theologia

The End of the Wicked

2010-07-17T07:14:07Z

Psalm 37 (NKJV)

Do not fret because of evildoers,
      Nor be envious of the workers of iniquity.
For they shall soon be cut down like the grass,
      And wither as the green herb.

There are many evil people at work today, who are successfully gaining prestige, power, and money by promoting immoral agendas and sacrificing the good of others. Barack Obama, for example, enjoys the cheers of millions of (un-)American followers, despite the fact that he is continuously lying to us, that he is working to destroy American freedom and prosperity, and that he has supported ungodly organizations like Planned Parenthood.

Nevertheless, the point of this psalm is that the pious should not fret because of these people, or envy them for what they have, because their judgement will come in due time.

Notice, the psalm does not say that we should not be upset with them and with what they are trying to accomplish. Nor does it say that we should never speak up against evil, or fight for what is right. Rather, the clear teaching from the language of the psalm as a whole, is that we should not be upset or angry at the fact these evildoers seem to enjoy more prosperity and popularity than we do. ("We" being those of us who obey God and trust him.)

The reason is that our trust in God and our service to him will be rewarded:

Trust in the LORD, and do good;
      Dwell in the land, and feed on His faithfulness.
Delight yourself also in the LORD,
      And He shall give you the desires of your heart.

Commit your way to the LORD,
      Trust also in Him,
      And He shall bring it to pass.
He shall bring forth your righteousness as the light,
      And your justice as the noonday.

It is difficult to say, for example, whether conservative movements or future leadership will be able to tear the country out of the grip of liberalism and socialism. And it might feel, in darker moments, as though the voice of truth will be drowned out by the shouts of the ignorant and the screams of the activists. Nevertheless, the Biblical assurance is that God himself fights for the cause of right, and specifically here the cause of those who trust and obey him.

Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for Him;
      Do not fret because of him who prospers in his way,
      Because of the man who brings wicked schemes to pass.
Cease from anger, and forsake wrath;
      Do not fret--it only causes harm.

I do not believe the instruction here "cease from anger" is teaching that we should not be angry or upset with the evil works of evil people. Rather, the psalmist is admonishing us to avoid being angered by the contrast between the apparent success of the wicked and our lack thereof. (Compare similar Psalm 73.)

For evildoers shall be cut off;
      But those who wait on the LORD,
      They shall inherit the earth.
For yet a little while and the wicked shall be no more;
      Indeed, you will look carefully for his place,
      But it shall be no more.

Time passed quickly in the eyes of eternity. Soon enough, the wicked will meet his end, and his prosperity, popularity, and evil intentions will vanish away.

But the meek shall inherit the earth,
      And shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.

The wicked plots against the just,
      And gnashes at him with his teeth.
The Lord laughs at him,
      For He sees that his day is coming.
The wicked have drawn the sword
      And have bent their bow,
To cast down the poor and needy,
     To slay those who are of upright conduct.
Their sword shall enter their own heart,
     And their bows shall be broken.

A little that a righteous man has
     Is better than the riches of many wicked.
For the arms of the wicked shall be broken,
     But the LORD upholds the righteous.

The LORD knows the days of the upright,
     And their inheritance shall be forever.
They shall not be ashamed in the evil time,
     And in the days of famine they shall be satisfied.
But the wicked shall perish;
     And the enemies of the LORD,
Like the splendor of the meadows, shall vanish.
     Into smoke they shall vanish away.

If we truly trust God and live in obedience to his Divine Word, we should not be afraid of the future, because God will have victory over his enemies. And we should not be envious of those who work in opposition to God, because what we have now, and what we will come to enjoy, is better than all that the wicked will ever possess.

Choral Music

2010-06-17T06:19:28Z

2010-05-15T18:49:21Z

I would like to reproduce here a humorous but instructive excerpt from Charismatic Chaos, a book by John F. MacArthur, Jr., which I read in college. The author is writing here specifically against the charismatic movement, but the principle he is trying to communicate is much more broadly applicable in the Church.

I watched in horror a couple of years ago as a guest on a charismatic television network explained the "biblical basis" of his ministry of "possibility thinking." "My ministry is based entirely on my life verse, Matthew 19:26, 'With God all things are possible.' God gave me that verse because I was born in 1926."

Obviously intrigued by that method of obtaining a "life verse," the talk show host grabbed a Bible and began thumbing through excitedly. "I was born in 1934," he said. "My life verse would be Matthew 19:34. What does it say?" Then he discovered that Matthew 19 has only thirty verses. Undeterred, he flipped to Luke 19 and read verse 34: "And they said, The Lord hath need of him" (KJV).

Thrilled, he exclaimed, "Oh, the Lord has need of me! The Lord has need of me! What a wonderful life verse! I've never had a life verse before, but now the Lord has given me one! Thank you, Jesus! Hallelujah!" The studio audience began to applaud.

At that moment, however, the talk show host's wife, who had also turned to Luke 19, said, "Wait a minute! You can't use this. This verse is talking about a donkey!"

That incident says much about the willy-nilly way some charismatics approach Scripture. Looking for "a word from the Lord," some play a game of "Bible roulette," flipping at random through their Bibles, looking for something that seems applicable to whatever trial or need they are facing. When they find one, they say, "The Lord gave me a verse."

That is no way to approach Bible study. Perhaps you have heard the familiar story of the man who, seeking guidance for a major decision, decided to close his eyes, open his Bible, put his finger down, and get guidance from whatever verse his finger happened to light on. His first try brought him to Matthew 27.5: "[Judas] went and hanged himself" (KJV). Thinking that that verse was really not much help, he determined to try again. This time his finger landed on Luke 10:37 and Jesus' words there: "Go, and do thou likewise" (KJV). Not ready to give up, he tried one more time. This time his finger came to rest on Jesus' words in John 13:27: "That thou doest, do quickly" (KJV).

That story, which I am sure is apocryphal, makes an important point: looking for meaning in Scripture beyond its historical, grammatical, and logical context is unwise and even potentially dangerous. It is possible of course, to substantiate almost any idea or teaching with Scripture--if one employs proof texts apart from their intended meaning. That is precisely how most of the cults use Scripture to buttress their false doctrines.

The task of hermeneutics is to discover the meaning of the text in its proper setting; to draw meaning from Scripture rather than reading one's presuppositions into it.

The importance of careful biblical interpretation can hardly be overstated. Misinterpreting the Bible is ultimately no better than disbelieving it. What good does it do to agree that the Bible is God's final and complete revelation and then misinterpret it? The result is still the same: one misses God's truth. Interpreting Scripture to make it say what it was never intended to say is a sure road to division, error, heresy, and apostasy.

Don't Talk to Cops

2010-05-05T04:10:37Z

A friend e-mailed me a link to an interesting YouTube video entitled Don't Talk to Cops, a lecture by Professor James Duane, a former defense attorney. The video is embedded at the end of this post.

Raised in a Christian environment, I had always assumed that the "Christian" thing to do was to cooperate with police officers in every possible way, including doing everything they could possibly ask you to do, and giving them any information they would ever want to know at any time. But the professor's lecture helped me to consider some aspects of this subject that I had not considered before.

This video, and some other research I have done lately, has given me a fresh perspective on the Bill of Rights. In particularly, I have been looking at the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments, and I have been surprised to learn how important it can be for an ordinary citizen to understand how to exercise these rights for his own protection.

Am I a Bigoted Homophobe?

2010-04-17T01:47:33Z

There are two terms that eventually come up in any sustained dialogue on the morality of homosexual practice or homosexual marriage: One is bigotry and the other is homophobia. These terms are brought together emphatically in the searing appellation bigoted homophobe. For educational purposes, I would like to explore this personal question: Am I a bigoted homophobe?

To be honest, I have not always been familiar with this terminology. When I was growing up, these simply were not words used in my family. So to answer this question, I will need to turn to an English dictionary. I have two such resources within easy reach: first, the online definitions available at Dictionary.com; second, a hard-back edition of Webster's II New College Dictionary.

To simplify this question, I will split the terminology and address the adjective before the adverb. So first: Am I a homophobe? One can only assume that a homophobe is someone who is homophobic, or has the condition known as homophobia, which is so defined:

Unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality. (Dictionary.com)

Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men. (Webster's II)

That is a rather inconvenient set of definitions for the term, because of the broadness and ambiguities. The first definition looks for either an irrational fear, or some vague aversion. The term antipathy itself is difficult, because of its many shades of meaning, as also provided by Dictionary.com:

1. a natural, basic, or habitual repugnance; aversion.
2. an instinctive contrariety or opposition in feeling.
3. an object of natural aversion or habitual dislike.

The second definition (of homophobia) requires either any general fear of homosexuals, or instead contempt, which is a stronger term than antipathy. The first definition requires that feeling be directed toward both homosexuality and homosexuals, while the second specifies only homosexuals. So from the start no clear distinction is made here between attitudes toward homosexual practices and attitudes toward the homosexuals themselves.

So, back to me: I am not afraid of homosexuals, at least on a physical level. Frankly, I cannot ever recall meeting a lesbian or a gay person who looked tough enough to be a threat to me, though there probably are some out there somewhere. Do I feel threatened by homosexuality somehow? Not directly. Just because somebody else is homosexual, this does not mean that I have to be homosexual or that I have to like it.

Certainly though, I feel that homosexuality is a threat to society. I am afraid of what homosexuality will do to our country, namely, destroying the family unit, confusing gender roles, and ultimately bringing us under the wrath of the Almighty God. On the last point, I will state that from the very beginning of history (see Genesis 1) God has created human beings as male and female, and he has made it abundantly clear that his intention is for human sexuality to be enjoyed only between male and female, consummated within the sacred boundaries of marriage. When a nation embraces homosexuality, they effectively shake their fists in the face of God, and eventually he must judge that rebellion.

Do I have contempt for homosexuals? That is something of a complex question. One the one hand, I desire the best for homosexuals, specifically that they turn away from their homosexuality, find forgiveness from God through Christ, and come to experience the joys and pleasures that can be found in living a pure, heterosexual life-style. On the other hand, it is not always easy to separate my view of a person from lifestyle choices he or she chooses to make, or the philosophy he or she chooses to advocate. I certainly have a strong contempt for homosexuality. So is it also possible that I have some contempt for the people who not only embrace homosexuality in their personal lives, but also boldly promulgate their views, either loudly from the roof tops, or through displays of sexual innuendo in public places? Probably so.

But we see now that the definition of homophobia itself is stacked, for it casts a very broad net. Those who use the term casually never define specifically what they mean by terms like "fear" or "contempt," nor do they take into consideration the various motives that might inspire a person to stand in opposition to the practices and teachings of the homosexual movement.

So let us move on to next question: Am I bigot? Unfortunately, this question is even more muddled than the last. Let us work here with the definition of bigot provided by Dictionary.com:

A person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Ah, but now we have only traded one ambiguous word for an unworkable definition. For if being a bigot means being utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion, then to avoid the label, one must be at least somewhat tolerant of every differing creed, belief, and opinion. If such be the case, then the homosexual is as guilty as I am, for he himself has shown intolerance toward my belief that homosexuality is wrong and should not be practiced.

Furthermore, the term intolerance itself is a difficult word: So we go back to the dictionaries:

Lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc. (Dictionary.com)

Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions or beliefs, esp. religious beliefs (Webster's II)

Of course, both definitions involve their counter-term, tolerance, so we must investigate that word as well:

A fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own. (Dictionary.com)

Recognition of and respect for the opinions, practices, or behavior of others. (Webster's II)

Now we descend into a host of interesting conflicts and contradictions. Let us say that toleration means to have a fair, objective, and permissive attitude, et cetera. Personally, I have heard of fair practices, but never a fair attitude, so I will leave off that discussion. As far as objectivity is concerned, it is clear that in the debate regarding homosexuality, neither side is truly objective. Everyone on my side of the debate is obviously against homosexuality. Many of the people on the other side of the debate are people who want to practice homosexual life styles. Then there are the heterosexuals who take the side of the homosexuals, arguing that it is wrong for me to condemn homosexuality. Clearly everybody takes up a position for something and against something, and everybody has personal preferences for some kind of sexuality, and so the myth of objectivity disperses, like the vapor that it is.

Then we touch on permissiveness. On the one hand, I am permissive toward my opponents in that I respect their right to have opinions. On the other hand, my core beliefs compel me to argue that those opinions are both wrong and harmful. Likewise, the homosexuals assert that it is wrong for me to speak out against homosexual practices, even though that is my opinion!

As you have no doubt realized by now, the purpose of this article was never to clear up the question of whether or not I am a bigoted homophobe. The purpose rather is to demonstrate that the phrase bigoted homophobe is a murky, confused, and loaded construction. Despite all its emotional baggage, the label really communicates nothing about the subject, nor does it bring us any closer to the essence of the debate.

The terms bigot and homophobe have no fitting place in a debate over the morality of homosexuality. Nevertheless, the moment we step into the dock, it is assumed that bigotry is an established crime, that homophobia is a social disease, and that it is our responsiblity to exonerate ourselves from these burning accusations. I say that it is high time we throw off the chains of this terminology, imposed senselessly on us by our liberal opponents. Instead, we should shift focus onto the substance of the matter: understanding what is right and what is wrong.

Students for Concealed Carry on Campus

2010-04-16T06:03:01Z

I heard about this interesting organization on the news today: Students for Concealed Carry on Campus:

http://www.concealedcampus.org/

Evidently they had some legal success recently fighting anti-gun policy at the University of Colorado:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hOnUg5iFzuQc4v7Ri7S0AT4VSAeAD9F3KTL83

If I was not broke, I would not mind buying one of these nifty t-shirts:

http://www.cafepress.com/sccc_gfz.178973314

This news struck a chord with me, not because I walk around everywhere with a 9mm tucked under my shirt, but because I am a university student, and I am sick of enduring crippling restrictions on my second amendment rights in the one place where I spend ninety percent of my workday. I am not a lawyer, but after coming on campus at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, I communicated with university police, who pointed me to university policy and Alaska state law. Basically the rules came down to this (the non-technical summary): No guns on are allowed on campus, unless you are a peace officer. If you live on campus (and I do not) you can bring your guns on campus in order to turn them into campus police, who will give them back to you when you want to leave.

This is irritating because not only can I not carry a firearm around with me on campus, but I also cannot legally leave one in my car while parked at the university. For practical purposes, that basically means I cannot leave a gun in my car at all, because every day I drive (except Sunday) I spend most of the day parked at the university.

I am of the opinion that every human being has a fundamental right to self defense. That right is not granted to us by our government, but it is bestowed on us by our Creator, who made us in his image. It is as the founders described it in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

God has granted each of us the right to Life, and, by extension, the right to protect that Life from those who would try to take it away. A gun is more than just a weapon. It is a symbol, representing my willingness and my ability to defend myself against those who would seek to harm me. A citizen with a gun is not a victim, waiting helplessly for police or government to come and save him. A citizen with a gun is an obstacle standing in the way of the person who is looking for a victim.

The Heavens Declare

2010-04-05T09:38:42Z

During the last hour, I have had the privilege of viewing the most spectacular display of the Aurora Borealis which I can ever recall. The impressiveness of this particular instance was not due so much to intricate variety of color, which characterizes most of the memorable sightings in my past experience, but rather sheer magnitude and motion. I wish to document the experience.

I presently live about twenty miles east of the city of Fairbanks, Alaska, residing in a small cabin on the edge of my parent's property. At approximately 1:00 am tonight (April 5, 2010, AKST) I had become very tired after a long day of church, homework, and recreation, and I was ready to turn in for the day. I stepped out of my cabin for a brief breath of fresh air.

After stepping out, I was surprised because it seemed brighter out than when I had been outside only an hour or so before. I looked straight up, and a green ribbon was stretched from east to west across the star-studded sky, and it was bending in a slow rhythm, a little to the north, and then to south, and back again, curving like a snake. Very soon, splashing waves of pink began to race along the edge of this ribbon, contorting its path.

I went back inside my cabin to get a coat, and when I came back I saw a huge wave of green and pink coming along the horizon from the north. The wave began to form a distinct, but active, pattern of frequency, similar to what you might see looking at the screen of an oscilloscope, almost like the pattern of a recorded voice. Again, these patterns were racing across the sky, faster than I had ever seen during any of my previous sightings of the Aurora.

After a few minutes, these "signals" began to grow in size and intensity. I realized that the color in the north, as well as that directly overhead, was beginning to cover the majority of the sky. Sensing, remarkable as it seemed, that the best of the viewing was yet to come, I determined to walk to my parents' home and see if anyone else was awake. Upon arrival I found that my mother was awake, and I took the liberty of waking my sister.

After going back outside, we saw that the entire sky had been set aflame in a glorious blaze of green fire. At first, it looked more like patches of a neon thunder, flickering on and off in a synchronized chorus of light. But shortly, the direction of the moving light changed, so that it looked as though we were standing in the center of a bonfire, with the "flames" on all sides stretching up directly overhead.

Then the direction of the light seemed to change, and again the sky divided up into patches of green, flickering on and off. But these bursts of energy seemed to traveling in one direction, as though a blanket of green energy was rolling across the hemisphere.

Gradually, the motion slowed until the glow settled around the horizon. Then the remaining hue vanished, fading away like the final scene of an old movie.

I look forward tomorrow to getting the scientific explanation of this phenomenon, which will likely be a hot topic around Fairbanks. At the moment, however, my thoughts turn to its teleological significance. Why is it that God graced us with such an energetic display of the aurora tonight?

Doubtlessly, I will have some very pleasant meditation on the subject over the next few days. My working theory, however, is that God is a musician of sorts. Tonight, God's instrument of choice was the Aurora, and he put on a grand symphony, not of sound, but of light and energy. And humanity was audience. At least, those of humanity fortunate enough to be awake for the show.

Christians in the Nazi Concentration Camps

2010-03-24T10:32:35Z

I read an interesting book review in Journal of Creation by Lita Cosner, entitled The Christian Nazi Myth Refuted. The review was of a book by Bruce Walker entitled The Swastika Against the Cross: The Nazi War on Christianity, which purports to refute the anti-Christian myths that Nazis were Christians and that Christianity laid the foundation for Naziism.

Cosner provided an overall positive review of the book, promoting it with a rather passionate summary of the contents. I will not summarize a summary, but I will quote one interesting section. (Page numbers listed are from Walker's book.)

Even though Christians who professed their faith openly were subject to discrimination from the Nazis, they constituted the only true opponents the Nazis had in Germany (p. 59). The Communists, while thought to be opponents to the Nazis, partnered with them to destroy common opponents. Academia was easily corrupted; university students were among the most susceptible to Nazi propaganda (p. 62). Christians were the only ones who openly spoke out against the Nazis; Catholics and Protestants banded together to defend Christianity against the Nazi paganism which threatened to destroy them (p. 63). The Nazis recognized the unique character of their Christian opponents, saying that

"... the National Socialist leaders have found and will find that the Christian church is an embarrassment. It cannot be fashioned as readily as are cultural institutions. They will find men in whose convictions in their sphere are as unyielding as those of Hitler himself in the political realm. They have to be reckoned with" (p. 64).

When the Nazis tried to "revise" the Bible to fit with Germanism and demanded that ethnically Jewish pastors be removed from the ministry, many Lutherans refused to comply because it was contrary to Christianity. Many of these pastors were removed and punished for their resistance (pp. 65-66). Many times "Jews sent to concentration camps were met there by Christians of conscience who arrived before the Jews" (p. 69). This took real courage on the part of the Christians, because, unlike the Jews, they could earn their freedom by renouncing their faith and becoming loyal to the Nazis. Christians who were too vocal about their opposition to the Nazis could expect to be tortured and killed or thrown into a concentration camp.

I cannot recall ever having heard anything from my past professors or instructors about this kind of Nazi persecution of Christianity. I look forward to future studies on the subject.

It should also be interesting to watch for historical parallels in the modern era. The recent activities of the current U.S. presidential administration and Democratic congressional majority, especially with the passage of the health reform legislation, have demonstrated without reasonable doubt that the political party in power is fundamentally socialist. (The federal government's firm educational commitment to the doctrine of evolution, as well as the President's unprecedented hostility toward our Israeli allies, also makes for some interesting historical coincidences.)

Christian's in the Nazi Concentration Camps

2010-03-24T09:31:04Z

I read an interesting book review in Journal of Creation by Lita Cosner, entitled The Christian Nazi Myth Refuted. The review was of a book by Bruce Walker entitled The Swastika Against the Cross: The Nazi War on Christianity, which purports to refute the anti-Christian myth that Nazis were Christians and that Christianity laid the foundation for Naziism.

Cosner provided an overall positive review of the book, promoting it with a rather passionate summary of the contents. I will not summarize a summary, but I will quote one interesting section. (Page numbers listed are from Walker's book.)

Even though Christians who professed their faith openly were subject to discrimination from the Nazis, they constituted the only true opponents the Nazis had in Germany (p. 59). The Communists, while thought to be opponents to the Nazis, partnered with them to destroy common opponents. Academia was easily corrupted; university students were among the most susceptible to Nazi propaganda (p. 62). Christians were the only ones who openly spoke out against the Nazis; Catholics and Protestants banded together to defend Christianity against the Nazi paganism which threatened to destroy them (p. 63). The Nazis recognized the unique character of their Christian opponents, saying that

"... the National Socialist leaders have found and will find that the Christian church is an embarrassment. It cannot be fashioned as readily as are cultural institutions. They will find men in whose convictions in their sphere are as unyielding as those of Hitler himself in the political realm. They have to be reckoned with" (p. 64).
When the Nazis tried to "revise" the Bible to fit with Germanism and demanded that ethnically Jewish pastors be removed from the ministry, many Lutherans refused to comply because it was contrary to Christianity. Many of these pastors were removed and punished for their resistance (pp. 65-66). Many times "Jews sent to concentration camps were met there by Christians of conscience who arrived before the Jews" (p. 69). This took real courage on the part of the Christians, because, unlike the Jews, they could earn their freedom by renouncing their faith and becoming loyal to the Nazis. Christians who were too vocal about their opposition to the Nazis could expect to be tortured and killed or thrown into a concentration camp.

Marston: The Word "Science"

2010-02-28T00:39:11Z

Following is an interesting quote from Sir Charles Marston in his book The Bible is True, published in the late 1930's:

It will be observed that an indiscriminate use is made of the word "Science," and that witnesses for the correctness of Science are motorcars and bicycles, radios and aeroplanes and the like. But bicycles and motor-cars and the other inventions enumerated, did not spring fully fledged and mature from the intelligence of a body of scientists. They were slowly and painfully built up, the product of a multitude of brains, some of which knew nothing about Science or its laws. The correctness of each idea as it took shape, could be and was verified by experience, and at every step and every stage of the development of the model, experience was both the judge of its correctness, and the guide to further modifications and developments. So it is always with inventions. The shelves of the Patent Office are crowded with a hundred thousand, and more, specifications of inventions describing ingenious devices, which have been abandoned because they have not stood the test or trial of experience; and let us remember that these Patent Office failures were usually based on some recognized fact. So it is obvious that the Science which is credited with producing these witnesses to testify to its excellency, was moulded and shaped with the aid of concrete facts of experience from start to finish.

But there are other Sciences which have had so little contact with experience that their teachings do not possess the certainty of Mechanics or Electricity; and even the Sciences of Chemistry and Physics, which have had any amount of contact with experience, have both recently had to undergo considerable modification. For example, Einstein's Theory of Relativity has completely revolutionized the Science of Physics.

Again, the word "Science" is applied to highly speculative theories, which have little or no basis in fact, and whose verification is extremely difficult. So the identification of the word "Science" with Reality, in the present state of human knowledge is entirely erroneous; and the analogies of motor-cars and bicycles, radios, aeroplanes and electric inventions, completely fall to the ground. For the word "Science," although it represents much that is true, also shields much that is doubtful, and much that is altogether false. Analogies based on the Sciences of Mechanics or Engineering, or of Electricity, cannot yet be used by those who desire reality, to justify an assertion that Science has shown the Bible to be false. For it may well be that the particular kind of Science involved is itself at fault, and its conclusions of no account. Examples of this are given in the next chapter.

Polycarp: Eternal Fire

2010-02-24T16:35:17Z

From The Martyrdom of Polycarp:

Then said the Proconsul [threatening Polycarp] 'I have wild beasts; if thou repent not, I will throw thee to them.' But he said, 'Send for them. For repentance from better to worse is not a change permitted to us; but to change from cruelty to righteousness is a noble thing.' Then said the Proconsul again, 'If thou dost despise the wild beasts I will make thee to be consumed by fire, if thou repent not.' And Polycarp answered, 'Thou threatenest the fire that burns for an hour and in a little while is quenched; for thou knowest not of the fire of the judgement to come, and the fire of the eternal punishment, reserved for the ungodly. But why delayest thou? Bring what thou wilt.' [1]

The significant part of the dialog is the latter half, in which Polycarp is threatened with being burned alive as a punishment for confessing to be a Christian. In response, Polycarp argues that it is better to be burned at the stake for a short period of excruciating pain, that to face the punishment of fire throughout all eternity. After this argument, the Proconsul gives up trying to convert Polycarp and has him burned alive at the stake.

This is, of course, evidence that the early Christians believed in eternal punishment by fire, contra the teaching of the heretical Jehovah's Witnesses.

---

[1] Henry Bettenson, ed. Documents of the Christian Church. Oxford University Press, 1967.

Obama's Utopia

2010-02-10T10:20:39Z

In Obama's utopia...

Will making a profit be considered a good thing?
If I am allowed to make a profit, how much profit will I be allowed to make before I am punished?
Will I need to get permission from the government in order to be productive?
Will there be any private industries and businesses?
Will my paper money be worth more as currency or as fire-starter?
From whom will we borrow money when we cannot pay back the Communists?
Will I get any of my tax money back if the social security system falls apart?
What will we do if green energy cannot sustain our needs?
Will it be more advantageous to be unemployed than employed?
Will the government be able to make personal decisions for me, such as what I am allowed to eat and what medical treatments I am allowed to have?
Who will receive better treatment from politicians: our allies or our enemies?
Who will receive better treatment under the law: citizens or foreign terrorists?
Will white, male citizens need to start a civil-rights movement?
Will aborting children become more popular than giving birth to them?
Will protected free speech include speech that is offensive?
Will it be legal to criticize another person's religion or beliefs?
Will there be any class rooms left that teach a Biblical world view and fundamental American values?
Will there be anything special about being an American?
Will anyone care if a politician lies?
Will politicians live better than regular citizens?
Will anyone "trust in God"?
Will there be enough freedom left to be worth dying for it?

The Irony of Feminism

2010-01-18T08:14:35Z

In endeavoring to destroy or minimize the social distinctions between the sexes, and rebelling against the influences of the Judeo-Christian worldview, feminists end up dragging themselves down more than they lift themselves up. Consider Genesis 2.18-24:

Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said,
"This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man."
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (ESV)

In the same chapter, the creation of man gets a single verse, describing how the first man is formed by God from the dust of the ground. But the creation of the first woman becomes a sort of story by itself.

In the first chapter of Genesis, God's creative work is described as "good" six times and "very good" once. But for the first time in Scripture, something is described as "not good," which is that man is alone, without "a helper fit for him."

The idea from the context is that there is no helper suitable for man because there is nothing like him in the animal kingdom. [1][2] And so the "animal parade," in which God brings the animal kinds to the man to see what he will name them, with the additional purpose of helping him to see that there is nothing in the lower orders like him, and thus nothing capable of being a suitable counterpart to him.

The purpose of emphasizing this fact to Adam was, I believe, to help Adam fully appreciate the gift he was about to be given - his wife, the first woman. This supposition is borne out by the context, for after Adam meets his newly created bride, he exclaims:

"This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man."

Notice the expression "this at last" which is captured by a few translations. This evidences that Adam "got the point" of the animal parade. Under this realization, he meets his bride, and she fills the void of companionship that could only be filled by someone who was fundamentally like him.

But why all the drama of removing the rib? Why does not God just make woman from the dirt, as he made the man? The reason is clear from the context: this emphasizes that she is indeed like him, and thus a suitable companion for him. The differences, in characteristics and in physical makeup, are important. But they are both fundamentally the same in constitution - they are both human, made in the same image and likeness of God. (1.27) He must recognizes that she is, indeed, "bones from his bones" and "flesh from his flesh."

But why does man need woman? Why is it "not good" that he be alone? There are at least several reasons that could be given. The first is obvious from the context: without the genders there is no family and no procreation, and thus man cannot fulfill God's intention that humanity should multiply and fill the earth, serving as lords and stewards over God's beautiful creation. And man needs someone to help him do the tasks God has laid out for him, to be his "helper."

Another is to provide him with companionship. The writings of Solomon and the other sages bear out how the virtuous woman has the power to make a home more than simply a place to live, and how that she brings both joy and pleasure to her husband.

There is another benefit which is not mentioned here, but receives treatment in later Biblical teaching, especially in the New Testament epistles. A man finds, in caring for his wife, a higher satisfaction than when caring simply for himself and for his own needs.

As Christ taught us that "it is more blessed to give than to receive," so Paul writes (in the context of ecclesiastical discussions):

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. (Ephesians 5.25-33)

The reader will forgive my lengthy exposition, but it was necessary to make this point: when the feminist throws out the Biblical perspective on gender, she gives up the significance of what it means to be female. She removes herself from that special place she has in the created order which makes her an exalted object of love and attention, a source of joy, and a reason for thanksgiving. And she does this, all so that she can achieve this so called ideal of being treated exactly the same as men.

---

[1] An interesting Vulgate translation: faciamus ei adiutorum similem sui with similis meaning "like, similar, or resembling."

[2] Contra evolutionary dogma.

Carter: Why Evolutionists Need Junk DNA

2009-12-06T10:25:13Z

According to creationist and biologist Robert W. Carter, the reason that evolutionists need junk DNA is this: the alleged generation of genetic information is such a slow process that for the generation of our genetic material to fit into a feasible time line, most of our genetic material must be non-functional. In other words, evolutionists are attempting to simplify the scope of their problem by reducing the amount of genetic information they have to explain.

In Carter's own words:

Based on the work of J.B.S. Haldane and others, who showed that natural selection cannot possibly select for millions of new mutations over the course of human evolution, Kimura developed the idea of "neutral evolution". If "Haldane's Dilemma" were correct, then the majority of DNA must be non-functional. It should be free to mutate over time without needing to be shaped by natural selection. In this way, natural selection could act on the important bits and neutral evolution could act randomly on the rest. Since natural selection will not act on neutral traits, which do not affect survival or reproduction, neutral evolution can proceed through random drift without any inherent "cost of selection". The term "junk DNA" originated with Ohno, who based his idea squarely on the idea of neutral evolution. To Ohno and other scientists of his time, the vast spaces (introns) between protein-coding genes were (exons) just useless DNA whose only function was to separate genes along a chromosome. Junk DNA is a necessary mathematical extrapolation. It was invented to solve a theoretical evolutionary dilemma. Without it, evolution runs into insurmountable mathematical difficulties. [1]

Then he comes to the heart of the matter:

Junk DNA is not just a label that was tacked on to some DNA that seemed to have no function, but it is something that is required by evolutionary theory. Mathematically, there is too much variation, too much DNA to mutate, and too few generations in which to get it all done. This was the essence of Haldane's work. Without junk DNA, evolutionary theory cannot currently explain how everything works mathematically. Think about it; in the evolutionary model there have only been 3-6 million years since humans and chimps diverged. With average human generation times of 20-30 years, this gives them only 100,000 to 300,000 generations to fix the millions of mutations that separate humans and chimps. This includes at least 35 million single letter differences, over 90 million base pairs of non-shared DNA, nearly 700 extra genes in humans (about 6% not shared with chimpanzees), and tens of thousands of chromosomal rearrangements. Also, the chimp genome is about 13% larger than that of humans, but mostly due to the heterochromatin that caps the chromosome telomeres. All this has to happen in a very short amount of evolutionary time. They don't have enough time, even after discounting the functionality of over 95% of the genome--but their position becomes grave if junk DNA turns out to be functional. Every new function found for junk DNA makes the evolutionists' case that much more difficult.

So, as I understand it: the more functionality we find in our "junk DNA," the more difficult it becomes for evolutionists to explain how that genetic information could be generated inside the time lines that they laid out for us. How dreadfully inconvenient.

[1] Robert W. Carter. The slow, painful death of junk dna. Journal of Creation, 23(3):12-13, 2009.

God and providence

2009-11-30T11:04:14Z

A poem, from Ariston:

Be of good courage: God will still preserve
And greatly help all those who so deserve.
If no promotion waits on faithful men,
Say what advantage goodness offers then.
'Tis granted -- yet I often see the just
Faring but ill, from ev'ry honour thrust;
While they whose own advancement is their aim,
Oft in this present life have all they claim.
But we must look beyond, and wait the end,
That consummation to which all things tend.
'Tis not, as vain and wicked men have said,
By an unbridled destiny we're led:
It is not blinded chance that rules the world,
Nor uncontrolled are all things onward hurled.
The wicked blinds himself with this belief;
But be ye sure, of all rewards, the chief
Is still reserved for those who holy live;
And Providence to wicked men will give
Only the just reward which is their meed,
And fitting punishment for each bad deed.