Summer Update

It is hard to believe that the first week of August is almost over already. Some of you may have noticed that I have not done much blogging this summer. As a school teacher, I try to take a break from the routine of life and make sure I spend a lot of time with my wife and kids during the summer. Between family, ministry, and work responsibilities September through May are often quite crazy. It is good to be able to slow down for a while.

The summer of 2010 has been great thus far. Becky and I have been able to accomplish many projects around our house that have needed our attention. In addition, we have spent a lot of time with our boys. In June, I had the privilege of teaching the teens at our first summer camp. On July 1^st, Becky and I celebrated our 10^th wedding anniversary. It was an honor once again to speak at the Grace School of the Bible Summer Family Bible Conference this past July. My message entitled I Reckon Myself Dead and Alive was well received which was encouraging. After the conference, thanks to my parents, Becky and I were able to sneak away for a couple of days for anniversary in Galena, IL. Thanks to the support of the saints, we sold out of our entire stock of books from the printing ministry. Two weeks from now Grace Life Bible Church will be hosting its first ever Vacation Bible School event. Moreover, planning is underway for the 2010 West Michigan Grace Bible Conference at the church October 8-10.

As you can see, I have not had much time for writing this summer. However, I have been doing a lot of reading to prepare for my Sunday School class on Church History beginning September 12. I have decided to call the class Church History: A Tale of Two Churches. The class is designed to trace the history of the loss and recovery of Pauline truth. Once school starts again and my daily routine stabilizes, I plan on picking up my weekly writing schedule once again. Until then, I hope everyone has a great conclusion to their summer.

The Scientific Argument against Evolution, Complete Artical

A few weeks ago, at the end of May and beginning of June, I had written a series of articles on the issue of science and Evolution. Recently, I took those individual postings and edited them to read like a single essay. A PDF copy of the revised essay is now available on the Grace Life Bible Church web page. Discover that Evolution is a religion which requires more faith to believe than Creationism.

If you would like a copy of The Scientific Argument against Evolution, please click here.

2010 Teen Summer Camp

Last week, my family and I had the honor of being involved in the 2010 Summer Teen Camp at Forth Faith Camp in Morely, MI. This camp was a collaborative effort on the part of Shorewood Bible Church, Grace Life Bible Church, and Canton Grace Fellowship. Mike and Marlene Taylor, of Shorewood Bible Church, did an excellent job of planning and running the camp. About 15 teens form the churches listed above enjoyed the week's festivities. There were many different activities including paintball, river tubing, capture the flag, basketball, and the 300 foot water slide.

Brother Alex Kurz taught during the morning chapel sessions on basic issues regarding salvation and right division. I spoke during the evening session on The Four Freedoms of Grace. The teens really seemed to enjoy the Bible teaching and by all accounts were challenged to grow in their faith and dig deeper into God's Word.

I promised the teens to make the PowerPoints I used available on the Internet. A PDF copy of my notes as well as the PowerPoint presentations are now available on the Grace Life Bible Church web site. Please use the following links to access the notes. Please disregard any typos or grammatical mistakes in my personal notes.

• The Freedom to be Different (PDF)
• The Freedom to be Vulnerable (PDF)
• The Freedom to be Vulnerable (PowerPoint) After you click here scroll down and click.
• The Freedom to be Candid (PDF)
• The Freedom to be Candid (PowerPoint) After you click here scroll down and click.
• The Freedom to Make Mistakes (PDF)
• The Freedom to Make Mistakes (PowerPoint) After you click here scroll down and click.

Thanks to all the counselors who took time out their busy lives to spend time with the teens. I am already looking forward to next year. Thanks to everyone for a great week.

The Scientific Argument against Evolution, Part Four

Darwinism, like all nontheistic worldviews borrows from the theistic worldview to make its own position intelligible. How so? Darwinists continually emphasize the superiority of reason over faith. Reason requires that the universe is reasonable, which presupposes order, logic, design, and truth. But order, logic, design, and truth can only exist and be known if there is an unchanged objective source and standard of such things.(1) "To say something is unreasonable, Darwinists must know what reasonable is. To say something is not designed, Darwinists much know design is. To say something is not true, Darwinists must know what truth is, and so forth."(2)

    Many currently believe that "science is the only sourse of objective truth." While a statement such as this claims to be objective, it is certainly not scientific. The statement is philosophical in nature and cannot be proved scientifically. Therefore, it is self-defeating. In fact there are many truths that cannot be proven scientifically that all rational people accept:

1. Mathematics and logic (science can't prove them because science presupposes them)
   
2. Ethical judgments (one can't prove by science that the Nazis were evil because morality is not subject to the scientific method)
   
3. Aesthetic judgments (the beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven)
   
4. Science itself (ironically, the belief that the scientific method discovers truth can't be proven by the scientific method itself).(3)
   

This leads us to one of the most important lessons we can learn from considering the scientific arguments against evolution. Science is built on philosophy. In fact, science is a slave to philosophy.(4)

    "Bad philosophy results in bad science, and good science requires good philosophy."(5) Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, co-authors of I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, offering the following to substantiate this point:

1. Science cannot be done without philosophy. Philosophical assumptions are utilized in the search for causes, and therefore, cannot be the result of them. For example, assume (by faith) that reason and the scientific method allow us to accurately understand the world around us. That cannot be proven by science itself. One can't prove the tools of science—the laws of logic, the Law of Causality, the Principle of Uniformity, or the reliability of observation—by running some kind of experiment. You have to assume those things are true in order to do the experiment.
   
2. Philosophical assumptions can dramatically impact scientific conclusions. If a scientist assumes beforehand that only natural causes are possible, then probably no amount of evidence will convince him that intelligence created the first one-celled or any other designed entity. When Darwinists presuppose that intelligent causes are impossible, then natural laws are the only game in town. Likewise, if a creationist rules out natural causes beforehand, then he also risks missing the right answer. However, a scientist who is open-minded to both natural and intelligent causes can follow the evidence wherever its leads.
   
3. Science doesn't really say anything—scientists do. Data is always interpreted by scientists. When those scientists let their personal preferences or unproven philosophical assumptions dictate their interpretation of the evidence, they do exactly what they accuse religious people of doing—they let their ideology dictate their conclusions. When that's the case, their conclusions should be questioned because they may be nothing more than philosophical presuppositions passed off as scientific facts.(6)
   

The evidence simply does not support the Darwinian worldview or Darwinists would not have to borrow from the theistic worldview to make their case. "Intellect, free will, objective morality, and human rights as well as reason, logic, design, and truth exist only if God exists."(7) Evolution assumes some or all of these realities when articulating their naturalistic view. In short, Naturalists cannot have it both ways.

Endnotes

1. Norman Geisler. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004), 130.
   
2. Ibid., 130.
   
3. Ibid., 126-127.
   
4. Ibid., 127.
   
5. Ibid., 127.
   
6. Ibid., 127-128.
   
7. Ibid., 132.

2010 Great Lakes Grace Bible Conference

This past Memorial Day weekend, Becky and I had the privilege of attending the Great Lakes Grace Bible Conference in Wilmot, Ohio. This meeting sponsored by Ohio Grace Ministries was an excellent weekend of scenery, food, and fellowship around God's Word. In addition, to seeing old friends, I had the privilege of meeting many saints who are new to "right division" from all over the country.

I had the honor of preaching twice on the subject of Prayer for Today. Brother David Reid, one of the conference organizers, gave me challenging task of discussing how we should pray today during the dispensation of grace not how we should not pray. As I prepared for this conference it became apparent that it is much easier to tell someone how not to do something (negative) than it is to give clear instruction on how it should be done (positive). The fruit of my studies on this topic is summarized in the notes and PowerPoints I used to present these messages. I am pleased, as promised, to make these notes available for further study on this important topic. Please select from the following links.

• The Pauline Prayer Paradigm (PDF)
• The Pauline Prayer Paradigm (PowerPoint)
• The Pauline Prayer Paradigm Practically Applied (PDF)
• The Pauline Prayer paradigm Practically Applied (PowerPoint)
• The Index of Pauline Prayer

While Becky and I were in Ohio, the saints of Grace Life Bible Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan put on a yard sale to raise money for our upcoming Bible conference in October. I am pleased to announce that through their hard work we raised almost all the money we need to cover the expenses of the conference. My heart rejoices to be part of a Grace Church where there is life and vitality. I love all the members of my church family.

Finally, if you have not already done so please consider attending the 2010 West Michigan Grace Bible Conference in Grand Rapids, Michigan. This year's theme is The Grace Life at Home. Study with us as we seek to practically apply Grace doctrine to all aspects of family life. Even if you aren't married or don't have kids, you will not want to miss this weekend of practical application and edification. Please visit the conference website for complete details.

The Scientific Argument Against Evolution, Part Three

Whether one is discussing the origin of the universe, origin of the first life, or new life forms, there are fundamentally only two options. Either everything came to be as the result of natural causes as evolution teaches or an intelligent supernatural cause is responsible for all things. For the sake of brevity, let us consider the origin of new life forms as a means of proving our overall point. Evolution maintains that new life forms developed through natural selection without any intelligent intervention. Conversely, the Bible teaches that all life forms came into existence by special creation through the work of an intelligent designer (God).[i]

In order to prove his hallmark doctrine of natural selection, Darwin compared the selection that supposedly occurred in nature and which was devoid of intelligent intervention with the artificial selection practiced by breeders.[ii] Take for example the breeding of dogs. While there can be no doubt that breeders are able to selectively mate dogs to achieved a desired outcome, this by no means proof that one species becomes a totally different species. A breeder’s ability to mate a Golden Retriever with a Poodle to create a Golden Doodle, which does not shed and is hypoallergenic, is an example of artificial selection. As elementary is it may seem, one should note that the result of this type of selective breeding is still a dog. When the discussion is framed in these terms, it is clear that the human action of selective breeding is not analogous to the blind action of natural selection but directly opposite.[iii]

Man has an aim or end in view; natural selection can have none. Man picks
out the individual he wishes to cross, choosing them by the characteristics he
seeks to perpetuate or enhance. He protects them and their issue by all
means is in his power, guarding them thus from operation of natural selection,
which would speedily eliminate many freaks; he continues his active and
purposeful selection from generation to generation until he reaches, if
possible, his goal. Nothing of this kind happens, or can happen, through
the blind process of differential elimination and differential survival which we
miscall natural selection.[iv]

Once again, anywhere design can be observed, as in the case of the breeding of dogs, one should always look for intelligent causes.

Over three centuries ago, Isaac Newton stated, “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.”[v] Christian philosophers and theologians for centuries have long held to the Teleological Argument for the existence of God. Steaming from the Greek word telos, which means design, the Teleological Argument states:

1. Every design had a designer.
2. The universe has highly complex design.
3. Therefore, the universe had a Designer[vi]

William Paley (1743-1805) popularized the argument through his common sense observation that every watch requires a watchmaker.[vii] “Imagine you’re walking along in the woods and you find a diamond-studded Rolex on the ground. What do you conclude is the cause of that watch: The wind and the rain? Erosion? Some combination of natural forces?”[viii] God forbid! There would be no question in your mind that some intelligent being made the watch and some unfortunate person accidently dropped it on the forest floor.[ix]

There can be no doubt that the universe resembles the design found in our misplaced diamond-studded Rolex, only infinitely more complex. Scores of examples could be provided to document the highly ordered design that is present within creation. For time’s sake, consider just one. If someone took apart a watch and threw all the pieces in their dryer, what are the chances that after one hundred cycles the parts would have reassembled themselves into a fully functioning watch? About the same chance that 1,000 monkeys with typewriters have of writing Romeo and Juliet. The greater and more intricate the design, the greater the intelligence of the designer.

In the end, the ordered and complex nature of the world around us leads to only one plausible conclusion, God, an intelligent primary cause, is creator of all things. One need not read even one verse of Scripture to know that it is totally absurd to believe that nothing made something. God is the uncaused cause who created the universe out of nothing by the word of his power. The words of Romans 1:20 rings powerfully true, “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” Man does not suffer from a lack of evidence. Rather, it is man’s sinful heart that wishes to escape accountability before almighty God. “The fool hath said in his heart there is no God.”[x]

Endnotes
[i] Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks. When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook of Christian Evidences. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1990), 227.
[ii] Ibid., 227.
[iii] Ibid., 227.
[iv] Ibid., 227-228.
[v] Isaac Newton. “General Scholium,” in Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (1687) in Great Books of the Western World. (Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica), 369.
[vi] Norman Geisler. The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 714-720.
[vii] Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004), 95.
[viii] Ibid., 95.
[ix] Ibid., 96.
[x] Psalm 14:1

The Scientific Argument Against Evolution, Part Two

Last week we considered the difference between primary and secondary causes as well as operation science and origin science. In doing so we concluded that evolution is seeking to apply the principles of operation science to explain things that by their very nature only happened once. This week we want to consider the question of whether intelligent primary causes are possible.

    Origin science is not restricted to secondary causes (the natural causes that operate the universe); therefore, origin science sometimes finds evidence that suggests an intelligent primary cause.(1) Previously we considered the example of the detectives and medical examiners on the television show, CSI. These law enforcement personnel have to determine for each death whether they are looking for a natural cause of death or a murderer—an intelligent cause. More often than not it is concluded that an intelligent being has intervened to bring about the victim's demise.

    In the case of the origin of life, what type of evidence is needed to safely suggest the handiwork of an intelligent being? Noted evolutionist, Carl Sagan, has said that a single message from outer space would confirm his belief that there is extraterrestrial life.(2) Unwittingly, Sagan has admitted that some normal events such as communication require an intelligent cause. Do you remember Alphabets Cereal? It's that sugary kid's cereal where the pieces are shaped like the letters of the alphabet. Suppose you awoke one morning to find the following message spelled out on the table in cereal, "Good morning, honey. I hope you have a good day at school today. Love, Mom." Your first inclination is not to assume that the box of cereal tipped over and the characters randomly assembled themselves to deliver you a message. Rather, your first reaction would be to perceive that some intelligent source, in this case your mother, has purposefully arranged the bits of cereal to deliver a message.

    The type of order necessary to spell out messages in cereal is known as specified complexity and it always points to an intelligent primary cause. Specified complexity is more than simply design or order; it is order of a complex nature that possesses a clear and specific function.(3) Consider the following three types of order.

• Orderly (repetitive) and specified (GIFT GIFT GIFT GIFT). Example: crystal, nylon
  
• Complex (unrepeating) and unspecified (TGELDHT TBWMHQC PUQHBT). Example: random polymers.
  
• Complex (unrepeating) and specified (THIS SENTENCE CARRES A MESSAGE). Example: DNA(4)
  

Only one of these three types of order is the result of intelligent intervention. "It is obvious that wherever we see a clear and distinct message—a complex design with a specified function—it was caused by some form of intelligent intervention imposing limits on the natural matter that it would not take by itself."(5)

    To bring the point home let us consider two geological formations. As we make this comparison, we need to remember that origin science is a forensic science based upon the principle of uniformity, which maintains that causes in the past are similar to the causes we observe today.(6) In order to illustrate the point, consider the following question, "What caused the Grand Canyon?" Even though we were not there to see the formation of the Grand Canyon, we can observe the natural process of water erosion causing canyons today and see the results produced, which are similar to the Grand Cayon. Therefore, we can surmise that the Grand Canyon was formed through the natural process of water erosion even though we did not directly observe its origin.(7)

    In contrast, no reasonable person consistently applying the principle of uniformity would look at Mount Rushmore and conclude that it was the result of the natural process of water erosion. "Since we never observe natural laws chiseling a highly detailed sculpture of a president's head into stone at the present time, we rightly conclude that natural laws couldn't have done it in the past either."(8) In the present, we observe that only intelligent beings are capable of carving detailed sculptures out of rock. "As a result, we rightly conclude that, in the past, only an intelligent being (a sculptor) could have created the faces on Mount Rushmore."(9)

    The implications of these conclusions are magnified when one considers the extraordinary complexities of human life. Recall that Darwin theorized that all life emerged form a one-celled organism through spontaneous generation alone (natural process). This is the height of absurdity when one considers that a single strand of DNA contains the equivalent of 1,000 encyclopedias worth of complex information. "Natural laws have never been observed to create a simple message like 'Drink Coke,' much less a message 1,000 encyclopedias long."(10) Spontaneous generation of life according to the Darwinian model has never been observed. Rather life only arises from similar existing life.(11) Ironically, any experiment that seeks to prove the spontaneous generation life suffers from the intelligent intervention of the scientist conducting the study.

    We have seen that it is valid science to look for intelligent primary causes to events that show signs of intelligence. Archeology is based on this principle. When archeologists discover pottery or arrowheads they rightly conclude that some intelligent being produced it.(12) Likewise, present experience tells us that intelligent causes should be sought anytime we find specified complexity. "This gives us a criteria to show when an intelligent cause is operating and when it is not."(13)

Even the noted atheist, Richard Dawkins, author of The Blind Watchmaker, acknowledges that life bears evidence of design. Dawkins writes, "Biology is the study of completed things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."(14) Despite acknowledging "the intricate architecture and precision-engineering"(15) in each of the trillions of cells in the human body, Dawkins rejects the notion that any form of life is the product of design. All of this highlights the point Norman Geisler and Frank Turek make in I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, "the creation-evolution debate is not about religion verses science or the Bible verses science—it's about good science verses bad science."(16)

Since evolutionary biologists can offer no support for spontaneous generation, either empirical or forensic, it appears the "scientific" deck has been stacked against creationism by ruling out intelligent primary causes in advance. Phillip Johnson, author of the essay, The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, states "Darwinism is based on an a priori (prior) commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses."(17) Physicist Hurbert Yockey confesses, "The belief that life on earth arose spontaneously form nonliving matter, is simply a matter of faith in strict reductionism and is based entirely on ideology."(18)

Yockey highlights the dirty little secret naturalists don't want the public to know. Naturalism is a religion. It takes more faith for a reasonable person to believe that life spontaneously arose from nonlife than it does to believe that God, an intelligent cause designed the created order.

Endnotes:

1. Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks. When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook of Christian Evidences. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1990), 216.
   
2. Ibid., 216-217.
   
3. Ibid., 217.
   
4. Ibid., 217.
   
5. Ibid., 217.
   
6. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004), 117.
   
7. Ibid., 117-118.
   
8. Ibid., 118.
   
9. Ibid., 118.
   
10. Ibid., 118.
    
11. Ibid., 118.
    
12. Geisler and Brooks. When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook of Christian Evidences. 217.
    
13. Ibid.,218.
    
14. Richard Dawkins. The Blind Watchmaker. (New York: Norton, 1987), 1.
    
15. Ibid., 3.
    
16. Geisler and Turek. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. 120.
    
17. Phillip E. Johnson. "The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism," First Things (November 1997): 22-25.
    
18. Hubert Yockey. Information Theory and Molecular Biology. (Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 284.
    

The Scientific Argument Against Evolution, Part One

Most modern Americans associate the theory of evolution with the publication of On the Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin, in 1859. In reality, many nontheists prior to Darwin believed the universe was eternal or uncaused. Darwin's pivotal contribution was the notion of natural selection, which provided a mechanism to make evolution work beginning with matter alone. According to Darwin, life began as the result of chemical relations in a "warm little pool."(1) Over time, through the process of natural selection, new life forms evolved as organisms adapted new characteristics to meet the challenges of their changing environment. Darwin appealed to the fossil record to prove his theory that species that adapted survived while those who did not passed into extinction.

    For Bible believers this naturalistic explanation for the origin of life does not pass the scrutiny of Scripture for a number of reasons. Adam was created as a fully functioning adult male made in the image and likeness of God. Moreover, Genesis one reports that the myriad of life observable in the biosphere was created in fully developed adult form and reproduced after their own kind. Lastly, the Bible is explicitly clear that God alone is responsible for the complex design of the crated order:

• Genesis 1:1—"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
  
• John 1:1-3—"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2) The same was in the beginning with God. 3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
  

  
   

The observant reader will notice how God's word clearly teaches that the universe is not eternal since it did not exit before God created it. Consequently, at every turn the Bible stands against the unproven theoretical suppositions of evolutionary theory.

    Unfortunately, the prevailing thought in modern culture is that something is only true if it can be proven scientifically. In fact, many suppose that science alone is the only source for truth in modern life. This thinking is that if something cannot be subjected to intense scientific experimentation then it is not true. Statements such as, "science is the only source of objective truth" claims to be an objective truth, but it's not a scientific truth.(2) Believers should never allow themselves to be deceived by this sort of philosophical "tomfoolery." How can science be the only source of truth when statements such as this cannot be scientifically proven? In short, the statement is philosophical in nature—it can't be proven by science—therefore it defeats itself.(3)

    The verses quoted above speak of "the beginning" of which God was the cause. Consequently, it is impossible for the universe to be eternal since everything that has a beginning has a cause. In this case, the eternal God is the originator of time and life. Obviously, these Scriptural realities stand in direct opposition to modern teaching on evolution. While the Bible has sufficient basis to reject evolution simply because it is repeatedly repudiated by the Scriptures, even those how disbelieve the Bible should reject evolution since there is abundant scientific evidence to disprove it.

    This reality can be seen by comparing two different types of science, origin science and operation science. "All science is based on the notion of causality, every event has a cause."(4) Since things don't happen willy-nilly, even if we do not know the specific cause of some event, we can surmise what kind of cause it must have been because of the kinds of effects we see today. "The idea that whatever caused some effect in the past will cause the same effect in the present is called the principle of uniformity. All science is based on finding cause using these two principles: causality and uniformity."(5)

    During the Scientific Revolution when men such as Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, and William Kelvin were developing the Scientific Method, they made as distinction between primary and secondary causes.(6) "A primary cause was a first cause that explained singularities—events that only happened once and had no natural explanation."(7) In contrast, secondary causes were thought of as being natural causes and laws that govern the way things normally function.(8) Just as it is wrong for supernaturalists to explain ordinary events such as earthquakes, tornados, and hurricanes using primary causes, it is also wrong for the naturalists to explain all singularities by natural causes.(9)

    The result of distinguishing between primary and secondary causes has led to the development of two different types of science: origin science (forensic) and operation science (empirical).(10) Operation science deals with the way things normally operate; it studies things that happen over and over again in a regular and repeated way.(11) "Operation science seeks answers that are testable by repeating the experiment over and over, and falsifiable if the cause does not always yield the same effect."(12) For this reason, operation science seeks out natural (secondary) causes for the events it studies. This repeatability allows the scientist to project the outcome of future experiments.

    Despite naturalistic claims to the contrary, origin science is not just another name used by those who teach creationism. Rather it is an entirely different kind of since. Dr. Norman Geisler, author of When Skeptics Ask, offers the following definition of origin science:

Origin science studies past singularities, rather then present normalities. It looks at how things began, not how they work. It studies things that only happened once, and by their nature, don't happen again. It is a different type of study that requires a difference approach. Rather than being an empirical science like physical or biology, it is more like a forensic science.(13)

The hit television show, CSI, is an example of origin science in action. A person's death is a singular event, meaning it cannot be reproduced through experimentation in a laboratory. Therefore, the detectives and medical examiners on CSI investigate a past singularity (a person's death) by examining the effect and than deducing what could have caused that event.

    Mechanically, origin science works on different principles than operation science. Since past events cannot be presently repeated, origin science utilizes comparisons between cause and effect relationships observable today with the effect being studied. In this fashion, a medical examiner is able to determine if someone died from natural causes or if some other cause (murder, accident) is responsible for the effect. The bottom line is this: just as operation science recognizes that some events demand intelligent causes, origin science also makes allowances for intelligent causes when the evidence calls for it.(14)

    Herein lies the basic scientific argument against Evolution, namely it has taken the wrong approach. Evolutionists have applied the principles of operation since to the study of origins. Consequently, they are seeking regular and repeated causes for an event (creation) that occurred only once. Naturalists have endeavored to use the operations that are presently observable to explain how the world got here in the first place. However, in order to properly understand origins, we must use origin science, not operation science.

Next week we will consider the evidence for intelligent primary causes.

Endnotes

1. Charles Darwin. On the Origin of the Species. (London: John Murray, 1859).
   
2. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Book, 2004), 127.
   
3. Ibid., 127.
   
4. Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks. When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook of Christian Evidences. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book, 1990), 213.
   
5. Ibid., 213.
   
6. Ibid., 213.
   
7. Ibid., 214.
   
8. Ibid., 214.
   
9. Ibid., 214.
   
10. Norman Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 567.
    
11. Geisler. Why Skeptics Ask. 214.
    
12. Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 568.
    
13. Ibid., 568.
    
14. Ibid., 568.
    

Calvinism, Arminianism, and Dispensationalism

Watch the videos first before reading my commentary.





Calvinism and Arminianism as described in the above videos are both wrong and typify extreme view points. Theologians would have you think that these are the only options that exist. In reality, the only answer to these theological extremes can be found in rightly dividing the word of truth according to the Pauline model.

Calvinism is a theological superstructure based on the five points, commonly summarized by the acronym TULIP. If one can disprove any of these five points, the entire flower wilts despite some Calvinistic claims to the contrary. In other words, four point Calvinism is also scripturally unsustainable. Works such as The Other Side of Calvinism by Lawrence Vance or The Power of God unto Salvation by Joel Fink have already demonstrated in voluminous detail the interconnectedness and spurious nature of Calvin’s theological framework. Consequently, our goal here is not to write a lengthy dissertation rehashing information that has already been addressed. Rather our purpose is to offer a few key points demonstrating that mid-Acts dispensationalism is the answer to Calvinistic confusion.

• I Timothy 2:4—“Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” The express stated will of God is that all men be saved. This stands in direction opposition to Calvinism which teaches a limited atonement for the elect only.


• II Corinthians 4:4—“In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” Despite the fact that God’s will is that all men be saved, the reality is that all men will not be saved because some will reject the gospel. This causes a theological problem for the Calvinist who believes that the sovereign will of God can never be thwarted. II Corinthians 4:4 teaches that Satan is actively thwarting the will of God by blinding the minds of the lost. Satan knows that the preaching of the gospel of grace has the capacity to turn on the light of understanding in the minds of the lost, and therefore, he actively works to silence the clear preaching of the cross work of Christ. Furthermore, this verse highlights the true nature of the Calvinistic doctrine of Total Depravity. Rather than simply teaching that man cannot save himself, Total Depravity teaches that man is totally unable to respond to gospel on his own and needs the Irresistible Grace of God to regenerate him so that he can believe. This theological double speak stands in direct contradiction to the verse. The preaching of the gospel turns on the light of understanding in the mind of a lost man at which point he is perfectly able to decide for himself whether or not he is going to believe.


• Matthew 20:28—“Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” At face value, this verse as well as Mark 10:45, seem to be teaching a Limited Atonement. This is a prime example of why the word of God needs to be rightly divided. Historically, as of Matthew 20:28, according to all the information that God had progressively revealed up to this point in history, the atonement was limited to Israel first and any gentile who would identify himself with Israel. John 1:11 states, “He came unto his own, and his own received him not.” Matthew 1:21 reads, “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.” Moreover, in Matthew 15:24, Christ states, “. . . I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” According to the Apostle Paul, in “time past” the gentiles were, “strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.”(1) Moreover, Paul clearly states that during his earthly ministry, “. . . Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers.”(2) Consequently, during Christ’s earthly ministry, He came to atone for the sins of his people (Israel) as well as any gentile who associated himself with God’s nation. Therefore, in “time past,” the atonement was limited.


• I Timothy 2:5-7—“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6) Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. 7) Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.” Paul in I Timothy Two teaches the exact opposite of what Christ taught in the upper room in Matthew 20:28. Notice that Paul says that Jesus Christ gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. In other words, when the time was right in the outworking of God’s plan, further information about what Christ accomplished at the cross was made known and revealed to humanity. Verse seven confirms that Paul was made a preacher and an Apostle of this due time message. As a result, in Paul’s epistles the atonement is revealed to be unlimited.


• Romans 3:22—“Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference.” According to Paul, salvation is being offered today “unto all” people. In other words, the atonement is unlimited in its potential application; Christ offered his life’s blood for the sins of all of humanity. However, the actual application of the righteousness of God is only “upon all them that believe.” That is to say, the only requirement to have the righteousness of God imputed to your account is to believe that Christ died, was buried, and rose again as the only complete payment for your sins. Christ did not just die to pay for the sins of the elect as Calvinism teaches with its Limited Atonement doctrine. Rather, Christ shed his blood to pay for the sins of all humanity. However, not everyone is going to chose to believe.


• Ephesians 1:4—“According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.” When a Calvinist reads this verse, they insert the word “to be” before the phrase “in him” which results in the following reading, “According as he hath chosen us to be in him before the foundation of the world.” This misreading of the passage greatly alters its meaning. We are not chosen or predestinated for anything until we by faith chose to get into Jesus Christ, i.e. we are chosen in him. In other words, God chose Jesus Christ(3) before the foundation of world, and we are chosen also because we by faith have been placed into Jesus Christ. If I board a plane in Michigan this afternoon heading for Florida the destination of that plane is predetermined, baring complications or disaster. However, no one forces me to board the plane. The choice to board or not board is left to my own volition (free will). So, it is with salvation. We are not forced on to the plane or into Christ against our will. Rather, when we willing believe the gospel the Holy Sprit baptizes and seals us in Jesus Christ. Then once placed into living union with the head of the body of Christ, we are chosen, elected, and predestinate to a glorious future in him.

Therefore, we see that the doctrine of Calvinism is completely inconsistent with the scriputures.

Endnoes
1) Ephesians 2:11-12
2) Romans 15:8
3) Isaiah 42:1

The Anatomy of Heresy, Complete Essay

All of the postings form the past three weeks on the issue of Heresy have been combined and edited to read as a single essay. Study with us a we explore Heresy as one of the works of the flesh in Galatians 5.

Please click on the picture to the left for access to this file in PDF format.

If you are finding these studies beneficial please let us know. Moreover, feel free to share this essay with those who might find it interesting.

The Anatomy of Heresy, Part Three

Over the past couple of weeks, we have been discussing the issue of heresy as a work of the flesh. Before leaving this subject, there are a couple more issues that merit discussion. Last week, we saw in I Corinthians 11:19 that heresies would not only be prevalent but also were necessary for manifesting the approved of God within a local church.

In II Timothy, one can observe the extensive impact that the proliferation of heresies had upon the preaching of the word of God rightly divided. At the end of his life and ministry Paul wrote, "This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes."(1) The apostasy and departure from the truth was in full effect while Paul was still alive. When one considers the churches that Paul either personally established or instructed in the region of Asia (Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, Antioch, Ephesus, and Colossae), his statement in II Timothy 1:15 demonstrates how quickly heresy can spread.

II Timothy 4:3 offers further insight into the mindset of those who would teach and give ear to heresy. Paul states, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears." Thus far, we have Biblically defined heresy as the teaching of false doctrine with the goal of establishing a personal following of disciples. II Timothy 4:3 is important to our discussion for two reasons. First, it tells us that heresy cannot exist without people who are willing to listen to false doctrine. Second, it demonstrates that those who heap teachers unto themselves "having itching ears" are motivated by their own lusts, thereby clearly associating heresy in either the mind of the teacher or the hearer with the work of the flesh. In short, heretics cannot prosper without an audience of willing participants. The end result, of heresy is clearly stated in II Timothy 4:4: "And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." People are turned away from the truth through the telling of stories, which constitutes the bulk of modern preaching.

One thing is clear from the verses we have looked at over the past few weeks. Heresy finds its roots in the flesh's desire for importance and prominence. During the course of preparing these blog entries on The Anatomy of Heresy, I have been forced to evaluate my own ministry motives. Frankly, why do I write this blog? Am I writing it as a means of promoting my own abilities and advancing my own standing within the greater group of mid-Acts teachers? I would like to think I write to advance the truth in some fashion by clearly articulating in written form the precepts of the mid-Acts position. Personally, this study was a wake up call to constantly evaluate my motives for ministry. Paul writes the following in Galatians 1:10, "For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." As soon as we find ourselves being motivated by a desire for the praise and adulation of men we are on the brink of heresy.

A few years ago, a respected older pastor shared with me his belief that every preacher needs to be aware that his flesh based ego desires attention and adulation. According to this brother, our pastoral ego is what drives us to stand up and publicly teach the word of God. As a young minister, I know this is true. I have a burning desire to be the best teacher of God's word that I can be. I want, "all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth." I want to teach the scriptures clearly and powerfully. Here-in lies the danger of heresy as one of the works of the flesh. Jeremiah 17:9 teaches, "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperate wicked who can know it." The flesh has the capability to deceive the minister as to the purity of his own motives. At one point in my study on this subject, I actually considered the possibility that I needed to leave the ministry because I was continuously being motivated by the flesh. Then it occurred to me that the adversary would like nothing more than to silence me as a minister of God's word rightly divided. The bottom line is this: we all need to be skeptical of our own motives and seek to continually realign ourselves with God's word, according to Romans 12:2.

I worry sometimes that we have created a culture that is destroying the greater mid-Acts community of believers from within. I fully support the continued study of the Scriptures with the goal of recovering further truth and insight into the word rightly divided. However, I fear a situation has developed where some jockey for position and influence by striving to demonstrate either their deep understanding as evidenced by some great new truth or their preaching prowess. If honesty is the order of the day, I have found myself being pulled in this direction on multiple occasions. If personal advancement in the mid-Acts community depends on being perceived as weightier in word and doctrine than someone else, then we have created a breeding ground for heresy since the flesh will always desire a greater position of prestige than the one it currently possesses.

Another work of the flesh identified by Paul in Galatians 5:20 is emulation. According to Webster's 1828 Dictionary, emulation means:

The act of attempting to equal or excel in qualities or actions; rivalry; desire of superiority, attended with effort to attain to it; generally in a good sense, or an attempt to equal or excel others in that which is praise-worthy, without the desire of depressing others. Rom.11. In a bad sense, a striving to equal or do more than others to obtain carnal favors or honors.

1. An ardor kindled by the praise-worthy examples of others, inciting to imitate them, or to equal or excel them.
   
2. Contest; contention; strife; competition; rivalry accompanied with a desire of depressing another.
   

Since Paul is discussing the works of the flesh in this passage, he clearly has the negative aspect of this definition in mind. When preachers strive to out perform their colleagues with the goal of obtaining carnal favors and honor, heresy is lying in wait.

While some might not like my candor on this subject, I feel it is accurate. While calling out people individually may not be productive, we need to have an honest understanding of the forces at work within our midst. Incidentally, many of my friends in the ministry have echoed many of the sentiments discussed in this posting. As ministers of the gospel of the grace of God, we need to walk in the spirit so that we do not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. In the end we must always remember, "but we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us."(2)

Endnotes:

1. II Timothy 1:15
   
2. II Corinthians 4:7
   

The Anatomy of Heresy, Part Two

Having observed last week that heresy is one of the works of flesh it behooves all Bible believers, teachers, and preachers to acknowledge that all of us are only a couple fleshly decisions away from heresy at all times. As we saw last week, the Biblical definition of heresy is multifaceted, consisting of both false beliefs (doctrines) and their propagation with the intention of removing disciples away after oneself. Having its root in our natural flesh programming, heresy has the potential to be just as common as hatred, strife, wrath, or envy in the believer's life. Consequently, heresy is not something that we should view as a rarity. In contrast, we should acknowledge heresy as an ever present threat to any community of believers.

The Apostle Paul instructed the Corinthians that heresy would continually be present within their midst. Paul penned the following in I Corinthians 11:19, "For there must be also
heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." Not only does Paul speak to the common frequency of heresies within their assembly, he also teaches that their very presence would be an opportunity for the Corinthians to see who was approved and who was not. We learn two things from this verse. First, heresy, as a work of the flesh, would be both common and necessary. Second, the reason heresies are necessary is because without them it is difficult for believers to know who is approved and who is not.

Moreover, it is interesting to connect the word "approved" in I Corinthians 11:19 with the word "approved" in II Timothy 2:15. This connection between heresy and who the approved of God are must not be overlooked. II Timothy 2:15 states, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." The approved of God do not need to be ashamed because they rightly divide the word of truth in their study. In short, the approved of God are workman who have no reason to be ashamed because of how they approach the study of God's word.

By comparing I Corinthians 11:19 with II Timothy 2:15, important conclusions about the anatomy of heresy emerge. First, the presence of heresies in a local church is common because it is a work of the flesh. Second, the existence of heresy is necessary because it serves as an occasion for the approved of God to be made manifest to an assembly. Third, the approved of God are those who rightly divide the word of truth and are thereby able to answer the heretical teaching. Therefore, heresy in Paul's view is any doctrine that is contrary to the word rightly divided.

This is clearly demonstrated by considering the context of II Timothy. Immediately following Paul's admonition to rightly divide the word of truth, Timothy is instructed to ". . . shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness."(1) Timothy is given the same instructions that the Ephesians elders were in Acts 20, namely, not to listen to those speaking profane, vain, or perverse things. In II Timothy 2:17, Paul identifies Hymenaeus and Philetus as the source of these profane and vain babblings and compares the effect of their teaching to that of a canker. According to Webster's 1828 Dictionary a canker is "a virulent, corroding ulcer; or any thing that corrodes, corrupts or destroys. Sacrilege may prove an eating canker." Paul compares heresy to having a corrosive disease that eats away the very structures of ones faith.

Verse eighteen identities the specific details of the heresy being promoted by Hymenaeus and Philetus. These men were teaching that "the resurrection is past already." Herein we see the first component of heresy according to our working definition, the false belief that the resurrection had already occurred. Furthermore, it is clear that these men fulfill the second part of our definition by seeking to draw away disciples after themselves. This is obvious because they publicly promoted their error to the extent that they overthrew the faith of some.

How does one combat destructive doctrinal errors of this nature? The answer is clear, by rightly dividing the word of truth. Who rightly divides the word of truth? Approved workmen who need not to be ashamed. Why must there be heresies according to I Corinthians 11:19? So that "they who are approved might be made manifest". Once again, Paul's definition of heresy is any doctrine that subverts the word of God rightly divided. Likewise, only the rightly divided word can demonstrate the spurious nature of heretical beliefs and motives.

Heresy is not something that was determined by church councils or the Roman Catholic Inquisition. We need to remember that Paul wrote writing his epistles and identified heretics in the middle of the 1^st century, over one hundred years before the organized church identified any of the traditional heresies associated with the Christian faith. Therefore, we should not allow church tradition to form our definition of heresy. Furthermore, while believers are admonished to instruct those who oppose themselves in meekness "that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will,"(2) heresies are not to be tolerated indefinitely. Titus 3:10 states, "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject." After two unsuccessful attempts to share the truth with those who hold spurious views, Paul teaches that they are to be rejected, marked (identified as in the case of Hymenaeus and Philetus), and avoided.(3)

Simply stated, a heretic is one who believes and promotes heresy. A short investigation into the word heretic in Titus 3:10 yields important insight into the behavior and motives of heretics. According to Strong's Concordance, a heretick is defined as one who is schismatic, factious, or a follower of a false doctrine. Websters's 1828 Dictionary defines someone who is factious as being:

1) Given to faction; addicted to form parties and raise dissensions, in opposition to government; turbulent; prone to clamor against public measures of men. No state is free from factious citizens.

2) Pertaining to faction; proceeding from faction; as factious tumults; factious quarrels.

Recalling from last week the relationship between heresy and the formation of sects, one should not be surprised to learn that a heretic is given to faction and dissention since that is fundamentally what they are attempting to do. Heretics seek to cause division by rallying people to their cause in support of false beliefs. In addition, they vehemently attack those with whom they disagree. In doing so, they also demonstrate numerous other works of the flesh identified in Galatians, namely variance, strife, and seditions.

Stay tuned next week for more on this topic.

Endnotes:

1. II Timothy 2:16
   
2. II Timothy 2:26
   
3. Romans 16:17

The Shroud of Turin: Real or Hoax

The week before Easter the History Channel aired the following two hour documentary on the Shroud of Turin called, The Real Face of Jesus. Experts in computer graphics have created a computer generated likeness of the image found on the Shroud. While I do not need the Shroud to be authentic to believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I found this program to be fascinating. Not only is this the most fair minded "Christian" documentary I have seen the History Channel produce, but it also makes a compelling argument for the authenticity of the Shroud. I encourage everyone to view the following segments without commerical interruption and decide for yourself if the Shroud is the burial cloth of our Lord. Be sure to read my comments at the end.



















I Corinthians 15:3-4 states, "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again, the third day according the to the scriptures." As I said before, I believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ because the scriptures say that he rose again on the third day. In short, I believe that the Bible is more sure than anything we can experience through our fives senses. Having been an eyewitness to the majesty of Christ, in addition to hearing the voice of God the Father at the mount of transfiguration, Peter states that he has more faith in God's written word than in what he saw and heard (II Peter 1:16-19).

Is the Shroud real? In the end I don't know, nor does it ultimately matter, because there is enough other evidence for the empty tomb. According to noted Christian Apologist, Norman Geisler the Apologetic value of the Shroud is limited. Geisler states, "As far as the apologetic value of the Shroud, the matter of its authenticity is not really relevant. All the essential evidence to defend Christanity is in fact apart fromt he Shroud. It it is authentic, it provides no essential evidence for Christ's death and resurrection that we do not already possess elsewhere. And if it not authentic, then we risk using a bad argument for a good cause and loose credibility for Christian apologetics. . . The miracles of Jesus confirm that he is the Son of God. Both Jesus and supernatural prophecy are sufficient to support the claim that the Bible is the Word of God. No other evidence is needed. Christanity does not stand or fall in any sense on the question of the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. (Baker Encycyopedia of Christian Apologetics, 706)"

Any thoughts?

The Anatomy of Heresy, Part One

The Apostle Paul writes the following in I Timothy 4:1-2, “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2) Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron.” While one cannot know for sure whether we are living in the last days of the dispensation of grace, it is clear that the incidence of believers departing the faith has increased in recent days. Regardless of the issue- the, house church, annihilationism, universalism, timing of the rapture, titles for leadership in the local church, or the out right abandonment of dispensational truth for covenant theology - the cause of all departures from the faith is the same, i.e. the work of the flesh.

Paul teaches, in Galatians 5:19-21 that all heresies stem from the work of the flesh:

19) Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery,
fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20) Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred,
variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21) Envyings,
murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before,
as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not
inherit the kingdom of God.

Strong’s Concordance offers the following definition of the Greek word translated heresies in Galatians 5:20: “a body of men following their own tenets, or dissensions arising from diversity of opinions and aims.” The Greek word “hairesis” is found nine times in nine verses in the King James Bible, of which five times it is rendered “sect” in English:

• Acts 5:17—Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation,
• Acts 15:5—But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
• Acts 24:5—For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:
• Acts 26:5—Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.
• Acts 28:22—But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against.

The word “sect,” according to Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, carries the following meaning:

A body or number of persons united in tenets, chiefly in philosophy or religion,
but constituting a distinct party by holding sentiments different from those of
other men. Most sects have originated in a particular purloin, who taught and
propagated some peculiar notions in philosophy or religion, and who is
considered to have been its founder. Among the Jews, the principal sects were
the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. In Greece were the Cynic sect, founded by
Antisthenes; and the Academic sect, by Plato. The Academic sect gave birth to
the Peripatetic, and a Cynic to the Stoic.

In addition, to its usage in Galatians 5:21, the remaining three occurrences of the Greek word “hairesis” are translated as heresies or heresy by the King James translators:

• Acts 24:14—But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
• I Corinthians 11:19—For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
• II Peter 2:1—But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Heresy, according to Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, is “a fundamental error in religion, or an error of opinion respecting some fundamental doctrine of religion.” Consequently, according to the Bible, fundamental errors in religious thought or belief (heresies) lead to the establishment of sects which are characterized by shared tenants of false doctrine. As a result, it seems to follow that heresies are the intellectual foundation for sects.

The sect of the Sadducees identified in Acts 5:17 stands out as a clear Biblical example of the connection between heresies and sects. It has often been said that the Sadducees were “sad you see” because they denied the resurrection of the dead. Luke 20:27 states, “Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him.” The heretical beliefs of the Sadducees centered around their denial of resurrection. This constitutes their fundamental error in religious belief and doctrine. Unfortunately, this error was widespread as there was an entire faction or sect within Israel’s leadership that held this heretical view. Since all heresies are the work of the flesh according to Paul, it is imperative to realize that pride or the possibility of self advancement motivates those who hold spurious doctrines to promote their views in an attempt to draw away disciples unto themselves, thus forming sects.

This pattern mirrors Paul’s warning to the Ephesians elders in Acts 20:28-30:

28) Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which
the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath
purchased with his own blood.
29) For I know this, that after my departing
shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30) Also of
your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away
disciples after them.

Paul issues two warnings in this passage. First, in verse twenty-nine, he cautions these overseers about outsiders seeking to enter their midst seeking to sow discord and confusion amongst the brethren. Second, in verse thirty, he warns about men from within their own assembly that would arise speaking untruth in an attempt to create their own personal following. Sects are formed as men are drawn away from the truth by those speaking perverse things, i.e. heresies. After Paul left the region of Galatia, the Judaizers came in and sought to bring them back under the bondage of the law. In Galatians 4:17, Paul reveals the true motives of these people when he writes, “They zealously affect you, but not well; yea, they would exclude you, that ye might affect them.” It seems that the fleshly desire for disciples is one of the main motivators for those who would teach heresy.

It is fascinating to consider how all those who depart the truth of God’s word rightly divided find it necessary to berate and disparage those who hold the mid-Acts position. For many mid-Acts dispensationalists who depart the faith, the entire focus of their ministry becomes to assassinate the character and beliefs of their former allies as they actively promote the scriptural authority of their new found system of belief. Under the guise of demonstrating the error of their former theological system, they activity promote their new paradigm in an attempt to rescue the deceived from error. What is the primary force motivating this type of behavior? It is the flesh’s desire for importance and significance. Paul makes it clear that the main goal of false teachers is to draw away disciples unto themselves.

Historically, those who have entered into heresy may have been convinced they were correct or more accurately articulating the precepts of the faith. In theory, one does not believe something unless there is good reason for doing so. For example, I have often been accused of believing I am right on a particular issue. To which I offer the following rebuttal, “Duh, I would not believe something if I thought it was wrong.” In reality, since no one is omniscient or infallible we all possess thoughts about scripture that are not correct. This mere fact alone does not make someone a heretic. Over the past ten years, I have changed my position on many issues that I had taught publically. This past Sunday I used the word vicarious when I meant to say precarious which changed the meaning of what I was saying. If that makes me a heretic, then every preacher who has ever misspoke, mispronounced a word, or later changed his mind must also be branded a heretic.

So then, what makes someone a heretic? First, they must hold some doctrinal belief or position that is contrary to the clear teachings of God’s word rightly divided. Notice that scripture is the final authority in this case and not the church. On occasion, I have been uncomfortable with my mid-Acts brethren who cite “the collective wisdom of the group” as justification for a particular doctrinal position. Let me be clear lest I be misunderstood. We ought to hold those who have long labored on behalf of the truth in high regard. I respect the views of my co-laborers in the ministry and would have to seriously and prayerfully consider any grave points of doctrinal divergence. However, group think cannot replace scripture as our final authority. In the end, every man is accountable to the word of God and his own conscience.

Having established that we all hold beliefs that may not be correct, what makes someone a heretic? Biblically, it seems that heretics not only hold spurious beliefs but actively promote those beliefs with the goal of establishing followers. One betrays their motives when they depart one doctrinal position only to begin ordaining men in a new one. In such cases, truth was never the motivator for personal action: personal position, prestige, and adulation were.

Stay tuned next week for part two.

Parenting by the Principles of Grace, Part Three

The Three Needs of Every Child

What is the goal of grace-based parenting? Scores of parenting books line the shelves at Christian book stores all claiming to offer new insight and practical tips. When we shut out all the noise, and use our own relationship with Christ as the model for how we should parent our own children, three core issues emerge. Above all else our kids have three basic needs: 1) a secure love, 2) a significant purpose, 3) a strong hope. These three needs summarize what God the father freely provides each believer the moment they place their faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ. As members of the body of Christ we have been forgiven and made accepted in the beloved (secure love), ambassadors in Christ's stead (significant purpose), and given a blessed hope (strong hope). It thrills my heart that my boys fundamentally need the same things I do and that the grace message I hold so dear meets all these needs in abundance. As parents, our job is to communicate, live, and demonstrate the doctrines of the Grace Life to our children.

A Secure Love

"At the core of grace is love—a love that delights in us in spite of our sin and comes to us free of charge."(1) In Romans 5:8, Paul offers perhaps the greatest expression of this type of love, "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." The cross is the greatest expression of God's love for humanity. When we were dead in trespasses and sins, God loved us enough to send his son to die on our behalf so that we could be reconciled to God.(2) Furthermore, the gospel of grace teaches that salvation is a nonmeritorious gift bestowed freely upon the sinner through simple faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ.(3)

If God loved us enough to die in our stead when we were yet sinners, how much more does God love us now that we have been saved?(4) Ephesians 1:6 states, "To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." Having been given redemption and the forgiveness of sins based upon Christ's work on our behalf, believers are at peace with God,(5) sealed with the holy spirit of promise,(6) adopted into the family of God as adult sons,(7) and seated with Christ in the heavenly places.(8) Does that sound like a secure love to you? Romans 8:35-39 confirms the security of God's love for us:

35) Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

36) As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

37) Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.

38) For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

39) Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Consequently, when we sin, we don't fall out of grace rather we fall into grace--"where sin did abound grace did much more abound."(9) Only in Christ can the deepest longing of our soul for unconditional love and acceptance be totally, completely, and continually meet.

This is the steady and sure love that needs to be written on the hard drive of our children's souls.(10) This is the kind of love that will confidently carry our children into the future and successfully defend their hearts when they are under attack. We all know there is a difference between desiring to love our children and actually loving them in such a fashion that they develop a secure love. In Ephesians 5:25, Paul offers Christ's sacrificial love for the church as a picture of the love a husband ought to have for his wife. Likewise, the secure love we possess in Jesus Christ is the same love we need to communicate to our children.

Incomplete Love

My wife constantly reminds me that the decisions I make demonstrate what is really important to me. Our kids are perceptive little people. They intuitively know when they are being dismissed or demoted on our priority list. In Grace-Based Parenting, Tim Kimmel acknowledges that the love we communicate to our children is often incomplete when they feel they constantly have to compete for it.(11) Kimmel writes, "We tell them we love them and then they watch us make decisions regarding careers, our friends, or our pastimes that directly undermined our ability to invest the time in them that love requires."(12) To be clear, working and paying the bills is part of the Pauline parenting paradigm:

• I Timothy 5:8—But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
  
• II Thessalonians 3:10—For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
  

Most children understand that work is necessary for the well being of the family. However, they also know when we make deliberate choices to take something from them that they vitally need so we can enhance our careers. When parents make selfish choices, they communicate an insecure love to their children. While children may not question that we love them, they simply feel like we love other things more.(13)

There is a second way that parents communicate incomplete love to children according to Tim Kimmel. Our parental love is incomplete and violates the principles of grace when we make our kids feel like they have to earn it.(14) "They figure out that they receive praise and pride when they do things that make us look good or make our jobs as parents easier. These are kids, who have to process a lot of guilt before they can find approval."(15) Does this sound like the unconditional love and acceptance we enjoy in Jesus Christ described above? As parents we need to remember that any time we find ourselves operating on the basis of a system of performance-based acceptance, God the Holy Spirit is not leading us to function in that fashion. Galatians 5:18 makes this vividly clear, "But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law."

Definition of Love

Without launching into a lengthy dissertation on the various Greek words that are translated charity or love in the King James Bible, most believers know that love is not primarily a feeling but a choice. As Christ faced the cross on the eve of his crucifixion, it was not warm romantic feelings that compelled him to willingly be tortured and die on our behalf. Rather, it was a love that chose to be submissive to the will of the father. In the late 1970s Christian musician Don Francisco sang "love is not a feeling it's an act of your will."

Accordingly, Tim Kimmel offers the following definition of love in Grace-Based Parenting:

Love is the commitment of my will

to your needs and best interests,

regardless of the cost.

Line one expresses the reality that doing what is loving often does not come naturally. We must muster the strength to place our feelings in check and make decisions based upon the commitments we have made before God and to our families. The Apostle Paul touches upon the reality of line two in Galatians 5:13, "For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another." The liberty grace has provided sets us free to serve others before ourselves. "Love see our needs as a "B" priority compared with the interests of the person we are called to love . . . Love is about meeting their actual needs, not their selfish needs."(16) Consequently, we are not demonstrating love when we indulge our children in what they want or when we attempt to circumvent the consequences of sin in their lives. Lastly, secure love acknowledges that loving someone is often inconvenient and painful. Loving our kids costs money, time, sleep, and often careers. Christ's love for us cost him his own life and stands out as the ultimate expression of the cost of providing a secure love.

Practical Tips for Making Love Secure

"We've got to love them (our kids) in the way that God loves us—when they're unappreciative, when they don't deserve it, when it's inconvenient, when it is costly to us, even when it's painful." The following three statements when administered consistently build an authentic secure love in the hearts of our children that will help stabilize them into adulthood: 1) children feel secure when they know they are accepted as they are, 2) children feel secure when they know they are affiliated with a loving and honoring family 3) children feel secure love when they receive regular and generous helpings of affection.

While points two and three seem like no brainers, point one requires further explanation. To be clear, because our children are born sinners in Adam, there are many thoughts and attitudes our kids possess that we do not have to accept. "Selfishness, disrespect, deceit, and any other sinful action do not have to be condoned or tolerated." However, when I speak of acceptance, I am talking about those things that are part of our children's personal makeup. "These are the unique things that make them individuals—the emotional, intellectual, and physical DNA. These are also the things that have no moral problems affixed to them. Many of our kids do things that annoy, frustrate, or embarrass us but they are not wrong. Every time we point these things out, we tell them that they don't measure up. This builds insecurity in them."(17) Kimmel writes the following to illustrate his point:

Boys are often berated because they are noisy, messy, or aggressive. Girls are often criticized for being too emotional, picky, or overly sensitive. Some kids are criticized for being slow, forgetful, or inquisitive, or for saying whatever pops into their heads. They have a hard time getting up, struggle in certain subjects in school, and are often taunted regarding physical features like eyes, nose, teeth, neck, knees, feet, voice, hair texture, or their completion.

Boys are criticized for liking girls; girls are criticized for liking boys. Some boys don't like sports. Some girls don't like to play house. Teenagers need more sleep . . . Kids go through awkward times where they don't' think they're attractive, smart, or interesting.(18)

As parents we need to be communicating nothing but acceptance for the unique characteristics of our children. Under grace, God accepts all of our uniqueness without requiring us to conform to some arbitrary standard, parents should follow suit with our own kids. When parents treat their children in same way God treats, us we demonstrate in real terms the acceptance God for all of our unique characteristics.

Endnotes:

1. Tim Kimmel. Grace-Based Parenting. (Nashville, TN: W Publishing Group, 2004), 46.
   
2. Romans 5:10
   
3. Ephesians 2:8-9
   
4. Romans 5:9
   
5. Romans 5:1
   
6. Ephesians 4:30
   
7. Galatians 4:5, Romans 8:14-17
   
8. Ephesians 2:6
   
9. Romans 5:20
   
10. Kimmel. Grace-Based Parenting. 46.
    
11. Ibid., 49.
    
12. Ibid., 49.
    
13. Ibid., 50.
    
14. Ibid., 51.
    
15. Ibid., 51.
    
16. Ibid., 52.
    
17. Ibid., 55.
    
18. Ibid., 55