A Few Unfocused Thoughts

There are many conversations in the blogosphere that happen to be going on at the moment that I would like to join, but find myself without the time to do so.  Therefore, I just decided to do a round up of the best that’s out there, and add a few imperfect thoughts to the mix.

First, for those unaware,  Dr. Francis Beckwith, a respected theologian, has recently converted to Roman Catholicism.  I’m no friend of the church of Rome, but everything I have to say can be read here at Dr. James White’s blog.  It’s just so difficult to believe that someone who has spent his life studying the Bible can convert to a religion that preaches so much contrary to the book he professes to love and defend.  As Dr. White says, and as I (a former Catholic) can attest, there is no teaching of God’s grace or forgiveness.

I know I sometimes feel like the adulterous woman in John 8:3-11.  Except that I’m a man.  And I haven’t committed adultery.  That aside, I feel like I’ve laid before God, all my sins and iniquities there for Him to see.  And He says to me what Jesus said: “I don’t condemn you.  Go, and sin no more.”

It’s so powerful, the grace of God.  That He is willing to forgive those children of His who, like me, lay their sins before Him and repent–and then just say to us simply, “Go, and sin no more.”  How many times will He forgive us?  I assume the same number of times that Jesus told Peter to forgive a brother that wronged him: “Seventy times seven times.”  That’s a Hebrew idiom that means “infinity.”

All of this because of Christ’s death on the cross.

Rome doesn’t preach that.  In Rome’s gospel, we somehow have to clean ourselves first, we have to do something to earn our salvation.  Of course, we can never know for sure if we have earned our salvation; that’s the sin of presumption.  Instead, we have to trust  in a repeating sacrifice of the Mass, the “infallible” interpretations offered by the church hierarchy, the sacraments, and (of course) an indeterminate stay in purgatory.  Those may cleanse us of our sins.

Of course, the real gospel message is one of simple repentance and preparedness to do the good works of God: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Eph 2:8-10, emphasis added).  The Jesus of the gospel saves perfectly, every time (Heb 10:14).  We need no other imperfect sacrifice, offered repeatedly on the altars of Roman Catholic churches everywhere, we only need Jesus (Heb 10:1).

Yet, Dr. Beckwith appears to believe otherwise.  I suppose we should pray that God will reveal His truth to Dr. Beckwith in His time, and that this move will demonstrate God’s glory in a way that would not otherwise be possible.  God does make all things work together for the sake of His people (Rom 8:28).

DefCon–an organization for the Defense of the Constitution–is taking on Dr. Ken Ham’s upcoming Creation Museum by circulating two petitions, one for academics and one for ordinary citizens, but to what purpose I cannot ascertain by reading the petition.  It only calls for opposition to the Creation Museum, not to shut it down.  It doesn’t even ask us to boycott it.

Ham has answered the critics on his blog several times by repeatedly using the catch phrase “They haven’t even visited it.”  Yeah, Doc, but they already know our arguments as literal-Genesis guys, same as we know their arguments as evolutionary biologists, right?  So they can guess what is in there.  Same as I can hazard a guess as to what would be in an evolutionary museum.

Aren’t both of us just yammering away the same way?  I mean, evolutionists say that evolution must be true because God didn’t create it, look at the similarities between species, look at the evolutionary tree, etc., etc.  It must be true because the alternative is God!

The creationists do the same thing.  It must be true because the Bible says so, we can explain similarities between species by common design, God’s law and judgment doesn’t exist with 4.6 billion year old Earth, etc. etc.  It must be true, because the alternative is evolution!

We all know that I’m a Young Earth Creationist, that I don’t believe in evolution, and that I work at Burger King.  So what?  I’m still looking at this argument with the eyes of a person who could be dead wrong, since more scientific evidence supports an Old Earth and universe.  I want to believe in a Young Earth since that fits more closely to what the Bible says, but perhaps in the case of Young vs. Old, we just don’t have enough evidence from either side to rule out any possibilities.

Logic forces me to believe in a Creator simply because an infinity of past events leading to the present isn’t possible.  “Infinity” is a concept, not a number to be used in equations.  Time is merely the result of this universe, specifically, planetary bodies orbiting large centers of gravity create what we know as “time.”  Before that, there was no duration, aging, or anything else associated with the passing of time.  God, existing in this eternity, created the universe (and with it, time).  It only makes sense that the Creator of something was never subject to it, since “it” didn’t exist before the Creator created it.

The challenge as a Christian becomes preaching sin, death, and judgment when we know that these concepts are tied to the Fall, but (in an Old Earth model) not unique to the Fall.  The position of Ken Ham and the entire AiG crew is to teach a literal account of Genesis, support a Young Earth model, and thus maintain the integrity of God’s Word.

I, as a Young Earth creationist, believe that some room must exist for science to work its wonders.  Why can’t there be a reconciliation between what one teaches, and the other says?  Many Old Earth creationists believe in the tenets of sin and judgment, and know why death occurs in relation to the Fall, just fine and dandy without having to be Young Earth creationists.

Maybe, instead of my previous post on changing over to Young Earth creationist, I should have stated that I want to believe it, but the jury is still out.  Of course, being an apologist, I hate wavering on any Biblical issue.  As the defender of God’s truth, I should have a position to defend.  Wavering doesn’t bode well for me.

Of course, I think it does if my motive is to come to the truth of what God is teaching.  I believe that the Christians out there will sympathize with that, but the atheists will see this as a weak point and fire both barrels at it.

And on a weird note, Westboro Baptist Church is getting sued for having a parody video on their website of “We are the World.”  That was such a cheesy song, but it did so much good for the world.  And, of course, that was back when Michael Jackson was cool.  Westboro is now using it to spread their message of hate.

The parody version, “God Hates the World,” is still available on the cult’s web page and the lawyers have issued statements that say it won’t come down.  Let the pissing contest begin!

Hmmm… Interesting title for a worship song.  Do their Bibles not have John 3:16 in it?  That is assuming they actually read the Bible, of course.

7 Comments so far

  1. Geocreationist on May 22, 2007

    I was in a very similar position to you, until I actually reconciled scripture with science to my satisfaction, concluding the earth is old. I would be very interested in dialoging with you about it. Perhaps I convince you, perhaps not. In either case, I would enjoy the interchange.

  2. Cory Tucholski on May 22, 2007

    I would enjoy it, too. I’m convinced that there is a reconciliation between the Bible and science. The book that convinced me to become a YEC was War of the Worldviews by Ken Ham. I think I’m going to reread that book, but this time try to find the scientific argument, instead of the “Bible must be right because it is God’s Word” broken record I hear from the people who insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis.

    OEC doesn’t automatically equal heresy. Besides, after seeing posts like this, it makes me wonder how many things people who insist on a literal reading of the Bible actually are wrong about.

  3. Geocreationist on May 22, 2007

    Saying heliocentrism is wrong? Obviously, I cannot disagree more. Obviously, the scriptures this guy cites are all presented to us based on where we’re at… earth. To his credit, he isn’t claiming the math is wrong, just that we’ve let it fool us into thinking something contrary to scripture. It’s all about perspective though, and God meets us where we’re at… that’s why Jesus didn’t die for our sins on Mars.

    The first step for in reconciling science with the scriptures me was changing my perspective on Genesis 1. I had already read it from my own perspective, as if I’d been on earth when it happened. Well, if I had, then I would have experienced 24-hour days. But then I realized that Jesus Himself was at the Creation, and was in fact the active agent for it. I developed my argument here: http://geocreationism.com/category/jesus-as-witness/

    Concluding Jesus was there, hovering with the Holy Spirit, I realized that He didn’t have to rotate with the earth, but could have been watching the earth rotate over and over again beneath Him. Days would add up to years without Him ever experiencing an evening… unless He wanted to. And in fact Genesis 1 says over and over “there was evening and morning, another day”. Well, from Jesus’ perspective it was.

    Now, I’ve had people ask why I’m limiting Jesus, and I’m not. I’m merely expressing what I believe the Bible has recorded Him doing, what I actually think I He told Moses, if you can believe that! But, we can to that later. Anyways’ that’s the gist of my perspective, and it’s helped me reconcile every biblical oddity I’ve seen in connection with the creation.

  4. Daniel on May 22, 2007

    I think that a lot of our problem when it comes to Genesis and science comes from asking the wrong questions and then getting the wrong answers. It’s like the little boy who asked his mom, “Where do I come from?” The mom was taken back. She then proceeded to explain the birds and the bees. Then the little boy looked confused and said, “Johnny says that he’s from Indiana.”

    The author of Genesis wasn’t addressing our questions involving science and how God manufactured the world. He was addressing the worldview questions of his original audience.

  5. Geocreationist on May 22, 2007

    True enough, Daniel. But, the answers have to be consistent with the truth. Yours is not an explanation of why they don’t have to be consistent, but why the details might be incomplete.

  6. Cory Tucholski on May 24, 2007

    What I’ve always thought is that the Bible says that, to God, a thousand years is as a day, and a day is as a thousand years (2 Pet 3:8). Why can’t the Genesis creation account be from His perspective: no one was there, as they were in the historical books, to write from their own perspective or to put their own spin on it.

    Rethinking some things I’ve said in my earlier post about changing over to a YEC viewpoint, maybe a lot of this fervor over YEC is really no different than the guy who says that heliocentrism is atheistic and unscriptural. Maybe YECs are just arguing because they can’t accept the truth that’s in front of them, since they don’t think it fits with the Bible.

    The age old argument of the Bible vs. Science, round 617. :)

  7. Geocreationist on May 25, 2007

    Cory,

    The thing I’ve noticed about the 2 “sides” is that they tend to characterize each other the same way.

    “You just want to distort scripture to fit your view of science.”
    “Well, you just want to distort science to fit your view of scripture.”

    Why can’t we use each to interpret the other? That’s all I did, but I can’t help but to come off like I have an agenda… to both sides!

Leave a reply