering--pushing the problem into unwieldy amounts of time--only works so much and so far. So, they turn to geology and paleontology as some of the best substitutes for "hands-on," "eyewitness" scientific evidence. After all, if missing links were to be found or the universe was demonstrated to be extremely old, it would go a long way towards swaying the debate to the evolutionists' camp.

Here's the catch: digging up fossils and rock layers unearth problems, not solutions, for the evolutionary outlook, unless you accept evolutionary explanations at face value. Carbon-14 dating? Radio-isotope? Fossil layers? Geologic layers? Transitional forms? Missing links? Living fossils? In all these areas, unreliability, insufficiency, bias/closemindedness, imagination/fantasy, or nonexistence plagues any attempts at a truly evidential basis for Evolution. Notice: preconceived notions required. If you already believe (or are brainwashed into believing) in uniformitarianism, in the ape man-to cave man-to modern man drawing, in the fish-to-frogs-to-reptiles-to-dinosaurs-to-birds chain, etc., etc., you probably can reconcile yourself with the problems that present themselves to portions of evolutionary theories--theories that are frequently devised out of not-so-very-thick air. This is what places the Theory of Evolution squarely in the camp of historical science, and mediocre historical science, at that.

And that brings us to the second stage of meshing, along with some threshing: science and naturalism, as well as science and religion. Creationists are accused of having "presuppositional beliefs." That supposedly excludes them from the realm of science. However, that's just not fair. First of all, such a hard stance would force scientists to always search for but never reach conclusions--never "choose a side," but rather be "tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine..." (Ephesians 4:14) Why would it do that? Well, because, as we've already discussed, neither creationism nor Evolution falls under testable, falsifiable science. Therefore, a concrete conclusion can never be reached without belief, something some people seem to think shouldn't be a part of science. Evidence in the realm of historical science requires interpretations, things that need a foundation. Secondly, it erroneously assumes that evolutionists and secularists in general don't have fundamental worldviews. (Moreover, who can blame Christians if their faith is strong enough in order for them to be skeptical of such things as Nebraska Man, "identified and drawn based on a single tooth, which was later found to be from an extinct pig." --Evolution Exposed, Pg. 221)

One of my favorite quotes, in a negative sort of way, is this one:

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." --Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University, Nature 401 (6752) :423, Sept. 30, 1999

That's quite a closeminded creed, especially considering that naturalism is not interchangeable with science itself. Yet, science has been overrun by the "No Divine Foot" philosophy, making there appear to be no differentiation between the two.

Granted, I can see somewhat where naturalists are coming from. Superstititions hinder the progress of science. But naturalism itself becomes a type of superstition when one tries to explain away naturally something entirely un- or super-natural. Moreover, Christianity must not be lumped in with superstitions. Christians endeavor to "think God's thoughts after Him." Although His ways are unfathomable (Romans 11:33), with Christ upholding "all things by the word of His power," (Hebrews 1:3) our God is a God of order (Job 38:4-6, 8-11, 33; Isaiah 40:12; Jeremiah 31:35), who points us to nature (Proverbs 6:6; Matthew 6:26-20; Matthew 10:29), is omnipotent over nature (Job 38:11-12, 23; 41:11; 42:2; Mark 4:41), and is omniscient of nature (Job 38-40; John 16:30). Christians are called to see things as they really are, standing on a Solid Rock foundation (Matthew 7:24-25). "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind..." (Romans 12:2) "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ." (Colossians 2:8) The Bible is scientifically accurate, and some discoveries are just recently being made as to the wisdom of God's commands on what and what not to eat. (See Jordan Rubin's book The Maker's Diet.)

To venture into the materialistic assumption that "this is all there is" is to risk missing out incalculably! If a Supernatural Being created nature, nature would naturally reflect back to Mr. Supernature Himself. The Bible says this is so (Job 12:7-9 ; Psalm 19:1 ; Romans 1:20). Belief in this Supernatural Being would unlock doors to otherwise unknown wisdom and knowledge. The Apostle Paul rhetorically asks, "...who has known the mind of the Lord...?" Then he answers his own question, saying, "But we have the mind of Christ." (1 Corinthians 2:16). Christians have access to "the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God's mystery, that is, Christ Himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Colossians 2:3) God offers the only worthwhile perspective on everything. "For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" (Matthew 16:26-27)

To say Christianity has no place in science is to assume that God does not exist. To say that only naturalism is acceptable is to assume there is nothing supernatural. To say that Christians or creationists have no place in science, or that they cannot be good scientists, is to deny scientific history. In essence, to reject Christianity's place in science is to claim science for one's own religion.

"Many people do not realize that science was actually developed in Christian Europe by men who assumed that God created an orderly universe. If the universe is a product of random chance or a group of gods that interfere in the universe, there is really no reason to expect order in nature. Many of the founders of the principle scientific fields, such as Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, were believers in a recently created earth. The idea that science cannot accept a creationist perspective is a denial of scientific history." (Evolution Exposed, Pg. 20)

Let's take back science.

~Kingdom Advancer

You can purchase the book Evolution Exposed here.

You Got Something in Your Eye...

In contrast to several thousand other visitors--most of whom were happy for or at least interested in the opening of the Creation Museum--atheist, humanist, and evolutionist protesters were a pimple on the face of the Creation Museum's grand opening to the public on Memorial Day (which ended with a fireworks display pictured on the right). Or...from another perspective, were they just a beauty mark, a sign of a job well done? After all, if humanists and atheists were not up in arms about something like this, you'd have to wonder if a good job had been executed by those at Answers in Genesis. Jesus told his disciples not to be surprised if the world hated them (which they did). So, perhaps all the protesters and critics are/were more of a pat on the back then a slap in the face to Ken Ham and AiG.

Some of the signs held by the protesters read: Do you deny gravity too? Don't brainwash our children. It's [creationism] NOT science. A plane flew over pulling a sign with the message "Thou shall not lie." The makers of the Museum have been chastised for "instutionalizing" a "scientific lie."

All I can say to these people is: can I borrow your lines and signs? Because, I'd like to picket in front of public schools, college and university campuses, other museums, television studios which make nature shows, and publishing houses which print scientific textbooks.

Jesus said, "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:3-5) Behold, the log is indeed in evolutionistic atheists' eyes! (Read just some of the problems with Evolution here, at Ambassadors of Christ.) Unfortunately, they don't feel compelled to listen to Jesus' words (obviously) or to subject themselves to the law of God (Romans 8:7). Rather, they show conditionally selective moral outrage--like decrying supposed lies of this Museum--when it's convenient for them and their purposes (Judges 17:6).

However, they would do well to heed Jesus' words in this case, as in all cases. Their volatile opposition will likely only rouse more interest into a topic that is attention-grabbing by itself in the unveiling of a $27 million edifice. If people look for answers, some will find them. And those answers--true answers--don't lead to an evolutionary outlook. So, indeed, what was meant for evil, God may mean for good (Genesis 50:20), for--in the least--those who love Him (Romans 8:28).

To demonstrate the "log" of the evolutionists, I am going to break down some of the token phrases I have heard and seen, starting with, "Do you deny gravity too?"

First off, atheists are the ones making the denial of all denials--denying God's existence (Psalm 14:1)--so that type of condescension on the part of atheists is not very sharp, though expected (1 Corinthians 2:14).

Secondly, creationists not only do not reject scientific studies, discoveries, and research, but the law of gravity is observable, operational science. On the contrary, the Theory of Evolution is in the realm of historical, origins science. It cannot be repeated in a controlled setting. No one was there to see the beginning of the universe (except God--from the creationist perspective). And evolutionists even admit today that we cannot expect to see macro-evolutionary changes occur in front of our eyes. Not to mention all the evidence against Molecules-to-man Evolution, all the hypotheticals, all the theoreticals, all the gaps, all the holes--none of which is similar to the law--not theory--of gravity. That's telling in and of itself: atheists put so much faith in Evolution that the person holding this sign equated it with a scientific, testable law. That's how important it is to them for their to be no God. How much must they really love sin?

Speaking of laws, this apparent opponent of a Creator God walks right into a question that she herself cannot satisfactorily answer: where did laws like the law of gravity come from? And what about the precision of the universe's laws and arrangements--a fact which, were it not the case, would make life nonexistent? (See The Privileged Planet.)

Next, we have the doozy, "Don't brainwash our children." This one may take the cake, along with the "institutionalizing a lie" claim. Believe it or not, I did not make these up. For years, and years, and years, evolutionists have had a veritable monopoly on the education of children and young adults...using public funds! (A good book detailing and analyzing the claims of three of the most common high-school biology textobooks is Evolution Exposed) Yet, they have the nerve to rebuke a not-for-profit organization for building a private museum attended by visitors voluntarily (even if a school took a field trip, it could be optional)! While other museums present millions and billions of years like accepted fact, heavily seasoning exhibits and episodes with evolutionary theory, some have the gall to attack the Creation Museum as an "institutionalized lie"! Where's the academic freedom, tolerance, relatavism, and openmindedness? It is apparent that true colors are on display, and that these people are not really that concerned with the "horror" of someone "cornering the market," but rather, with anyone who does not agree with them voicing their opinion.

And that leads me to the next line, which calls for "science, not superstition." First off, it should be noted that it is not uncommon for detractors of Christianity to refer to it as a "cult" or "superstition." These terms carry heavily negative connotations, so they serve the purposes of anti-Christians by appealing to a person's pride of reputation. (Most people don't want to be wrong or grouped with a faction upon which people look down.)

But who is really superstitious? Who is really paranoid? It seems that the atheists have an irrational belief--an irrational fear--of Christianity. Many of them avoid and/or decry anything having to do with God or the Bible as if it is a ladder with a black cat flying underneath it across their path on a witch's broom. Really, the claim of superstition is a hollow one, emotionally-charged in the attempt to bring about an emotional response.

But I haven't seen that attack all that often. One that I do see regularly is that creationism is "not science." Not only is this infinitely easier said than proven, but it is also simply another elementary technique, reaching the headline reader--not the dedicated researcher. It invokes a false dichotomy (Molecules-to-Man Evolution is not, in contrast, "scientific"), a sweeping generalization (Of course some creationists may be very unscientific, but certainly not all), and often a post hoc ergo proper hoc fallacy when the evidence for creationism's unscientificity is the lack of the scientific method (In historical, origins science, the presence of the scientific method of testing, repeating, controlling, and observing is impossible; therefore, either nothing in this sphere is scientific or the scientific method is not the barometer). These logical fallacies will have to be discussed more fully in a later post.

Finally, I should address the idea that the Creation Museum is teaching "lies." This accusation is unbacked and untrue. Conveniently, no evidence is presented to support such a claim, except the appeal-to-authority and bandwagon fallacies of the "scientific consensus" argument, faulty dating methods, and biased interpretations. Besides, to say the Creation Account is scientifically factual and provable would be--at this point in history, anways--lying; but to say that the Creation Account is true by God's Word and supported by scientific discoveries is not lying, for two reasons: 1) It presupposes faith in God's Word--if you throw that out the window, you throw creationism out with it, though evidence may still pull you in the direction of an Intelligent Designer; the Bible spawns creationism, and the science of creationism endorses the Bible; 2) The allegation of deception assumes falsehood; but, if the Creation Account is true, and science therefore (naturally) backs it up, and creationists believe it because of God's word compounded by the testimony of His Creation, there can be no lie. Of course, Evolution is not a lie, in and of itself, either. It's a theory--just like any other theory which can be imagined at any time, without being considered deceptive. However, teaching it as fact, or even close to fact, is dishonest.

Christians know that the Creation Account is indeed true, for Jesus said to the Father, "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth." (John 17:17) How horrifically ironic is it that the Father of lies (John 8:44) would use the deceitful accusation of a lie to bury the truth?

All of this being considered, we must pray and support groups like AiG and efforts like the Creation Museum. The state-of-the-art, $27 million structure is a veritable "city on a hill"; AiG is "salt," attempting to be a preservative in one of the most decayed environments in the modern world--"light" in one of the darkest places: science (Matthew 5:13-15).

The Christian has become a benefactor, a volunteer, a painter, a carpenter, a construction worker, an engineer, a technician, a scientist, and one reviled, "so that by all means we might save some." (1 Corinthians 9:22)

~Kingdom Advancer

P.S. Answers in Genesis has been "Responding to Protesters' Propaganda" all week, and you can read their responses at their website.

The "Divine Foot" Takes a Step in the Direction.....

The Creation Museum presents a unique and unparalleled experience, a walk through time portraying significant, life-altering events from the past illuminating the effects of biblical history on our present and future world.
Be prepared to experience history in a completely unprecedented way.

The state-of-the-art 60,000 square foot museum brings the pages of the Bible to life, casting its characters and animals in dynamic form, and placing them in familiar settings. Adam and Eve live in the Garden of Eden. Children play and dinosaurs roam near Eden's rivers. The serpent coils cunningly in the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Peter and John peer into the empty tomb. Majestic murals, great masterpieces brimming with pulsating color and details, provide realistic scenery for many of the settings.

That's what can be read on the front and back of the Creation Museum guide, which I received as I was privileged with a sneak preview this week. The Creation Museum is set to open to the general public on May 28th, and it appears that it will open with a bang. Ken Ham said that he has done 38 interviews since this past Monday, and there's more to come. (Read about it at his blog.) Protests are scheduled against the Museum. Petitions are being signed by educators in an attempt to discredit Answers in Genesis' claims, and I've seen one absurd hit-piece of journalism published in a local newspaper. I'm sure there are more.

The truly "state-of-the-art" museum cost around $27 million to build, but it has been estimated that, without volunteer work and donated equipment, the cost would have been somewhere over $100 million.

Located in Petersburg, KY, the Museum is strategically located, near the airport in Cincinnatti, Ohio, and just a day's drive (or less) from the majority of the U.S. population. The area is beautiful, as is the pond, walking area, and building itself.

Although those who closely study AiG and the Creation-Evolution debate probably won't find any terribly profound information in their Museum experience, it is not to be missed. Highlights include the planetarium, which demonstrates the vastness of God's universe and some problems for evolutionists located therein; a walk through Eden; a video presentation of the Days of Creation; a monologuing Methuselah in his tent; a 40-foot tall replica of a section of Noah's Ark under construction, complete with complaining workers, a worker sawing away, and Noah trying to convince one of the workers to join him on the Ark; models of the Ark and Flood; large, robotic dinosaurs; Martin Luther nailing his theses to the church door; and much, much more.

Criticisms of the Creation Museum have generally been, at worst, pathetic, and, at best, misguided and unbacked. One writer (in fact, Lawrence M. Krauss, Director of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case Western Reserve University, as well as the Chair of the Forum on Physics and Society of the American Physical Society) went so far as to say that we creationists, "if we were intellectually honest," wouldn't use any technology, since we obviously don't believe in science. (note: my sarcasm) Never mind the fact that young-earth [biblical] creationists do believe in science, just not the corrupted, evolutionary and atheistic interpretations of it. That's the point: a scientific person does not have to be an evolutionary person--by all means nay (!); a believer in science does not have to be a disbeliever in God. To the Christian, science means to "think God's thoughts after Him." The difference between the scientist who is a Christian and the scientist who is not is this: one starts with God's Word as foundational; the other does not, replacing God's Word with man's reason. The main thrust of the Creation Museum and AiG is to demonstrate that, indeed, a scientifically honest person should not accept Evolution and billions of years as unadulterated fact--quite the contrary! Also, they are showing why Christians should not feel obligated to compromise the Bible in order to reconcile it with man's claims.

Some appear to simply be fear-mongerers, as this aforementioned writer feels compassion for the children who could be "intellectually injured" by this Museum. (DefCon has claimed the Museum is "institutionalizing a lie.") He ended the article by making a battle-cry to parents to bring lawsuits against any school that would use public funds to have a field trip to this Museum. That would be a violation of the separation of church and state, of course. (note again: my sarcasm) Never mind the fact that the theoretical, problematic science found in most natural history museums is connotatively religious at its core anyway. But, these people don't appear to care about separation of religion and state and multi-cultural, open-minded education...so much as separation of Christianity and state. (Read about one group, DefCon, here)
Sure, the claims of this Museum are incredible, but they simply state the plain dichotomy: believe God's Word? Or (non-Christian) man's word?

All I can say without taking much more of your time is, although some outlets are treating Ken Ham and AiG much fairer than others, don't believe everything you see, hear, or read in the press--as if I really needed to tell you that! Something this groundbreaking is bound to scare people; remember that many of these people have not been "trained up in the way they should go" (Proverbs 22:6)--rather, they've been brainwashed with evolutionary theory; and the devil, as the Father of lies (John 8:44), is bound to resort to his characteristic tactics. Be ready, for instance, for the ever-popular "appeal to authority" logical fallacy, as well as the "sweeping generalization" fallacy, along with emotionally charged language, all prominent in this debate.

Christians must rally together, for those against Christianity already have been. The opening of this Museum is another step in the direction of the demise of the intellectual and educational domineering of the evolutionary, atheistic, naturalistic, secular humanist agenda that won't "allow a Divine Foot in the door." This frightens them, but we can't have the Foot take a step backwards. They don't want to believe, or anyone to believe, that the "fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Psalm 14:1) They don't want to admit they are "without excuse." (Romans 1:20) They don't want to yield to the reality that they--and all humans--are responsible for the fallenness of nature. (Romans 8:19-22) Why? Why can't they just believe? "Because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God..." (Romans 8:7) And because "a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." (1 Corinthians 2:14)

For this reason, we must pray for these people, as for all people, for God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:1-4) We must also pray for the safety of Ken Ham, other leaders of AiG, and the Museum itself, especially over these hectic, and potentially volatile, next few weeks.

The debate over origins is pivotal. God's existence is not apathetic knowledge. Trust in the Bible and the biblical account of creation is no insignificant thing. The battle for souls is at stake. A loss here would be a damaging blow--to either side.

"If the foundations are destroyed, What can the righteous do?" (Psalm 11:3)

~Kingdom Advancer

P.S. The debate over whether a Christian should/can believe in Macro-Evolution and billions of years can be found here: Christian Evolutionist: Oxymoron?

Jesus, the One True 'Sin Eater'

I recently viewed the movie The Last Sin Eater. If that title makes you skeptical, don't worry. I was too--before I saw it. But this is an amazing story with a powerful message.

In this day and age, Christians must dedicate much of their efforts trying to bring a sense of repentance and a realization of a need for forgiveness to a generation which has ignored, scorched, and buried much of its conscience while justifying many acts which a healthy conscience would rebuke. In such an environment, it can be difficult to remember that there are those who are suffering and those who have suffered from debilitating guilt, fear, and despair, as well as others who try to bury such feelings.

To cope with these feelings, people turn in a multitude of directions: drugs, alcohol, sex, careers, good works, and religious and spiritual outlets. They do not understand that there is only one name given to men under heaven by which we must be saved. (Acts 4:12) He, and He only, takes away the sin of the world.

In this movie, based upon the book by Francine Rivers, the alternate method is a "sin-eater." In Appalachia, as per tradition, the people would elect, by a chance process, one person whose life would be spent cleansing others by damning himself--"pawning his own soul." This man would perfom a ritual at funerals, eating ritualistic bread and drinking ritualistic wine, "eating" the deceased's sins so that they could rest in peace. The sin-eater was an outcast, a veritable "scapegoat in the wilderness." No one (except his former lover, from whom he was separated by the lot that fell to him) would look at, talk to, or touch him for fear that "the evil he had taken upon himself" would come up them. The Sin-Eater avoided others, partially because of shame and partially because he did not want to "taint" anyone, thereby making them outcasts, as well. He came down off the mountain at the ringing of the Passing Bell to perform his duty, always dressed in a tattered black coat with a large hood.

The main character in the movie is a young girl, who, after casting a forbidden glance at the Sin-Eater during her granny's funeral, wants to track him down so that he can take her sins away while she's still alive. This--it goes without saying--is against protocol.

Nevertheless, bearing the responsibility she put upon herself for her little sister's death, with perseverance and an angel/imaginary friend, Cadi Forbes eventually catches up to the Sin-Eater, telling him that she would rather die than live with the hurt inside her. She even threatens to commit suicide to thereby force him into eating her sins.

So, the Sin-Eater reluctantly performs his ritual on Cadi, but afterwards she notifies him that she feels no different. The Sin-Eater only apologizes, and when asked what else Cadi must do, he repeats, "I wish I knew," as he scurries into the woods.

Fortunately, a stranger arrives in the cove, someone who's a "voice crying in the wilderness." Though not welcome in the cove, the man of God fears "no man." He talks to Cadi, and at one point he explains to her that there's already been a 'sin-eater,' sent by God long ago, to take away our sins once and for all. "His name is Jesus," he tells her. She asks forgiveness from this Sin-Eater, and finally experiences true forgiveness.

*SPOILER ALERT*

A series of climactic events then transpires: after teaching Cadi and her friend Fagan for a day about the things of God, the "Man of God," as he is known, is brutally beaten--to death--by the boss of the cove: Fagan's father. Fagan is also brutally beaten for being with the Man of God and for "standing fast" by him. Both are left lying helplessly, as Cadi hides in some bushes.

Before taking his final earthly breath, the Man of God tells Cadi to take his pouch, because it holds "the truth." (a.k.a., the Bible) Then, Cadi tries to find help for Fagan, but after taking refuge for a short time with the Sin-Eater's lover, they are forced to run into the wilderness to escape Fagan's still-vengeful father. The Sin-Eater finds them, and offers them shelter in his cave.

In the cave, Cadi tells the Sin-Eater, who indeed is a sad looking and sounding man, of the truth and Book that the Man of God had given her. The Sin-Eater vows that he would never read that book, because it would mean that he "had wasted his life."

Later, Cadi and Fagan discover a dark secret, painted in blood on the cave wall by an Indian. They question Miz Elda, the elder woman in the cove, and they also tell her about the original sin-eater (Jesus). Contemplating these two things, she decides to bring to light facts that long had been in the dark.

Ringing the Passing Bell, she puts things out into the open, which leads to others making confessions. Cadi makes the greatest confession of all--the confession of Christ--stating to the Sin-Eater, "God wants to set you free. He wants to set us all free." She pulls the hood off of his head, revealing a sorrowful, burdened, yet normal, well-groomed young man. Then, she helps him to his feet--initiating the first time he had touched a human in twenty years.

The movie concludes with a baptismal service, headed by the former Sin-Eater, in which the vast majority of the town appears to be accepting Christ. In addition, Cadi's relationship with her mother, something broken since her little sister's death, is finally healed.

*Spoiler Over*

This story is an amazing illustration of redemption, forgiveness, absolution, and God's power. It is more blatantly Christian, in my opinion, than either One Night with the King or The Nativity Story, believe it or not, and yet it is neither artificial nor preachy. It is genuinely touching.

It's not a movie that's a roller coaster by any means, and it don't expect to find any horror elements, although it is a little spooky. Scenes with "The Narrows" posed an insurmountable obstacle for the special effects budget, but those can be easily overlooked. All-in-all, this is a film more than worth seeing. The theology and conversions seem a little questionable in their deepness (or lack thereof), but they remind me of new Christians needing "milk" (1 Corinthians 3:2) and Paul being "all things to all people, so that [he] may by all means save some" (1 Corinthians 9:22)--being able to speak in verbage others can understand, like utilizing the illustration of the "Unknown God" in Acts 17.

Now, in conclusion, for those who may be seeking forgiveness, for those who may feel like God can't forgive what they have done, and for those who just want to revel in their newfound or long-cherished freedom, I have decided to list some applicable hymn references that are among my favorites:


Lord, now indeed I find
Thy power and Thine alone,
Can change the leper's spots
And melt the heart of stone.

Jesus paid it all,
All to Him I owe,
Sin had left a crimson stain,
He washed it white as snow.
("Jesus Paid It All" John T. Grape)

My sin, O the bliss of this glorious tho't:
My sin not in part, but the whole
Is nailed to the cross and I bear it no more,
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul.
It is well, with my soul.
("It is Well With My Soul" Phillip P. Bliss)

What a friend we have in Jesus,
All our sins and griefs to bear!
What a privilege to carry
Everything to God in prayer!
Oh, what peace we often forfeit,
Oh, what needless pain we bear,
All because we do not carry
Everything to God in prayer!
...
Are we weak and heavy laden,
Cumbered with a load of care?
Precious Savior, still our refuge;
Take it to the Lord in prayer:
Do thy friends despise, forsake thee?
Take it to the Lord in prayer;
In His arms He'll take and shield thee;
Thou wilt find a solace there.
("What a Friend We Have in Jesus" Charles C. Converse)

In Christ alone, my hope is found,
He is my Light, my Strength, my Song:
This Cornerstone, this Solid Ground,
Firm through the fiercest drought and storm.
What heights of love, what depths of peace,
When fears are stilled, when strivings cease!
My Comforter, my All-in-all,
Here in the love of Christ I stand.

In Christ alone, Who took on flesh,
Fullness of God in helpless babe!
This gift of love and righteousness,
Scorned by the ones he came to save.
Till on that cross as Jesus died,
The wrath of God was satisfied;
For every sin on Him was laid--
Here in the death of Christ I live.
("In Christ Alone" Keith Getty & Stuart Townsend)

What can wash away my sin?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
What can make me whole again?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
Oh, precious is the flow,
That makes me white as snow;
No other fount I know,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
("Nothing but the Blood" Robert Lowry)

~Kingdom Advancer

Kingdom ACTION!

I usually don't do posts like this, but, on the spur of the moment, I thought I ought to tell you about this:

READ AND ACT:

The Thought-Police: What the Hate Crimes Bill Would Do
By: Chuck Colson

New bill would gives special preference to homosexuals [Employment Non-Discrimination Act]


CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES, AND THE PRESIDENT, TODAY! (YOU CAN E-MAIL PRESIDENT BUSH FROM THE SECOND LINK.)

~Kingdom Advancer

Christian Evolutionist: Oxymoron?

8 Reasons Why A True Christian Should Not Be An Evolutionist.

In honor of the Creation Museum, which is located in Northern Kentucky and is set to open this month, this article details all the reasons (that I could think of) why true Christians, for logic and the Bible's sake, should not--even cannot--be theistic evolutionists, at least once they have the knowledge revealed in this post.

Answers in Genesis, (to the best of my knowledge) the largest Christian apologetics organization in the world, is behind this museum. They believe in "Upholding the authority of the Bible from the very first verse." Other Christians, however, don't take such a hard stance. They think they can re-interpret (twist) portions of the Bible and reconcile God's Word with man's science; or perhaps they simply believe that man's say takes precedence. When their theories say "Adam and Eve is just a parable/figure" or something else, that's essentially what they're saying.

Theistic evolutionism has become more common than it used to be. And, while theism is not directly at odds with Evolution, the God of the Bible is. It makes one wonder: are many on the liberal and theistic evolutionist side of the coin even serving the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

Of course, the Theory of Evolution has crept into many churches to one extent or another. The devil has been effective and comprehensive in his exploits. Like his first conversation with a human, when he questioned some of God's first words, he is still placing doubt in the hearts and minds of people about the first words of God--the first Written Words of God. Satan is tearing at the foundation, trying to get Christians to "...exchange the truth of God for a lie..." and to worship man's widsom--in fact, man's fallable, preposterous, problematic, hypothetical folly--instead of God's wisdom. (Romans 1:25) What a blunder, as 1 Corinthians 1 states, "...Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?...the foolishness of God is wiser than men..." (vs. 20, 25)

But fortunately, for me and my readers, the buck stops here. Here are the nine reasons why Christians who are evolutionists "ought not be":

1.) God's Image.
The Bible tells us that man is made in God's image. (Genesis 1:26, 27 ; 9:6) If mankind evolved from the lowest of life forms, when did human beings attain "image of God status"? When was that last step taken, that last stage developed? And, what of those "missing links," those "before pictures" of the "God Image Product"?

2.) Soul and Stewardship.
In the same sense, if man is a highly-evolved animal, when did God endow him with a soul? When was he separated from and given stewardship over the animals? After all, he was just an animal. What of the predecessors of the "soul-bearers"?
Likewise...

3.) Sin and Death.
Romans 5:12 says, "...through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin..." Romans 8:20-22 adds onto that, stating, "For the creation was subjected to futility...in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now." These two passages, paired with the apparent first shedding of blood in Genesis 3:21, clearly shows that Adam brought death and suffering to the whole of creation.
This is problematic on a couple of fronts for the Christian who would be an evolutionist.
First of all, the Theory of Evolution at ist core, subsisting on the "survival of the fittest," lives on death (pardon the pun). Death and suffering are vital components of the evolutionary process. But the Bible informs us that creation was "good," and, as I said, death didn't come till sin entered through Adam. How could Evolution take place without man, and therefore without sin, and therefore without death?
The second problem that is encountered is this: along the lines of my first points, if human beings evolved, when did they "evolve" the "capacity" to sin? If humans evolved, when did they become "human enough" for God to hold them accountable for their actions?

4. Adam's Descendants.
If Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden are just mythological, legendary, figurative, or parabolic, it can be concluded that their offspring weren't real people either. Then, one can easily deduce that their children's children didn't exist either...and so on... and so on. Eventually, the whole book of Genesis is discredited, and ultimately, the entire Bible's historical record and geneaology, with it being determined that Jesus Himself was not an actual person. Christians who claim that Adam was not real do not realize that their beliefs would cause Christianity to crumble upon itself.

5. Jesus, the Last Adam.
1 Corinthians 15:45 states, "...'The first man, Adam, became a living soul.' The last Adam became a life-giving spirit." Then, "The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven." (v.47) Romans 5:14 calls Adam a "type" or "foreshadowing" of Christ. Other parts of the chapter also make such comparisons. If Adam was not a living, breathing, real man, the implication about the Messiah is obvious. Once again, we see, that Adam's existence is intrical to Jesus'.

6. After Their Kind.
The Genesis account mentions numerous times that God created creatures "after their kind." (Genesis 1:21, 24, 25) Since Evolution requires a drawn-out, trial-and-error, improbable (to say the least), unproven procedure of one kind of animal (or life-form) transforming into another kind, this repeated biblical phrase appears to speak firmly to the issue of Evolution. Fish didn't evolve into reptiles and amphibians which evolved into mammalls...and on and on. No, it didn't happen that way according to the Bible. It says, "God created the sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed AFTER THEIR KIND, and every winged bird AFTER ITS KIND... Let the earth bring forth living creatures AFTER THEIR KIND: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth AFTER THEIR KINDS... God made the beasts of the earth AFTER THEIR KINDS, and the cattle AFTER THEIR KIND, and everything that creeps on the ground AFTER ITS KIND." (Emphasis mine)

7. The Flood Conundrum.
Answers in Genesis dedicates a significant portion of its ministry to defending the Great Flood and to demonstrating that much of the erosion and fossilization we see today could have occurred--and likely did--during a catastrophic disaster like the Flood. In fact, the entire last issue of Answers Magazine was about the Flood and Noah's Ark.
But those who would mix the Bible with secular textbooks remove the necessity of the Flood. In actuality, it is unlikely that the earth has experienced millions (even billions) of years of corrosive elements (and localized catastrophes) IN ADDITION to the worldwide Flood. Six to ten thousand years of existence with some natural disasters (including the Flood) is a more plausible scenario. Moreover, God simply could have created the world with some of its natural wonders already partially or fully intact.
So, as we repeatedly see, denying the literal, Genesis account of Creation introduces difficulties outside the realm of the first few chapters of God's Word.

8. Illogical.
A deistic god could put in motion a process lilke Macro-Evolution, because the case could be made that a deistic god wouldn't really care what the result was, and wouldn't really be involved. An impersonal god could start such a process, because the logic could be presented that that this type of god didn't plan on making humans or having a relationship with them; or that, being impersonal, an impersonal god couldn't directly create personal beings. A god who was not omnipotent or omniscient could initiate natural selection, because it could be said that such a god would not be powerful or knowledgeable enough to create extremely complex life forms from the get-go, but rather only the simplest, most miniscule types. An unholy, imperfect god could utilize Evolution, because one could say that death and suffering didn't bother him/her/it. The case could be made that all of the aforementioned gods could/would be "laissez-faire," and therefore Evolution would be an acceptable tool for them.
But we serve a God Who is hands-on, holy, perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, personal, and involved.
He created the universe with a distinct purpose and plan, and the unfolding of that plan, as well as His sovereign control and intervention, continues today.

"...He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world... He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will...we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counself of His will..." (Ephesians 1:4, 5, 11)

" 'For I know the plans that I have for you,' declares the Lord, 'plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope..." (Jeremiah 29:11)

"...we know that God causes all things to work together for the good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose... If God is for us, who is against us?..." (Romans 8:28, 31)

"Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?...in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus." (Romans 8:35-39)

"Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights..." (James 1:17)

"O Lord, You are my God; I will exalt You, I will give thanks to Your name; For You have worked wonders, Plans formed long ago, with perfect faithfulness." (Isaiah 25:1)

Job 38-39 demonstrates God's omniscience of and omnipotence over nature.

Considering all these things, it is preposterous to think that God would leave His handiwork, for which He had/has plans, to a chance process. Furthermore, the idea of God "directing" a CHANCE process is ridiculous. Though this is not to say that God doesn't use and direct micro-evolution. But, if he designed creatures, including humans, with genetic potential and variation, that is not really chance at all.

And that leads to the conclusion, established by the previous eight points, that the Genesis Record is not a parable, an analogy, or a legend. It is God's truth in the way He decided to reveal it to us, and our choice is simply to accept it...or not. When Jesus says, "There was a man who had two sons," we know it is a story with a moral, a lesson. When Jesus says, "I am the door," we know it is figurative, analogical. All it takes is a little contextual reading of Scripture to determine this. But, when the Bible says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth," and the verses thereafter, we are left with only one determination.

So, does that mean theistic evolutionists are not true Christians? Well, I would be more inclined to call them "uninformed" or "misinformed" Christians. That is, unless, their view of origins is an indicator of their overall worldview--their overall level of faith. This is likely what it often is. The Bible tells us, "All Scripture is inspired by God..." (2 Timothy 3:17) Hebrews 11:6 states, "...without faith it is impossible to please Him..."
If someone can't have faith in the first chapters of His Story, they likely have a substantial, deep issue in their heart.

~Kingdom Advancer

Analyzing a False Analogy

Cho Seung-Hui. I'm you've heard of him already. He is the poor example of a human being--an unfettered picture of man's depravity--who is now infamous for being responsible for the worst school shooting in the history of the United States of America. On the campus of Virginia Tech, on the morning of April 16, 2007, he gunned down in cold blood 32 students and faculty, along with injuring many.

I'll spare you any further details, since--unless you've been hiding under a rock this week--you've probably heard, read, and seen more than you wanted to.

My focus of this article is one statement of Cho, which was made in his video manifesto that he sent to NBC News. As he tried to blame others for his actions and as he made himself out to be a martyr and hero, he stated, "...I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people..."

It's sadly ironic that this young man, who knew enough about Jesus to think he was dying "like" Him, neither died for Jesus nor appeared to know Him in life.

Since whackos and wicked people occasionally drag Jesus' name through the gutter as if they are/were drinking buddies, and since some less-studied observers might consider the comparisons valid, I have decided to dismantle this false analogy of the mass-murdering Cho.

What is a "false analogy"? Well, one textbook defines it as "...a comparison in which the differences outweight the similarities or an assumption that if two things are alike in one or a few ways, they are alike in all ways."

Okay, so let's look at the similarities between the Virginia Tech-gunman and Jesus Christ first:

1.) They both died.

All right, now that we're done with that, we can move on to their differences.

1.) First of all, Jesus is God. (John 1:1, 14) Cho? Not so much. Could there be a more important distinction? You'll often hear someone run off a list of people, saying, "Confucius, Socrates, Jesus, etc." While, for the intended purpose of a given statement, it may be an appropriate comparison/grouping, ultimately, to one extent or another, it's insulting to Jesus' deity.

2.) Secondly, Jesus is sinless. (2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22 ; 1 John 3:5 ; Hebrews 4:15 ; Hebrews 7:26) The Virginia Tech shooter? Start with murder, hate, and lust (he allegedly stalked and took pictures of women), along with blaspheming Jesus by the simple act of comparing Him to himself, and go from there, keeping James 2:10 and Romans 3:23 in mind.
This is another important aspect to note. The difference between an innocent man--completely innocent and unstained--dying and a flagrant sinner is significant.

3.) Thirdly, Jesus didn't kill anyone. Any comparison which may otherwise have merits (though this one does not) has to come to a screeching halt here. Christ did resurrect some, and many will be resurrected in the future. As part of the Godhead, Jesus will judge the world, and can make righteous judgments at any time He so desires. However, as a Man on earth, He said, "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe in Him is judged already." (John 3:17-18)
Napoleon Bonaparte, of all people, has something profound about Jesus' non-violent ministry: "I know men and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man. Between Him and every other person in the world there is no possible term of comparison. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have founded empires. But on what did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded His empire upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for Him."
Jesus was peacefully arrested--telling Peter to put away his sword (Matthew 26:52)--and He quietly accepted His undue punishment, "...Like a lamb that is led to the slaughter." (Isaiah 53:7)
2 Peter 2:23 tells of Jesus, "...while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously." He exhibited the biblical attribute of "longsuffering." In stark contrast stands Cho, whatever wrongs may have been done to him.
Jesus said on the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." (Luke 23:34) No such forgiving spirit is apparent in Cho's words or demeanor.

4.) Jesus didn't kill Himself. This becomes a bit complicated theologically, but the bottom line is that Jesus did not commit suicide (an act that severely diminishes the value in a person's demise), though He did come with the purpose to die. One needs only to look at the passive voice in Isaiah 53. Cho tried to transfer responsibility for his death, but he did so in vain. It was an aggressive suicide mission, plain and simple.

5.) Jesus said, "He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who is seeking the glory of the One who sent Him, He is true, and there is no unrighteousness in Him... I do not seek My glory..." (John 7:18; 9:50) Jesus bore our sins and did the will of the Father (Isaiah 53), showing the righteous characteristic of unselfishness. In contrast, Cho took pictures and a video of himself, comparing himself to Jesus among other things, and sent the material to a major news corporation. Then, he committed the worst school shooting in U.S. history. Selfishly seeking glory? You decide.

6.) Jesus not only died, but also rose again. That, along with being God in flesh and sinless, is what primarily makes Him "inspiring" as Cho would say. Will Cho resurrect? Well, he'll be resurrected for judgment (John 5:29), but I wouldn't hold my breath for anything before that.

7.) Lastly, a common fallacy found with people who like to throw Jesus' name around for their purposes is to mis-name His primary mission on this earth and through His death and resurrection. Isaiah 53, which I have referenced several times in this post, says, "...He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him... He was cut off out of the land of the living For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due..." (vs. 5, 8; emphasis mine) John 3:16, one of the most popular verses in the Bible, says, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believers in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." (emphasis mine) Did Jesus inspire "the weak and the defenseless people"? Of course, but don't confuse the side-effects with the main solution. Besides, will Cho even do such inspiring? I hardly think so.

Because of this standard, does this mean that no comparison can ever be made to Christ? No--Christians can. As Christians, we "...may become partakers of the divine nature..." (2 Peter 1:4) We are adopted as children of God. (Acts 17:29 ; Ephesians 1:5 ; Romans 8:15 ; Galatians 4:5) We are to be imitators of God. (Ephesians 5:1) Paul tells us, "To live is Christ..." (Philippians 1:21) "It is no longer I who live, but Christ Who lives in me." (Galatians 2:20) As Christians, we are by definition "little Christs" called to godliness.

Though we may not always live up to that standard, we know that, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9) so that we are washed "...white as snow." (Psalm 51:7)

What a blessed thought! What blessed thoughts!!!

~Kingdom Advancer

Homosexuality and Christianity

Homosexuality is a hot topic in today’s society. It can be found just about anywhere and everywhere. It pops up in discussions on marriage (Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?), adoption (Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children?), parenting (Is having two mommies or two daddies a healthy parental atmosphere for children?), health issues (How should we approach AIDS epidemic and other STDs?), entertainment (The popularity of "The L Word," for instance, and the general mainstreaming of homosexual characters.), the military (General Pace’s comments about homosexual acts being “immoral” and the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy; what should the military's approach to homosexuals be?), and even civil rights.

But, the debates and discussions do not merely take place in the public square, between Christians and non-Christians, conservatives and liberals, etc. and etc.. Rather, they rage on within the Church, as well, between Christians and… Christians, supposedly. In this venue, the point up for debate is often different than that of the public square.

The confrontation usually centers around one or more of three questions, which are:

1.) Is homosexuality sinful, immoral, un-Christian, wrong, and reproachable?

2.) Can a homosexual become a Christian? / Can a Christian be a practicing homosexual?

3.) How should Christians act toward and show love to homosexuals?


In this article, I will try to sufficiently address each of these issues.

I~~~~~~~~


Concerning the first question, I’m tempted to say, “Where’s the controversy? What’s the problem?” If the Bible were any clearer on the topic of homosexuality, it could be argued that its focus on homosexuality was disproportionate, considering the level of commonness in relation to other acts.
But, lest you take my word, let’s look directly to the Scriptures.

In a chapter that includes references to bestiality, incest, and other forms of lewdness, Leviticus so groups homosexuality, using one of God’s strongest words of condemnation—“abomination.”

“You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22)

Later in Leviticus, homosexuality is called a “detestable act.”

“If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death…” (Leviticus 20:13)

Although Christians do not execute sinners as the Jewish theocracy was commanded to, the seriousness of the sin of homosexuality is evident.

Romans 1 calls homosexual desires “degrading passions.” It describes homosexual acts as “indecent” (Lit. “the shameless deed”) and “unnatural,” thereby defiling and disobeying the image and purposes of God. (Genesis 1:26)

“…God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts…” (Romans 1:26-27)

1 Corinthians 6:9 names homosexuals as those among “the unrighteous” who “will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

This, of course, refers to those not saved, as we would see, if we were to read on in the chapter. But still, the message of the sinfulness and unacceptable nature of these acts is unmistakable. What a poignant admonition for today: “Do not be deceived.”

In 1 Timothy, the Bible says that homosexuals are one people of many for whom “the law is made,” being “contrary to sound teaching.”

“…law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching…” (1 Timothy 1:9-10)

Notice the listing technique in the previous two passages. God neither unfairly singles homosexuals nor sugarcoats their behavior as a lesser sin—much less not a sin at all. Also, note the fact that the last three passages are from the New Testament, immediately debunking any sort of “that’s Old Testament-stuff” argument.

So we see clearly the Bible’s emphatic condemnation of homosexual behavior, defining it is as abominable, detestable, degrading, indecent, unnatural, unrighteous, lawless, and contrary to sound teaching, while still not unfairly or disproportionately concentrating on this specific “orientation.”

But this is not the end. The Bible irrefutably defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, something to be honored and respected.

“But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” (Mark 10:7-9)

“Because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.” (1 Corinthians 7:2)

“Marriage is to be held in honor among all…” (Hebrews 13:4)

Therefore, it can be concluded that homosexual sex, as any other form of sex, definitively outside the bonds of marriage, is also a type of adultery, if you will, though it doesn't meet the heterosexual definition of fornication. Several of the passages of Scripture I’ve already quoted, as well as many others, mention these sins in addition to homosexuality. The adultery of the heart mentioned in Matthew 5:28 can, in all likelihood, be applied to homosexuals along with heterosexuals.

There is a significant difference, however, between homosexual and heterosexual immorality. Adultery can generally be ratified: repent and stop being unfaithful; have sex only with your spouse. Fornication has a related solution: repent, marry someone, and have sex with him/her solely. Homosexuality, on the other hand, can only be resolved through repentance, abstaining entirely from this type of behavior, and experiencing a miraculous sexual orientation transformation. (Of course, with the solutions to all three of these sins, I’m oversimplifying and ignoring the intrinsic element of lust.)

Also, homosexuality spits in the face of God’s admonition to “Be fruitful and multiply; Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it.” (Genesis 9:7) Granted, all sex doesn’t have to result in children, and all people aren’t even required to be sexually active. Nonetheless, homosexuality is of such a nature—being against nature—that there is not even a possibility of producing offspring. Something about that seems wrong to me.

What I think is a most telling element of God’s view on homosexuality is that there is not one “biblical hero” in the Bible who is a homosexual. Conceded, there are some Heroes of the Bible who had serious sin issues, but recognize that as their shortcomings weren’t celebrated, homosexuality is not a thing to be celebrated either. Some may try to say that David and Jonathan or Jesus and John the Beloved had homosexual relationships, but these are sensationalist and unfounded claims that simply epitomize the over-sexualized state of today’s culture.

II~~~~~~~~

Some proponents of homosexuality may not even try to deny the act’s sinfulness, but rather simply say that all Christians are sinners saved by grace. While this statement is inherently true, its use as an argument for Christian acceptance of open, practicing homosexuals is as weak and illogical—from a biblical perspective—if not more so, as the claim that homosexuality is not a sin at all. Those espousing this philosophy can’t seem to grasp the biblical concept that homosexuals can become Christians, but Christians can’t continue to practice homosexuality; that Christians can fall into sin, like homosexuality, but Christians can’t/shouldn’t embrace sin; that Christians stumble into sin, but Christians do not rightly walk in sin; that works do not earn salvation, but works result from salvation; that Christians are in the world, but not of it.

This is not a difficult thought process to follow. No one is (or very few are) saying that churches should ordain or accept unrepentant, continuing, serial killers, or unrepentant, continuing, serial liars, or even unrepentant, continuing adulterers. Yet, when it comes to proud, open, practicing homosexuals, the debate is fertile.

Let’s again look at the Scriptures:

Jesus told the adulterous woman, “Go. From now on sin no more.” (John 8:11) He told His disciples, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.” (John 14:15) A basic and fundamental prerequisite of salvation is to repent and turn away from one’s sins—or, in other words, turn to God.

Paul tells us in Romans 12:2, “…do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.” Earlier in the book, he states, “Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? …so we too might walk in newness of life…knowing…that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin…consider yourselves to be dead to sin… Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God… thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient…” (From Romans 6)

Paul says in Galatians 2:20, “…it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me…” Christ! The Sinless One! In Philippians 1:21, he says, “…to live is Christ…” Paul beseeches the Corinthians, “Flee immorality… do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body.” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)

Compare the deeds of the flesh, “…immorality, impurity, sensuality…”, to the Fruit of the Spirit, “…goodness, faithfulness…self-control…” (Galatians 5:19-23)

“Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.” (Galatians 5:24-25)

In Colossians, Paul speaks of praying for the Christians at Colossae, “…so that you will walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God…” (Colossians 1:11)

Paul sets the bar in Ephesians when he declares that “…immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints.” (Ephesians 5:3) A few verses later, he explains, “…for you were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children of Light (for the fruit of the Light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth), trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness…” (Ephesians 5:8-11)

John tells us, “If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.” (1 John 1:6) Again, “The one who says, ‘I have come to know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him… the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.” (1 John 2:4, 6) Later, “No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” (1 John 3:9)

Though this is a complicated theological issue—the difference between walking and falling into sin, the salvation status of backsliders and those who have walked away, etc.—the core concept is still relatively easy to understand.

So, once again, simply by opening the Bible, we see that another argument crumbles utterly. But… have we stumbled upon the real issue at stake here? Do all who call themselves Christians believe the Bible is the inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God? Certainly not. Many do not believe that “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17) They do not believe that “Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4) Some have “…exchanged the truth of God for a lie…” (Romans 1:25) Hence, the questions arise: why do they even want to be considered Christians? Are they true Christians? Can they have real faith, an essential element of salvation (Ephesians 2:8) without which it is impossible to please God? (Hebrews 11:6)

But, regardless of whether those mentioned above are assuredly damned or not, that assertion alone doesn’t really get us anywhere. We need to know what TO DO.

III~~~~~~~~

So how do we love homosexuals and others mistaken about issues of Christianity? It may be tempting to think that quiet withdrawal, passive resistance, and seeker-sensitive acceptance are the best methods. But, allowing people to slip into hell or walk apart from God’s Will is in no way the loving thing to do. Deception through silence, cruelty through niceties, and damnation through acceptance are in no way the Christian way. Yet, scathing, coarse, polarizing and seemingly hateful rebukes do not create progress either. We must combine firmness with gentleness, toughness with love ("tough love"), and clarity with discretion. Here are six things to do:

a.) First, study this article—study the Bible—carefully. Know what the Bible says, but not just about homosexuality. Rather, be “…ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you…” (1 Peter 3:15)

b.) Second, speak “…the truth in love…” (Ephesians 4:15) “…with gentleness and reverence…” (1 Peter 3:15) but speak the truth nonetheless. Exhibit the characteristics of love and the Fruit of the Spirit: patience, kindness, humility, unselfishness, forgiveness, longsuffering, perseverance, peace, gentleness, etc. (1 Corinthians 13 ; Galatians 5:22-23)
c.) Third, make no double-standards, and keep your relationship with God right. “…first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” (Matthew 7:5) Keep “…a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame…” (1 Peter 3:16)

d.) Love and lead by example and for real, not just by statement. “…let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and in truth.” (1 John 3:18)

e.) Fourthly, remember that the foundation to ultimate change and progress is genuine salvation. “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Matthew 16:26-27)

f.) Lastly and always: pray. “…pray without ceasing…” (1 Thessalonians 5:17)

~Kingdom Advancer