Christmas Traditions

Christmas is right around the corner and everyone is going in every direction to buy gifts, decorate, buy Christmas trees, plan parties, send cards, and many many more things.

Well, I’d like to ask you all about Christmas traditions. We just got a tree today and that in itself is a tradition not unfounded in the Bible, but actually prophesied by Isaiah.

For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands. Instead of the thorn shall come up the fir tree, and instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle tree: and it shall be to the LORD for a name, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off. -Isaiah 55:12-13

What sorts of traditions do you have during Christmas? Do you know the origins of them? Maybe you would not mind sharing some with us. Perhaps it will help many of us with our own celebrations this year.

Thanks to all for visiting and Merry Christmas!

A passage for this season:

1John.4 (KJV)

[1] Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
[2] Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
[3] And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
[4] Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
[5] They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
[6] We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
[7] Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
[8] He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
[9] In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
[10] Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
[11] Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.
[12] No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
[13] Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.
[14] And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
[15] Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
[16] And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
[17] Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
[18] There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
[19] We love him, because he first loved us.
[20] If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
[21] And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/kjv/

I love verse 10. It really demonstrates the necessity for Christ coming into this world to die for our salvation. Is it not wonderful that we can now know love for God and for one another through fellowship because of Christ’s love demonstrated by His actions on our behalf?

Merry Christmas everyone!

Atheism: is there sufficient morality?

In my discussions with atheists, the issue of morality comes up an awful lot. Many of them claim that ethics and morality is relative to society or the individual or they say it is “culture-dependant.” They mean that morality changes over time and that it is not absolute. What may be “right” for one person or one culture may not be “right” for another person or culture depending on the time, place, and technology.

As a Christian, my morality is and must be based on the Bible because it is an unchangeable concrete foundation for all morality and ethics. The thing about that is, though, that man is fallen. For anyone to deny that man is fallible and corruptable, they are either a lyer or just plain stupid. It is everywhere. We see it in the news everyday. We hear about it on the radio. We often times witness its horrors first hand. Even ourselves, we are corruptable and tend toward bad behavior.  I do not think this fact is disputable.

That being said, it is of utmost importance to me as a Christian, to share my faith in Christ, the only means I see for hope of a more perfect, good, and holy existence, not in this world by trying to create a utopian society, but after death.

For the atheist, though, I do not understand why they feel the necessity to challenge Christians. If they are right, what difference does it make? People will eventually die and that is the end of it, no matter how much money or pleasure you amase to yourself in this world. However, if the Christian is right, would it not be advisable that as many people as possible come to faith in Christ?

If there is no God and people believe in Christianity or some other religion, what ultimate difference does it make? But, if God does exist and people do not believe in him, we are all in a lot of trouble since we decided not to follow God’s morality, but our own or some culture’s morality. In either case, as a religious person, and I believe as a Christian, I will always have the upper hand.

To depend on a changing morality, one that either changes over time or is relative to the person or culture creates a delema when one wants to challenge someone else’s actions. As a Christian, with an unchanging moral foundation, I do believe I have the right to challenge others on their behavior.

This is not to say that everything must be exactly the same between cultures and people, but that there are certain underlying principles that all people must abide by. Those are moral principles. Not everything deals with morality and so it is wrong to treat everything as though it did (i.e. some people, and even some Christians, seem to think trivial things such as going 1 or 2 miles over the speed limit is a moral issue). Some things are advisable, but not all things are moral.

Book Reviews

The difficult part about writing book reviews on a blog is that you can only read so many books so fast and write reviews about them. People in our fast paced world like things done right away and quickly. Perhaps that is one of the main reason’s people have not read books like they have in the past.

Right now, I a reading a book (mostly because most other folks my age are reading it and talking about it) titles “Do Hard Things” by the Harris twins. I once heard their dad give a sermon. I can’t say that I was particularly impressed by it or his sons’ books. Josh Harris’ either. Although, I guess I should be careful as these people are very popular and I don’t intend to make enemies among fellow homeschoolers and such. However, I do think that they, at the very least, leave something to be desired.

Anyway, I figured I needed to say something today. I’ll probably say more about my impressions of the Harris’ in later posts and especially as I read this book. Maybe I’ll light some fires and we’ll have some lively discussion. Then again, maybe I won’t. We’ll see. Hopefully I can build up some excitement for my review which i hope to post in the next few weeks.

The great mischaracterization of John Calvin

Well, I am back to blogging after a very large break. The topic for this post is, obviously, John Calvin who seems to me to be one of the most mischaracterized people of the reformation. He really is. Here are a few examples of that mischaracterization that I constantly run into.

First, John Calvin is most unduly credited with the doctrines of predestination and God’s sovereignty. People attack TULIP, but Calvin did not create this. TULIP itself is not particularly accurate when it comes to justly expressing Calvinistic doctrine, even the doctrines of people who identify themselves as Calvinists. (We can go into that another time.) All the major reformers believed in predestination and God’s sovereignty. Luther based his entire movement on it. He called it the “hinge on which all turns” and the “vital spot.” He believed that it was worth the world being turned upside down and pushed into chaos over this issue. Without it, the reformation would not have taken place and we would all still, probably, be catholic.

Secondly, Calvin is said to have “ruled Geneva with an iron fist.” This is obviously so far from the truth, it is hard to choose where to begin. The one example I like the most is the one about Communion. Calvin wanted it served every Sunday, but the council in the city disagreed and decided that it would be done four times a year. Calvin then thought that he could get the churches to order it in such a way that it was served somewhere in Geneva every Sunday, but the council saw through this too and struck it down, ordering that it be served in all the churches on the same Sundays. Calvin was so far from being a ruler in Geneva that he even refused to become a citizen of the city until close to the end of his life so that he would have no political authority whatsoever. Everything he influenced was through the council’s authority by his own arguments.

On to burnings in Geneva, there was only one man put to death by burning when people were being burned by the hundreds of thousands elsewhere. Calvin even petitioned the council three times to have the man beheaded instead of burned, but because he ultimately had no authority to control such matters, the council burned the man anyway.

So, John Calvin is really criticized unjustly when it comes to most modern Christians’ understanding of him. I would like to rectify this and I encourage all readers of this blog to learn their church history and especially the history of the reformers by reading their works. Calvin has so much to offer us and some great advice to give us for our Christian lives, but we need to get past our prejudices of him and actually read what the man wrote rather than getting hung up on something that is hardly his main focus.

This of course leads me into something else that I have to address briefly, but unfortunately will have to delve into later, and that is that we, in the modern Christian church, have adopted a new system of theology and doctrine (some of you may not call it this) concerning feelings and relationships rather than the nature and character of God. We have ignored the great works of the church’s past and decided to develop our own works born of personal and worldly reasoning. Even in my own Calvinistic reformed church, I see these things pop up in what people casually say. Don’t get me wrong, unfortunately, I even see it in myself. I have picked up many bad habits and beliefs from the many different churches and denominations I have been in. The more I read from the reformers and the more I read from the Bible, the more I can correct these doctrines and my system of thinking about myself, my relationships, and my walk through life, focusing more on who God is and what truth is rather than focusing on a false sense of unity and love in the world. It is a long and strenuous path, but I feel I must take it and I hope that you will take it with me. Please feel free to comment on this as these are just some thoughts I have been developing recently and hope will bear some fruit later on in my life.

Book Review: “Refuting Evolution”

This spring quarter, I am taking a chemistry class and so as it is drawing to an end I thought I would read this particular book, knowing that the author, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, is a highly accomplished chemist as well as a creationist. The book is, however, not really about chemistry, but about refuting the claims of a book produced by the National Academy of Sciences titled Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science.

Personal feelings about the book: Generally, I enjoyed it. It is easy to read and understand (possibly readable in a couple hours) and would be good for someone without a very great understanding of science (although such an understanding would help, I think). The book keeps things logical and attempts to explain whenever possible the science in everyday terminology; although, often the scientific jargon is necessary, but this is rarely a hindrance to the reader.

Scientific validity: Sarfati did an excellent job with his research, obtaining resources from both the evolution camp and the creation camp to validate his argument. He has footnotes on the majority of the pages referring to journals, articles, books, and so forth. He is fair enough to admit when the evolutionists are correct in their science, but shows constantly how it does not contradict the creation model. In many ways, this book is not conclusive about the science, but one must remember that he is only rebutting Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science and is not dealing with a single scientific topic. For instance, Sarfati writes briefly about radiometric dating (pages 107-110), but does not provide the complete scientific data that has been obtained on it. Rather, and to his credit, he directs the reader in an addendum to John Woodmorappe’s book The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods. Mainly, Sarfati is attempting to prove that “Facts do not speak for themselves, but must be interpreted according to a framework” (p.135). On this, he does an admirable job.

Content: Sarfati uses nine chapters covering the following topics to prove that conclusions on scientific data are reliant on interpretation (The topics are put in my own words, not Sarfati’s):

1. Bias as something both creationists and evolutionists have.
2. Natural selection.
3. The “missing links” in the fossil record.
4. The “missing links” and falsely claimed links from dinosaur-to-bird evolution.
5. The “missing links” and falsely claimed links from mammal-to-whale evolution.
6. The “missing links” and falsely claimed links from ape-to-man evolution.
7. Astronomy and the theory of relativity.
8. Dating methods.
9. The legitimacy of intelligent design.

As this book is refuting Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science, it refers to the work quite often and deviates from its content only on occasion (as on page 76). One aspect of this book that is refreshing is that it deals with particular claims one by one and not so much with vague generalities. Often in debates over creation vs. evolution, general claims are made in attempts to prove/disprove the other sides arguments while throwing the factual scientific data out the window. In this book, some of these generalities are addressed, but always in correlation with quoted claims about the data (and rarely are generalities given).

Throughout the section dealing with the “missing links,” Sarfati provides many pictures (both artistic renderings and photographs) of the “link” being addressed or the fossil being discussed. This is helpful, not only as a picture for the unscientifically minded people, but also to show what is being presented in school classrooms and in textbooks as fact. Ken Ham, in the forward of the book, points out that many of the text books and information that teachers and professors have is wrong or outdated (p.9-10). Sarfati mentions that Haeckel’s drawings of different embryos are still used in the classroom even though they have been proven false. Sarfati shows that most science teachers and the public in general is highly misinformed about the scientific data.

A few theological matters: A few things concerning the beliefs of some Christians attempting to make evolution and the Bible compatible (theistic evolution) must be said. Sarfati states that “A God who ‘created’ by evolution is, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from no God at all” (p.22). He explains that for evolution to happen within the first six days of the creation week (or as some would say, millions of years) it means that death, disease, and sin would have to be present in the world before the fall, contradicting the message and basic assumption of the entire Bible.

On a related note, Sarfati makes the claim that the first six days of the creation week were literal days (p.22). Some Christians (and some I highly respect) seem to think that there is no evidence for that and say that it could have been a period of time. I see no reason for such a belief as it does not contradict reality unless one were to hold to an evolutionary viewpoint. Again, some of these Christians also deny evolution, which causes me to wonder why a literal six day interpretation is rejected. This is something that I have not figured out.

Conclusion: In general, I recommend this book for everyone (and especially for self-identified unscientific people). It is particularly good for Christians and those who will be dealing with the subject of evolution in school classrooms. It may, however, not be very fulfilling to those who are looking for a more in depth consideration of certain issues, but I still recommend reading it at least once.

Teachers and professors who are willing to look critically at the facts and not write the book off just because it is creation based, should definitely read it. However, I do not think it is a particularly good evangelistic book to give someone unless they really seem open to the creation ideas and the gospel.

My favorite part (Spoiler warning):

“Many news agencies have reported (June 1998 ) on two fossils found in Northern China that are claimed to be feathered theropods (meat-eating dinosaurs). The fossils, Protarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui, are claimed to be ‘the immediate ancestors of the first birds.’

“The two latest discoveries are ‘dated’ at 120 to 136 million years while Archaeopteryx, a true bird, is ‘dated’ at 140 to 150 million years, making these ‘bird ancestors’ far younger than their descendants!” (p.61).

Book Information: Sarfati, Jonathan Ph.D. Refuting Evolution: A Response to the National Academy of Sciences’ “Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science.“ Master Books, Inc., (Arkansas: Green Forest, 1999).

A good passage for thought…

Finals are right around the corner, so I really don’t have much time, but here is some food for thought anyway. This is the passage following the famous John 3:16 verse.

“For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.” – John 3:17-21

Can Science Produce Life (or even keep it going)?

My chemistry class took a field trip today to another university to use their lab. On the way, I rode with one of the students in my class who was majoring in some sort of bio/chemical engineering degree or some such thing. He posited the idea that he would like to do research in stem cells. He did not say what kind and I did not ask, but he seemed to think that it is possible with the rapid advancement of technology to keep people alive forever or at least for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years. He said that there is no biological or chemical reason that someone’s life could not safely, but artificially continue forever.

I personally think that he is wrong and that science will not allow people to prolong lives that long, but let me posit the question before you, the reader. Do you think it is possible to at least prolong people’s lives to hundreds or thousands of years? Why or why not?

Another quote from John Calvin

Here is an interesting quote from John Calvin, not only because of its theological implications, but also because it shows the great peace that such theology if properly internalized can bring a man. This is from the book I have been using in the last few posts.

“In full view of his approaching death, Calvin dictated his Last Will and Testament on 25 April 1564, reciting: I John Calvin, servant of the Word of God in the Church of Geneva… have no other hope or refuge than his predestination upon which my entire salvation in grounded…”

More quotes from Calvin

Something I hear a lot is the stereotype that says Calvinists, or rather people who believe in predestination, are not about evangelism and reaching the unsaved. I heartily disagree. Granted, our reason for evangelism changes because we no longer believe that it is us in and of ourselves who saves someone or even convinces them to believe, but rather, we are the instrument that God chose to use for such means and to reach such ends. Here are some quotes from Calvin (from the same book as I mentioned in the last post), two on predestination and another on controversy and evangelism.

God has a sufficiently just cause for election and reprobation in His own will.

Faith flows from the outward predestination of God, and… is not given indiscriminately to all… The predestination of God is in itself hidden, but it is manifest to us in Christ alone.

All who are sent to teach the word are sent to carry on a contest. It is therefore not enough to teach faithfully what God commands, except we also contend… We have a contest with the devil, with the world, and with all the wicked.

Two often very prominently misunderstood facts about the doctrine of predestination: first, only God knows who will be saved and we are not privy to that information, hence, we cannot base our actions on who we think is God’s elect among the unbelievers; second, that God predestines the means and that includes His use of us, believers in His name.

We witness because God commands us to, not because we think that we can convert someone in our own power or that it will cause a different outcome than that which God has already planned.