James on “Faith” and “Works”

James is the Bible writer that ties faith and works together. His presentations have caused some consternation among those who see works as counter to grace. Yet there is no conflict, only perfect harmony once properly understood. It is clear from Paul’s treatment of grace that works were not relevant in God’s election and selection. This matter is rather clear and most Christian writers would agree with this assessment. However, one must understand another matter that troubled the early church-Gentiles were being confronted with keeping the Jewish law. Works of the law, the keeping of Sabbaths, dietary restrictions, the feasts, the cleansing rituals, circumcision, etc., were permissible to the Jewish Christians who still wished to keep them. They had the freedom to do so. But trouble arose when these rituals were being enjoined on Gentile converts to Christianity.

“There rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them [Gentile Christians], and to command them to keep the Law of Moses” (Acts 15:5). The occasion for these words was the conference at the Church in Jerusalem. Some were saying Gentile Christians had to keep certain features of the Jewish law, and others were saying, not so. Meanwhile, the controversy caused whiplash to those who were being yanked from one direction to another. The Jerusalem Conference was called by the Apostles to settle this controversy in clear, understandable terms for everyone. The conference ended with this clarion message to all the churches: “That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well” (Acts 15:29).

Before the Law of Moses, God forbade partaking of blood and strangled meat improperly bled. In Gen. 9:4 God told Noah and the flood survivors, “But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.” This was enjoined on the entire world after the flood and still stands today, even though few concern themselves with this commandment. In our modern world all meat sold meets these requirements. However, the Apostles enjoined this law on all Christians, and it still applies.

Keeping from “fornication” is a moral requirement also enjoined on Christians. The only compromise made was in “not eating meat offered to idols.” This command was given so as not to offend the conscience of any who might witness this. No compromise was made with the Jewish Law Covenant. “Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died” (Rom. 14:15). Eating meat sold in the market place which had been offered to idols would not harm the individual in itself. However, if it offended another, it would be wrong to do. Paul clarifies the matter saying: “As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. … Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh” (1 Cor. 8:4, 13).

The Jewish law was not enjoined upon Gentile Christians at this conference. Officially the matter was settled; however, tradition and habit die hard. A strong element within the Jewish Christian Church continued to teach that Gentile Christians should keep certain features of the law. Consequently, the New Testament writers had to speak out against the works of the law. In our day, some commentators see Scriptures that show the futility of works of the law, but failing to see the difference between works of the Jewish Law and works in general, they conclude that all works are futile. Such is not the case. Never do the scriptures demean works of the Spirit in the hearts of God’s people. They are necessary “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal. 5:22-25). The issue before the early church was whether justification was brought about by faith in Christ’s sacrifice or works of the Law. Paul says, “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law…” (Gal. 5:4).

The free grace movement has taken all the arguments used against works of the law to deny all works. This is a serious mistake. For instance, the Bible says, “For whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23). This whole chapter deals with Christians who were bound by Jewish features of the law. Paul says in Romans 14:17, “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.” Christians need not follow dietary restrictions of the law. However, if their conscience condemns them for not keeping certain features of the law, they should honor their conscience. If they keep the dietary Jewish law out of lack of faith in Christ’s atonement sacrifice, it would be “sin.”
To argue that all works are sin misses the point. God’s grace has been given to enable us to put on the “Lord Jesus Christ.” We need all the “fruit of the Spirit” which is the work of an entire Christian lifetime. Anyone who has watched an orchard knows that you first have a blossom, then an immature fruit, and finally the fruit matures into a luscious treat. All of this takes time.

“Was Not Abraham, Our Father, Justified by Works?”

James 2:21, 22 reads, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?” Words are easy to generate. The world is full of wonderful words and beautiful sentiments; but if the world were filled with wonderful deeds and beautiful actions, it would be a sweeter place to live. Words are not dependable. Lawyers only accept legally signed contracts. A verbal agreement will not do. Courts are filled with cases of broken contracts. Words are hard to keep without character. Character enables promises and agreements to be kept.

Abraham believed God. How do we know this? Works demonstrated his faith and belief. God put Abraham to the test, asking him to do the hardest thing a man could be asked to do-to offer his son in sacrifice. God asked Abraham to act out what God himself was going to do. Abraham played God’s role flawlessly. Abraham demonstrated by his works his faith and love for God. That is why Abraham is called “the Friend of God” (Jas. 2:23). James then says, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (Jas. 2:24).

James is showing that the measure of faith and love that a man has for God will not be determined by words alone. Words need to be backed by deeds of love and faith. The free grace movement almost implies that one may promise God anything without delivering it, and it is all right with God. That would be like saying that God embodies love so no one needs good character.

James says, “Was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also” (Jas. 2:25, 26). Rahab jeopardized her life and family to save the lives of the Jewish spies. Her works demonstrated her faith. If “faith without works is dead,” so it must be that living faith will be demonstrated by works-the things we do, the company we keep, the thoughts we think, the love we bestow, etc. Paul defined love by works-qualities of love (1 Cor. 13:4-8). To argue against Christian works is to argue against love and the graces of the Spirit. James correctly says, “Faith without works is dead.”

http://www.bibletoday.com/Saved/chapter10.htm 

Clues to succesful Prayer

Prayer

Prayer is a method of communication by means of which any soul on earth may present his/her requests to Yahweh the Almighty God of Israel. Most forms of communication, such as the telephone, radio, television or data transmission by computer, can breakdown and messages do not get through. The system of prayer, though operating on an infinitely higher plane than any man-made telecommunication system, is no exception. It can also breakdown. But, in some strange way, even though prayer operates on an infinitely higher level than, say, local area networks (LAN) do, to correct faults in prayer is easier by far than repairing the telephone or fixing a computer. What’s more the parameters of prayer are extremely simple:

• Meet Yahweh’s spiritual conditions, ask in Messiah’s Name (Yeshua, Jesus) and your prayers will be answered, and that to your utter amazement.
• Ignore His conditions and most of your prayers will go unheeded, even though you were to employ a million words in an attempt to gain His attention.

Here then is a brief outline of the spiritual parameters, conditions and guarantees of answered prayer. Put them into practice and your life will be immeasurably blessed. Ignore them and you will live in a world of spiritual darkness, never really understanding where in this universe you fit and what is the purpose of your existence. Students are, therefore, advised to look upon this lesson as one of the most important in the entire series. Make sure that you read it over and over again. Re-reading these truths is a sure way of fixing them in your mind.

1. FAITH. The first requirement in prayer is to believe that the Almighty God exists, that He is the Creator and the rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Yahweh has filled the universe with stunning evidence of His presence. Look above and around and you will have to admit that such breath-taking design and power could never have originated without a master mind behind it all. That mind is Yahweh’s mind. And yet the beauty of the physical creation, wonderful though it is, is only a small part of His handiwork. There are other areas of His activity of which we know little which are greater by far than the physical creation. Yes, every logical mind will admit that the Almighty God must exist. Only fools reject that fact. See SBS articles on Evolution and Creation for further study.
   (Hebrews 11:6, Psalm 14:1)
2. OBEDIENCE. The next requirement, and this is certainly the most unpopular one, is to be prepared to amend one’s ways and to live a life in obedience to the commandments of God. Failure to meet this mandatory condition is the main cause for failure to get results in prayer; for it is a fact that the Most High will never answer the prayer of a person who knowingly continues in sin. Success in prayer in other words is directly related to one’s willingness to change for the better. Indeed the holier a person becomes the more effective will be his/her prayers.
   (2 Chronicles 7:14, Psalm 66:18, Proverbs 28:9, James 5:16-17)
3. MOTIVES. Self centred prayers which are prompted by unsanctified motives - even if they are voiced by a believer - are seldom if ever answered. Or rather the answer is - No! Prayers motivated by the spirit of competition, greed, self glory or pride are really a waste of time; for Yahweh will never grant a request that has at its source some unworthy motive.
   (James 4:1-3)
4. ASK IN YESHUA’S NAME. This phrase does not imply that merely voicing the Master’s name (Yeshua, Emmanuel or Jesus) will somehow work miracles and cause a request to be granted; or that a prayer with the words, “in Jesus’ name” tagged on the end is somehow given special treatment. No, the phrase “in Jesus’ Name” means by the authority and power of Yeshua, in his cause, for the extension of Yahweh’s Kingdom or in accordance with His holy will and purpose. In other words if you ask for anything in the interests of Yeshua’s cause, for something that is in line with His will - it will be granted!. Let me repeat It will be granted! The astonishing promise, that every request made in the Master’s Name will be granted, is repeated several times in the Scriptures. It comes with all the guarantees of heaven itself. It just cannot fail. Get the parameters right and everything worthwhile is possible! Let every believer pause and consider the unspeakable value of the Saviour’s advice on prayer. His actual words - yea promises may be found in the following passages:
   (John 14:13-14, John 15:7-8, John 15:16, John 16:23-24, 1 John 5:14-15) Study them carefully.
5. Prayer may be made for a wide variety of things. Here is a sample list of acceptable things to pray for.
   1. For forgiveness and cleansing from sin. (Psalm 25:16-1
   2. For the Holy Spirit. (Luke 11:13)
   3. For faith and wisdom. (Luke 17:5, James 1:5)
   4. For the insight and understanding of Yahweh’s law. (Psalm 119:1
   5. For healing (approach the elders as instructed). (James 5:14-15)
   6. For day to day provisions. (Matthew 6:11)
   7. For fellow believers to grow in grace and generally benefit. (Colossians 1:9-10)
   8. For others and especially those in authority. (1 Timothy 2:1-3)
   9. For the workers in the Lord’s field. Matthew 9:3
   10. And even for your enemies and persecutors. (Matthew 5:44)
6. EXPECT RESULTS. Yes, believe, ask and expect results. In fact wait for results and prepare for their arrival.
   (Matthew 21:21-22, James 1:6-7, Psalm 40:1, Psalm 130:5-6)
7. PERSEVERE. If no results are forthcoming, even after a period of waiting, check your life and motives and pray again. Persevere. (Luke 18:1- If desperate, begin a fast and invite other Christians to join with you in more prayer. If still no results arrive, do not despair, Yahweh has a very good reason for not granting your request. Read Luke 18:1-8 and 2 Corinthians 12:7-10.Study the book of Job. It will show you how that behind the scenes an almost incredible drama was being enacted to prove to the angel host that Job worshipped Yahweh, not for personal gain as Satan had implied, but because he (Job) admired the Almighty. There may well be a similar drama being enacted in your life. ABOVE ALL, IF YOU ARE GOING THROUGH AN EQUALLY TRAGIC EXPERIENCE DO NOT GIVE UP YOUR FAITH IN GOD WHEN YOUR PRAYERS APPEAR TO GO UNHEEDED. If you have re-checked every condition mentioned in this lesson and still get no results, you may be sure that Yahweh has a perfectly good reason for not granting your request. It is at this stage - when nothing seems to move - that a believer’s faith is tested to breaking point and 2 Corinthians 12:7-10 must become a living reality to you. It is, of course, possible that your life or motives are not quite right and you yourself are unaware of this. Examine yourself, pray about it and wait for an explanation. It will come.
8. MODES AND TIMES OF PRAYER
   1. Make prayer a habit. In fact wrestle with God and - dare we say it - overcome Him. (Genesis 32:2
   2. Of course you should not be presumptuous, but neither should you cringe. Rather be respectfully bold with God. (Hebrews 4:16)
   3. Raise your hands when praying if opportunity allows. This was a habit of patriarchs, prophets and apostles. (Exodus 17:11-13, 1 Timothy 2:
   4. Pray mostly in secret. This allows more freedom. Keep public prayers short. (Matthew 6:6)
   5. Kneel when possible without becoming ostentatious. (Psalm 95:6)
   6. Pray in the morning and again in the evening. But any time of the day or night will do. Never give up the habit of prayer. (1 Thessalonians 3:10, 1 Thessalonians 5:17)
   7. Try fasting. Fasting is prayer’s invincible ally. (Acts 14:23)
9. If you have never prayed, ask Yahweh to teach you. (Luke 11:1) Bear in mind that every prayer is sifted, edited and presented to the Most High by the Holy Spirit in a way that will do justice to its true meaning.The criterion of a good prayer is, therefore, not the glowing language used to express it, but rather the spiritual content of the prayer and whether or not God grants it.
   (Romans 8:26-27)
10. Above all remember that prayer is the believer’s most powerful weapon in his/her fight against evil, and it is still true to say that:

    “Satan trembles when he sees the weakest saint upon his knees“.

    Yahweh is even now, waiting for the church to wake up to the power of prayer, to make prayer a habit, to ask and receive of Him the immeasurable bounties He has already provided in Jesus. And it is a constant cause for divine amazement that so few believers even want to understand the subject or give themselves to prayer. (Ezekiel 22:30-31, Isaiah 59:15-16)

And so we will end this lesson reminding you of your duty to pray. Indeed it is your privilege to pray; for coupled with faith, prayer is the finest communication system with the Almighty the church possesses. To be sure it may breakdown, but that is usually because we have not understood its requirements. But though it is sometimes difficult to understand it is easy to start again. Prayer it an extremely powerful system. More powerful than wealth, or talent, or numeric supremacy. Prayer can do anything Yahweh can. So, meet the divine conditions, ASK and RECEIVE, and shall we say “surprise God, yourself and everyone else.”

Author: David B LoughranStewarton Bible School, Stewarton, Scotland 

The Walk (First Steps)

You’ve been reading the Bible deeply. The words and directives that have been studied seem at odds with the teachings of your church or congregation. You go to the church Pastors or elders and try to discuss the matters. The words received do not seem to gel with the understanding you now have. The decision is made, Your conscience no longer allows the permission to continue supporting false teachings as found out during the reading of the Bible. One day soon after, you find yourself outside of the church, without the love or support of your friends, just you and the Bible. Now the walk has started. Guilt will assail you. Doubt and worry. Thoughts like “am I wrong?” or “ will God still love me even though Im out on my own? Its scary….for those in this position right now, or about to take a step in the direction of the walk… you can click here to discuss matters, or wait for the next part of this series, coming soon..

Should Faith Be Based on Reason?

“There are too many ‘religious’ people who become religious precisely to avoid having to think “.They simply want to accept everything ‘on faith, THE implication is that most people who profess religious faith give little thought to why they believe what they do or to whether there is a reasonable basis for their faith. It is no wonder that religion has become a topic that many are reluctant to talk about, even more so works.

Regrettably, such practices as using religious images and repeating prayers by rote also discourage reasoning. These practices, along with impressive architecture, elaborate stained-glass windows, and captivating music, more or less define the extent of the religious experience of millions. Though some churches claim that their faith is based on the Bible, their message of ‘believe in Jesus and you will be saved’ makes light of serious Bible study. Others turn to preaching a social or political gospel. What is the result of all of this?

IN North America, one religion writer said: “Christianity . . . tends to be superficial, [and] its adherents are poorly worked in the faith.” A pollster even went so far as to describe the United States as “a nation of biblical illiterates.” To be fair, these observations would also be true of other countries where so-called Christianity prevails. Many non-Christian religions likewise discourage reasoning and instead emphasize chants, ritualistic prayers, and various forms of meditation that involve mysticism, rather than logical, constructive study.

Yet, in their everyday life, the same people who give little thought to the accuracy or truthfulness of their religious beliefs often think other matters through very carefully. ‘If it was good enough for my parents, it’s good enough for me’?

If we are truly interested in knowing the true God, should we not consider seriously the accuracy of what we believe about him? The apostle Paul spoke of certain people of his day who had “a zeal for God; but not according to accurate knowledge.” (Romans 10:2)

What is acceptable to God regarding true worship? The Bible answers: “This is fine and acceptable in the sight of our Savior, God, whose will is that all sorts of men should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth.” (1 Timothy 2:3, 4) Some may feel that it is impossible to find such knowledge among the many religions of today. But think—if it is God’s will that people should come to an accurate knowledge of truth, would he unfairly conceal it from them? Not according to the Bible, which says: “If you search for [God], he will let himself be found by you.”—1 Chronicles 28:9.

Accurate Knowledge—A Key to Belief in God

They tell us that as far as belief in God is concerned, accurate Bible knowledge is essential. The apostle Paul told the Christians in the ancient city of Philippi: “This is what I continue praying, that your love may abound yet more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment.” (Philippians 1:9)

“Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for,the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld,” Paul said. (Hebrews 11:1)

 

Religion and Science

RELIGION AND SCIENCE, OR RELIGION VS. SCIENCE?
Although it is not a scientific document, the Bible has some remarkable things to say about life and our creation. Biblical writers have made beautiful and accurate observations about the Universe that are amazingly accurate, even without the benefit of modern scientific tools and knowledge.If the Bible is Truth, then it has to all be true. Most Christians believe that what the Bible says is inspired by God’s Holy Spirit, and is supernaturally guided by God to be true and accurate for all men, at all times. This idea is called “biblical inerrancy”, which means that the Bible does not contain errors. Does this apply to scientific statements, or just religious statements?Sometimes it is amazes to me to see the battles that rage, for example, between the anti-theistic evolutionist camp and the creationists1. What does the Bible say about our world in terms of science? Does the Bible contain scientific errors? If it did, what would that mean for Christians? Is our faith dependent on the scientific accuracy of the statements in the Bible? What is the purpose of the stories in Genesis about life and creation? Do these conflict with modern knowledge? The answers to these questions are controversial, and the truth might surprise all of us. Let’s take a look at what God has said about His creation through the words of His inspired writers. Goals Goal 1: To understand what “science” says about God, the Universe, and Origins, and why; and to understand what the Bible says about God, the Universe, and Origins, and why Goal 2: To find out if science (or scientists) conflicts with the Bible and if so, where Goal 3: To find out about the roles of Science and Religion in defining our world and our world view	When asked what was Carl Sagan’s perspective on religion: “Carl did not want to believe. He wanted to know.” Ann Druyan (Carl Sagan’s widow) Book Resources for this Study: Evolution and Faith Edited by J.D. Thomas, ACU Press, 1988 (I believe that this book is now out of print, but you may be able to find a used copy through Amazon, or from a used bookstore –ST)
Heart Exam Rather than take anybody’s claims about science vs. the Bible at face value, we should ask ourselves these questions first : What exactly does the Bible say about the universe and the world around us that we can check against modern scienctific knowledge? The Genesis account of creation and the Flood are the two stories at the center of most clashes between science and the Bible. Why? What is the message of Genesis? What is the message of Science?
What Does the Bible Really Say? Where the Bible does make clear statements about the physical world, it does so with remarkable accuracy, uncharacteristic of the times of its authors. In each of the following cases, the Biblical writer had an opportunity to either state the widely held erroneous belief of his day, or to state a factually true description. In each case what was stated was true, demonstrating knowledge beyond the writer’s ability and thus necessarily from God. Biblical Fact As Stated In Bible Reference Common Belief of Day in Which Author Lived Blood is essential to life. Lev. 17:11-14 Disease and spirits reside in blood. To cure disease, bleed patient. Both male and female possess “seed of life.” Gen. 3:15; 22:18 Male has baby in him. Woman = incubator. Eating blood of animals forbidden. Lev. 17:12,14 Raw blood used as beverage. Don’t eat animal that died naturally. Lev. 17:15 No restrictions on manner of death. Quarantine of certain diseases Lev. 13-15 No isolation of diseased. Don’t eat pork, scavengers (in Moses’ day). Lev. 11 No food restrictions. Principles of avoiding bacterial contamination - one person to another. Lev. 15:19-33 No rules of hygiene or isolation. Human waste products to be buried. Deut. 23:12-14 Human waste left on ground. Human body can be opened for surgery. Gen. 2:21 First operations done secretly because populace threatened doctors. Burning clothes, washing self after contact with deceased man or animal. Num. 19:5-22 No recognition of contagion problems. Earth is round, day and night taking place simultaneously. Isa. 40:22, Prov. 8:27, Luke 17:34 Earth is flat. Earth is not physically supported. None mentioned and Job 26:7 Earth held up by four elephants or Atlas (a man), etc. The North is Empty (Our North Pole points out of our galaxy). Job 26:7 Seeing a few stars to the North refuted this idea until 1932. Space and stars are too large to be measured or counted. Gen. 15:5, Jer. 33:22 Attempts to number the astronomical bodies went on until 1932 The creation sequence - plants, water creatures, birds, mammals, man, in that order. Gen. 1:11-28 Most had man first. All varied from correct concept. The age of everything in the creation is the same. Gen. 1:1 Different times for different objects. The continents have floated away from a singular original land mass (Pangea). Gen. 1:9, Gen. 10:25 Each continent was autonomous (until 1970). Hubert Spencer’s scientific principles. Gen. I No scientific system of statements. Lightning is produced naturally. Jer. 10:13; 51:16 Gods throw lightning bolts. All men are blood relatives. Acts 17:26 Men have different origins. The water cycle. Eccl. 1:7, Job. 36:27,28 Gods pour new water on land continuously. Use of genetics in livestock. Gen. 30:30-43 No recognition of inherited physical properties. Snow and ice seen as valuable. Job. 38:22 Snow and ice seen as a scourge and waste. Seaworthy ratio for ship construction 30 - 5 - 3. Gen. 6:15 Ships ratio not considered; only the beauty. Concepts of id and ego. Rom. 7 God induced behavior explanations. Animals can be changed (mutated). Gen. 3:14 No change possible. Directional correctness. Luke 10:30 Directional error. Distance accuracy. Luke 24:13 Errors in distances. Hittite nation’s existence. Gen. 23 and elsewhere Denied until 1906. Source: John N. Clayton, “Checkable Biblical Accuracy”
What Does God Want us to Know? It is important to understand the goal of science, and compare it with the goal of the Genesis account. Both scientific discovery and the Bible writers explain the same things, but from different points of view. The actual, historical events must coincide, but the descriptions may be quite different. Take, for example, two witness’ accounts of a meteorite falling to earth over Australia. One witness is a Japanese astronomer, viewing the event through a telescope just as the rock enters the earth’s atmosphere. The other is an Australian aborigine watching the night sky from a rock outcropping. The meteor falls to earth just a few thousand yards from the aborigine, exploding with a tremendous flash, killing several livestock, and leaving a crater two hundred feet in diameter and thirty feet deep. Would the accounts from each observer be different? How about the explanation of the cause? Would either observer be more tempted to lie? What about an explanation for why the event happened? Which observer would be able to give the best account of the event? Why? Can we learn something from each?

What is Science? The goal of science is to explain the physical world through hypothesis, observation, and experiment (the scientific method). However, science is not the only academic discipline (principally philosophy and theology) that is in the business of explaining parts of the world. Like philosophy and theology, science also requires faith. Modern science does not operate entirely within the rules of the scientific method, regardless of what public schools and science writers would have us believe. Science could not operate that way, nor would any of us want it to, otherwise, there would be very little explanation for the “why” in the observable world. By definition, things that cannot be observed, tested, or verified are outside the domain of the scientific method. Suppositions about such things, the “why” answers, lie squarely in the realm of faith. Science requires a faith in uniformity, predictability of natural laws, and observability. Things that can be observed empirically can also be tested, and hypotheses about those things can be verified. The kind of faith that says that things have always been as they are observed now is called uniformitarianism. There is another kind of faith, one where the scientist decides that nothing can exist which cannot be measured, or cannot be bound by the laws of nature. Since God has both of these characteristics, by this faith it is assumed that He cannot exist. This kind of faith is called materialism, or naturalism. It is a sort of faith to decide, when speaking about historical events, that offering a reasonable explanation for something is the same stating a fact of history. For example, even though it may be a good explanation with good evidence, the extinction of the dinosaurs by a comet strike is sometimes presented as fact, even though there could very well be a completely different reason for it. Presenting evidence along with a logical hypothesis to explain some condition in nature is not a demonstration of fact, but neither should the same methodology be dismissed when used to explain something that is outside of nature.Both require a kind of faith to accept.	“The no boundary condition is the statement that the laws of physics hold everywhere. Clearly, this is something that one would like to believe, but it is a hypothesis. One has to test it… Of course, even if the observations do agree with the predictions, that does not prove that the no boundary proposal is correct. But one’s confidence in it would be increased, particularly because there doesn’t seem to be any other natural proposal for the quantum state of the universe.”(The Beginning of Time, Stephen W. Hawking), emphasis mine.
What is Religion? Religion explains the supernatural world (things that are believed to exist, but are not observable), and the meaning behind both the natural and the supernatural world. Religion, in this sense, is more like philosophy than science. Religion requires faith because it explains things, that by nature, cannot be directly observed. Christianity, as a religion, explains the relationship of man and his physical world to a supernatural Creator, and provides a non-relativistic standard of conduct and morality to guide the believer. Both Christianity and science overlap where an explanation is sought for the “why” aspects of the observable world.	“Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”Albert Einstein
History of Clashes Between Religion and Science The following examples are taken from the fields of astronomy and biology, which are the two fields of science that seem to overlap the most with religion when attempts are made to explain why things are as they are. Claudius Ptolemy, 2nd century A.D. – Geocentric Universe Claudius Ptolemy was a second century A.D. Greek astronomer who wrote about previous discoveries in astronomy, adding his own notable achievements. His most important contribution was his model of the solar system (and thus, for all practical purposes - the universe), which placed the earth at the center. Ptolemy was not the originator of the geocentric universe — he based much of his theory on the work of his predecessor, Hipparchus. The Greeks believed that the heavens were perfect, and thus that each planet moved along a circular orbit at a constant speed. As a mathematician, Ptolemy accomplished a remarkable feat by developing rules, using this “geocentric” model, that accurately predicted the positions of stars and planets. People living at that time, and for quite a while after, readily accepted dogma and absolute ideas, especially when reinforced by the religious authorities that felt that such ideas were part of their domain. Ptolemy’s design for the universe was the dominant idea in astronomy for over 1400 years. This is an example of how a theory can be entirely wrong, yet be accepted by most of the experts, as long as it does not conflict with the observational data available at the time.	Sculpture of Ptolemy
Copernicus, 1543 – Heliocentric Universe The famous Polish astronomer Nicholas Copernicus made the next great leap forward in astronomy by realizing that the motions of the planets could be explained by a “heliocentric” model of the solar system. In this model, the Sun was placed at the center of the universe instead of Earth. The Earth was simply one of many planets orbiting the Sun, and the daily motion of the stars and planets were explained much better by the effect of the Earth spinning on its axis. Copernicus, using this model, was able to explain the planets’ occasional backward, or retrograde, motion naturally through the combined motions of Earth and the planets. The heliocentric idea, like Ptolemy’s model, was not new, but had been developed by the Greek astronomer Aristarchus over 1500 years earlier. Copernicus was the first person to argue the merits of this hypothesis in modern times. Copernicus’ model also explained why the two planets closest to the sun, Mercury and Venus, never seemed to stray far from the Sun in the sky. It also allowed Copernicus to calculate the approximate scale of the solar system for the first time. Despite the basic truth of his model, Copernicus still could not prove that Earth moved around the Sun. Despite its merits and importance to astronomy, Copernicus’ ideas were rejected by most of his peers, and particularly by the religious world. Joe Ator describes the fallout: The new theory was rejected by most of his peers for several years, as “a mere hypothesis.” It was so revolutionary that Copernicus moved back to Poland and kept quiet about it for thirty years. Finally he gained the courage to get his ideas into print. His heliocentric theory was set forth in a book published in May, 1543, while he was on his deathbed. The medieval Church reacted with strong opposition. In the universities under the Church’s control, the professors were instructed to teach only “safe science,” in line with scriptural truth as interpreted by the theological professors. Martin Luther and John Calvin were contemporaries of Copernicus. Their voices also were given to join the criticism of the heliocentric theory by the medieval Church. Luther spoke derisively: People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth. Martin Luther had a scholarly and prominent associate named Philip Melanchthon who also condemned Copernicus. He wrote a treatise entitled Elements of Physics in which he stated: The eyes are witnesses that the heavens revolve in the space of twenty-four hours. But certain men, either from the love of novelty, or to make a display of ingenuity, have concluded that the earth moves; and they maintain that neither the eighth sphere nor the sun revolves …. Now it is a want of honesty and decency to assert such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious. It is the part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God and to acquiesce in it. He cited passages in the Psalms and in Ecclesiastes which he claimed showed that the Earth stands still and that the sun moves around the earth. Without doubt Luther and Melanchthon thought they were defending God’s word and true Christian doctrine against the impious teachings of a scientist. It seems that what they were doing wrong was treating the Bible as a technical science book! Rheticus and Reinhold, two capable astronomers who taught at the same university at Wittenberg as Luther, convinced themselves that the heliocentric theory of the solar system was true, but neither was allowed to teach that idea to his students! John Calvin took the lead among other Protestant churches that attacked Copernicus. In his “Commentary on Genesis,” Calvin condemned all who asserted that the earth is not at the center of the universe. He thought he clinched the matter by quoting Psalms 93:1, “The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.” He then asked, “Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?” Does that charge have a familiar ring in the twentieth century? Two hundred years after Calvin another well-known theologian, John Wesley, declared that these new ideas about the earth and other planets going around the sun “tend toward infidelity.” Joe T. Ator, Science Teaching and Bible Teaching, essay in Evolution and Faith, J.D. Thomas, ACU Press, 1988	Engraving of Copernicus
Galileo, 1610 – Observing Jupiter’s Moons Galileo Galilei was a professor of mathmatics and a pioneer of modern physics and astronomy, born near Pisa, Italy, in 1564. Galileo began his troubles in 1604 when he became involved in a dispute with philosophers who held (with Aristotle) that change could not occur in the heavens. A supernova appeared that year, and Galileo found through mathematics that the exploding star must have been very distant, in the supposedly unchangeable regions of the cosmos. In 1609 he found out about the newly invented Dutch telescope. He was so excited by its possibilities that he put other work aside and began to construct his own telescopes. Galileo used his telescopes to observe and record the positions of celestial bodies that could not be seen with the naked eye, such as the lunar mountains, the starry nature of the Milky Way, and previously unnoted “planets” revolving around Jupiter. These discoveries were published in The Starry Messenger (1610), which aroused great controversy: The discovery of moons orbiting around Jupiter increased the number of known planetary bodies in our solar system (including our moon) beyond the count of seven. They proceeded to denounce both his method and its results as absurd and impious. Quoting the Bible, they claimed the seven golden candlesticks of the Apocalypse, the seven-branched candlestick of the tabernacle, and the seven churches of Asia were “types” which proved there could be only seven planets. Their confident but foolish misapplication of scripture was premature; the eighth major planet, Uranus, was discovered in 1781. Neptune was seen in 1846, and Pluto was discovered in 1930. (ibid.) Other scientists soon made telescopes capable of confirming his observations, and the controversy ebbed for a while. During the next year, after having observed the phases of Venus, Galileo became a firm believer in the Copernican heliocentric universe. Galileo developed theories that finally took Copernicus model out of the lists of hypotheses and into the realm of truth. Ator writes: Galileo’s telescope was kept busy. Historians record that opponents of Copernicus had told him, “If your doctrine were true, Venus would show phases like the moon,” whereupon Copernicus responded, “You are right; I know not what to say; but God is good, and will in time find an answer to this objection.” Whether in fulfillment of this prophecy of Copernicus or not, the answer came in 1611, when the phases of the planet Venus were seen through Galileo’s telescope. I would suggest that Satan did not lead Galileo to make that discovery, and, that Galileo was not seeking to discredit the Holy Scriptures in any way. (ibid.) But because the Bible was seen by religious authorities as supporting the opposite view of a stationary Earth, Galileo’s troubles began in earnest. The Holy Office at Rome issued an edict against Copernicanism in 1616, and Galileo was ordered never to defend or teach it. In 1623, Maffeo Barberini, a friend of Galileo, became Pope Urban VIII, and Galileo obtained his permission to write a book (the now famous Dialogue concerning the Two Chief World Systems, 1632) that discussed the Ptolemaic and Copernican systems. Ten years later, Galileo was called before the Inquisition in Rome and imprisoned for life for violating the 1616 edict, and all his work was banned in Italy. Soon after, Galileo’s sentence was commuted to house arrest, where he was able to continue his work until his death in 1642. Galileo was not the “infidel”, but a sincere seeker of truth. Joe Ator summarizes the lessons from Galileo’s adventures: Much has been written about Galileo’s struggle, his persecution by the Church, and its vain attempts to show by the Scriptures that his scientifically discovered “truths” were just not true. Like those who attacked Copernicus, they were zealous in misusing the Bible as a technical science book to support preconceived notions about what the Scriptures taught. They were extremely dogmatic concerning what the Holy Spirit said in Scripture about technical aspects of the natural world, a topic which had nothing to do with the spiritual message of the Bible. Furthermore, they were commenting on Biblical passages which did not even contain such explicit details. In 1873 the publishing house of the Lutheran Synod of Missouri, published a book with the German title, Astronomische Unterredung (Astronomical Discussion), in which he stated, “the entire Holy Scripture settles the question that the Earth is the principal body of the universe, that it stands fixed, and the sun and moon only serve to light it.” That happened long after Johannes Kepler and Sir Isaac Newton had firmly demonstrated the laws of gravitation and orbital motion which are at work in the solar system, and which are relied upon extensively in space exploration programs today. (ibid.)	Portrait of Galileo by Justus Sustermans “The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically false, and at the least an error of faith.”[Catholic Church’s decision against Galileo Galilei]
Charles Darwin, 1859 – Origin of the Species Charles Darwin was a British naturalist and originator of the theory of evolution, which held that all living species have evolved gradually from more primitive species through a process called natural selection, which works spontaneously in nature. Darwin published his ideas in the 1859 book On the Origin of Species. Darwin’s theories aroused great controversy, and challenged traditional beliefs about the position of humans in relation to all other living forms. Typical of the ensuing debates was the one held about a year after Darwin’s famous book was published, between Samuel Wilberforce, an Anglican bishop, and Thomas Henry Huxley, a scientist and strong advocate of evolution: It was reported that the bishop – a good theologian but poor biologist ended his speech by asking, “I beg to know, is it through his grandfather or grandmother that Huxley claims his descent from a monkey?” Huxley muttered something like, “The Lord has delivered him into my hands,” and proceeded to give the audience and the bishop an erudite biology lesson. At the end of his exposition Huxley declared that he didn’t know whether it was through his grandmother or grandfather that he was related to an ape, but that he would rather be descended from simians than be a man possessed of the gift of reason and see it used as the bishop, had used it that day. Ladies fainted, scientists cheered, and reporters ran to print the headline: “War Between Science and Theology.” Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, p.235 Darwin’s ideas spread to other disciplines, not always in a way that was true to the original concept. “Social Darwinism” was an idea that encouraged a ruthless interpretation of “survival-of-the-fittest”, extending to all aspects of human behavior. Eugenics, a term coined by Darwin’s relative Sir Francis Galton to describe controlled improvement of species, including humans, was also based on Darwin’s theories. In 1871, Darwin published The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, where he extended the concept of natural selection to human evolution, and discussed the role of sexual selection in the process. The threat to Christianity imposed by Darwin’s ideas were not that they attmpted to explain a mechanism for change, but that they implicitly excluded a role for the Creator God of the Bible. Darwin himself had difficulty explaining certain features in living things that seem to display intelligent design (such as the eye), but privately held that these must have an evolutionary explanation, even though one was inconceivable at the time.	Photograph of Charles Darwin
Edwin Hubble, 1924 - Expansion of the Universe In 1925, Edwin Hubble, a pioneer in the study of galaxies, settled a long debate in 1923 by demonstrating that the Andromeda “nebula” was actually a galaxy outside our own Milky Way, and that many other such galaxies exist. Hubble’s study of shifts in the wavelength of light coming from recognized, “standard” stars showed that the that the more distant a galaxy is, the faster it is traveling away from the observer. This discovery in 1929 is now called Hubble’s law, from which the fundamental cosmological quantity known as Hubble’s constant is derived. Again, Joe Ator from Evolution and Faith: [Hubble's] exciting results were announced at the winter meeting of the American Astronomical Society in 1924…Thrilling as these findings were, many scientists, including Albert Einstein, were reluctant to accept them, because they implied that the universe had a beginning point — an instant of creation. They further implied that all matter and energy in the universe must have been concentrated in a primordial atom which exploded in a cosmic fireball of unimaginable intensity, an explosion the remnants of which might still be seen receding into the outer reaches of space. …An inseparable part of the conclusions from these results is that the light from remote galaxies began its journey toward us thousands, millions, and in some cases billions of years ago…(ibid.) This discovery challenged long held beliefs by both religious people and by atheists. On one hand, the idea that the universe must have had a beginning must have been difficult for proponents, like Sir Fredrick Hoyle, of a “Steady State” universe that has always existed. The recent (1965) discovery of background radiation from the “Big Bang” as it has become known, has given much more credibility to the theory, and to the idea set forth by Hubble and others that the universe is very old and has been expanding since the instant of its creation. Ator writes: Scientists are subjective human beings like everyone else, and are reluctant to recant a long-held theory which they have spent much time and effort to substantiate. Albert Einstein published his Theory of General Relativity in 1917, and didn’t realize that his equations inherently predicted an expanding universe, a concept in conflict with his belief in a Steady-State universe. Even after Hubble’s announcement in 1924 of the physical evidence of an expanding universe of galaxies, Einstein, like many other astronomers, held on to the Steady-State theory. Six years later, however, he traveled to Mt. Wilson and saw the evidence himself through Hubble’s 100-inch telescope. In later years he admitted full acceptance of the idea of “a beginning.” (ibid.) On the other hand, the implications of great age in the neighborhood of tens of billions of years have no doubt shaken the foundations of religious people who, holding to a very literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account, believe that the earth as part of the entire universe was created as recently as 10,000 years ago. These “short-age” or “young-earth” Creationists maintain that the days described in Genesis were seven twenty-four hour days, and that the approximate age of the earth (and thus the Universe) can be calculated by adding the ages of the generations mentioned in the Bible since the time of Adam. Even accounting for a few missing generations, this method yields an earth age in the thousands, rather than billions of years. Ator warns Bible teachers and religious people in his essay of the real meaning of these discoveries: It should be pointed out that the dedicated scientists who made these discoveries were not trying to find proof that the earth has existed for a long period of time in order to support Darwin’s theory of biological evolution! Their scientific pursuits were in no way related to studies of organic evolution. From research in the fields of physics and astronomy they discovered strong evidences that we have a very old universe of which the sun and its nine planets form a very minuscule part…Anyone who thinks that all scientists who accept the data indicating a very old universe automatically believe in “amoeba-to-man” biological evolution is grievously misinformed.	Edwin Hubble Sir Fred Hoyle An interesting side note: Hoyle is now a proponent of panspermia, a theory that life began on earth by “seeding” from an extraterrestrial origin, through interstellar dust or comets
Scopes “Monkey Trial”, 1929 - Human Evolution In March 1925 the state of Tennessee forbade the teaching of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, but this law remained unenforced until John Scopes, a high school biology teacher in the tiny town of Dayton, Tennessee, volunteered to be arrested for violating it. The town of Dayton held a “trial”, which was more of a media circus than a legal proceeding, to frame what was billed as a public showdown between a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible and more progressive views. This trial became known as the Scopes Monkey Trial. Publicity for the event was guaranteed when William Jennings Bryan, a former presidential candidate, volunteered to speak for the prosecution, and the famous criminal lawyer and agnostic Clarence Darrow agreed to conduct the defense. Bryan was a well-spoken, progressive politician, but was also a scientific ignoramus, so Darrow easily made him out to be a fool. Scopes was nevertheless found guilty, but his conviction was overturned by the state supreme court on a technicality, even though they upheld the statute. The U.S. Supreme Court declared a similar statute unconstitutional in 1968. The most important aspect of the trial was not that it set any legal precedent, but that it set a tone of antagonism between religion and science. The Monkey Trial was glamorized in the movie Inherit the Wind, which was based on a play of the same name by Robert Lee. The 1960 film characterizes Bryan, thinly veiled in the movie as the character Brady, as a sneaky, gluttonous, and narrow-minded nitwit that epitomizes the religious prejudice of the community and the court as the opressor of the heroic teacher Cates [Scopes] and his valiant defender Drummond [Darrow]. The irony of the Monkey Trial is that most people recall the events of the Scopes Trial as they were fictionalized in the movie, not the actual trial in Dayton. The story is still one of a battle between predjudice and intellectual freedom, and of truth versus propaganda and political correctness, but the decision of who to cast on the side of freedom and who to cast as the opressor depends on those that “own the microphone”, as the point is made by Phillip Johnson in his book Defeating Darwinism: When the creation-evolution conflict is replayed in our own media-dominated times, the microphone-owners of the media get to decide who plays the heroes and who plays the villains. What this has meant for decades is that Darwinists – who are now the legal and political power holders – nonetheless appear before the microphone as Bert Cates or Henry Drummond. The defenders of creation are assigned the role of Brady or of the despicable Reverend Brown. No matter what happens in the real courtroom, or the real schoolroom, the microphones keep telling the same old story. This has very practical consequences. I have found it practically impossible, for example, to get newspapers to acknowledge that there are scientific problems with Darwinism that are quite independent of what anybody thinks about the Bible. A reporter may seem to get the point during an interview, but after the story goes through the editors it almost always comes back with the same formula: creationists are trying to substitute Genesis for the science textbook. Scientific journals follow the same practice. That Matthew Harrison Brady may have valid scientific points to make just isn’t in the script.	Darrow and Bryan at the real Scopes Trial Drummond and Brady in scene from the 1960 movie Inherit the Wind See the article The Myth of the Scopes Trial to see how the movie has been mistaken as history. In the article, John Clayton has taken an analysis by Dr. Randy Moore of the University of Louisville comparing the video of Inherit the Wind with the actual Scopes trial, and rearranged it into a useful chart.
Forrest Mims, 1990 - “Amateur Scientist” Article Michael Behe, in his book Darwin’s Black Box, reminds us that the effects of the Scopes Trial still ripple through our society today, especially through the camps of politically correct media and “owners of the microphone”, as in this story about a science writer named Forrest Mims III, who in 1990 was asked to write several columns for the Amateur Science feature of Scientific American magazine: The understanding was that if the editors and readers liked the columns, Mims would be hired as a permanent writer. The trial columns all went very well, but when Mims came to New York for a final interview he was asked if he believed in evolution. Mims replied, well, no, he believed in the biblical account of creation. The magazine refused to hire him.Scientific American was afraid that merely having a creationist on the staff would hurt its reputation among scientists, even though Mims was well qualified and had no plans to write about evolution. Undoubtedly scenes from Inherit the Wind (the movie based loosely on the Scopes trial) and news clips of battles between creationists and their political foes flickered through the minds of the magazine’s editors. Such widely reported mini-conflicts as the Mims affair — even though they have nothing directly to do with the real intellectual issues about how life on earth came to be — fuel the historical flames of conflict between science and religion, and persuade many people that you must belong to one camp or to the other. Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, p.237 Once news of Mims’ brush-off from Scientific American broke in an article published by the Houston Chronicle, Mims became an object, much like Scopes, of media attention. In this case, the shoe was definitely on the other foot. On the television show Crossfire, Mims appeared with Dr. Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education. Dr. Scott cast a particularly nasty oblique insult at Mims when asked what she would do if she was turned down for a job because of (or lack of) religious beliefs: “I think the issue here has been unfortunately framed in terms of science versus religion and it’s not that at all. It’s really a matter of scientific competency. What you might consider is that evolution is not just that man descended from apes. Evolution is a theme. It’s a grand unifying principle that runs across all scientific fields. Now, I’m not defending [Scientific American]. They can defend themselves, but what I would consider if I were in this — in their position, is whether you would be — whether they would be limiting the scope of this column by hiring somebody who is so far out of the scientific mainstream. This man would not be able to write about a wide variety of scientific topics because of his views which are basically religious.” A complete version of Mims’ story is told by Mark D. Hartwig, in an Access Research Network article at Leadership University’s website.	Read Forest Mims’ own account of the Scientific American controversy in the Opinion section of the Feb. 18, 1991 issue of The Scientist. Eight years later, Scientific American acknowledges theistic science (and scientists) in the August 1998 article, Beyond Physics — Renowned scientists contemplate the evidence for God
All of these conflicts at the outset were framed as battles over truth, but what was really at stake was not the truth, or even the conduct of “good science”, but a world-view.As a world view, the simple choices that are really behind conflicts with science and Christianity are these: God or No God Truth or Propaganda You can find much more about the history of clashes between religion and science from an online text of the book A History Of The Warfare Of Science With Theology In Christendom, by Andrew D. White.
Setting the Stage Some definitions Next week’s lesson will begin to cover the specifics of the debates between science and Christianity. To prepare for the lesson we should take a look at some definitions of terms that appear frequently in articles about Creation, Evolution, Origins, and Intelligent Design: Uniformitarianism is the belief that natural processes (especially geological) as observed today are substantially the same as in times past, and that observations of current processes can be used to reliably measure changes, effects, and other evidences of nature during ancient times, provided that one assumed they had taken place over very long periods of time. This doctrine was articulated by the Scottish geologist Charles Lyell (based in part on theories of the 18th century geologist James Hutton). Catastrophism is an opposing view of the processes of nature, that seeks to explain major natural changes (in particular, geological features like rock strata and fossil distribution) as the result of sudden and cataclysmic upheavals. Creationists tend to be more comfortable with the theory because it is consistent with the existence of a Creator who intervenes in nature, and does not require extremely long periods of time. Darwinism: A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual’s ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian Theory. Neo-Darwinism: Modern application of Darwinist Theory to all kinds of characteristics of life, including psychology and behavior. Attempts to explain almost all observable traits of organisms through natural selection. Most prolific champion and writer: Richard Dawkins Scientism is the view that science is the very paradigm of truth and rationality. If something does not square with currently well-established scientific beliefs, if it is not within the domain of entities appropriate for scientific investigation, or if it is not amenable to scientific methodology, then it is not true or rational. Everything outside of science is a matter of mere belief and subjective opinion, of which rational assessment is impossible. Science, exclusively and ideally, is our model of intellectual excellence. Theistic Evolution: There are are two kinds of evolution discussed from within theistic camps: the first kind might be called “Deistic” Evolution. This belief allows for a God who created the universe, but who does not intervene in it except indirectly through the mechanisms of nature, and in the case of life on earth specifically, Darwinistic evolution. This first camp believes that God designed the evolutionary process, but did not play a direct role in the creation of animals and plants beyond the initial “breath of life”. The second kind of theistic evolutionist does not discount micro-evolution (changes within species), but dismisses macro-evolution (descent from a single life-form or from simpler animals outside the species) as an explanation for the variety of life that appears today. This camp is convinced of a God that intervenes supernaturally in nature, but there is considerable difference between proponents as to the extent of His intervention. Special Creation: Special creation is the idea that God created everything in its final form, as we see it today, at the time of the Creation as described in Genesis. This theory argues against almost all evolutionary ideas, even from within species. Naturalism: Almost all of the theories that skeptics put forward are based on a single, important assumption: The universe is observable, and it is all there is to observe. All that happens must happen within this universe, and must conform to unalterable natural laws. This is called naturalism (see naturalistic philosophy, below.) Because of this world view, there is no room for miracles, which by definitions are the suspension of natural laws. Materialism is like naturalism, in the sense that it maintains that there is no supernatural world, but it also extends this idea to reduce non-tangible phenomena such as emotion, morality, and evil down to the results of physical processes such as biology, chemistry, and electrical interactions within living organisms. A natural outgrowth of materialism is the superimposition of Darwin’s natural selection upon sociology, called Social Darwinism. “If most people believe in God (studies show that about 90% of Americans claim some sort of belief in a Supreme Being), then why is it so hard for scientists to accept theories of intelligent design?”Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box Clash between Christianity and Science There seem to be “hot spots” in the landscape of science that lend themselves more to controversy than others. These controversies plainly appear when there is an overlap in an area where proponents have opposing world views. We will try to cover these areas in more depth during the next several lessons. Here is a list of the subjects that I have found generate almost as much “heat” as they do “light”: Creation and Evolution - Origins and Change Origins of the Universe - Cosmology Origins of Life Origins of Man, Mind and Values Naturalism and Change Miracles and the Supernatural Biblical Interpretation Literalism vs. Allegoricism Age of the Earth The Flood Noah’s Flood as an Historical Event The Flood an Explanation for Change Creationism Young Earth (Short-Age Creationism, “Creation Science”) Old Earth (Long-Age Creationism) Special Creation Evolution What is Evolution? Can Evolution Explain Life as it Really is? Materialism and Naturalistic Philosophy (”Ghostbusters”)   Heart Exam Why is this important? Why don’t some scientists accept theistic ideas like creation/intelligent design? Can Science be Reconciled with the Bible? John Clayton (Does God Exist?, Nov./Dec. 199 has written perspective on this issue: Do We Distill Science Through the Bible or the Bible Through Science? Clash between Materialism and the Supernatural There is one last thought that I would like to cover as we conclude this section. The existence of the supernatural may not be required to explain life and the physics of the universe that we observe, but as believers in the God of the Bible, we must accept that the supernatural does indeed exist, since God is, by definition, supernatural. The supernatural may have already become a permanent barrier to compromise between materialistic scientists and creationist theologians, but it can also become a fundamental barrier to anyone in their search for truth. By refusing to accept the possibility of the supernatural, the truth seeker cannot accept arguments that may strongly point to the God of the Bible as the Creator of all things, no matter how conclusive the evidence. Consider this statement by the PBS writer who answers reader’s questions for the PBS website for the NOVA series Steven Hawing’s Universe: “A very important part of turning cosmology into a science is to understand all the implications of a seemingly trivial statement: There is nothing outside the universe. One aspect of this is that there can be no observer outside the universe… Another aspect of this is that a scientific cosmology can contain no residue of the idea that the world was constructed by some being who is not a part of it.” (What Is The Future Of Cosmology?, Lee Smolin, PBS web site on Hawking’s Universe ) A second thing to consider is that Darwinist philosophy is often pre-determiner of hypotheses and thus, of expectations. Another quote from this same author, elsewhere on the NOVA web site: “I have proposed one possible answer: something like natural selection acts on the choice of the laws of physics.” (Smolin, ibid.) It takes a lot to overcome a materialistic world view. What sounds like perfectly sound reasoning to the naturalistic scientist becomes dogmatic and limited in the eyes of the Christian believer. Which one is the “free thinker”?   Conclusion Naturalistic Science tries to understand the “Mind of God” without understanding the “Heart of God.” This quote is from the book A Brief History of Time, by Stephen Hawking: Einstein spent the last 30 years of his life futilely chasing after [a unified field] theory, the Holy Grail of physics. He wanted a theory that could explain the four fundamental forces that govern the universe: gravity, electromagnetism, and the two nuclear forces (weak and strong). It was supposed to be the crowning achievement of the last 2000 years of science, ever since the Greeks asked what the world was made of. He was searching for an equation, perhaps no more than one-inch long, that could be placed on a T-shirt, but was so powerful it could explain everything from the Big Bang, exploding stars, to atoms and molecules, to the lilies of the field. He wanted to read the mind of God. [emphasis mine] Perhaps it would be appropriate to respond here, with another quote by Hugh Ross: “Hawking’s long stated goal ‘is a complete understanding of everything.’ Since the existence of the God of the Bible or of singularities would guarantee that his goal would never be reached, he seeks to deny both. Ironically, his goal was proven mathematically impossible by Kurt Godel in 1930. According to Godel’s in-completeness theorem, with incomplete information about a system, one cannot prove a necessarily true theorem (i.e., a one and only one description) about that system.” Quantum Mechanics, a Modern Goliath , Dr. Hugh Ross The Christian needs to understand both the messages of science and of the Bible to be equipped to speak to the issues of Truth The Bible is not a book of science, but it does make statements that are checkable using science. Truth is truth, no matter what context is used to present it. Both science and the Bible have a message, a domain, and a goal. The domain of science is the physical world, and the goal of science is to explain it. The domain of the Bible is both the physical world and the spiritual/supernatural. The goal of the Bible is to explain both the world from a spiritual point of view, and deliver a relationship message from a supernatural God to Man. We who are of faith accept the Bible is a source of truth, but how shall we accept it as a source knowledge? It seems only fair that we try to understand both the message and the goal of what we read in the Bible. Where the message is about the physical world, messages from both science and the Bible, if true, must agree. But where the Bible is delivering a spiritual message, we must not read into it more than what was clearly intended. We cannot expect the Bible to be the complete source of all scientific knowledge, any more than we can use science to discover the “mind of God.” We owe it to the Messenger to do understand not only the content, but the goal of the message. Believers need to practice good science. Consider the following two articles. Both are about popular myths written by well-intentioned believers (or by subtle skeptics) that demonstrate the difference between faith and gullibility: A Whale of A Tale from the reading list.The perennial NASA Scientists Discover Joshua’s Long Day hoax. Scientists need to practice good science. The question in light of these conclusions: What is “good” science? Phillip Johnson has made his mark in the Apologetics world by exposing materialist philosophies that masquerades as science. As a seeker of truth, an honest scientist must go out of his way to separate pre-conceived philosophies from the craft of observation and discovery. I am particularly fond of Johnson’s description of Richard Feynman, a scientist that lived a Biblical philosophy that Christian scientists and apologists would do well to emulate: The best description I know of the qualities that make an expert trustworthy comes from the late great physicist Richard Feynman, one of the unquestioned heroes of modern science. If a teenager with a passion for science wanted to take one twentieth-century scientist as a model, he or she couldn’t do much better than to pick Feynman. In his 1974 commencement speech at the California Institute of Technology, Feynman told the graduating students to cultivate a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty — a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked — to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated…. In summary, the idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that. I would like to add something that’s not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the laymen when you’re talking as a scientist. I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is [more than] not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen. I would like to think that when the graduating students of Caltech heard those inspiring words, they all stood up and shouted “Amen!”

Doctors Believe

 54% of doctors believe that God or another supernatural being intervenes in patients’ health, finds a University of Chicago study. About 75% doctors believe religion and spirituality give patients a positive, hopeful state of mind and help them cope with illness and suffering.

About 33% believe religion and spirituality can cause patients to refuse, delay or stop medical therapy or avoid taking responsibility for their health. 45% said religion and spirituality can cause guilt, anxiety or other negative emotions leading to increased patient suffering.

Nevertheless, 85% of doctors believe the influence of religion and spirituality is generally positive. 76% believe God or another supernatural being helps patients cope with and endure illness and suffering. 74% believe God or another supernatural being gives patients a hopeful state of mind.
Chicago Sun Times 4/10/07

A Commentary on the Book of Jude

by
William Arnold III
WmArnold@apostolic.net

---

Jude 1:1 Jude, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, To those who are the called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ:

The Greek reads “Judas,” which is the equivalent of the Hebrew “Judah,” but most English translations render “Jude” so as not to be confused with Judas Iscariot. James the disciple (brother of John and son of Zebedee) had died by this time (Acts 12:2) and so the only James which was well known enough for this identification was the bishop of the church at Jerusalem which Paul identifies as “the Lord’s brother” (Gal. 1:19). Being the brother of James, Jude was also the half brother of Jesus (Matt. 13:55) but apparently chose rather to identify himself as his (douloV) slave.

2 May mercy and peace and love be multiplied to you.

3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.

“Common salvation” is probably a reference to “the salvation we all share” (NLT). Jude is saying that this is what he had originally intended to discuss. However, he felt compelled instead to exhort them to contend for the faith (Grk. – “I had the need to write to you . . .”). He goes on in the remainder of this letter to talk about the false teachers which have come in. Apparently he thought this was something which was more important and needed to be dealt with. ‘apax, “once for all” means once and only once. A “hapax legomena” is a word which occurs only once in the Bible.

4 For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

This is most likely a fulfillment of Peter’s prophecy (2 Peter 2:1ff). This book has a lot in common with 2 Peter and it appears that Jude was writing to show that what Peter foretold was being fulfilled among them. “Crept in” means crept in “among you” (cf. 2 Peter 2:1). These were false believers who mingled among the true Christians, what our Lord called the “tares” (or weeds) among the “wheat” (Matt. 13:25). He says they changed grace into aselgeia, “licentiousness” which means “living without any moral restraint” (Friberg Greek Lexicon).

5 Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.

I don’t know what clearer way he could have said, “Once saved is not always saved.” He would not desire to remind them of this if they were not themselves in danger of the same thing.

6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,

This is most likely a reference to the “sons of God” in Genesis 6, cf. 2 Peter 2:4.

7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

He seems say that the angels, Sodom and Gomorrah and these present false teachers have all fallen into the same sin, which he names as ekporneuw, “gross immorality.” I find it interesting that he identifies “the punishment of eternal fire” as “an example” to be prokeimai, “exhibited” or put “on public display” (Friberg).

8 Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties.

9 But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”

This story of Michael and the devil comes from the apocryphal book, “The Assumption of Moses.” Jude says that not even the angels dare to do what these false teacher do.

10 But these men revile the things which they do not understand; and the things which they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are destroyed.

11 Woe to them! For they have gone the way of Cain, and for pay they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam, and perished in the rebellion of Korah.

“The error of Balaam” was enticing God’s people to commit fornication and idolatry (Num 31:16-19, cf. 2 Peter 2:15-16). The “rebellion of Korah” was to disregard Moses’ authority and convince God’s people to return to Egypt (Num. 16:1-35).

12 These are the men who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted;

“Hidden reefs” conveys the idea of something very dangerous but not very obvious. This was before the days of fathometers (depth gauges). Running into a reef could cause the boat to sink and possibly cause those onboard to drown. What an analogy for the danger of false doctrine! It is also possible that spilaV could be taken to mean “spot” or “stain” (as in KJV, NIV, NRSV. For “hidden reefs” see NET, NASB, NLT). “Clouds without water” means that they look like they bring a blessing (rain was always seen as a blessing to the agricultural people of Bible days) but in reality they are empty. “Trees without fruit” conveys a similar idea. And “doubly dead, uprooted” is an emphatic way of saying that these men have no life to give.

13 wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever.

“Wild waves” and “wandering stars” pictures instability. Stars were used in ancient times for navigation. With all of the comparison Jude has made with ships and the ocean, the original readers would have understood this analogy to show that these “stars” don’t lead you to where you want to go. A “fixed” star is useful for navigation, a wandering star is not. Jude pictures hell as “black (or “gloomy”) darkness.” He also says that it has been “reserved” for these men and that they will be there “forever.”

14 It was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones,

15 to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”

This quote of Enoch is found in Pseudapigraphical book, “The Book of Enoch.” Probably what Enoch prophesied was passed down orally until it was recorded in this work during the intertestamental period. This seems to be the first recorded prophesy of the second coming of Christ (unless we are to understand Gen. 3:15 this way as well).

16 These are grumblers, finding fault, following after their own lusts; they speak arrogantly, flattering people for the sake of gaining an advantage.

17 But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ,

18 that they were saying to you, “In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts.”

This, more than anything, seems to point to a direct fulfillment of Peter’s prophecy (cf. 2 Peter 3:1-3). Peter said that it would happen and Jude is saying that it is now happening.

19 These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit.

In addition to “causing division” and being “worldly-minded” (cf. 1 John 2:15), Jude plainly says that these men do not have the Spirit. By this statement he is saying that “they are not one of us” (cf. Rom. 8:9).

20 But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit,

21 keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life.

“Building,” “praying” and “waiting” are all participles which modify the main verb “keep.” It seems best to take the first two as means and the last one as attendant circumstance. In other words, we are to keep ourselves in the love of God by “building” and “praying” while at the same time we are “waiting anxiously.”

22 And have mercy on some, who are doubting;

23 save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh.

Jude gives three different ways we are to treat those who go astray. 1. Show some of them mercy; 2. Some must be snatched out of the fire; 3. Still others need a combination of mercy and fear. (The King James, following the Majority Text has a little different reading here)

24 Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy,

I quote this verse to God when I am struggling. His word says he is able to keep us from falling (KJV).

25 to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

A new understanding on Prayer.

Administration comment.

Luke 11:9“So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 10For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.

For many of us, over the years of our walk with God, we have had questions that have been asked, and no answer has been forthcoming.

Yet plainly, Jesus states that we WOULD have an answer.

I personally, have always struggled with questions regarding worth and the relationship I could expect with God as a one on one. We after all are a sinful product so far distanced to his presence by our ancestor Adam. Daily we pray for forgiveness, we pray for intercession, we pray that he might look down on us and not be incensed by our sinfulness, “please lord, do not be irritated with us any more” type of thing.

Last night, I was at the weekly wednesday night Bible study that I attend in Florida, and looked round the room at the men who attend. We are currently immersed in the Book of Acts, up to chapter 17, discussing the time period involved for the journeys, and looking at the message the apostles were now telling the Jewish nation about Jesus and the new covenant. I was struck by the faithfulness of each one of these men. These men have been a source of great encouragement to me in difficult times. We all lean on God to lead us.

I digress. What stuck in my mind was the phrase, “new covenant.”

A scripture came up, just in passing, and I noted it, just in passing.

(Romans 4:25) He was delivered up for the sake of our trespasses and was raised up for the sake of declaring us righteous.

Later that night, at home, I was thinking about it and what it meant, and suddenly, I knew there was far more to it than just a statement. I ran to the computer and started cross linking scriptures both in time period, in idea, in content, and in continuity.

Last night, I received the answer to a 30 year request for understanding.

Romans 3:24and it is as a free gift that they are being declared righteous by his undeserved kindness through the release by the ransom [paid] by Christ Jesus. 25 God set him forth as an offering for propitiation through faith in his blood. This was in order to exhibit his own righteousness, because he was forgiving the sins that occurred in the past while God was exercising forbearance; 26 so as to exhibit his own righteousness in this present season, that he might be righteous even when declaring righteous the man that has faith in Jesus.

Ok, let me get this right. According to the above statements, Lord God almighty has let Jesus not only take on the sins of the world, but has ALREADY reconciled us to himself now?

(Romans 5:6) For, indeed, Christ, while we were yet weak, died for ungodly men at the appointed time.

Ok ok… I know this, the whole Bible is a detailed timed prophetic book leading to the birth of the messiah who would take on the sins of Adam and replace the law covenant of Moses with himself as high priest…..but…?

(Romans 11:15) For if the casting of them away means reconciliation for the world, what will the receiving of them mean but life from the dead?

So this refers to a future resurrection or a spiritual awakening…what?
(1 John 2:2) And he is a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins, yet not for ours only but also for the whole world’s.

Yes, so Jesus has been proclaimed the sacrifice that took away the sin of Adam in an exchange, Im beginning to not see the point here any more…

(Isaiah 43:25) “I—I am the One that is wiping out your transgressions for my own sake, and your sins I shall not remember.

Wait a minute, back in Isaiahs time, it was prophecy that you would not remember our sins? You would eradicate our mistakes, our back sliding? You would forgive?

(Romans 5:1 So, then, as through one trespass the result to men of all sorts was condemnation, likewise also through one act of justification the result to men of all sorts is a declaring of them righteous for life.

Righteous for life? All these scriptures indicate that God has reached out to us with more than just the fulfilment of his word that an exchange would happen for our eternal lives..this is also the ending of irritation with mankind?

Acts 13:38 “Let it therefore be known to YOU, brothers, that through this One a forgiveness of sins is being published to YOU; 39 and that from all the things from which YOU could not be declared guiltless by means of the law of Moses, everyone who believes is declared guiltless by means of this One.

Oh my! He is not angry with me or us anymore.! We have truly entered into a forgiven state over and above a future promise. It is now.

Although we are sinners due to adamic failure, and do not measure up to the standards originally set by God, we no longer are under his anger. His son Jesus, the Word, the Logos, did more than die for us, Jesus put us in personal relationship with the Father as long as we go through the high priest, which is Jesus, and we can have a one on one relationship with no barriers.

2 Cor 5:19God was by means of Christ reconciling a world to himself, not reckoning to them their trespasses, and he committed the word of the reconciliation to us.

You may be sat at home reading this and saying to yourself, this affects me how?

Let me tell you how….

Your prayers will change. The content will become richer. You no longer have to supplicate on the basis of Gods anger with mankind. He is not angry at us any more. We are reconciled through Jesus. So much so that:

Luke 2:14 says,

“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”

This said by the angels at the birth of Jesus.

We have more than just a sacrifice for our sins. We now have a relationship with God.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

post note.

I have seen these scriptures over the years and never collated them into a cohesive understanding. If God is no longer angry with us, then we can use JESUS as the intercessor for mankind. I no longer believe we have to plead on behalf of our sinfulness, it has been done. It is Jesus job, after all, he is sat next to God and is pleading for us…

Our prayer need to be filled with asking for direction and strength to do Gods will. All humanity is forgiven and need only to seek out God through Jesus. All that The Father desires for mankind is now ours if we have the faith to accept it. Yes, we are still under the adamic results of sin. Sickness and death are here until his total word is fulfiled. But….. we are reconciled spiritually RIGHT N