Non Christian Professor recognizes that Creation demands a Creator

Posted on by

Natural God by Beth Houston

 

The author of NATURAL GOD – Deism in the Age of Intelligent Design, Beth Houston, is a professor of creative writing and literature at the University of California and several other universities. She covers a lot of material rarely reviewed in books critical of molecules to man evolution. What does she offer to the creation-evolution debate? The answer is a fresh approach, written in an engaging style, that reflects a good understanding of psychology, logic, biology and history. She stresses that science, especially Darwinism, has become a form of dogmatism the needs to be challenged.

One point documented is that Darwin’s central ambition was not to explore the world to let it reveal itself, but to become famous. Houston also carefully documents her position that evolution theory (no meaning, no purpose, no Creator) caused its developer to lose both his aesthetic sensibility and his appreciation of aesthetic beauty. Darwin openly admitted that his appreciation of aesthetics had dynamically changed.

“Up to the age of thirty ….poetry….such as the works of Milton, Gray, Byron, Wordsworth, Coleridge and Shelley, gave me great pleasure and even as a schoolboy I took great delight in Shakespeare. I have also said that formerly art and pictures gave me considerable pleasure and music very great delight. But now for many years I cannot endure to read a line of poetry: I have tried lately to read Shakespeare, and found it so intolerably dull that it nauseated me. I have also lost my taste for art and music.”

Darwin admitted that the ” loss of these tastes is a loss of happiness, and may possibly be injurious to the intellect, and more probable to the moral character, by enfeebling the emotional part of nature.”

Beth Houston concludes that what was wrong with Darwin was that “the dimension that gives life lived to the fullest its zing” was gone.

“By the time he had finished ORIGIN and certainly his later Autobiography, beauty had ceased to be beauty at all ….beauty was observed and used like a prostitute for a distant satisfaction of an immediate need, never for love of beauty for its own sake, never for the pleasure of intimate contact (with nature).

She goes on to say, “Mechanistic agnostics like Darwin…. know intellectually that nature is beautifully constructed while emotionally denying that it is. The aesthetic atrophies when the spirit does, or when the spirit lies dormant and inactivated. It is … mechanistic determinism and Darwinian natural selection.

There is never any death of God, only murder or suicide of the killer’s own God – given faculties.”

Houston speculates that: “Darwin’s insistence that natural selection is ultimately brutal is a projection of …. the brutal side of his own nature. Natural selection justifies brutality and sanctifies the guilt. The brutal cannot face a God who might not condone brutality. Therefore, religions create their gods in the image of their own brutality to justify and sanctify brutality, and science creates its god, natural selection, the shadow of civilized man, for the same purpose.

Summary: Professor Houston makes a convincing case that the natural world provides clear evidence for a creator. She also documents the adverse effects of Darwinism on society and persons using Darwin himself as a prime example.

Extract from book review by Jerry Bergman, Journal of Creation Vol 29, 2015

 

 

Film CINDERELLA presents KINDNESS as a SUPER POWER

Posted on by

Cinderella-message-slider-2

AMAZING the new film Cinderella which hits the theatres Friday has a great message.

From THE HUNGER GAMES’ Katniss Everdeen and DIVERGENT’s Tris Prior, to BRAVE’s Merida and FROZEN’s Anna and Elsa, Hollywood heroines seem to be on the rise. The formerly favored “damsel in distress” archetype has been successfully usurped by current depictions of strong-willed, strong-armed, independent women who can fend for themselves. Then along comes Cinderella…again…  The obvious question is hasn’t our culture grown out of princesses and happily ever after’s already?

If you watch the trailer for the new CINDERELLA movie, you will hear Cinderella’s mother tell her,

“I want to tell you a secret that will see you through all the trials that life can offer: Have courage, and be kind.”

Cinderella, as you know, was a young girl whose life was fraught with trials. She lost her mother at an early age. A year later, her father married a cruel woman with two equally nasty daughters of her own who forced Cinderella to be their servant. Each night after her chores, she would retire to a cold dank room and seek warmth from the fireplace, the cinders of which inspired her derisive nickname. When the Prince announced that he was hosting a ball in hopes of finding a wife there, Cinderella was left out, having been told by her stepsisters that maids were not invited. Despite the abuse, Cinderella continued to abide by her mother’s advice, which, in both the modern movie and the 18th-century story, was to be kind.

In this version of Cinderella, there was a decision to include Cinderella’s parents, Producer Allison Shearmur said, adding, “She is the way she is because she was loved as a child.” Branagh also said establishing a “family life [for Cinderella before her stepmother arrives] was important.”

Thus, when Cinderella is asked why she stays with her evil stepmother, even with the bad treatment she receives, Cinderella says she’s “keeping a promise to her mother” to stay and maintain the house they loved and be good and kind at everyone.

It was important for the filmmakers that they didn’t show Cinderella as the victim of her circumstances, but rather to have her see the world positively, for what it could be if only we strived to be good and kind. Branagh hopes that with a heroine who is good and kind, then “goodness can be reinvented.”

“Ken had a very clear point of view of what was important to him,” Shearmur added. “I remember the first time we met with him, he said, “Let’s make a story about kindness as a super power.’ When you think this is a guy who brought us THOR, you knew he understood the analogy he was making. In a time where female heroines, Katniss Everdeen in THE HUNGER GAMES and Tris in DIVERGENT, have a manifestation of their strength [that] is a lot more physical. . . this Cinderella in her self strength is internal.”

There is also a wonderful message of forgiveness in CINDERELLA that was very intentionally done by the filmmakers. Of course, such a message matches a Christian worldview.

Get the message around, encourage mothers to take their daughters to see Cinderella.

 

PHYSICS POINTS TO GOD’S GLORY

Posted on by

Chad-RodekohrDr Chad Family-Grand-Canyon

Dr Chad Rodekohr                                              Chad with his family

Chad Rodekohr earned a B.S. in Aviation Management, an M.S. in Physics, and a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering, all from Auburn University (Alabama). He is an Associate Professor of Physics at Presbyterian College in Clinton, South Carolina, where he and his wife are raising their five children.

As a mechanical engineer and a physics professor, Dr Chad Rodekohr is passionate about the scientific method. Some might be surprised to find that he is also a biblical creationist. But he says that his career actually helps confirm the amazing design in the world.

“Physics is the study of our real physical surroundings. Since all physical things were created and are now sustained by God, it is easy to point to God’s glory while studying physics.”

Chad points out that: “Those who deal in the historical sciences desire the authority of having used the scientific method. In reality they are peddling a false worldview about history disguised as science and claimed as fact. I think that this is why the scientific method is not taught to most students anymore. Although students all act like they know the scientific method, when pinned down, most can’t actually differentiate between hypothesis, theory, law, or fact. It is no wonder they don’t distinguish between repeatable science and claims about history.”

He was asked to explain how he handled disclosing his creationist views in the classroom as a student, and how he would advise students to handle it themselves.

“What I did may or may not have been the best way to handle it, and is probably not what I would do now if I could do it all over. The primary way I handled the issue was to select carefully the classes that I took. I simply didn’t select courses which were historical in nature—knowing full well what the theme of the class would be. But even in operational science courses, the issue would occasionally come up. In those situations I would only steer into the creation discussion when it was in a personal setting with my fellow students.”

We need to bring academia back to the Lordship of Christ—gently and respectfully, being prepared at every step.

“How would I handle it now? What if I didn’t have the luxury of simply not taking historical science courses? Peter gives us clear teaching on this—1) Honour Christ as Lord by bringing such conversations back to Him—the Creator and Redeemer, 2) Be prepared—understand the scientific issues so you can ‘give an answer’, and 3) be gentle and respectful (1 Peter 3:15). If you are treading into unfamiliar waters, it is easiest to accomplish this with a series of questions leading back to the faulty foundational assumptions on which evolutionary teaching is always based. From there it can be contrasted with the solid biblical witness of our holy Creator, Christ the Lord.”

To students who are considering pursuing a scientific career, Chad says: “Please continue! Please persevere! Please investigate fully! Please teach truth!”

Extract from interview with Lita Cosner on http://www.creation.com

 

JESUS CHRIST believed the Bible (Scripture) infallible.

Posted on by

picture of open bible

There is considerable debate these days concerning the inerrancy (infallibility) of Scripture. The authority of God’s Word is the main issue. But, if one yields to the authority of Jesus Christ, he must, in turn, yield to Christ’s view of the Scripture itself. Anyone and everyone who claims to be a Christian (a believer under the authority of Christ) must hold to the same view He did! What was it?

  1. He knew the Scriptures thoroughly, even to words and verb tenses. He obviously had either memorized vast portions or knew it instinctively: John 7:15.
  2. He believed every word of Scripture. All the prophecies concerning Himself were fulfilled, and He believed beforehand they would be.
  3. He believed the Old Testament was historical fact. This is very clear, even though from the Creation (cf. Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:4, 5) onward, much of what He believed has long been under fire by critics, as being mere fiction. Some examples of historical facts:
  4. He believed the books were written by the men whose names they bear:
    • Moses wrote the Pentateuch (Torah): Matthew 19:7, 8; Mark 7:10, 12:26 (‘Book of Moses’—the Torah); Luke 5:14; 16:29,31; 24:27, 44 (‘Christ’s Canon’); John 1:17; 5:45, 46; 7:19; (‘The Law [Torah] was given by Moses; Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ.’)
    • Isaiah wrote ‘both’ Isaiah’s: Mark 7:6–13; John 12:37–41 [Ed. note: Liberals claim that Isaiah 40-66 was composed after the fall of Jerusalem by another writer they call ‘Deutero-Isaiah’. The only real ‘reason’ for their claim is that a straightforward dating would mean that predictive prophecy was possible, and liberals have decreeda priori that knowledge of the future is impossible (like miracles in general). Thus these portions must have been written after the events. However, there is nothing in the text itself to hint of a different author. See The Unity of Isaiah. In fact, even the Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll was a seamless unity. But as Dr Livingston said, since Jesus affirmed the unity of Isaiah, the deutero-Isaiah theory is just not an option for anyone calling himself a follower of Christ.]
    • Jonah wrote Jonah: Matthew 12:39–41
    • Daniel wrote Daniel: Matthew 24:15
  5. He believed the Old Testament was spoken by God Himself, or written by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, even though the pen was held by men: Matthew 19:4, 5; 22:31, 32, 43; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37.
  6. He believed Scripture was more powerful than His miracles: Luke 16:29, 31.
  7. He actually quoted it in overthrowing Satan! The O.T. Scriptures were the arbiter in every dispute: Matthew 4; Luke 16:29, 31.
  8. He quoted Scripture as the basis for his own teaching. His ethics were the same as what we find already written in Scripture: Matthew 7:12; 19:18, 19; 22:40; Mark 7:9, 13;10:19; 12:24, 29–31; Luke 18:20.
  9. He warned against replacing it with something else, or adding or subtracting from it. The Jewish leaders in His day had added to it with their Oral Traditions: Matthew 5:17;15:1–9; 22:29; (cf. 5:43, 44); Mark. 7:1–12.

    Destroying faith in the Bible as God’s Word has opened the door today to a ‘new’ Tradition.

  10. He will judge all men in the last day, as Messiah and King, on the basis of His infallible Word committed to writing by fallible men, guided by the infallible Holy Spirit:Matthew 25:31; John 5:22, 27; 12:48; Romans 2:16.
  11. He made provision for the New Testament (B’rit Hadashah) by sending the Holy Spirit. We must note that He Himself never wrote one word of Scripture although He is the Word of God Himself (the living Torah in flesh and blood, see John, chapter 1). He committed the task of all writing of the Word of God to fallible men—guided by the infallible Holy Spirit. The apostles’ words had the same authority as Christ’s: Matthew 10:14, 15; Luke 10:16; John 13:20; 14:22; 15:26, 27;16:12–14.
  12. He not only was not jealous of the attention men paid to the Bible (denounced as ‘bibliolatry’ by some), He reviled them for their ignorance of it: Matthew 22:29; Mark 12:24.
  13. Nor did Jesus worship Scripture. He honored it—even though written by men.

The above leaves no room but to conclude that our Lord Jesus Christ considered the canon of Scripture as God’s Word, written by the hand of men.

Although some religious leaders profess to accept Scripture as ‘God’s Word,’ their low view of ‘inspiration’ belies the fact. They believe and teach that Scripture is, to a very significant degree, man’s word. Many of their statements are in essential disagreement with those of Jesus Christ. From the evidence of their books, we conclude that some Christian leaders are opposite to Christ in His regard for the authority, the inspiration, and the inerrancy of Scripture.

And now, the most important point.

Jesus Christ was subject to Scripture

Jesus obeyed the Word of God, not man. He was subject to it.

In all the details of His acts of redemption, Jesus was subject to Scripture as God’s Word. He obeyed it. It was His authority, the rule by which He lived. He came to do God’s will, not His own, and not man’s. Note how all of His life He did things because they were written—as if God had directly commanded. He fulfilled Old Testament prophecies (300) about Himself. The passages are found all over the Old Testament. We cite here only a very few quoted in the New Testament: Matthew 11:10; 26:24, 53–56;Mark 9:12, 13; Luke 4:17–21; 18:31–33; 22:37; 24:44–47.

He Himself is the Word of God. All the words from His lips were the Word of God. (John 3:34). If He had desired, He could have written a new set of rules and they would have been the Word of God. But, He did not. He followed without question the Bible already penned by men.

We need to do the same. May all who read this adopt Jesus’ attitude and become subject both to Him as Living Word (living Torah) and to the Bible as the infallible, written Word of God.

http://www.creation.com: article by Dr David Livingston – Jesus Christ on the infallibility of Scripture

Shemitah reveals last days secrets

Posted on by

Rabbi Jonathan Cahn explains the Shemitah is the countdown of everything.

Israel has always been proof that God exists and it has been center stage during most of human history usually under intense persecution.

Jonathan is the prophet to the gentiles in this generation.

This is just one of his videos on You Tube you should make the time to view others or get his book/audio “The Mystery of the Shemitah”.

THE GOSPEL: If not from GOD from whom?

Posted on by

 

 

Jesus on Cross

 

I believe we can boldly assert that no man of all the myriads that have ever lived – let him be as wise as Solomon, the very best as Job, could have possibly invented from his own “thoughts” the GOSPEL.

Paul says as much in Galatians 1:11 “For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel.”

It was absolutely impossible for such a plan of salvation ever to be devised by man’s thoughts. It is utterly at variance with those thoughts. It is infinitely to intricate in all its marvelous adaptations to all the involved problems that have to be met , so that no careless, thoughtless one could ever have conceived it. He would cease to be careless. But that eliminates most of us, for indeed aren’t most of us careless? But could a proud man, let him be ever so thoughtful and intelligent, have invented it? I don’t think so, for it humbles him to nothing , telling him that he is ungodly and without strength and only as in heart confessing this can he be saved. He would have to cease being proud in order to have conceived it, to have been its author.

There only remains the poor is spirit, the confessed sinner. Could such have invented the idea that the Creator of all, glorious in holiness, that so high, so Holy a One should  give up His dearest Treasure to bear the sins of one like himself, so conscious as he is of his unworthiness? Would it be likely a humble mind to invent such a plan? He would cease to be humble to have invented it. In fact how blasphemously proud would such a person be!

Then I would suggest, it is proved that since no man – careless or thoughtful, proud or humble, bad or good – could have conceived it, it must have been a divine revelation, the result of God’s thoughts and not man’s.

“For My thoughts are not as your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, declared the Lord.”

 

Gathering in China to embrace JESUS and HIS KINGDOM

Posted on by

In these last days God has prepared the Chinese Church through their faithfulness and humility under persecution to lead the Church in this part of our end time journey. The Chinese Church has acknowledged God’s call to take the Gospel to the Nations on the three silk roads back to Jerusalem (Back to Jerusalem, Called to Complete the Great Commission by Three Chinese Church Leaders published UK 2003). Their freedom from fear of death, their humility and complete abandonment to the will of God is allowing the Lord to speedily bring them into unity with one another and alignment with His headship.

In His wisdom, God has positioned the Chinese in the natural realm, geographically close to India and the Arab Nations and to have favour among the Arabs as well as respect among the Jews. So the Chinese are able to go where the Western Church cannot. They are able to stretch their arms wide to embrace not only the sons of Ishmael and the sons of Isaac, but also the Western Church, bringing the whole Body together into one family.

Hopefully this video will give you a glimpse of the passion the Chinese have for our Lord.

Extract from article by David Demian “The Road From Asia to Jerusalem”

Biblical Genealogies are Trustworthy Historical Records

Posted on by

genealogy

 

1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3 take these genealogies to be completely historical. So theistic evolutionists who would relegate these genealogies to mythical status have to reckon not only with the plain teaching of the chronogenealogies, but how the rest of Scripture treats them as well.

Adam to Noah

The first genealogies we find in Genesis (in chapters 5 and 11) are called ‘chronogenealogies’ because the age of the father at the birth of the son are given. This allows us to know with a very high degree of accuracy (within a year) how much time passed during each generation. It also lets us know there is no gap between the names.

Shem to Abram

The most noticeable element of the genealogy is the steady decrease in lifespans. The antediluvians all seemed to live very long lives. But after the Flood, each generation lives shorter and shorter lives, until many children die before their longer-lived parents, and even before grandparents and beyond. By the time of Abraham, lifespans were only about twice what we experience in the modern-day world.

These genealogies are actually indications that Genesis intends to be taken as history, and not myth, because the chronology claims to set each person in a specific place in history. Many of the people in the genealogies are not mentioned elsewhere in Scripture, so their only purpose seems to be to link one important character with another (linking Noah back to Adam, for example). By the time Moses wrote Genesis, most of these names would not be otherwise significant to the Hebrews.

Matthew’s genealogy

The purpose of Matthew’s genealogy was to trace the legal line of rightful heirs to the throne of David. This of course included biological descent, but also some ‘adoptive’ relationships where a man had no descendant, or whose descendants were disqualified. Matthew’s genealogy used obvious ‘telescoping’ where less important people were omitted.

Matthew claims that his choice of names is significant because of the number of generations listed “So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to Christ fourteen generations” (Matthew 1:17). The most plausible significance for this is because the numerical value of the letters in David’s name added up to 14. God is in total control of history. After all it is HIS story.

Luke’s genealogy

When we interpret the genealogies correctly, we see that they are trustworthy historical records.

Luke’s genealogy looks a lot more complete, and was probably the biological genealogy of Mary, so we see Jesus’ biological ancestry from David, and from Adam. We would expect that Luke would want to give us a complete chain to link Jesus biologically with David. But from Adam to David, he uses the Old Testament sources which indicates his confidence in them as Jesus had total confidence in them – Mt 5:18.

Luke’s genealogy is unusual in that it starts with Jesus and goes back to Adam—all the other genealogies go from father to son. This allows it to end with, “the son of Adam, the son of God.” This means that the genealogy starts and ends with a “son of God”, and nicely makes the theological point that Jesus is linked to all of humanity via common descent from Adam.

Trustworthy historical records

When we look at the biblical genealogies, we have to appreciate the purpose behind each of them, and that helps us to interpret them correctly. And when we interpret them correctly, we see that they are trustworthy historical records.

Extracted from article by Lita Costner “Are There Gaps in the Biblical Genealogies” http://www.creation.com

Over A Thousand People Came Together To Bring This Moving Christmas Hymn To Life

Posted on by

I have already posted one Christmas video “Mary, Did You Know” by the group Pentatonix but when I saw this I just had to put it up. It even made the Guinness Book of Records. I hope you like it.

http://youtu.be/PrLoWt2tfqg