Scripture Alone

The other day, Mark Byron had a great post on the trinity. However, when I read his post a couple of phrases made me nervous:

Yes, I will make some inferences, but I'm going to base the inferences on the text.

you can make a solid case for the Trinity with just the Bible and few implications

(italics added).

Let me discuss why the italicized phrases made me cringe slightly.

Scripture Alone

For the motivation of Mark Byron’s post you must go back to a post by Mark Shea.

The important concept behind the discussion, is Sola Scriptura, or Scripture Alone. Conservative Protestants of many stripes adhere to this doctrine ¹. It means that the only source of special revelation ² is the Bible. Every message should be tested against the Word.

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1, NASB)

When Luther was called to recant at Worms, he famously dug in his heels and said he would not unless he “was convinced by sacred scripture.”

Catholics, like (conservative) Protestants, believe the Bible is the authoritive, inerrant word of God. However, Catholics, unlike Protestants, acknowledge an additional source of revelation: the binding authority of sacred tradition or a magisterium.

Too Much Freedom

Catholics are sensitive to the Protestant denial of sacred tradition. A common charge leveled against Protestants is that strict adherence to Sola Scriptura results in a cacophony of opinions because some aspects of the scripture are simply not clear.

Indeed, at first glance this criticism has merit. We have Calvinists and Arminians. Infant Baptism and Adult (Believer’s) Baptism. Baptism by sprinkling, baptism by immersion. Some churches come to the Lord's Supper weekly, some monthly, some at other intervals. Not to mention at least four millennial views with sizable numbers of adherents.

This diversity, some would say, is the logical result of Sola Scriptura. On those issues in which scripture is not clear, people will interpret scripture differently.

Those (i.e., the RCC) who hold this view are, of course, absolutely correct. When scripture is not completely clear, then a concept, no matter how important it may be to its proponents, is downgraded from an essential to a liberty issue, or at least there is a implicit recognition that: I believe this but I might be wrong; I can have Christian fellowship with those of an opposing view.

The problem with this criticism is that it doesn’t criticize an actual fault. It is one group saying to another that “your house is not as organized as my house, so you must be doing something wrong.” The geopolitical analogy is Japanese criticism of American society for not being homogeneous.

We agree on the essentials, the essentials that can be discerned unambiguously from scripture. The essentials include things like the divinity of Christ, the Atonement, the Resurrection, and the Trinity. Disagree with an essential, and you have slid into apostasy.

The rest, we say, will be sorted out later.

At the Council of Trent (where the Reformed doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, Sola Fide, was condemned) the Roman Catholic Church also confirmed the authority of the Church to interpret scripture. Protestants, of course, deny that either sacred tradition or church councils (or any church official) has any authority to bind the conscience. We would say that the uniformity “enjoyed” by the Roman Catholic Church is unlawfully imposed and while it achieves uniformity there is no guarantee that it is not uniformly wrong.

To be sure, even non-essential doctrine should be based on the concept of Sola Scriptura. If you are a Calvinist, you should be so only because you believe reformed doctrine is supported by scripture. If you are Arminian, you should be so because you believe that Arminianism represents the Biblical view. I am a Calvinist in a church that does not proclaim itself to be reformed. No problem. We agree to disagree, except on the essentials: on those we must agree.

Protestant Schism

At one time, all Protestant churches were united by their affirmation of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide and in a view of Christian essentials as codified (not revealed) in various creeds. Sadly, this is no longer the case. But the real disunity in Protestants churches (the conservative/liberal disunity) comes not as an inevitable “flaw” in stubbornly adhering to Sola Scriptura but from abandoning it, often in the worst possible way: by denying the inerrancy of the Bible. If the Bible is in error then the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is, of course, utterly fatuous.

Silly Protestants

The other criticism of Sola Scriptura is that Protestants don’t “really” adhere to Sola Scriptura (any more than we “really” believe Sola Fide.) This argument is that we “talk-the-talk” but don’t “walk-the-walk.”

So one criticism is that we can’t (actually, it is that we shouldn’t) adhere to “Scripture Alone”, the other argument is that we don’t follow it anyway. We can’t, and even if we can, we don’t.

When I saw Mark Byron’s post, and those caveats he used, which I quoted above, I wondered if someone would walk through the door he left open. Someone did.

In this post, where once again Mark Shea tells us that we don’t believe what we say we believe, a Mr. Tom Ryan comments:

I checked out Mark's [Mark Byron’s] comments and they just don't hold any weight. He says he only needs 'a little inference'. Well, ANY inference goes outside "Scripture Alone". Any good New Ager could poke a million holes into his arguments. For example, Jesus and the Father being 'One'. All things are One. There is only One. What Jesus was saying was that we're all one together and he was just pointing out the way. Remember he also said "Our Father" so obviously using inference, we see that Jesus was saying that we're all the same essence as the Father.

Ugh. Been there, done that. I'd remind Mark that Arius used Scripture to prove that Jesus WASN'T equal to the Father.

Now Mr. Ryan’s argument is a bit too Reductio ad Absurdium; also I am not sure whether he understands that professing Sola Scriptura does not mean that every verse must be taken literally. But no matter-- I accept his claim.

The problem with Mark Byron’s post is that his argument was stronger than he himself claimed. The Trinity is clearly taught in scripture, and no “inferences” are required. The only thing man did was give it a name.

If the Trinity is not clear (in scripture) then we must either allow that Mark Shea is right (we let sacred tradition in the backdoor even if we don’t admit it) or the Trinity should not be one of our Christian essentials.

Tradition is fine, it’s just not sacred

Mark Shea is not correct when he writes “most Protestants believe in Sacred Tradition, but don't know they do” and he is not correct in his implication that tradition is required to fully support the Trinity. But he is correct in some isolated cases. Some churches mistakenly elevate a non-essential doctrine into an essential one by teaching that its view is the one “true” understanding and any opposing view represents apostasy. There are churches, for example, that teach that you cannot be saved unless you affirm a particular end-times view.

Tradition, meaning which of those “non-essential” doctrines a church will teach or profess (but not affirm as “essential”) is perfectly legitimate. In my own church, we practice believer’s baptism by immersion. The church’s position is that there is a strong case for believer’s baptism in scripture and also for baptism by immersion. While I tend to agree with that position, my support for it is much weaker than the church’s. Nevertheless, I think it is perfectly legitimate for this church to require (barring special circumstances) new members to be baptized by immersion.

If my church taught that those rascally Presbyterians who practice infant baptism are all hell-bound, I would not have joined. Tradition is fine, but it is not sacred, and it is not binding.

The Trinity

Tomorrow I will discuss the Trinity. I will borrow much from Mark Byron’s post, and add some more scriptural support. The purpose will be to demonstrate that the concept of the Trinity is clearly biblical, and requires no inference of any kind. One does not have to appeal to sacred tradition for support of the Trinity. Like all Christian essentials, it is manifest within the province of Sola Scriptura.

---

¹ In a sense you could say that Sola Scriptura is not doctrine but an axiom which then is the basis for doctrine, such as the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone (Sola Fide). Here we do not make that distinction.
²There is also general revelation, in which aspects of God are revealed through nature. See Rom. 1:18-21.

---

Mail Call: Fear of God

A reader writes:

A brief meditation of what it means to fear God from my prayer this morning, which I will share with you since you recently posted on God's sovereignty: To fear God is to do more than just respect Him, but it is also not to literally be afraid of Him (as Adam was as he tried to hide from Him). To fear God is to know that the God who loves me and redeemed me is the very same God who parted the Red Sea to redeem the Israelites, the very same God who sent Jonah to Nineveh in order to accomplish their salvation; that nothing, not our enemies, nor even our disobedience, can stand against Him and the saving strength of His right hand. Fearing God is to respect, love, trust, and obey Him.

In Christ,
Joel

---

Something from Nothing

Many writers, when commenting on God’s creation of the universe, point out that He created it ex nihilo, or “out of nothing”. There was no universe, nothing, nil, (or null or NULL-- depending on your programming language of choice) and then God spoke and the universe was.

No arguments from me. I believe that’s how it happened.

However, they sometimes go on to say things along the lines of “even those Godless, pagan, heathen, apostate, pointy headed physicists wouldn’t claim that the universe was created ex nihilo.

Well, not exactly.

Science does offer an explanation of ex nihilo creation, although it depends a bit on what your definition of nothing is.

If the universe was created out of nothing then there are two implications: First, the universe must still be a form of nothing. Second, there must be a mechanism for creating something out of nothing.

Is the Universe actually Nothing?

The reason the universe would still have to be nothing are the conservation laws of physics. The granddaddy of conservation laws is conservation of energy. In short, if there was a time when there was no universe, then the total energy was zero, and so the total energy (since it’s conserved) would have to be zero for all times.

God doesn’t have this limitation: He can create energy. The laws of physics always conserve energy.

Well, you say, I look around and note massive thermonuclear explosions occurring in the cores of stars -- clearly the universe does not have zero energy, right? Wrong. It might. Energy comes in plus and minus varieties. Things moving about have positive energy. Things that are bound have a net negative energy. For example, a satellite zipping around the earth at 12 km/s would seem to have positive energy, but an accurate accounting of its gravitational energy would show that its total energy is negative.

So the universe is made up of lots of positive energy and lots of negative energy (sounds more New Age than I would like) and it is possible that it all adds up to give a big fat zero.

And physicists would say that if the universe was created ex nihilo then it will add up to zero.

A proper accounting is of course impossible to do. But a rough calculation does not rule out a result of zero.

How do you create Something from Nothing

From your friend, the Quantum Fluctuation. The physicist’s view of the vacuum (sort of nothing) is much different than the everyday view of the vacuum, which is that it is really nothing. The laws of physics as we know them reveals a vacuum in which things are happening. “Fluctuations” create particles and antiparticles, which are quickly annihilated. However, their ephemeral existence is vital in understanding why certain physical quantities have the values they have.

Physicists will say that there is a tiny chance that such a fluctuation created the universe.

There are, of course, serious problems with that theory (besides the obvious fact that it’s wrong). It means that before there was a universe, no space, no time, nothing--the laws of physics existed (and so "nothing" must at least include those laws) and were able to fluctuate nothing into something. It makes the laws of physics into god.

But you cannot say that even physicists don't dare to claim the universe was created from nothing. They dare.

---

Double Predestination

In an earlier post, I talked about the Calvinistic view of predestination. To reiterate:

Before the foundation of time, God chose certain (future) men (and women) to be saved. Not for anything that he foresaw that these particular individuals (the “elect”) would do that was meritorious, but solely for His own pleasure in fulfillment of His perfect will. He decided to show mercy on some. The rest receive justice, i.e., the eternal damnation that all sinners deserve.

The question on the table is: Does this not imply a double predestination, whereby God predestines some to salvation and some to damnation?

The answer is an unequivocal: no.

Double predestination would mean that God looks at all men (before they were ever born) and says to some: “To you I will impute a saving righteousness” and to others “to you I will impute a damning evil”.

This would make God the originator of the sin in the reprobate, which is unthinkable. Even worse, when God punished men for sin that he placed in their hearts—well that would be an unjust, unloving, mean and capricious god. Not our God. Maybe Allah, but not our God.

Sometimes it is said that Calvinists teach this form of double predestination. While it might be that some mistakenly believe it, it is not a component of orthodox reformed doctrine.

Mark Shea refers to an article, written by his friend James Akin, in which he (as a Roman Catholic) writes:

Although a Catholic may agree with unconditional election [predestination], he may not affirm "double-predestination," a doctrine Calvinists often infer from it. This teaching claims that in addition to electing some people to salvation God also sends others to damnation.

The alternative to double-predestination is to say that while God predestines some people, he simply passes over the remainder. They will not come to God, but it is because of their inherent sin, not because God damns them. This is the doctrine of passive reprobation, which Aquinas taught.

My only disagreement with this passage is the characterization that Calvinists “often” infer double predestination. It is certainly not “often”-- and it is a mistake, not an acceptable variant of Calvinism.

More important is the next paragraph in the Akin’s quote where he points out what the great Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas taught: the doctrine of passive reprobation wherein God simply does nothing in the hearts of the non-elect who then, because they are miserable fallen creatures, damn themselves.

This is in fact the Calvinistic position too. I have been in discussions over the last few days about the extent of the differences between the Reformed and Catholic views on Justification (see the comments sections in this post and this post if you are interested, assuming the comments feature is “temporarily in order”). Here, on the topic of double predestination, I am happy to report complete agreement between Reformed Protestants and, at the very least, Aquinas (whose theology, while held in high esteem, does not carry the force of infallibility. Catholics are allowed to agree with Aquinas but are not required to).

(Actually I do have another comment about Aikin's article, namely concerning the title: A Tiptoe through the TULIP. Gee -- never heard that one before.)

Why would anybody believe in double predestination?

The question should really be why would a well-intended scholar of the Bible make this mistake. Probably because some of the language reads as if God is doing something active in the reprobate:

² "You shall speak all that I command you, and your brother Aaron shall speak to Pharaoh that he let the sons of Israel go out of his land. ³ "But I will harden Pharaoh's heart that I may multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt. (Ex. 7:2-3, NASB)

So it appears that God does something to Pharaoh’s heart (hardening) that will make Pharaoh more sinful--which would mean that God was in some sense the author of Pharaoh’s sin. This is not the case. God did not actively make Pharaoh more sinful, what He did was withhold a gift—the gift of Common Grace. Let me borrow from an earlier blog on this subject:

God gives to all men a measure of restraint. I don’t know all the reasons, but presumably one of them is to prevent us from self-destructing as a species. Here is where we disagree with the humanists: man is not intrinsically good, forced into evil by genetics or the environment. Man is intrinsically bad with wholesale degradation avoided only by God's [common] grace

God’s removal of this restraint, either gradually or dramatically, is the frightening process of having one’s heart hardened, the most famous biblical example being that of Pharaoh. However, anyone holding onto a particular sin, refusing to repent and seek divine assistance in combating it, also runs the terrible risk of having his heart hardened:

Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. (Rom 1:14, NASB)

Conclusion

So, in summary, all men, because of our sinful nature, are destined to hell. God actively predestines some (the elect) for salvation, and actively works a transformation in their hearts. The unfortunate others are passed over and left to their own devices. There is no double predestination.

---

Independence Day

The emphasis today is on family time and other vital secondary causes such as BBQ, fireworks, and swimming. That means I am taking a day off from the blogging.

BTW, I have noticed as sight shift in the zeitgeist of the Christian blogosphere. Or is it just my imagination?

I will just leave you to ponder, on this day of national (American) introspection:

and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land. (2 Chron. 7:14, NASB)

(Got that NRO?) and

First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, ² for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. ³ This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, ⁴ who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim. 2:1-4, NASB)

[Aside: If I were still a professor and you were my students I would quiz you if the desires in 1 Tim 2:4 refers to God’s decretive, preceptive, or permissive will. Of course, more often than not you are the professors and I am the student. Besides, it would have been an odd quiz question for a Quantum Mechanics class.]

Have a safe 4th of July.

---

Be Worried, Be Very Worried

Mark Shea writes that he “never met a living soul who really believes in salvation by faith alone.” He needs to get out more. He also describes doctrinal differences (between Catholics and Protestants) as "gigantically inconsequential".

This is quite wrong. Even a cursory investigation, by Protestant or Catholic, into the two views on salvation, with particular attention paid to the role of the sacraments to the Catholic, will reveal the differences to be far from “inconsequential”. The Catholic Church understands this enough to have condemned to eternal damnation those that profess Sola Fide. And Protestants (and not just of the Reformed ”species” as Mr. Shea suggests) understand now, just as in the 16th century, that the differences are so substantive that a schism was inevitable. So, Mr. Shea, if you meant what you wrote: “[You] don't worry about the ‘faith alone’ sloganeering so long as they don't take it seriously”, well, it’s high time you started worrying. We take it very seriously.

This is not to say that Protestants and Catholics cannot "get along" or have cordial discussions. But it makes little sense to characterize significant doctrinal differences as "inconsequential".

[UPDATE: Also responding to Mark Shea's post, Mark Byron has a good post on the Trinity.]

---

How Limited Atonement is Actually Infinite

I really was not going to write about Calvinism today. Honest. Then, somewhat by accident, I came across this testimononial written by George Müller (1805-1898). Müller built and supervised four orphanages England, and supported missionaries around the world—all by prayer alone. He never asked for donations. This is what he wrote about his “conversion” to Calvinism:

Before this time [1829], I had been much opposed to the doctrines of election, particularly redemption and final persevering grace. So much so, that a few days after my arrival at Teignmouth, [England], I called election a devilish doctrine.

I did not believe that I had brought myself to the Lord, for that was too manifestly false, but yet I held that I might have resisted finally. And, further, I knew nothing about the choice of God's people, and did not believe that the child of God, when once made so, was safe forever. In my fleshly mind I had repeatedly said, "If once I could prove that I’m a child of God forever, I might go back into the world for a year or two, and then return to the Lord, and at last be saved.”

But now I was brought to examine these precious truths by the Word of God. Being made willing to have no glory of my own in the conversion of sinners, but to consider myself merely as an instrument; and being made willing to receive what the Scriptures said, I went to the Word, reading the New Testament from the beginning, with a particular reference to these truths.

To my great astonishment, I found that the passages that speak decidedly for election and persevering grace, were about four times as many as those that speak apparently against these truths. And even those few, shortly after, when I had examined and understood them, served to confirm me in the above doctrines [of election].

As to the effect that my belief in these doctrines had on me, I'm constrained to state, for God's glory, that though I'm still exceedingly weak, and by no means so dead to the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, as I might and as I ought to be, yet, by the grace of God, I have walked more closely with Him since that time.

My life has not been so variable, and I may say that I live much more for God than before. And for this I have been strengthened by the Lord, in a great measure, through the instrumentality of these truths. For in the time of temptation, I have been repeatedly led to say, "Should I thus sin? I should only bring misery into my soul for a time, and dishonor God. For, being a child of God forever, I should have to be brought back again, though it might be in the way of severe chastisement.”

Thus, I say, the electing love of God in Christ (when I have been able to realize it) has often been the means of producing holiness, instead of leading me into sin. It is only the notional apprehension of such truths, the want of having them in the heart, while they are [still only] in the head, that is dangerous.

Finding this not only encouraged me to go forward, but to take on the letter ‘L’ for Limited Atonement. If there is any weakness in Calvinism, it is to be found here.

Hoisted by Our Own Petard

Most Calvinists don’t mind the acrostic TULIP, even though it is sometimes used as a basis of ridicule. However, it is true that (just like with many marketing department acronyms) it has a component to it that is a bit contrived. In the case of TULIP it is the ‘L’ for Limited Atonement. Better names for this part of the Reformed doctrine include Particular Redemption and Definite Atonement

Particular Redemption

Everyone agrees that only believers are made acceptable before God by imputation of Christ’s righteousness, which was completed once and for all by His death on the cross. This is an important point: Both Calvinists and Arminians agree that Christ’s atonement is efficacious only for believers—hence both camps actually profess a form of “Limited Atonement”.

I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. (John 10:11, NASB)

The Arminian view is that Christ’s atonement had to be big enough for the entire world because, in principle, the entire world could accept the Gospel call. Again, however, Arminians agree that the atonement is effective only for believers. So the Arminian view of the atonement is:

• Unlimited in extent (big enough for the world).
  
  
• Indefinite in effect (in the sense that there is no countable set of predestined “elect”) .
  

The incorrect representation of the Calvinistic view is that the atonement is limited in extent and definite in effect. The first point is not part of the Calvinistic view although it is frequently offered as the Calvinist position. Calvinists do not think that while Christ was on the cross there was a meter running counting the number of sinners that His suffering was sufficient to cover and, when the number reached the number of the elect, His suffering ended.

The Silver Bullet

If you have to pick a single verse that is viewed as the most difficult to defend against (from a Calvinist’s perspective), it is found in chapter two of 1 John:

¹ My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
² and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.(1 John 2:1-2, NASB)

This seems to fly in the face of “the elect”, as evidenced by the phrase but also for those of the whole world. Obviously Calvinists cannot take this verse literally.

Don’t be too smug O you recalcitrant Arminians! You can’t take it literally either. The only people who can rejoice in taking this literally are Universalists. For, if Christ is literally the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, then the whole world has had its ransom paid and the whole world will be saved. This is contrary to a plain reading of essentially the entire Bible and thus is rightly rejected by all Christians. Still, I would agree that it would seem to be more problematic for Calvinists that Arminians. So what do Calvinists say about this verse?

One possibility is that John was talking to fellow (Christian) Jews and was pointing out that Christ’s death was atonement not only for “our” (believing Jews) sins but also for the sins of the world (believing Gentiles). This us/world = Jews/Gentiles identification is of course used in other places in Scripture.

Another possibility is related to the extent as opposed to the effect of the atonement. Somewhat in parallel with many are called but few are chosen-- it might be that Christ’s death was sufficient to save everyone in the whole world – but nevertheless will be efficacious only for the elect. If God wanted everyone to be saved he could do it, and Christ would not have had to suffer more—he already suffered enough for everyone. Yet God has chosen to save only some—for reasons that we will not fathom this side of glory (and perhaps not even on the other side).

While both points may be true, it is, in fact, this latter “possibility” the represents the actual Calvinistic view of Particular Atonement:

• Unlimited in extent (big enough for the world, Calvinism and Arminianism agree).
  
  
• Limited (or Particular or Definite) in effect (for the elect only, here Calvinism and Arminianism differ).
  

The two views do not disagree on extent of the atonement—both agree that it was big enough for the whole world. In this sense it was unlimited—which is why the term Limited Atonement, because of the confusion it causes, was not a good choice. But TULIP works, whereas TUDIP or TUPIP has much less pizzazz.

Calvinists believe that the atonement, in its effect (not extent) was definite (limited) and actual. The atonement guaranteed that some sinners would be saved, and that those sinners would infallibly come to a believing faith.

Arminians hold that the atonement, in its effect, was indefinite and potential, depending on the number (if any) of sinners who accept the Gospel call. The atonement guaranteed that all sinners enjoy the possibility to be saved, but that the salvation of none is guaranteed.

I actually believe that, since Christ was perfect and sinless, the atonement was infinite in extent. There was no meter counting the “quantity” of Christ’s suffering that released Him when it reached the number of elect or when it reached the number of people will have ever lived by the end of time. One perfect Savior is worth an infinite number of sinners, so the question of the extent of the atonement is somewhat moot.

---

About Nothing

Today I give Calvinism a rest. I will return in the near future since I still have three letters left from TULIP: Total Depravity, Limited Atonement, and Irresistible Grace. Instead, today I will blog à la Seinfield, i.e., about “nothing” (sort of).

Are you Cold, Hot, or Lukewarm

In the Book of Revelation, in the letter to the church at Laoedecia, it is written:

"And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write, "These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God: "I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. (Rev. 3: 14-16, NKJV)

Here I use the NKJV instead of my beloved NASB because I like the use of the word “vomit” instead of “spit”. No sense being lukewarm about it.

Now, what I am about to write about may be well known to everyone – but I just heard this explanation recently-- so you will have to indulge me. What I am about to write about is just speculation, but it seems plausible.

I always thought what was being written about the Laodiceans was that they were marginal Christians—and Christ would rather they were hot (fervent believers) or cold (unrepentant non believers) but this middle-of the-road stuff was really annoying. And I always thought that odd—surely someone making a feeble attempt is still better (in some sense) than a heathen.

Recently I heard an alternate explanation related to the supply of water. Laodicea was near Heirapolis and Colosse (of the letter to the Colossians fame). The three cities were “sister” cities, of sorts. (Again I am obliged to apologize if I am the last person to hear this, but hey—I paid for this blog.) Without getting into geological detail, Heirapolis was known for the medicinal benefits of its hot water, which emanated from hot springs. Colosse was famous for its refreshing cold water from mountain runoff. Laodicea was noted for its good-for-nothing lukewarm water, which had no redeeming qualities. So the alternative explanation is that the Laodiceans should be hot (healing) or cold (refreshing) in terms of their ministry and works, but not lukewarm which provides neither benefit. To make it really kind of interesting, the first letters of the cities Laodicea, Heirapolis , and Colosse match the first letters of their temperatures. It’s nearly as miraculous as the fact that hymns translated from their original language into English still rhyme.

[Aside: the Laodiceans must have taken notice to the warnings in John’s vision. Laodicea thrived as a Christian center. Long after the church at Colosse faded, Laodicea was important enough (in spite of its tepid water) to host a major church council, The synod of Laodicea, in 364 A.D.]

The Enigma Named Nicodemus

Nicodemus appears only in John’s gospel. We first meet him at the beginning of John chapter 3 where he is the “straight man” for the most famous of Christ’s sayings:

Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him." In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus,asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!" Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." "How can this be?" Nicodemus asked. "You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life."For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:1-16, NASB)

Nicodemus next appears in John chapter 7:

Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, "This certainly is the Prophet." Others were saying, "This is the Christ." Still others were saying, "Surely the Christ is not going to come from Galilee, is He? "Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the descendants of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?" So a division occurred in the crowd because of Him. Some of them wanted to seize Him, but no one laid hands on Him. The officers then came to the chief priests and Pharisees, and they said to them, "Why did you not bring Him?" The officers answered, "Never has a man spoken the way this man speaks." The Pharisees then answered them, "You have not also been led astray, have you? "No one of the rulers or Pharisees has believed in Him, has he? "But this crowd which does not know the Law is accursed." Nicodemus (he who came to Him before, being one of them) said to them, " Our Law does not judge a man unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?" They answered him, "You are not also from Galilee, are you? Search, and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee." Everyone went to his home. (John 7:40-53, NASB)

[Aside: At the end of this passage a Pharisee said “Search, and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee.” Actually several prophets did come from the vicinity of Galilee, which the Pharisee presumably knew. What he was actually referring to (and what was alluded to earlier in the passage) was the Messianic prophesy of Micah 5:2 that says the Savior would be born in Bethlehem. This guy (along with many others) was apparently under the mistaken impression that Jesus was born in Galilee and so could not be the Messiah.]

And his swan song is in John 19, where he helps Joseph of Arimathea bury Jesus.

After these things Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but a secret one for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate granted permission. So he came and took away His body. Nicodemus, who had first come to Him by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight. So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen wrappings with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. (John 19:38-40, NASB)

Here is my question (for which I cannot possibly know the answer): do you think Nicodemus was saved? If it weren’t for his helping Joseph of Arimathea I would be highly doubtful. Even so, he could have helped because he liked Jesus as a man while not believing he was the Son of God.

Nicodemus came to Jesus at night—and the Bible makes a point of telling us that (twice). It is as if Nicodemus did not want to be seen with Jesus. In John 3, you wonder if Nicodemus had an inquisitive, skeptical, sarcastic (especially the question about re-entering the womb) or antagonistic tone. Jesus does not seem to treat him “gently”, but says, in effect, you are a teacher and you don’t know this? What are you people (the Pharisees) thinking? In John 7, Nicodemus starts to defend Jesus-- whether it was because he believed him or just had sympathy for him is unclear. He appears to back off after the rebuke about Galilee.

Curious man that Nicodemus. I hope to see him in glory. I’ll be a little surprised if I do. Of course lots of people will be very surprised to see me there.

Tomorrow I'll write about... something.

---

Free Will

There is no way to do anything but scratch the surface of this topic. My only goal is to leave the reader with a glimpse of the solution to the puzzle of how free will is reconciled with God’s sovereignty.

I will borrow heavily from Sproul’s book Chosen By God. R. C. Sproul has written a lot of good books, but personally I would regard the highly accessible Chosen By God as his seminal work to date.

What do we mean by free will?

Normally we define free will as something like this:

Free will: The ability to choose whatever we want, at any particular time, for any particular reason, or for no reason at all.

Critics claim that the Calvinist’s blend of predestination and sovereignty makes robots of us all. If you make it past the first two responses to predestination, viz.,

(1) I might as well do whatever I want.

(2) It’s not fair.

you then run headfirst into

(3) It makes us into unwitting actors that are following a predetermined script.

Interestingly, this third complaint is exactly the opposite from the first.

Calvinism, it is often said, negates the human free will. As I hope to show, it only negates the version of free will wherein a person can make a choice for no reason at all.

Neutral Choices

Sproul calls this type of choice, made for no reason at all, a neutral choice because it implies “no prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition.” Furthermore, Sproul goes on to make a case that such neutral choices are a logical impossibility.

Sproul gives this example from Alice in Wonderland:

It [a neutral choice] is something like Alice in Wonderland when she came to a fork in the road. She did not know which way to turn. She saw the grinning Cheshire Cat in the tree. She asked the cat “Which way should I turn?” The cat replied, “Where are you going?” Alice answered, “I don’t know.” “Then,” replied the Cheshire cat, “it doesn’t matter.”

Sproul tells us to consider Alice’s dilemma. If Alice truly has no prior inclination to turn right or left, or to turn back—if she truly has no reason, however subtle, to use as a basis for her decision, she would be frozen in place by her indecision.

A neutral decision, if it existed, would have to be truly spontaneous. Like Alice, there would be nothing making us lean this way or that. The choice just pops out of thin air. There is no way that a just God could hold man responsible for such choices, if they did exist. They would be no different from accidents. If a quantum fluctuation deep inside my brain made me sin, then God Himself would sin by punishing me for it. No, the Bible is clear that we are punished for what is in our heart, which speaks of our motivations, inclinations, and desires. We are held accountable because we desire to sin, not because some uncontrollable process made us sin. We are not punished for spontaneous reasonless choices but for willful decisions based on our desires.

We must modify our definition of free will. One cannot actually make a choice for “no reason at all”. And if you could, such choices would be morally inconsequential background noise.

Free but Determined

So we have a slightly reduced definition of free will. Excising the logically impossible “no reason at all” leaves us with

Free will: The ability to choose whatever we want at any particular time, for any particular reason.

This also turns out to be too flexible. Applying this to Alice, she could turn left because there are trees on the left and she likes trees for the shade they provide. Or she could turn right because beautiful flowers line that path. How will she choose? If she liked shade trees exactly as much as she liked flowers she would still be frozen in her indecision. She would have a reason to go left and a reason to go right but in this case, since the choices are judged to be of exactly the same value, she could not make a choice “for any particular reason”.

If Alice does make a choice, she will in fact choose the path for which she is more inclined at that moment, however subtle the difference. All other things being equal, if she chooses the left it is because she prefers shade trees. If she chooses the right, it is because she prefers flowers.

Her choice was determined not by God steering her left or right, but by her own desires and inclinations.

Jonathan Edwards postulated that the only way to make a choice, to avoid the fate of frozen indecision, it to choose according to one’s strongest inclination at the moment. It may be in the form of self-denial, but even in such a case one chooses self-denial because the inclination to obey God’s law is stronger than the inclination to sin at that particular instant. When Joseph ran from the seduction of the wife of his master, his inclination to avoid sin, or maybe to avoid death at the hands of his master, was stronger than his inclination to commit adultery.

So what is left of the vaunted free will? It is free but determined. It is free because it depends on you and you alone; God is not forcing you to do anything. God is not pulling your strings or whispering in your ear. However, it is determined none-the-less, not by God the puppet master but by your own desires and inclinations. It is actually self-determined.

Your choices are free because no one makes them for you; nobody steers you left when you really want to go right. You are free to choose according to your heart's desire. There is no external coercion. Yet they are self-determined because you will choose on the basis of your desires. You are not only free to choose according to your hearts desire, you must choose according to your heart's desire. You are a slave to your own heart.

It goes without saying that just because we choose according to our desires doesn’t mean we like our choices. We may know instinctively that “we will pay for this choice”, and “we don’t really want to do this”, yet we make the choice just the same, even though we don’t “want to”, because the inclination to do it (whatever it is) wins out over the inclination to avoid the consequences. This is what Paul was talking about in Romans when he wrote:

For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. (Rom. 7:19, NASB)

Paul is saying that his sinful desires overcome the part of him that holds righteous desire, the very part he, as a Christian, is trying to nurture and grow.

The Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse

If you have ever taken a physics class you have probably seen a video of the Tacoma Narrows (suspension) Bridge collapse of 1940. (If you are interested and have good bandwidth or patience look here.)

The bridge, innovative in its design, was a short-lived source of civic pride. After the collapse, the Governor of Washington told the citizens in a radio address not to despair— he said: the state would build the exact same bridge in the exact same way in the exact same place. An engineering professor from the Carnegie Institute of Technology (now Carnegie Mellon, my alma mater) sent him a telegram that read If you build the exact same bridge in the exact same way in the exact same place it will fall down exactly like the other one.

Likewise the aphorism “If I had a chance to do it all over again, I would choose differently.” We all think that about some awful choice we made in the past and how we would be wiser if only we had another chance. If you really mean, given the person you are now, if placed in the same situation you would choose differently, then that is plausible. But if you simply roll tape back to the point of decision with everything unchanged, you’ll make the same choice each and every time. Your choices are self-determined by the state of your desires and inclinations at that particular moment, i.e. what is on your heart.

Your heart’s desire

Before you are saved, you have no desire to choose righteousness. Rom. 3:10-12 makes that painfully clear. After you are saved the Holy Spirit goes to work on you. He doesn’t make you choose one thing over another, but over time through the process of sanctification your desires and inclinations change; your heart changes. More and more you make the right choice—you make the right choice. God is helping you by working on your heart—this then manifests itself in your choices—the choices of your free will.

Our desires “determine” whether we are able to sin or able to choose not to sin. Sproul lays this out in table form according to a person’s current standing with God.

1. Pre-fall man (Adam and Eve before the fall)
   
   
   
   • Able to sin
     
   • Able to not sin
     
   
   
2. Post Fall Man (Any person before being saved)
   
   
   
   • Able to sin
     
   • Unable not to sin
     
   
   
3. Reborn Man (Any person who is saved)
   
   
   
   • Able to sin
     
   • Able to not sin
     
   
   
4. Glorified Man (Any person in heaven)
   
   
   
   • Able to not sin
     
   • Unable to sin
     
   
   

Before being saved, we are unable to not sin. This is just another way of stating Romans 3:10-12. We cannot choose righteousness—that desire has not yet been written on our hearts. After we are saved, we are in a moral state similar to Adam and Eve before the fall. God has changed our desires—not completely—but He has started an inexorable process. Our free will gets an overhaul. It begins to make better choices. This process will be complete in glory where, finally and wonderfully, we will be unable to sin.

---

Sovereignty of God

Jeffrey Collins raised some questions about yesterday’s post on Calvinism. They (Jeffrey’s questions) are directed at both the Calvinistic view of God’s sovereignty and of man’s free will. I can’t really do justice to either topic (though that won’t stop me from trying)-- and clearly not both in a single blog. So I will address God’s sovereignty today and leave free will for a future, predestined blog.

But first, I must clean up a loose end from my post on predestination.

Am I One of the Elect?

How could I have forgotten to talk about this yesterday? In the unlikely event that you were not a Calvinist but my post persuaded to jump on board and yet left you staring at the ceiling all night wondering if you are of the elect, I apologize.

Many verses (John 3:16 not being the least among them) point to belief as the requirement for eternal life. Those verses may be a large part of what gives you assurance. Now you may wonder: yes, but what if I believe but am not one of the elect? What an awful thought.

It can’t happen. It is exactly the same group of people. All the elect will come to believe, and all who come to a saving faith are of the elect. If you hold that thought in your mind and reread the passages I referenced yesterday you will see the inherent self-consistency.

So if I meet a flaming Arminian with passionately anti-Calvinistic views but with an obvious saving faith I place him into the category of being of the elect without knowing it.

As for assurance, always remember

For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1 Cor 1:1, NASB)

If the Word does not seem like foolishness to you, that is a really good sign.

Sovereignty

God is absolutely sovereign. He is in control of things large and small. Nothing happens apart from His eternal purpose.

That is worth repeating: Nothing happens apart from His eternal purpose If He purposes Osama Bin Laden to convert to Christianity and enter a Presbyterian seminary and start radio ministry, it shall happen, and neither OBL nor all the mullahs in Arabia could thwart His will. The Apostle Paul, once the murderous Christian hater Saul, became the greatest preacher in history.

If it weren’t so, then He is not God. If He wants something to happen, and it doesn’t, then something or someone else is stronger than God.

This does not mean He is spending his time saying “Okay, now I am going to move that electron a few Angstroms to the left “ But it does mean that that particular electron has ended up just were God intended when he set the foundations of the universe.

All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, But He does according to His will in the host of heaven And among the inhabitants of earth; And no one can ward off His hand Or say to Him, 'What have You done?' (Dan. 4:31, NASB)

Three Types of Will

Formal discussions of God’s Sovereignty introduce the concept of three distinct types of God’s will. I think it is important, so here goes:

1. God's Decretive or Sovereign or Efficacious Will. (This is just one type with three different names.) These are things that God decrees; they most certainly will happen. The verse from Daniel, above, reflects God’s decretive will. So does Romans 8:28-30, which I never get tired of quoting:
   

   And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. (Rom. 8:28-30, NKJV)

   
   
2. God's Preceptive Will. This involve things that God will not do Himself, but that He desires of man, such as to obey His commandments. Man can and does disobey. This does not thwart His will or violate His sovereignty. He has not decreed that we obey, but He does desire our obedience. And He knows what we will do.
   
   God’s Preceptive will is used by Calvinists to escape one of the great snares of predestination:
   

   The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. (2 Pet. 3:9, NKJV)

   
   Read gingerly this intentional double negative: God does not decree that nobody should perish. (He could, but he doesn’t. Why? I don’t know. And I got that answer from R. C. Sproul.) He does decree that some should not perish (the elect). Apparently, according to this verse, He desires that all should repent. But alas, we don’t.
   
   
3. God's Permissive Will. This relates to the things that God does not decree or even desire, but He permits them to happen. Since He could prevent them, He is still in absolute control. These are not things that happen in spite of God, but because God allowed them to occur. In no way can one conclude that God endorses that which happens as a result of His permissive will.
   

   and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it ever enter My mind; (Jer. 19:5, NASB)

   
   When you pray for something and add “God willing” as in: “I will visit you in Buffalo and bring fresh kumquats, God willing” you are essentially appealing to His permissive will.
   

The Arminian Sovereignty Problem

In his post, Jeffrey says that he doesn’t see any problem with sovereignty for those of an Arminian persuasion. I postulated the existence of a huge problem and noted that I don’t know the Arminian response, but I allowed that it must be complicated.

If Jeffrey is representative, then there is no complicated solution because there is no perceived problem! That explains why I never came across a big Arminian tome on sovereignty. So the big problem is actually that you stubborn Arminians don’t recognize you have a big problem!

Okay, seriously then. I think I understand more than I did yesterday (no big feat there) and I believe I understand why Arminians do not think they have a problem. The answer must be related to the three types of God’s will.

Calvinists are adamant that salvation is the province of God’s decretive will. We think that if God does not decree that some shall be saved, well then nobody will be saved.

My guess is Arminians put salvation under the auspices of God’s preceptive will. Then I agree that in principle the offer could be accepted or rejected.

If so, I think the Arminian position is wrong. For in fact the offer would always be rejected.

as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE." (Rom 3 10:12, NASB)

Also so many scriptures (many I referenced yesterday) are of this form:

All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. (John 6:37-39, NKJV

This sounds very decretive to me. It does not say “All that the Father gives to Me might come to Me, providing they, of their own free will, assent to the Gospel call.” It says they will come to me.

I know, I know. We’ll have to agree to disagree.

Calvinism and Science

Jeffrey also talked about science and Calvinism—and I apologize but I didn’t really understand the point he was making—I always have trouble at the physics-metaphysics boundary. All I can do is try to clarify from example. God willed into existence the matter of the universe. He willed into existence the laws of gravity to move it around. He does not maintain the universe like a chessboard, but nevertheless it is doing precisely as he willed. It is perfectly legitimate for science to explore these secondary causes, such as Newton’s God’s law of gravity.

Finally, although God does not move the planets around “manually” like game pieces, He certainly can, at times, if he wants to:

Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel:

"Sun, stand still over Gibeon;
And Moon, in the Valley of Aijalon."
So the sun stood still,
And the moon stopped,
Till the people had revenge
Upon their enemies.

Is this not written in the Book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. (Joshua 10:12-13, NKJV)

That must have been impressive.

---

A Proposed Constitutional Amendment

All you who are more politically astute than I, tell me if this proposal already exists or tell me why it cannot happen.

The Congress of the United States, while endorsing no specific religion, affirms the existence of an Almighty Creator who endowed all people with certain inalienable rights. As such, Congress shall pass no law prohibiting reference to God in pledges, oaths of office, public speeches, or from appearing on the Nation’s currency. Furthermore, the right to make reference to God shall extend to all locations, including all offices and buildings of the United States government.

I actually think this could pass. It is generic enough that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Mormons—just about everybody can support it (that’s a lot of voters). Consider how amendments are passed and think about the famous red/blue map of the 2000 election. The entire state of Babylon California could be written off without putting the amendment at risk. It may not go as far as some would like, but it should stop the lunatic judges from further eroding all references to God.

Ok flame me—tell me why I am the most naïve of people.

---

Predestination

In my secret mission to convert everyone to Calvinism, I have already introduced the acrostic TULIP

Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints

and have posted on the letter ‘P’. Today I want to talk about the letter ‘U’ for Unconditional Election.

This is the Calvinistic Biggie— Unconditional Election is really Predestination with a capital P.

Calvinism is so thoroughly associated with this doctrine that some think that Calvinism is only about predesitination, and that only Calvinists believe in predestination. In truth, virtually all Christian denominations, including Roman Catholicism, adhere to some form of predestination. They must—the scriptural references cannot be ignored.

If Calvinism means this particular (strong) view of predestination, then Calvin wasn’t the greatest Calvinst. Luther, in this regard, was more of a Calvinist than Calvin, at least he dealt with predestination more than Calvin.

Who was the first Calvinist? Why the Apostle Paul, of course! All right, although I truly believe that to be the case I know you Arminians will not let me get away with it. (It’s true, though!) Among theologians, Augustine is given credit (blame?) as the first to formulate the doctrine of predestination.

Okay, so What is It?

Unconditional Election, or (Calvinistic) Predestination says:

Before the foundation of time, God chose certain (future) men (and women) to be saved. Not for anything that he foresaw that these particular individuals (the “elect”) would do that was meritorious, but solely for His own pleasure in fulfillment of His perfect will. He decided to show mercy on some. The rest receive justice, i.e., the eternal damnation that all sinners deserve.

I am saved. I am one of the elect. It is something to be grateful for (what an understatement!) but it is not something to boast about. I did nothing to deserve it; I am as deserving of hell as anyone else. Amazing grace, amazing mystery, amazing amazing amazing.

Calvinism vs. Arminianism

The Calvinistic view is that many will receive the Gospel call, but only the elect will respond positively. (That is, only the elect receive an efficacious call). This call cannot be rejected (that’s the ‘I’ in TULIP). Everything is by grace.

The Arminian view is that God will make an offer, through presentation of the Gospel, but the receiver of the offer must, at least at some minimal level, accept the offer of his own volition-- which means the offer can be rejected as well.

Calvinism says that if God knocks you will open the door. The Arminian view is you must choose to open the door.

Calvinism says that you are dead to sins, without a pulse, and can do nothing to please God, and are in such a depraved state you do not have the ability to accept him (apart from grace). The Arminian view is that the sinner is gravely ill but has enough reserve strength to choose whether to consume or spit out the medicine that God places in his mouth.

Calvinists say that, without election, no one would be saved because no one would make the choice to follow Christ.

Calvinists still witness because Christ commands them to and because it is a privilege to be an agent of the efficacious call to another believer. Arminians witness because Christ commands them to and because they feel a responsibility to give as many as possible the chance to accept, and to lead them to make the proper choice (while giving the credit and Glory to God). Calvinists do not feel as much personal responsibility as Arminians when someone doesn’t respond positively. Arminians, to their great credit, are generally more zealous in their witnessing.

Calvinists who say “why bother to witness” are guilty of ignoring the Great Commission and in fact are not really Calvinists, they are practicing one form of Hyper-Calvinism. This is a serious problem that I will take up another time.

It is important to note that election does not mean that you have necessarily received salvation, only that it is inevitable that you will at some point, and that process is almost always carried out through evangelism.

For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory. (2 Tim. 2:10, NASB)

That’s not Fair

There are almost always one of two responses from someone the first time they hear about Calvinistic predestination. One response is something like “cool, I can do whatever I want since I am either one of the elect or not. Might as well eat, drink, and be merry.” To which I reply: “You bet, that’s why we have so much fun at our church! You should come!” No, I don’t really say that. Actually there is a serious heresy with that line of thinking called Antinomianism. Paul handles that in no uncertain terms in several places, for example in Romans:

What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? (Rom. 6:15-16, NASB)

The second, and more common criticism is that it’s not fair that some are chosen and others are not.

You have to remember that everyone deserves hell, and God would be perfectly just and fair to send us all there. Those who are saved receive mercy, and mercy is a free gift, and gifts can be given to anyone at the giver’s pleasure.

Even if we look at “fairness” in the sense that people want to apply it, well then Calvinism is unfairly singled out as being unfair. Both Calvinism and Arminianism are “unfair”. In Calvinism, only some are of the elect, the rest are damned; it would have been better if they had not been born.

In Arminianism, some hear the Gospel and have a chance to respond, but millions die without hearing it and are damned. It would have better if they had not been born.

Calvinism says that God has guaranteed the salvation of some and the rest don’t have a chance. Arminianism says that God has guaranteed the salvation of nobody, but anyone hearing the Gospel has a chance.

In Calvinism, it is not possible that Christ died in vain. In Arminianism, in principle everyone could reject the offer leaving Christ with no people to call His own. His death would have been for naught.

Calvinism can be viewed as a covenant among the three members of the Godhead, each of which then plays a critical role in salvation. The Father chose some to be saved and given to the Son. The Son did what was necessary to redeem the chosen. The Spirit works within the elect to bring about sanctification.

Problems, Everyone has Problems

As you might guess, the doctrine of predestination is very closely tied to the bigger issue of God’s sovereignty. In Calvinism, God is totally sovereign. As R. C. Sproul likes to say, there is not even one maverick molecule running outside of God’s control. This means that randomness and chance are illusions arising from our ignorance. Nothing happens that He hasn’t ordained or at least permitted to happen, including 9/11 (Got that NRO?) This also means that Calvinism has a “problem” with free will. There are three things I will say about free will:

1. Free will isn’t what you think it is.
   
2. Calvinism has an answer to the free will conundrum.
   
3. I’m not going to talk about it now because it’s too complicated. Another post.
   

[UPDATE: Dr. Byron posts on Calvinism and free will as an adjunct professor to the newly chartered (as yet without accreditation) University of Blogistan Theology Department. I respectfully do not agree with his view-- but have to limit my comments until I get my own free will to convince me to write a post of my own.]

Arminianism has no trouble with free will, but has a big problem with God’s sovereignty: if whether or not you respond positively to the Gospel is up to you, then it’s not up to God. God is not totally sovereign.

I actually do not know the Arminian solution to their sovereignty conundrum, but it must rival in complexity the Calvinist solution for free will.

Scriptural Support

If there is no scriptural support for this, then I should be stoned. Fortunately that is not the case. You may say that I misinterpret some scripture, but if you are honest then I think the worst that can be said is that “I don’t agree but I can see how someone might believe that.”

I have listed them in the order that they appear. Some are "supportive", some are blockbusters. In the latter category I would certainly include Rom 8:28-30, and Eph. 1:4, so you may want to read those first.

And the Lord said, "I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord , in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. (Ex. 33:19, NASB) )

How blessed is the one whom You choose and bring near to You To dwell in Your courts. We will be satisfied with the goodness of Your house, Your holy temple. (Ps. 65:4, NASB)

"For many are called, but few are chosen." (Mat. 22:14, NASB)

"Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. (Mat. 24:22, NASB)

"For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. (Mat. 24:24, NASB)

"And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other. (Mat. 24:31, NASB)

now, will not God bring about justice for His elect who cry to Him day and night, and will He delay long over them? (Luke 18:7, NASB)

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. ( John 6:44, NASB)

You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you. (John 15:16, NASB)

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. (Rom. 8:28-30, NASB)

Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; (Rom. 8:33, NASB)

for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER." Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED." (Rom 9:11-13, NASB)

So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy (Rom 9:16, NASB)

And Isaiah is very bold and says, " I WAS FOUND BY THOSE WHO DID NOT SEEK ME, I BECAME MANIFEST TO THOSE WHO DID NOT ASK FOR ME." (Rom. 10:20, NASB)

just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love (Eph. 1:4, NASB)

For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, (1 Th. 5:9, NASB)

But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Th. 2:13-14 1:1, NASB)

Paul, a bond-servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God and the knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness,
(Titus 1:1, NASB)

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, … who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be (sprinkled with His blood: …. (1 Pet. 1:1-2, NASB)

All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. (Rev. 13:8, NASB)

… And those who dwell on the earth, whose name has not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, will wonder when they see the beast, that he was and is not and will come. (Rev. 17:8, NASB)

See also: Deu. 10:14-15, Ps. 33:12, Ps. 106:5, Hag. 2:23, Mat. 11:27, Mark 13:20, Rom. 11:28, 1 Cor. 1:27-29, Eph. 1:12, 2:10, Col. 3:12, 2 Tim. 1:9, 1 Pet. 2:8, Rev. 17:14 (not an exhaustive list).

---

Christian Fellowship

It is really good to see the Joyful Christian Jeffrey Collins back, and I thoroughly enjoyed his post on differences among us, and ultimately if they should have an effect on Christian fellowship.

I think I agree with him completely, although I say that with fear and trembling, because once in the past when I thought we agreed, (about the Sabbath) he thought we didn’t—so we could not agree on whether we agreed. Whew!

Jeffrey rightly points out, and I hope I paraphrase correctly, that there is a threshold somewhere, and if a group goes beyond that threshold, then fellowship is not possible.

Setting that threshold is the tricky part. Liberalism sets the circle so big that everyone fits within. Cults draw it so far in that only those who adhere completely with their teachings are inside.

In yesterday’s post, I talked about things that should not preclude fellowship. I included among these ones views of predestination and eschatology and the age-of-the-earth. I essentially defined the circle as I see it. Many have a tighter circle than I do and exclude me because of my belief in an old earth.

I think Jeffrey is exactly right when he says the defining issue should be what one teaches about salvation. The plan of salvation is, after all, the Gospel, and Paul gave us explicit warning and instruction to curse anyone (or anything) who teaches another gospel (Gal. 1:8).

Furthermore, all the Christian essentials: Christ’s divinity, the Trinity, etc. can all be placed under the umbrella of the Gospel, since they all either point to or are a critical part of God’s plan of salvation.

So I want to talk about that a bit, and it will probably get me in some trouble, but first I want to expand on the term fellowship.

What is (Christian) fellowship?

When I say that I cannot have fellowship with someone, I mean I cannot have Christian fellowship. I can (and should) have normal, friendly fellowship with anyone including non-Christians. I must not stop being a Christian when I am with them, but we are not supposed to count among our friends only Christians.

Christian fellowship is something different. It means that while I may not completely agree with someone I can worship with him. He is within my circle, and I am within his. We agree on the Gospel. If someone follows a different gospel I cannot worship with him. I cannot have Christian fellowship with a Mormon, for example.

We should not deny fellowship lightly. As Jeffrey points out, in his high prayer of John 17 Jesus is praying for unity. Woe to the person that would stand in opposition to His prayer.

Who teaches a different gospel?

Even if we agree that it is one’s view of God’s plan for salvation that can separate us, there will still be disagreements over what is an “orthodox” view of salvation.

Some boundaries are easy to draw. Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Unitarians are so far out there that not many of those who call themselves Christians would deny that fellowship is impossible with adherents of these groups.

Jews in some sense are a special case because of our heritage and other reasons. But clearly it does not make any sense to the Christian or the Jew to talk about any sort of ecclesiastic fellowship.

The real issue comes within those who call themselves Christians, both Protestants and Catholics. Let me grossly oversimplify and put everyone into one of four groups.

1. Liberals (both Protestants and Catholics)
   
2. Conservative, Calvinistic Protestants
   
3. Conservative Arminian Protestants (What some mean by “Evangelicals”)
   
4. Conservative Roman Catholics
   

Liberals, by definition, deny some of the Christian “essentials”, typically by first denying the inerrancy of the Bible, which then gives them freedom to excise passages they find offensive. I cannot have Christian fellowship with a religious liberal of any stripe.

How about between the two broad types of conservative Protestants? There is disagreement here. I think it is a huge mistake for one group to exclude the other, but this sometimes happens. It is true that the two groups differ in their view of salvation, and that the difference is not trivial, yet I do not view it as substantive enough to preclude fellowship. We are bonded by the rallying cry of the Reformation: Justification by Faith Alone.

The dicey part comes when we talk about conservative Protestants and conservative Catholics.

As I pointed out in this post The Roman Catholic Church is clear in its position: Those (i.e., all conservative Protestants) that affirm Justification by Faith Alone are accursed, in her view. Likewise, I personally view the official Catholic Church as apostate. The Catholic view of salvation, which includes works and treats Christ’s work as unfinished (hence purgatory) is so alien from my own as to constitute an irreconcilable difference.

Interchangeable Protestants

In some sense, I agree with Mark Byron that (conservative) Protestants are interchangeable. Listen to this story from D. James Kennedy:

Just a few weeks ago, I was out on visitation, and I ended up in a home where there were seventeen people present. There was a family that were in our new member class. There was a visiting family that were a part of our sponsors that happened to be there. There were a bunch of kids, and there was a mother of one of the adults there, an elderly woman from Brooklyn and she was a Roman Catholic. Now there were some other relatives there—they came from five or six, maybe different churches and backgrounds. I went around and asked them these questions: I asked each of them, one by one, "In what were they trusting for their hope of eternal life. Why should God admit them into heaven?" This woman, before, had said, with a little bit of hostility, that she thought it was terrible that there was all these different religions. Everybody had their own religion, there own views, they are all different, and she didn't like this idea that everybody had a different religion—they all ought to be one. It was fascinating to see that one, after another, after another—the person said the reason God should let me into heaven is:

"Christ died for my sins."

"Jesus paid for my sins."

"I have no hope but Christ."

"By the grace of God, through faith in Christ alone"

"It was through Christ who died for me."

"I put my trust in Jesus Christ."

"Christ paid for my sins."

"I am trusting in Jesus Christ."

"Christ is my Savior."

"I have no hope but Jesus."

And on and on it went, and this woman said, "Because I'm good!" But she was stunned by the fact that what she thought were all of these different churches, in disunity, were all in perfect unity when it came to the essence of the gospel. I think as John [MacArthur] has said, there is a unity of Christians, of true believers. You can go anywhere in the world, as many of you have, and you will find a person is a true Christian and you have discovered a brother or a sister in Christ, regardless of what denomination he's in—if he really trusts in Christ. You have been joined together in one, and you are one in Him.

The Visible and Invisible Church

Does this mean that I think that that no Catholics are really Christians and all conservative Protestants are? Of course not! I know Catholics that I am convinced are saved (I don't know if they think the same about me) and hardcore Calvinists about whom I have serious doubts. Augustine talked about the visible church, those people who profess belief and attend church, and the invisible church (invisible to us, not to God) of true believers. These can be pictured as two circles that intersect, but the invisible church is not necessarily a smaller circle within the larger circle of the visible church. (Think of your old friend, the Venn diagram).

We do not know where members of the invisible church are stationed, nor can we even identify them with certainty, but I believe that among their numbers are to be found members of the Roman Catholic Church.

---

Does Faith mean Belief?

Gary Petersen has posted another Genesis related blog. In reference to the scientific view of creation, Gary writes:

Science is wrong.

And that's tough for me to believe because to do so, I have to admit that the claims and assumptions upon which science is based are incorrect. And that's tough, in part because I don't understand all of the science involved.

But I do understand that God requires me to believe - to have faith in Him and His Word. Even when I don't understand everything there is to understand, I need to have faith and believe.

This is not going to be another science/creation related post. However, I am interested in Gary’s last sentence, where he says I need to have faith and believe.

I am not really going to comment on Gary’s post per se, just that one sentence, variants of which I have heard many times: I need to have faith and believe.

Before I tell you what I am thinking I confess that I probably should have set this topic aside so that I could take time to formulate a more cogent post. This will be more stream-of-consciousness that I am comfortable with. But when I saw Gary’s post I said that’s what I’ll write about tomorrow. (Isn’t it always a relief when you find tomorrow’s topic?)

Here is my problem. I don’t how to do what I think that sentence says to do. I don’t know how to will myself to believe that which I don’t believe. I can pray for faith, but I cannot, by sheer determination, believe something that I don’t believe.

That is why I love the doctrines of grace so much. I must believe to be saved. On my own I am dead to sin (Eph. 2:1). I cannot do anything that pleases God (Rom 3:1, Isaiah 64:6), so I cannot believe even if I wanted to. The belief, or faith, must itself the form of a gift (Eph. 2:8-9).

I don’t believe that we are called upon, by our own efforts, to believe that which we do not believe. Personally I don’t think it is even possible.

It is not hard for me to believe the essentials of the Gospel: Jesus Christ is God, He became flesh, was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died on the cross, bore my sins, paid the price in full, was bodily resurrected from the dead and ascended, and He will return to judge the quick and the dead. It is not hard, because it is not of my own effort.

I am not convinced that I even really ever have doubts. To be sure, I occasionally experience something that “smells” like doubt, and I even call it doubt—but upon close examination I think those periods might be described better as despair masquerading as doubt.

What does it mean to live by faith?

In my opinion, faith is not always used in scripture as a synonym for belief. I think many (not all) of the scriptures that have to do with faith are actually talking about living faithfully, or living by faith, not about believing. They are saying “now that you believe, it’s time to walk the walk”. In this case belief is a precursor; we won’t live faithfully unless we believe, and as I noted earlier, that belief is a gift from God.

Once we do believe, then we must live in a demonstrative manner and put away our childish things (1 Cor. 13:11). When it comes to creation I want to believe in the literal interpretation, but I can’t make myself do it. I can (and do) pray for discernment in all things. I can read what others have to say. But on my own I cannot pick up my belief and transfer it from one side to the other.

Furthermore, and perhaps most radically, I don’t think you are required to believe in anything other than what God has written for you on your heart. You are not required to be a Calvinist or an Arminian. You are not required to be amillennial, post-millennial, or pre-millennial. You are not required to be Reformed or dispensational. You are not required to believe in an old or young earth.

If you were required to believe the correct side of all these questions-- well then the path is even narrower than I thought. One thing I believe with absolute certainty is that when I reach paradise I will find out that I was wrong in many of my beliefs, if that makes any sense!

You are required to live by faith. To accept the Bible as the inerrant Word of God. To accept Christ as both your Savior and your Lord. To be a disciple. To do your utmost to imitate Christ.

And, paradoxically, doctrinal differences are important. You are required to read the Word to try to discern the correct side of these arguments. I just don’t think that many of the topics we love to debate (and we should debate them) are eternal-life threatening issues.

Maybe these issues are nebulous in order to encourage us to get into the Word regularly.

Backsliding can be Shocking

Sunday was a poignant day in church. There is a mother and daughter who always come together. The daughter just graduated high school. She is a delightful young woman. She is always so vivacious and joyful-- always has a praise or prayer request. This Sunday she (the daughter) wasn’t there. The mother, who was barely holding it together, said she had moved out of the house, and that her Christianity had taken a back seat. The church was stunned; virtually everyone was in tears. Of course we prayed for the daughter (and the mother).

It is stunning when someone who appears so strong in his or her faith just drops out in this bolt-out-of-blue fashion. Usually you get some indication such as sporadic attendance or a lethargic attitude.

I truly believe, as much as you can be sure about someone without really being able to see his or her heart, that this young woman is saved. I am confident we will see her restored to fellowship with Christ. Still, I do dread when perseverance of the saints gets tested. How painful it is for those that love her. I pray that when she returns this experience will strengthen her witness.

---

The Dreaded Age-of-the-Earth Debate

Gary Petersen at Country Keepers has responded to my Francis Schaeffer post. He supports the literal six 24-hour day view of creation whereas I believe the scientific evidence overwhelmingly affirms an old earth.

I must say that I have never been disagreed with on this topic more graciously! Often those arguing against me will question my salvation if not outright accusing me to be a minion of the antichrist. I appreciate Gary’s restrained approach.

I have decided to reply, although with great reluctance. I know how these discussions typically progress. Been there done that. As an example of the futility you can read the debates between Kent Hovind and Hugh Ross on John Ankerberg’s site (go here and scroll down to the relevant articles).

Gary’s argument is, and I hope I am paraphrasing, correctly, that if we don’t accept the literal interpretation of the creation account, where then does it lead? It is the argument of the slippery slope.

The High Ground

I appreciate that those arguing from a plain reading of Genesis have the high ground. Anytime your position is supporting a plain reading of scripture, then the onus is on the other side to prove otherwise.

Here I will insert one reactionary opinion: no theologian has yet come up with a self consistent theology that accepts all scripture in its plain reading interpretation. If you tell me what eschatology you hold to, I can find verses about which you will have to say things like “Oh, what this really means is not a literal 1000 years but..” or “Oh, it doesn’t really mean this generation as in 40-50 years, but…”

It’s not just eschatology. If you tell me you are Arminian then I can find verses that require “additional explanation”. Likewise if you are Calvinist.

In fact a Roman Catholic can point out verses, say in the Book of James, to which Protestants in general have to say “You just can’t take this passage in isolation, but by viewing it in light of these other passages it is clear that…”

So accepting the plain reading is the preferred position, but it is not always possible.

Allegory

Gary says:

My greatest concern about the opinion you shared is where does it stop? If we read the Bible and, in effect, say that the creation story in Genesis is just a paraphrase or an allegory of what really happened, then what else in the Bible can we read and wiggle out of by saying the same thing?

It would not be possible for me to be in more agreement with Gary. He is absolutely correct. If the Genesis account is allegorical then everything comes tumbling down, because the rest of the Bible (including both the words of Christ and his genealogy) has numerous references to Adam as the first man and Eve being created from him.

I do not think the account is allegorical. Neither did Francis Schaeffer—it was one of his absolutes I discussed in the previous post.

An allegory is a purposely false story, i.e., a fiction, used to convey a secondary message. In scripture? May it never be. I disagree with the interpretation of six 24 hour days, but I believe the creation account is factual.

Slippery Slope

The “slippery” nature of believing in an old earth is often presented as manifest. I disagree, unless, again, you are talking about a view of the creation account as being allegorical. I think arguments that start with the assumption of an old earth and “prove” that the atonement was not necessary, or that Christ died in vain, or one of many other “conclusions” I have seen “derived” (an thus negating the old earth assumption in a supposed proof by contradiction) are not logically consistent.

There are fellow believers with whom I agree about (essentially) everything theological, except for the age of the earth. My position did not cause me to “slide” away from other orthodox beliefs.

Arggh. Some Science

So here is my position. Science (in my opinion) says the universe is billions of years old. A plain reading of the Bible would suggest the universe was created in six days and is less than 10,000 years old. So to really reduce the possibilities down to the bare essentials I think there are three possibilities:

1. The earth is young but created to look old; science is right but has been tricked.
   
2. The earth is young and science is wrong.
   
3. The earth is old, science is right, and those who interpret the Bible to say it had to be six 24 hour days occuring less than 10,000 years ago are wrong in their interpretation.
   

I don’t believe option 1, although I cannot disprove it. Indeed it is unfalsifiable.

If the Bible said explicitly that the days of creation were 24 hours long, then I would believe option 2. I would prefer to believe option 2.

Since I believe there is “wiggle room” to interpret the creation account differently, then I am most comfortable believing option 3.

Let’s look at this a little more closely. I will tell you that I reject outright postmodern deconstructionist mumbo jumbo along the lines of science cannot really answer anything. (Gary was not using such an argument, but some do, and in my mind it is not worthy of polite conversation.)

Could science be wrong? Possibly, but it would take an amazing conspiracy of errors.

Gary mentions Carbon dating. Carbon dating is used for organic materials – things that were once alive and absorbing carbon. Without going into details Carbon dating has a range of perhaps 50,000 years, (Carbon dating is not used to measure the age of things like rocks or old fossils like the dinosaurs). With carbon dating, some fossils or artifacts have been assigned ages of at most ten times the presumed age of a young earth.

Carbon dating assumes that the ratio of carbon isotopes is the same now as it was, say, 50,000 years ago. The key isotope is carbon-14, which comes from cosmic rays interacting in the upper atmosphere Some have pointed out that if the ratio was different when the earth was created six thousand years ago, either because the atmosphere was very different (perhaps because of a canopy of water) or the incidence of cosmic rays was different, then carbon dating results could be skewed. Fair enough, although most scientists will say there is no a priori reason why the ratio should change. So the young earth proponent (who doesn’t simply want to discard science) must say (1) The ratio of carbon isotopes is not what it is today and (2) what is actually was, was whatever it has to be to reconcile everything with a six thousand year old earth.

This is the first of many arguments that follow the same pattern: Something from science is wrong, perhaps in some assumptions, and the correct assumption must actually be whatever it must be to reconcile everything with a young earth.

If carbon dating were the only issue—well, things wouldn’t be that bad at all. Scientists would be saying the earth is probably 10 times older (one order of magnitude) than what the young earthers say. That’s a fairly awful discrepancy, but not even in the same league as what science really says.

So maybe Carbon dating is based on a wrong assumption. However, technology has marched along and we now have an independent dating method using uranium and thorium. It has nothing to do with the atmosphere or cosmic rays. It also dates “young” fossils and artifacts. And it agrees within carbon dating to within 10-20%.

Now let me pause here. Those who say the fact that they disagree by 10-20% means the results are untrustworthy show their ignorance of data analysis and statistics. Because (most) science is an intellectually honest endeavor, results are given with error bars. Let me make up some numbers as an example. In dating some artifact, the results might be:

1. Young earth proponents: less than six thousand years (by definition)
   
2. Carbon dating 30,000 years with an error of 6000 years
   
3. Uranium/Thorium 25,000 years with an error of 5000 years
   

Again, I made up these numbers, but these are typical. The point is that statistically the two dating methods are consistent with each other and inconsistent with a young earth.

So now something has to be wrong with an independent dating method. Maybe the flood had something to do with it. And note there is now another level of “conspiracy” here: not only must the correct assumption be whatever it has to be to restore a young earth, but what ever skewed the assumption for uranium/thorium dating insidiously left it in agreement with Carbon dating.

Or maybe the exponential model of radioactive decay, accurate today to untold numbers of decimal places, wasn’t in effect at creation.

Really Long Times

Then we move from the 50,000 year range to ages in the billions of years. I am running out of steam, but the same things apply here. Multiple, independent methods of estimating the age of rocks and the universe itself all give the answer in billions of years. Same problem: these methods would have to be wrong in some amazing way that resulted in their giving erroneous but consistent results.

As I said, if the only issue were young fossils science would be saying the earth was about one order of magnitude older. With geological and cosmological dating science is saying the age of the universe is about six orders of magnitude older. This is an enormous error. Suppose science over estimated the distance to the moon by the same amount. Instead of it being two hundred thousand miles away, it would be just 0.2 miles away.

A final point: much of the physics that must be terribly wrong if the universe is really just thousands of years old is the very same physics that we rely on daily to design computers, medical equipment, space craft, etc. How can it be so wrong and so right at the same time?

Summary

It is truly not my intention to argue with anybody about science. However, I firmly believe that one can accept the scientific evidence of an old earth while still affirming Biblical inerrancy. I do not think it leads one down a path to apostasy. And I think that in glory we will know the true account of creation—and if turns out that it was in six 24 hour days six thousand years ago think of how many “I told you so’s” you can fit into eternity!

---