Tuesday, June 29, 2004

FROM THE BEGINNING

What concerns me the most is that it seems many pastors/preachers/ministers are not preaching the word of God but their own brand of doctrine filled with promises, guarantees, compromise and threats based on traditions rather than the word. In one breath they proclaim the Gospel found in scripture and then in another deny the historicity, truthfulness, and accuracy of the very same. It has become apparent that when something the world says doesn't line up with the bible, God's word is immediately questioned rather than questioning our own sinful thinking.

This is the case with Genesis and the creation story, we've allowed evolutionary thinking to creep in under the guise of theistic evolution, or progressive creation, but the bible doesn't say that God created the world in thousands or millions of years, it says specifically six literal, 24hr. days. This compromise has lead to many doctrinal heresies, I guarantee if you line up many of the false televangelists and preachers you would find one common thread among them, they do not hold to a true and literal creation account even though topflight Hebrew academics are unanimous that Genesis was written to convey exactly what it claims, six literal 24hr. days of creation. Are not those who reject this accusing God of misleading His people for thousands of years?

The point I am making is that we are allowing the secular thinking of the world to influence the church rather than the other way around. The Lord said through the Apostle Paul "...Let God be true but every man a liar..." (Rom.3:4a) This ought to be our motto as people of God. People aren't going to receive a message that we don't even believe in ourselves, that we are not living ourselves. You can't believe that the bible is God-breathed if you only believe some of it and throw the rest out because it doesn't fit into some neat little frame of thinking.

We ought to defend and proclaim the word of God as true from the beginning.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Jerry,
Perhaps this is where I theoretically "disagree" with you. :·)

First off, I believe God is capable of creating our universe in 6 concrete 24 hour days. But I am also brought to mind that for One whom time is yesterday, today and tomorrow, all but an instant, yet an eternity--"I am".

I am also "open" to the possibility that creation occurred in 6 concrete stages spanning millenia. Either case, it does not diminish my awe at his handiwork. Everything from the stars/heavens to stone and things not seen all bear witness to God's creativity.

To me, the Big Bang was God saying let there be Light! Pow, out of nothing, the universe came into being, and at this moment in time, billions upon billions of light years across. I am intrigued by recent discoveries that hint at the possibility of a slowdown in the rate of expansion. The implication being that E=MC2-n. It's all very interesting, yet so mind-boggling, I sometimes get a headache trying to get a grip on it.

All the same, we are a people, using only 10% of our brain power, vainly peering thru a glass darkly, trying to understand what it all means. In the big scheme of things, we will find everything out in the sweet bye & bye.

You'll have to admit that 6 literal days of creation will have been the biggest "practical joke" played on mankind; in that all the evidence points to eons of creation and intra-species evolution (evolution of protozoa to man doesn't cut it, no matter which way it's sliced). Why else would God warn us not to lean on our inferior intellect.

Bottomline, God said it, He made it and that's good enough for me.

Your Brother in Christ
Andy Foster

Jerry McClellan said...

Thank you Mr. Foster for taking the time to respond, and not only that but to disagree. I truly do appreciate it. I must admit though, much of what you site are common notions among many who hold to evolutionary thinking, even progressive evolution where one somehow incorporates God as being the one controlling and manipulating the "species".

One of the main points that causes me to hold to the notion of 6 literal days is that if evolution is in the picture then you must account for extreme levels of death, desease and suffering prior to the fall of man into sin. Yet, under a Biblical premise, death, desease and suffering are results of sin. While I cannot refute a notion of a "Big Bang" causing the elements to go into motion, I can contend that for evolution to take place there must be death and mutation (loss of info)which falls under the premise of survival of the fittest. When God created all things, the bible states that He said, it was "good". How can our creater state that death, desease, and horrid mutation is good? Especially when all of these things are products of sin?

You also mentioned the time factor. While it is true that God exists outside of time and is not subject to time, it is also true that in the beginning God created time and therefore can intervene within it at any point and in any way He pleases. Therefore, could it be that God created time at the very moment He spoke and set the universe into motion? Then continued to intervene in time to finish off His handy work? And, for purposes that we see later carried out in scripture, established and finished creation within 6 days and ceased to create on the seventh? For this gives precedence for the Sabbath as well as other events, practices, and rituals that took place in scripture. Is it coincidence that God told the Israelites to march around Jericho 7 times and the walls fell on the 7th day? If we place Genesis on a level of allegory then none of these things hold any water. Especially when it comes to professing Christ from the beginning.

When you look at the whole of scripture and take into account proper context, hermanuetics, hyperbole and the like, the Bible is a very logical writing and touches on every aspect of the human condition. When it comes to evolution, one only has to look at the evidence for a young earth, the flawed fossil record, and the fact that most scientists who hold to evolutionary viewpoints are analyzing the information from a preconceived atheistic premise, just as a Christian ought to do so from a Biblical premise. Same evidence, different view of the evidence.

While I would agree that the "Big Bang" cannot be disproven in that no one was there at the beginning to observe the process, ultimately, I would rather take God's word for what it is since He was there and we were not. When it comes to evolution, one merely has to review the evidence for and against it from a logical standpoint to see that getting complex organisms from simple organisms is illogical and not possible. When one incorporates evolutionary doctrine into scripture, it is an attempt to reinterpret the Bible through secular thinking. Interjecting information where none is provided.

Anonymous said...

Brother Jerry,

On all points that you cited, I fundamentally agree. All the known scientific eveidence and what is yet to be discovered only points to what it would take nature to get there at its own pace, barring divine intervention. What science is unable to answer is the spark of genesis for any subject matter. And as you said, interjecting our scientific presumptions opens the door to diluting God's word. As for evolution, the relationship between death and evolving hadn't occurred to me. Thanks for pointing that out--you've given me the definitive reason for totally discounting the possibility of evolution pre-Fall-of-Man. Indeed on the 7th day God saw it was all good and rested.

My thot process has always been along this line: Since God is omni-(ALL), He is not bound by any laws of nature which He created solely for Man's benefit, which he created in His image.

In creating the heavens and earth, in an day's instant, He accelerated the clock millions of years into the future--in otherwords, the time it took creation to reach the point that Adam's life became sustainable, was compressed into 6 days. This is how I explain it to my wife & kids. (think genesis project in Star Trek, where a dead planet evolved at an accelerated pace, which folks have no problem swallowing, yet find it hard to believe that God could do the same just by speaking, and faster)

An example I give my family is that Adam was not born, he was made Man--let's say physically a perpetual 20 year-old man. The laws of physics would postulate that the fact we find Adam as Man in the Garden of Eden, means that we would have to backtrack 20-plus years to find him begining as a sperm fertilizing an egg then developing into a foetus and so on thru childhood, teenager etc, until becoming a man. Not so, God skipped all that and started with Man in his prime. And that is the state Adam & Eve would have remained, had they not sinned. Sin introduced aging, painful childbirth, suffering & toiling, sickness and death, and ultimately separation from God.

If God can do that with Man, he certainly did what He said all along with the universe and nature--in Creation, His answer is that the chicken came before the egg.

As you stated, secular thinking is by default faulty. Scientist are now thinking that while oil can be made from decayed biomatter, there is simply not enough biomass in all of the history of earth to account for the crude we've had and yet to be harvested. They now think that oil is part of nature in and of itself, along with all the other minerals, raw materials & whatnot. So it's back to the drawing board for them.

Likewise, while I like a good sci-fi, like Star Trek etc, realistically, those premises are at odds with the belief that of all the things in nature, man is truly unique and again, all things exist for the purpose that God intended for His relationship with Man. Yes, we may find life on other planets, but I'm confident we won't find anything on the scale of aboriginal mankind. Furthermore, the concept that man is nothing more than biomass subject to Gaia and similar ideology is Satan telling a good story in order to further separate us from God.

I also believe that the Flood was a major scientific bender, but that's a whole topic on its own ;·)

Take care, keep 'em coming, and God bless

Andy Foster

Anonymous said...

One more thing regarding evolution, what I mean by intra-species evolution is, we can naturally get various permutations of a dog, but never a dog-cat:
--------------
(biology) taxonomic group whose members can interbreed
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
--------------
(1) a group of organisms that have a unique set of characteristics (like body shape and behavior) that distinguishes them from other organisms. If they reproduce, individuals within the same species can produce fertile offspring. (2) the basic unit of biological classification. Scientists refer to species using both their genus and species name. The house cat, for example, is called Felis catus.
www.nationalgeographic.com/wildworld/glossary.html
--------------
From Section 3(15) of the Federal Endangered Species Act: "The term 'species' includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature." A population of individuals that are more or less alike, and that are able to breed and produce fertile offspring under natural conditions.
midwest.fws.gov/endangered/glossary/
--------------
The lowest principal unit of biological classification formally recognized as a group of organisms distinct from other groups. In sexually producing organisms, "species" is more narrowly characterized as a group of organisms that in natural conditions freely interbreed with members of the same group but not with members of other groups.
www.accdc.com/glossary/

Andy Foster

Jerry McClellan said...

I would agree that there is a level of change that occurs within certain species yet I would not characterize it as evolution. Many scientists would and usually characterize any changes that may occur within a certan genus as natural selection rather than evolution. Natural selection is a more honest interpretation because it allows for the premise that when a change occurs within a certain group a loss of information occurs, therefore a change in the genetic structure of that particular organism. Evolution by default implies and even holds to the notion that complex information somehow comes from simple information. Yet, just examining this premise from a logical standpoint we can deduce that this is not possible. (Think about the watch maker analogy)

Holding to any evolutionary premise is dangerous at best because it is this line of reasoning that led to the perpetuation of racism and even sexism to a degree. The very notion of evolution allows one to objectify human beings(secular humanism) and takes away the entire notion that we are created in the image of God.

Anonymous said...

You're right about selection vs evolution--more apt would be devolution, the process of declining from a higher to a lower level of essential quality.

Thanks and keep writing, you're always good for a thot provoking nugget or two.

God bless you,

Andy Foster

r said...

Excellent post and discussions, Jerry. Theistic evolution undermines man's very need for salvation. I think you have articulated well.

Anonymous said...

Jerry,

I just spent the past few hours surfing the link you proved in the title (answersingenesis.org).

Quite frankly, my earlier post were based on my core beliefs stemming back to my "school dazes";
--God created man!
--"Race" is really just a social construct, since all are descended from Noah and again from Adam--one blood,
--Man is a fallen creature that can only be made whole thru faith in Christ,
--"Primitiveness" is a result of separation from God and not "aboriginal" roots,
--Perhaps the world is older than 6 thousand years, but so what, God created it, regardless of our concept of time,
--Dem fossil bones sing any song you want, so wait a few years, and the scientists will be coming back with new theories. To wit, look at the dinosaurs, back when I was in school, dinos were pretty drab looking and now, Discovery Channel shows how colorful they might have been, etc

So over the years, I haven't really thot nor studied the matter. My views may have "evolved" over time only when I happened to come across an article or show, at which point, I would mentally deconstruct it. If it strengthened my belief in God the creator, I'd adopt it, if not, discard it and move on.

However, now that my kids are getting to that age where they want answers, it's back to hitting the books for me to ensure that they understand the Truth and not be swayed by pop culture. In other words, I needed to get current with the worldview and how/what that relates to God's view.

As stated earlier, the definitive mental correction that I took from your discussion is sin=genetic devolution as opposed to natural bio-evolution. On a subconcious level, I already knew that, but it was my missing link in framing the issues. And I thank God for you pointing that out.

As it stands right now, I'm still trying to figure out the issue of schooling for my kids, once they move to the States--prolly OKC. Public schooling is my choice of last resort, but irregardless, the "Answers In Genesis" website will be an invaluable resource as I strive to train my kids in the ways of our Lord.

It's the main reason that I've started lurking on Christian blogs, looking for voices of Truth online. Part of my thinking is that before I turn my kids on to the internet, I want to lock out anything & everything, but sites that I approve for them on their computer.

Thanks again and God bless

Andy Foster

Jerry McClellan said...

Thank you guys for your comments.

Mr. Foster I can relate with what you said. I too used to, as it were, rest on my laurels thinking that I knew all that I needed about creation. I've always believed that God created all things. That has never been a real doubt in my mind, but I could never resolve the evolutionary conflicts that arose while growing up in public and even private christian schools. In public school I was taught evolution and about millions of years, while in private Christian school no one would or could give a straight answer on the matter, except for one.

It wasn't until I went to a private Christian High school where I met my biology teacher Mr. Stanfel, or Mr. Stan for short. He was the first person, Christian person, that I met that actually demonstrated through simple reasoning from scriptures, the viability of creation, mainly of the great flood. One day we decided to try to distract him from the class schedule by barraging him with unrelated questions(something we always attempted to do to avoid quizes and tests), and someone asked THE QUESTION, how did dinos fit on the Ark? The rest is history (pun intended), I was amazed! I had never seen history or the bible in that light. Everything you possibly read on the AIG website he expounded upon with such clarity and conviction it was overwhelming. From then on I made a conscious effort to study the Word of God in more depth and to seek out information that helped to support scripture. I learned to question my own reasoning and that of others before I questioned God's word. I did not have all of the answers or info then but Mr. Stan pointed me in the right direction, a biblical direction. It is funny that inspite of my high school being a Christian school, Mr. Stan was still required to teach from text books that expounded evolutionary doctrine. Ofcourse, he would always disclaim to us that he did not hold any of it to be true. Thank God for Mr. Stan!

Jerry McClellan said...

"The implication being that E=MC2-n. It's all very interesting, yet so mind-boggling, I sometimes get a headache trying to get a grip on it."

This brings to mind the 2nd law of thermodynamics in that some evidence actually demontrates that the universe, our planet in particular is actually winding down and not expanding. A good example is the fact that people age and the more we age the weaker, smaller, and closer to death we get.

Scott said...

Alot of interesting comments on this blog, I was searching for some doctor related info and some how came across this site. I found it pretty cool, so I bookmarked. I'll really liked the second post on the front page, that got my attention.

My site is in a bit different area, but just as useful. I have a diabetes mellitus pathophysiology related site focusing on diabetes mellitus pathophysiology and mens health related topics.

Tom Naka said...

Help! I am lost. I was searching for california group health insurance quote
and somehow ended up here. How that happened I don't know, however I do like your Blog a lot. Would you mind if I add your Blog to my favorites page so others can visit?

Anonymous said...

Great site folks, been looking for this kind of information. I have a related credit report repair company site also. You may want to take a look some time. credit report repair company I'll definitely be back.

Anonymous said...

This site has a lot of information pertaining to my interests herbal weight loss remedy . I will definitely bookmark this page and be back later. If you get a chance, please check out my herbal weight loss remedy site. We so have something in common. Check ya later...