Worldview Jenga Towers

Ever played Jenga? Jenga is a game where a tower is constructed of 54 wooden blocks. Players take turns removing blocks, one at a time, until the tower collapses.

Recently, I saw the following comment by an atheist on Facebook:

Creationists are not unwilling to listen to the evidence because they believe themselves to be correct. They are unwilling to listen because they must, at ANY cost, defend their ideologies because they are a Jenga tower of [expletive deleted]. Remove one peg and the whole thing comes down. Try getting anyone to deny something they’ve predicated their entire life on. It has to come from within. As it did for us.

Why do young-earth creationists defend their beliefs? And, why do atheists defend evolution?

It is ironic that this atheist would post such a comment, because creation is much more of a threat to an atheistic worldview than evolution could ever be to a Christian worldview. One’s worldview is the totality of a person’s beliefs. Like a Jenga tower, all worldviews have certain core beliefs that form the base. Without these foundational axioms, the entire worldview collapses. There are millions of Christians who believe God used some sort of evolutionary process to bring about the world as we now know it. Faith in Jesus Christ is not predicated on young earth creation. However, atheism is absolutely dependent on evolution, because any alternative that implies God or any other “higher power” completely contradicts the belief that no such God exists. An evolutionary worldview is the only possibility if one is going to maintain that nothing supernatural exists. To use the Jenga analogy, if any form of creation or intelligent design were true, not only is a peg removed from the Jenga tower of atheism, the entire table the tower was built upon disappears. This is why atheists so vehemently defend evolution and attack any notion of creation.

If faith in Jesus Christ is not predicated on a literal young-earth understanding of the Bible, then why do Biblical creationists so passionately defend a literal understanding of Genesis?

While it is true that one can be a Christian while believing that God used some sort of evolutionary process, to do so is inconsistent, and it undermines the authority of the Bible. Genesis clearly teaches that God created the universe in six normal days, not billions of years. The Gospel message is based on the fact that every person is a sinner in need of a Savior, and that everyone is a sinner because we have inherited a sin nature from our original ancestor, Adam (see Romans 5). If evolution is true, then the Genesis account is false, and if Genesis is false, then there is no original sin, and no need for a Savior. Christians base their belief in Jesus Christ on the fact that the Bible is correct when it talks about Jesus. Yet, if the Bible is wrong when it talks about origins, why would it be correct when it talks about Jesus?

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying a person cannot be a saved, born-again Christian without a literal understanding of Genesis. What I am saying is that to do so, the Christian is being irrational. Numerous studies involving people who once called themselves Christians, but no longer do, have shown that belief in evolution is among the top reasons why people who are brought up in Christian homes and Bible-believing churches begin to question the Bible’s accuracy, eventually leading to complete rejection of Christian belief. Evolution and the Bible are incompatible. Atheists and other non-Christians understand this. Biblical young-earth creationists understand this. The only ones who can’t seem to understand this are those who try to cling to both the Bible and evolution.

Is evolution a proven fact, as many claim? Far from it. The scientific method requires experimentation that is observable, testable, and repeatable. Evolution, in the sense of all life coming from a common ancestor, cannot be observed – it supposedly happened in the past. It cannot be tested or repeated for the same reason. The fact that we see changes in organisms today does not imply that all life came from a common origin. Common design elements in DNA does not necessarily mean common ancestry; it makes more sense that commonalities in DNA design are due to a common designer. Gaps in the fossil record, carbon-14 in fossils, and the tremendous amount of information in DNA all point to the truth of the Bible’s account and completely contradict evolution. This isn’t to say that evolutionists haven’t come up with all sorts of convoluted rescuing devices to maintain their belief in random, natural processes; however, the actual observable evidence is completely in harmony with the Biblical account, while extremely contradictory to the notion that life came to be as it is today all by itself. I could write volumes explaining this point further, but I won’t. A quick Google search will serve the purpose for any reader who really wants to seek out the truth of the matter. Ultimately, most atheistsand evolutionists really don’t care about the evidence, despite protestations to the contrary. They only care about maintaining their Jenga tower of unbelief.

If there was incontrovertible proof that evolution is true, would my Christianity come crashing down? Absolutely not; my faith in Jesus Christ is not dependent on my current understanding of the origins of the universe, but rather is based on a relationship with Him. True, I would have a crisis of faith, and I would need to seriously rebuild my understanding of the Bible, but I would remain a follower of Jesus Christ. Part of my Jenga tower worldview would fall, but the foundation would remain intact. I have a relationship with God through Jesus Christ; the Holy Spirit dwells in me; it would be impossible for me to cease believing in the Savior Who has so radically changed me from the inside. It would be like denying oxygen. However, an atheist must maintain a belief in evolution, or their entire worldview must come crashing down. Atheism is impossible without evolution; it is critical to the foundation of an atheistic worldview.

This is why atheists must attack creation while defending evolution.

As a Christian, I defend the literal Truth of the Bible, not because I must for my Christianity to stand, but because I have a passion for seeing others come to know the Truth. Jesus said, “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” John 8:32. He also said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” John 14:6. We defend creation and challenge evolution because we want others to know Jesus.

Atheist Day – April 1 – Psalm 14:1

I had the following exchange (paraphrased) on Facebook the other day:

Me: Atheist Day is April 1. Psalm 14:1 – The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

Atheist: Atheists aren’t fools. You’re a moron.

Me: Can there be anything more foolish that telling God that He doesn’t exist?

Atheist: I don’t tell gods they don’t exist. I don’t talk to fictional characters.

I had to paraphrase the atheist’s remarks, because she blocked me from seeing her comments a few minutes after she posted them.

I was both amused and saddened by this person’s answer. She apparently had no idea that by stating, “I don’t talk to fictional characters,” she was doing precisely what she argued she doesn’t do – she was telling God He doesn’t exist.

According to urban legend, a judge in Florida once declared that April 1 is “Atheist Day,” citing Psalm 14:1. This legend has been debunked; it apparently originated as a joke on a humor mailing list in 2002.

Is Atheism Foolish?

The fool has said in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt,
They have done abominable works,
There is none who does good.

~ Psalm 14:1

Atheism is a very foolish worldview to hold. For one thing, atheism is completely illogical. An atheist contends that he or she knows there is no God. Logically, one cannot know that something does not exist.

Let’s use Bigfoot, also known as sasquatch, as an example. In order to know Bigfoot does not exist, one would have to look in every place Bigfoot could possibly exist. They would have to look in all of these places at the same time, to ensure Bigfoot wasn’t moving from place to place. They would also have to know what Bigfoot is. Otherwise, they might actually see Bigfoot, but not recognize it. Logically, no one can know Bigfoot does not exist. The best one can logically know is that they have never seen Bigfoot, or any evidence for the existence of Bigfoot. One can conclude that Bigfoot probably does not exist, but one cannot logically conclude absolutely that Bigfoot does not exist.  Personally, I don’t believe in Bigfoot.  However, it would be illogical to say I know Bigfoot does not exist.  I would be a sasquatch agnostic rather than an a-sasquatch-ist.

The same logic applies to God. In order to know God does not exist, one would need to be looking everywhere in the universe simultaneously, and would need to know what God looks like in order to recognize whether He was present, or not. Such a person would need to be omnipresent to look everywhere at once, and omniscient to know what God looks like. Unless a person is indeed omnipresent and omniscient, it is illogical to claim one knows God does not exist.


The most a person can logically claim is that they don’t know if God exists. This would be agnosticism, not atheism. At least with agnosticism, there is enough intellectual integrity to acknowledge not knowing for certain.


Another reason atheism is foolish is what is known as Pascal’s Wager. Blaise Pascal (1633 – 1662) was a French mathematician, physicist, and philosopher. He argued that if a Christian is wrong about Christianity, they basically live a happy life, and when they die – they’re gone. They really haven’t lost anything by being wrong in their beliefs. However, if a non-Christian is wrong, although they may live a happy life here on earth, when they die, they end up in Hell. In other words, if one “wagers” on Christianity and loses, they lose nothing; if one “wagers” against Christianity and loses, they lose everything.


Although many atheists have devised convoluted scenarios they believe work around Pascal’s Wager, the same basic question remains: What if one is wrong about Christianity? If I, as a Christian, am wrong about Christianity, I’ll never know. When I die, I’ll just rot in the grave, and cease to exist. But, if an atheist is wrong about Christianity, they end up in Hell for eternity. That’s one bet I would not want to lose!


The most foolish thing about being an atheist is that atheist actually do know God exists. However, they intentionally suppress that knowledge.

¹⁸ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, ¹⁹ because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. ²⁰ For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, ²¹ because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Professing to be wise, they became fools, ²³ and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

~ Romans 1:18-23

God’s existence is obvious to anyone who is willing to see it. Everything in the universe points to His existence. The problem is that all people are born in rebellion against God.

² The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men,
To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.
³ They have all turned aside,
They have together become corrupt;
There is none who does good,
No, not one.

~ Psalm 14:2-3

Every person is born separated from God. Yet God, in His grace, reveals Himself to each of us, and gives us the opportunity to turn to Him.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

~ John 3:16

Those who choose to respond to the Gospel and receive Christ as Lord and Savior gain an eternal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Those who foolishly suppress the truth of the Gospel remain eternally separated from God, and spend eternity in Hell. This is why atheism is foolish. For God to offer forgiveness, reconciliation with Himself, and eternal life, yet to choose to tell Him, “No thank you. You do not exist,” is the most foolish thing a person could ever do.

He Is Risen – Luke 24:1-12

¹ Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they, and certain other women with them, came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. ² But they found the stone rolled away from the tomb. ³ Then they went in and did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. ⁴ And it happened, as they were greatly perplexed about this, that behold, two men stood by them in shining garments. ⁵ Then, as they were afraid and bowed their faces to the earth, they said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead? ⁶ He is not here, but is risen! Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee, ⁷ saying, ‘The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.’”

⁸ And they remembered His words. ⁹ Then they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. ¹⁰ It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them, who told these things to the apostles. ¹¹ And their words seemed to them like idle tales, and they did not believe them. ¹² But Peter arose and ran to the tomb; and stooping down, he saw the linen cloths lying by themselves; and he departed, marveling to himself at what had happened.

Luke 24:1-12 NKJV

May you come to know the risen Lord.

Gay Marriage is a Symptom of a Deeper Issue

This week, the United States Supreme Court will be considering arguments on the constitutionality of two key laws dealing with so-called gay marriage rights: California’s Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage, and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Those who support granting the legal right for homosexuals to marry frame the issue as a civil rights issue. As one of my Facebook friends put it, “What possible good does it do us as a people to arbitrarily deny others the opportunity to achieve their dreams? Equal rights: I’m for them.”

Those opposing the legalization of gay marriage usually frame the discussion in terms of an attack on the family. As one prominent evangelical put it, “Now, this institution that has preserved the context for intimacy, procreation, and the raising of children is threatened with a redefinition that would render the state’s conception of marriage at odds with millennia of human wisdom, putting human flourishing at risk.”

I contend that the debate over so-called gay marriage rights is really just a symptom of a much deeper issue. Who determines what is right and wrong? Who determines what is moral and immoral? Is truth determined by public consensus, or by Almighty God?

¹⁸ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, ¹⁹ because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. ²⁰ For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, ²¹ because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Professing to be wise, they became fools, ²³ and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things (Romans 1:18-23).

The gay marriage issue is a symptom of society’s rejection of the truth of God. It’s not that people don’t know the truth; God’s truth is seen in everything He created. Everything around us points to the truth of God’s Word, the Bible. The problem is that our culture suppresses the truth – we make up excuses, we devise clever arguments, and we make up our own “truth.” Human nature is to rebel against God. We think we’re smarter than God. We set ourselves up as the rulers of our own lives, rather than submitting to the true Ruler of all – God. This is complete and utter foolishness.

²⁴ Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, ²⁵ who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. ²⁶ For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. ²⁷ Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due (Romans 1:24-27).

Most homosexuals claim that the reason they are gay is because they were born that way. They claim that there is a biological basis for their homosexuality.

First, there is no scientific basis for such a claim. Despite objections to the contrary, a so-called “gay gene” has never been discovered. There isn’t a shred of observable scientific evidence supporting the notion that some people are born gay.

Second, suppose, for the sake of argument, that a “gay gene” is eventually identified and scientifically verified as existing. What then? Would this support the argument that God made some people homosexual, and that this therefore makes gay marriage morally acceptable?

Genetic mutation is a result of the Fall of mankind in Genesis 3. Adam and Eve were genetically perfect when God created them. Six thousand years of mutations have accumulated in the human genome since that time. Genetic abnormalities are responsible for numerous conditions, from Sickle-Cell Anemia to Down’s Syndrome. God didn’t create these conditions; they are the result of the sin of Adam, and subsequently, the sins of all humankind. So it would be if a “gay gene” were to be discovered. Such a gene would not exist because God created it; rather, it would exist because of the corruption of the genes God originally created.

Even if a so-called “gay gene” were to be identified – which it has not – this would not logically support the concept that homosexual actions are acceptable to God.

According to Romans 1:24-27, homosexual behavior is the consequence of rejecting God. Because people have suppressed the truth and exchanged the truth of God for lies, God has rejected them, and given them over to the consequences of their choices.

²⁸ And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; ²⁹ being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, ³⁰ backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, ³¹ undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; ³² who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them (Romans 1:28-31).

Here’s the part that many Evangelical Christians miss: homosexuality is just one of a plethora of sins, and we’re all guilty, not just homosexuals.

In this passage, God puts sins such as envy, whispering about others, unforgiveness, and lack of mercy on the same level as homosexuality, murder, and sexual immorality.

All sin, from “little” sins like boasting and gossip, to “big” sins like homosexuality and murder, are the result of rejecting God’s authority over us. All sins, whether we consider them big or small, are offensive to God, and worthy of His wrath. The gay marriage issue is a symptom of the deeper issue of rejecting God. Not only do those who practice sin deserve death, but also those approve of those who practice them. Acceptance of sin is the same as actually practicing sin in God’s eyes.

Should so-called gay marriage be accepted as normal, and made legal? Absolutely not! But, neither should other kinds of sin. When sin is recognized as normal and acceptable by a society, that society opens itself to God’s judgment and wrath. When people turn to God, repent of their sin, and receive forgiveness through the blood of Jesus Christ, they receive God’s grace, rather than His wrath.

We are reaping what we have sown. The evil we have increasingly seen in our world is the direct result of God’s judgment of our culture’s increasing acceptance of sin.

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

~ Isaiah 5:20

Does God HATE the ones whom He will not save?

A February 22, 2013 blog by Stephen McCaskell on patheos.com entitled “Does God HATE the ones whom He will not save?” highlights the primary reason I am not a Calvinist. This is my response to McCaskell’s article.

One of the biggest dilemmas of Calvinism is, how can a loving God elect some people for eternity in Hell? If God chooses who is saved, and who is condemned, then God must not love all people. As McCaskell admits, “It would seem that it’s not exactly the easiest thing to reconcile the doctrine of election and God’s universal love.”

Some Calvinists see no problem here. They believe God loves the elect, but hates the non-elect. But in order to do this, they must twist the clear teaching of Scripture. If this view were correct, John 3:16 should read, “For God so loved the elect that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever God elects will believe in Him and not perish but have everlasting life.” However, that’s not what it says: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

Other Calvinists, such as McCaskell, cannot ignore the clear teaching of the Bible that God’s love is universal. This creates the paradox that God loves the very people He sends to Hell. McCaskell explains his solution to this paradox:

In the Scriptures we read of God’s amazing love towards sinners, but normally it’s towards his people, the elect. Obviously God doesn’t love all people the same way. If he loved everyone in a saving manner, then all would be saved. But we know this is not true. Not all are saved.

Obviously God doesn’t love all people the same way. This solution to the paradox is even more problematic than the paradox itself. McCaskell simply redefines God’s love in a way that is obviously nonsensical. Note some of the comments posted on his blog page:

Sagrav says:
February 22, 2013 at 11:04 am
A love that sits by passively as you are tortured for eternity is a hollow thing indeed.

Sharon says:
February 22, 2013 at 11:28 am
Your definition of love is morally bankrupt if you can say with a straight face that God both loves and chooses some people for damnation.

So, what’s the answer to this paradox?

The problem with Calvinism is that it’s based on a logical fallacy. According to every Calvinist I’ve read or talked to about the subject:

1. God is sovereign, meaning that God is in absolute, total control of everything.
2. Free will means that Mankind controls at least some things.
3. If Mankind controls some things, then God does not control everything.
4. Therefore, free will cannot exist.

The fallacy is in point 3. Free will does not take away from God’s sovereignty. God can, and does, remain entirely sovereign, while at the same time granting Mankind free will. Free will is the essence of what it means to be created in the image of God. No other creatures have the ability to make moral choices. God created Mankind in His image so that we would be capable of having a love relationship with Him. Without free will, love is impossible. Love must be chosen, or it’s not really love. God made the sovereign choice to give Mankind the gift of free will in order to allow us to have a love relationship with Him. This in no way detracts from or diminishes His sovereignty, but in fact, affirms it.

How do we reconcile God’s universal love and the reality of eternal damnation? It is only because of Mankind’s free will that this paradox is avoided. God gives everyone the universal invitation to be saved. Those who accept God’s invitation are saved; those who reject it are damned:

¹⁴ And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, ¹⁵ that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. ¹⁶ For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. ¹⁷ For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. ¹⁸ “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. ¹⁹ And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. ²⁰ For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. ²¹ But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.” John 3:14-21

Calvinism falsely teaches that Mankind cannot choose to accept or reject the Gospel, and this is heresy.

---

On a side note, ironically, Armenianism (the opposite of Calvinism), is based on the same logical fallacy, but with a different conclusion. According to Armenian thinking:

1. God is sovereign, meaning that God is in absolute, total control of everything.
2. Free will means that Mankind controls at least some things.
3. If Mankind controls some things, then God does not control everything.
4. Therefore, God is not totally sovereign.

This logic is based on the same fallacy as Calvinism, and the conclusion is equally heretical.

The Word Became Flesh

¹ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ² He was in the beginning with God. ³ All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. ⁴ In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. ⁵ And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

¹⁴ And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

May you come to know the God who became man.

Merry Christmas.

Acts 2:38 – Is Water Baptism Necessary For Salvation?

³⁷ Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”
³⁸ Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ³⁹ For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”
⁴⁰ And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” ⁴¹ Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.

Acts 2:37-41 (NKJV)

Acts 2:38 is one of the major proof-texts that those who believe water baptism is necessary for salvation use to support their belief. I disagree with this assessment for three reasons:

1. There are far too many other passages in the Bible that contradict the notion of water baptism as a requirement for salvation. John 3:16 says, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” According to this verse, eternal life is based on belief in Jesus Christ – and nothing else. Romans 10:9-10 says “that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.  For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” Again, there is no mention of baptism in these verses, nor anywhere else in the chapter. In several other passages in the book of Acts, baptism is mentioned in conjunction with salvation; however, in every one of these passages, baptism always happens immediately after the person has been saved.
2. There are also many other passages that contradict the notion that water baptism is the means for having sin removed. 1 John 2:1-2 says, “My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.  And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.” Hebrews 9:22 states, “And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.” It is the blood of Jesus Christ that removes sin, not water baptism.
3. A careful examination of the text of Acts 2:38 has convinced me that Peter is not talking about physical water baptism, but rather the immersion of the believer in Christ. The Greek word βαπτισθήτω means “dip, submerge, baptize.” When examining the context of Biblical passages concerning baptism, it is important to understand A) who or what is being immersed, and, B) what they are being immersed in? In the case of Acts 2:38, the answer to “who or what is being immersed?” would be the Jews who heard Peter’s sermon, and believed. The answer to the second question, “what they are being immersed in?” would be, “in the name of Jesus Christ.” Peter is telling his audience that in order to be saved, they must be immersed in Jesus Christ; His blood then covers their sin; and then they will receive the Holy Spirit. Peter does not say, “be baptized in water for the remission of sins;” he says, “be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” When a person receives Jesus Christ as their Savior, they are put into Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Water baptism is done afterward, as an outward sign of the spiritual transformation that has already taken place (Acts 2:41). In Acts 2:38, the instruction is to be immersed into Jesus’ name, not into a pool of water.

Salvation is based on confessing sin before God, repentance, and placing one’s faith and trust in the atoning blood of Jesus Christ alone for the remission of sin. No ritual or work – including water baptism – can add to or take away from one’s salvation.

Pushing People Out of the Church – Part 8

A while back, I read an article on Alternet.org, the anti-religion, left-wing, “news”-and-commentary website, entitled, “8 Ways Christian Fundamentalists Make People Convert — to Agnosticism or Atheism,” by skeptic Valerie Tarico.

Valerie Tarico

While I personally find most of the articles on this site to be little more than irrational liberal blathering, this article caught my interest, because it contains some truths that Christians need to understand.

Ultimately, those who reject Jesus Christ do so because they choose to suppress the truth (Romans 1:18-19). Unfortunately, there are also many things that those in the church do to push people away. As Tarico states, “if you read ExChristian testimonials you will notice that quite often church leaders or members do things that either trigger the deconversion process or help it along.”

I’ve found that I can often learn a lot by listening to what skeptics say about their perceptions of Christianity. This series looks at the eight reasons Tarico highlights.

Reason #8: Intrusion

Australian comedian and atheist John Safran flew to Salt Lake City for a round of door-to-door devangelism after Mormons rang his doorbell one too many times on Saturday morning. More serious intrusions, in deeply personal beginning- and end-of-life decisions, for example, generate reactive anti-theism in people who mostly just want to live and let live.

Catholic and evangelical conservatives have made a high-stakes gamble that they can regain authoritarian control over their flocks and hold onto the next generation of believers (and tithers) by asserting orthodox dogmas, making Christian belief an all-or-nothing proposition. Their goal is a level of theological purity that will produce another Great Awakening based largely on the same dogmas as the last one. They hope to cleanse their membership of theological diversity, and assert top-down control of conscience questions, replenishing their membership with anti-feminist, pro-natalist policies and proselytizing in the Southern hemisphere. But the more they resort to strict authoritarianism, insularity and strict interpretation of Iron Age texts, the more people are wounded in the name of God and the more people are outraged. By making Christian belief an all-or-nothing proposition, they force at least some would-be believers to choose “nothing.” Anti-theists are all too glad to help.

Tarico starts off by making a good point: Barging in on people turns them off. Nobody likes having the Gospel – or anything else, for that matter – shoved down their throat. Nobody likes being intruded upon. This is a point that almost everyone would agree with.

She then does a bait-and-switch by equating “intrusion” with conservative Christianity. She asserts that Christian leaders who teach a literal Bible do in order to “assert top-down control” and “regain authoritarian control over their flocks.”

While it is true that some conservative churches are highly authoritarian and almost cultish in their control over their membership, this is neither Biblical nor typical. To imply that because some conservative churches are controlling, all conservative churches are controlling, is to commit the logical fallacy of the hasty generalization.

Tarico also begs the question when she argues that evangelical conservative Christians are wrong because we make Christianity an “all-or-nothing proposition.” She assumes absolute truth does not exist; therefore, Biblical Christianity is wrong, because it teaches absolute truth. This is nothing more than a circular argument. Her argument merely assumes what it is trying to prove.

Here’s the point: The Bible itself teaches that Jesus Christ is an “all-or-nothing proposition.” “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me’” John 14:6. It’s not a matter of churches exerting “authoritarian control” or “top-down control.” It’s a matter of teaching the Truth. As the Apostle Peter, referring to Jesus, said, “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” Sounds like an “all-or-nothing proposition” to me.

What Tarico is advocating is compromise. And while she is probably correct that compromise will gain and retain more converts, the question becomes, converts to what? If we teach and preach a compromised Gospel, it’s not Gospel at all. As Paul wrote:

⁶ I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, ⁷ which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. ⁸ But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. ⁹ As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. Galatians 1:6-9

When Tarico denounces “theological purity” and “strict interpretation,” she is denouncing the truth. She is absolutely correct when she states, “By making Christian belief an all-or-nothing proposition, they force at least some would-be believers to choose ‘nothing’.” What she doesn’t realize is, believing in “nothing” is no different than believing in a false gospel. Both lead to Hell; neither leads to a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. Too many churches preach a compromised, false gospel, and are filled with compromised, false Christians, who think they are headed for Heaven, but are bound for Hell. As Jesus said:

²¹ “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. ²² Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ ²³ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’” Matthew 7:21-23.

Tarico makes 3 valid points:

1. Nobody likes pushy people – especially pushy Christians.
2. Authoritarian control has no place in the church, and
3. Teaching the truth will turn people away.

The church should have nothing to do with the first two points, but must be uncompromising in its insistence on the truth. God’s truth leads to eternal life; falsehood leads to eternal death.

Tarico and other non-believers cannot understand the things of God, because they choose to suppress the truth (Romans 1:18-19). Yet, they often provide insight that Christians can use to further the Kingdom of God and lead people to Jesus Christ. As we listen to what non-Christians say, we need to filter their words through the Word of God, and glean those things that can help us to reach them with the uncompromised Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Logical Fallacy of Requiring Material Evidence to Prove God’s Existence

The following graphic, which I saw on Facebook, sums up the argument I consistently hear from materialistic atheists in their arguments against God.

For many, this seems like a rational requirement. If something is true, there should be scientific evidence to prove it.

However, such a “rule” is actually nonsense. There are logical fallacies involved in requiring the use of the scientific method to prove the existence of God.

Fallacy #1 – It’s totally arbitrary

The first fallacy of requiring empirical scientific evidence to prove God’s existence is that such a requirement is total arbitrary.

When an atheist demands physical evidence for the existence of God, my first response is, “Why? Why is scientific evidence the only acceptable evidence?”

The usual response is, “Because the only way we can know anything is through physical evidence.”

And again, my response is, “Why?” And I usually get a confused stare, like I’m crazy for even asking such a question.

The point is, there is absolutely no logical reason why such a rule should exist – except for the worldview of the materialistic atheist. The materialistic atheist believes that the material world of matter and energy is all that exists. The thought that anything else could exist is absurd to them. However, material atheism is itself completely arbitrary.

Fallacy #2 – Category Error

A category error is “a type of informal fallacy where things that belong to one grouping are mistakenly placed in another,” or where “a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property.” If someone says, “My coffee is a Republican,” they are committing a category error – coffee cannot be a Republican. Only people can be Republicans. Coffee does not belong to the category of things capable of being a Republican.

The Biblical God is not a material Being. He is not part of the natural universe. By definition, God is supernatural (super- “Above; over;” natural “Present in or produced by nature”). God is in an entirely different category than the natural universe. When one demands physical evidence for the existence of a non-physical Being, they are committing a category error fallacy. It would be like demanding DNA evidence for the existence of black holes, or asking for a test tube full of consciousness, or trying to put time in a bottle.

Fallacy #3 – It’s self-refuting

What do I mean by saying this rule is self-refuting? Basically, this rule, when applied to itself, contradicts itself.

First, the rule requires “empirical results of repeatable experimentation.” There is no way to conduct a repeatable experiment to empirically test whether “empirical results of repeatable experimentation” are required to argue for the supernatural. One cannot use the rule to test the validity of the rule.

Second, the rule requires “cogent, non-fallacious argumentation.” Yet, as I’ve already demonstrated, the rule itself is fallacious.

Fallacy #4 – Even when the rule is met, material atheists ignore the evidence

This fallacy isn’t with the rule itself, per se, but with the way atheists handle the scientific evidence that does support God’s existence.

There is a tremendous amount of “empirical results of repeatable experimentation” and much “cogent, non-fallacious argumentation” that supports the existence of God. The sheer volume of such evidence makes it impossible to present these evidences in this brief blog. A simple Google search will bring up tens of thousands of articles, peer-reviewed papers, and Websites that present the scientific arguments for God. My point is, when confronted with these evidences, the materialistic atheist will reject it anyway. Why? Because to acknowledge the validity of scientific evidence for the existence of God would completely shatter the material atheist’s entire worldview. They would be forced to face the fact that they are wrong. In other words, the material atheist cannot objectively examine scientific evidence that is presented; they must deny it, not because it isn’t scientific, but because it leads to conclusions they don’t want to acknowledge. Romans 1:18 states, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” Those that reject God must suppress, or hide, the truth. Romans 1 continues:

¹⁹ because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. ²⁰ For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, ²¹ because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Professing to be wise, they became fools, ²³ and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

Those who reject God ultimately do so, not because of a lack of evidence, but because they foolishly refuse to submit to His authority over their lives. The issue is not evidence; the issue is rebellion.

Christians need to continue to present the Gospel to non-Christians, including materialistic atheists. We must continually pray for the lost, be prepared to present cogent arguments when needed, and rely on the Holy Spirit to us to reach the lost. We must not be swayed by the fallacious arguments used to deny God, but must stand on the truth of God’s Word as the foundation of our beliefs.

Grabbed this off Facebook a couple of minutes after I posted this blog. It seemed to fit.

Pushing People Out of the Church – Part 6

Valerie Tarico

A while back, I read an article on the left-wing, anti-religion, news-and-commentary website Alternet.org entitled, “8 Ways Christian Fundamentalists Make People Convert — to Agnosticism or Atheism,” by skeptic Valerie Tarico.

While I personally find most of the articles on this site either tasteless or just plain nonsense, this article caught my interest, because it contains some truths that Christians need to understand.

It’s important to recognize that people who reject Jesus Christ ultimately do so because they choose to suppress the truth (Romans 1:18-19). Unfortunately, there are also many things that those in the church do to push people away. As Tarico states, “if you read ExChristian testimonials you will notice that quite often church leaders or members do things that either trigger the deconversion process or help it along.”

I’ve found that I can learn a lot by listening to what skeptics say about their perceptions of Christianity. This series looks at the eight reasons Tarico highlights.

Reason #6: Science Denial

One of my former youth group friends had his faith done in by a conversation with a Bible study leader who explained that dinosaur skeletons actually are the bones of the giants described in early books of the Bible. Uh huh. Christians have come up with dozens of squishier, less falsifiable ways to explain the geological record: The “days” in Genesis 1 were really “ages.” Or God created the world with the fossils already in place to test our faith. Or the biblical creation story is really sacred metaphor. But young-earth creationists who believe the world appeared in its present form 6,000-10,000 years ago are stuck. And since almost half of the American public believes some version of this young-earth story, there are ample opportunities for inquiring minds to trip across proto-scientific nonsense.

Like other factors I’ve mentioned, science denial doesn’t just move believers to nonbelief; it also rallies opposition ranging from cantankerous bloggers to legal advocates. It provides fodder for comedians and critics: “If the world was created 6,000 years ago, what’s fueling your car?” It may produce some of the most far-reaching opposition to religious belief, because science advocates argue that faith, even socially benign faith, is a fundamentally flawed way of knowing. The Catholic church, perhaps still licking wounds about Galileo (it apologized finally in the 20th century), has managed to avoid embarrassing and easily disproven positions on evolutionary biology. But one could argue that its atheism-fostering positions on conception and contraception similarly rely on ignorance about or denial of biological science — in this case embryology and the basic fact that most embryos never become persons.

From my experience, the creation vs. evolution debate is the topic that is most likely to get a skeptic’s dander up. This is because atheism is utterly impossible unless evolution is true. If God or gods don’t exist, there must be a non-supernatural mechanism to explain how life came to be. The only remotely plausible explanation is evolution.

answersingenesis.org

I’ve always found it ironic that when most creationists discuss evolution and creation, they tend to focus on the observable scientific inconsistencies of evolutionary theory and the observable science supporting the Biblical creation model, while most evolutionists simply state evolution as dogma and ridicule the Biblical model – without bringing up actual scientific evidence. Tarico is no different. Granted, two paragraphs isn’t enough space to lay out any real scientific evidence one way or the other. Yet, she does manage to state her dogmatic faith in evolution, and throw out a few question-begging epithets against Biblical creation (“proto-scientific nonsense,” “science denial,” “denial of biological science”). She also throws out a huge straw-man argument: “… young-earth creationists … believe the world appeared in its present form 6,000-10,000 years ago.” Wrong. The 6,000-10,000 years ago part is correct. The “appeared in its present form” is absolutely wrong. Biblical creationists generally believe the earth was created “very good” (Genesis 1:31), but that it was radically changed because of sin (Genesis 3). It was tremendously altered by the global flood of Noah’s day (Genesis 6-8). Furthermore, natural processes such as erosion, weathering, natural selection, and mutations have continued to change the earth and the organisms live here. But, then again, it’s easier to argue against a straw-man with dogma and name-calling than it is to argue logically against actual Biblical creation.

answersingenesis.org

The fact that some naïve Bible study leader ignorantly thought that “dinosaur skeletons actually are the bones of the giants described in early books of the Bible” isn’t an argument against Biblical creationism. It does, however, point out the fact that too many Christians are ignorant of both science and the Bible. 1 Peter 3:15 says, “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.” Unfortunately, most Christians are not ready, and cannot give a defense of the Biblical account of Creation. The un-Biblical compromise positions Tarico mentions, such as the day-age theory, Genesis as a metaphor, or any number of other theories, cause as much confusion about the Bible as atheistic evolution. All origins theories other than the straight-forward Biblical account of six literal days a few thousand years ago take mankind’s fallible ideas and hold them in higher authority than God’s Word. All of these other theories question the authority of the straight-forward teaching of the Bible.

Christians, especially Christian leaders and teachers, need to educate themselves. We need to understand science and evolutionary theory. In fact, Christians need to understand evolution better than most evolutionists do. We need to understand what evolution teaches, as well as the scientific, logical, and theological problems with evolution. We need to understand how various dating methods arrive at ancient ages for the earth, and the arbitrary assumptions behind these methods. We also need to understand what the Bible actually says – and doesn’t say – about origins and the age of the earth. What we actually observe in the universe solidly confirms the Biblical account of creation, and show the millions-of-years-of-evolution dogma to be utterly impossible.

I would argue that it’s not the young-earth position that drives people away, as Tarico believes; rather, it’s ignorant Christians that are unprepared to explain how science confirms the Bible that cause confusion and doubt. Too many Christians appear ignorant of science, not because they embrace the Biblical creation, but because they actually are ignorant of both science and the Bible. Incidentally, most skeptics are just as ignorant – but that’s no excuse. If we want people to realize the absolute truth of the Bible, and embrace faith in Jesus Christ as the only rational reality, then we need to take 1 Peter 3:15 to heart, and stop being so ignorant and unprepared to defend the authority of Scripture.

---

Numerous resources are available to help the Christian understand Biblical creation. I recommend starting with the Answers Book 1, 2, and 3 available from Answers in Genesis. Ministries such as Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, Creation Ministries International, and many others have thousands of articles, books, DVDs, and other resources available – many for FREE.