The Process of Preservation

In this study we consider what the Bible teaches regarding how God is going to preserve his Word. Study with us and consider why the original never were the issue with God. Discover how God has promised to preserve his Word through a multiplicity of accurate reliable copies that are just as authoritative as the originals. Join us we follow the next step in the logic of faith.

For a PDF copy of the notes click here.

For a copy of the PowerPoint click here.

What is Preservation and Why is it Necessary?

In this study we consider the long over looked doctrine of preservation. Modern doctrinal statements have much to say about inspiration but little if anything to say about preservation. Inspiration without preservation is incomplete. The same God who perfectly inspired every word of Scripture is perfectly capable of preserving that which He inspired. Study with us as we take the next step in explaining the logic of faith and demonstrate why preservation is necessary.













To view the PDF notes click here.
To view the PowerPoint click here.

What is Inspiration?

As 2010 gives way to 2011, many English--speaking Christians will be celebrating the 400^th anniversary of the King James Bible. Initially known as the Authorized Version, this translation has had a profound effect upon the English Language as well as Western cultural history. Throughout 2011, Defense and Confirmation will be commemorating the publication of this influential work by presenting various videos and essays highlighting critical issues of the modern version debate. Moreover, we will consider the impact the King James Version has had upon the language, culture, and history of Western Christianity. We hope you will join us as we articulate the Viewpoint or Logic of Faith and how it should impact our search for God's Word in English.

Defense and Confirmation desires to shed the light of truth upon the modern version debate as well as to address many of the misconceptions that supporters of modern versions have used to bolster their position. Our goal is to speak the truth in love on this issue without the verbal assaults and character assassination that have all too often characterized both sides of this debate.

The first video presented below is the opening message in a series entitled, Final Authority: Locating God's Word in English preached in January and February of 2010 at Grace Life Bible Church in Grand Rapids, MI. Please enjoy watching What is Inspiration?

For a PDF copy of the notes click here.
For a copy of the PowerPoint click here.

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.