The Aspiring Polymathis has some thoughts on the Virginia Tech Massacre:
The 9mm butchering of 32 students & faculty at Virginia Tech was not an unexplainable happenstance, as one popular conservative talk-show opined. Nor was this macabre act a result of a mind that was “ill,” “irrational,” or “confused,” as many other commentators claimed.
No.
The student was only acting out his atonement; his 9mm Gospel.
It is a gospel that would destroy everyone so as to save itself.
Take my one-question personality test!
Are you the kind of person who, when cooking a frozen pizza, sets the timer because:
1. If you don’t, you will obsessively check the clock until it’s done, thus not accomplishing anything for the next seventeen minutes.
or
2. If you don’t, you will forget about the pizza and burn your house down.
This question tells you everything you need to know about someone.
I need Andrea to come home. For lots of reasons, but not least because last Monday I cooked a frozen pizza, and didn’t turn the oven off until Wednesday night.
Andrea and I watched “Finding Neverland” the other night. I thought it was an excellent movie; very touching, very poignant. Johnny Depp was excellent as always, though the role seemed tailor-made for him; the weird, slightly asexual boyish character. Depp plays James Barrie, the playwright who writes “Peter Pan”, and traces the encounter he has with a widow with four boys and the connection he forms to this family which provides the inspiration for his play. Barrie is married, but unhappily, and the widow (Kate Winslet) has a mother who doesn’t approve of her relationship with Barrie, as it is barring her from seeking out a suitable husband. So there are many barriers to their relationship. People even think the relationship between Barrie and the widow’s four boys is unnatural. The movie connected the ethos of Peter Pan with Barrie’s own personal life. He is a great believer in make-believe, and his attitude is that if you believe, you can overcome the obstacles that are in your way in life. As time goes on, it becomes clear that his faith does not truly remove any obstacles, and is not intended to. But it allows him to maintain his playful spirit even in the midst of tragedy. Belief and faith are essentially the same thing, and this movie is therefore a movie about faith. Faith being one of the core concepts in Christianity, one might think that this movie therefore shares in some manner in the Christian ethos, but one would be very wrong. The concept of faith in the Christian religion is of faith in something specific; the promises of God. If I believe in what God has told me, despite there being no carnal evidence for the truth of it, that is an act which lays hold of God’s promises and makes them my own. Faith is the sole instrument of our salvation, the one thing that we do to make God’s promise of salvation our own. It is therefore faith which is directed at reality and at accepting that reality, the reality that God is who He says He is and will do what He says we will do. Nothing untrue is made true by our faith. Compare this with the faith of Neverland. This faith is a faith which is directed at refusal to acknowledge reality. It refuses to accept that a child must grow up; refuses to accept that societal norms and conventions must be taken into account; refuses to accept that a dead loved one is truly gone. Peter Pan’s (and Barrie’s) faith is therefore the opposite of true faith, based fundamentally as it is in a lie that we can make reality what we want to be. True faith is accepting reality for what it is, even if it is not apparent to us.Think about Neverland itself- the name indicates a place which doesn’t exist, but which nevertheless has the power to transform our lives, by the act of believing in it. It is a mishmash of chaos, with pirates, Indians, fairies and anything else you want to put in it. It is the opposite of reality.
Neverland faith has been absolutely destructive to Christianity wherever that view of faith is accepted. And it is accepted widely. Someone who could make the statement that doctrine is unimportant and that we just need to have faith has accepted Neverland faith. For you say we are to have faith, but what are we to have faith in? How can I believe if I don’t know what God has said? But a great deal of the church has accepted the idea that faith is just an act of will, of transcending the world and reaching out to the eternal. This is essentially the faith of Schleiermacher, who did not believe that what you believed was terribly important, just that you believed in something. Some might even still assert that faith in Jesus is crucial, but still deny the need for accurate doctrine about Jesus. Jesus’ name is then some kind of totem, some word of power which grants spiritual blessings just by its invocation. And any who would assert that all religions lead to the same thing likewise have the faith of Neverland.
But if it is merely the act of believing which will bring us these spiritual benefits, then the “what” of the faith is not terribly important. It is simply the act of having faith in one’s own dreams. And this is rebellion, it is the faith of vanity, the refusal to accept what is true and the insistence on making one’s own truth.We can’t escape the hard realities of life by clicking our heels together and wishing them away. We can only hide for so long from these realities. There are no such thing as fairies, and clapping our hands won’t make them appear. There is however a God, and we won’t make Him go away by saying we don’t believe in Him. The reality of the universe must be dealt with, must be accepted. We will have to deal with that reality sooner or later. Faith in God’s promises means dealing with it now, submitting to it and accepting God’s promise of salvation. That promise is granted on His terms, not ours, and is likewise accepted on His terms. Believing lies doesn’t make them true, no matter how many times we clap our hands. Make-believe is fine for children, but the mature spiritual adult knows that only belief in the truth will save him.
Some thoughts from the sermon today:
Alister McGrath, in his biography of John Calvin, asserts that the doctrine of predestination became much more important to subsequent generations of Reformers than it was to Calvin himself, that it became a lens through which everything else was viewed. I have not studied the later Reformers like Beza or Turretin enough to confidently assert that this is true, though it appears to me to be the case. What I do know is that people often do just this sort of thing, for reasons of group identity, which is what McGrath asserts about the later Reformation. Predestination attained a greater importance than it might have done otherwise for reasons of group identity- it was the doctrine that distinguished them from Lutherans. Group identity is a huge motivator in people’s behavior- that much is clear just from reading the headlines from the Middle East. And it seems all too common that we Reformed view the doctrine of predestination as important because it shows how we’re different than others.
But how does Scripture view the role that the doctrine of predestination holds in our theology and lives? In John 10, one of the strongest passages to present the doctrine, we see that it basically functions to help us understand other things, not as a goal of itself.
24 Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, “How long do You keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.”
25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me.
26 “But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.
27 “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.
28 “And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.
29 “My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand.
30 “I and My Father are one.”
Here, Jesus clearly teaches the doctrine- they don’t believe because they’re not His sheep. It is His Father who designates who are His sheep- He is the One who grants those sheep to Jesus. But Jesus doesn’t present this truth as an end goal of itself; He didn’t just one day start telling people about the doctrine of eternal election. He uses the doctrine to explain why it is that they reject Him- they don’t believe because they’re not His sheep. We see the same thing in John 6-
64 “But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him.
65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”
Here, the statement (which is just one of a series of similar statements in John 6- see verse 39 and 44 as well) comes directly as an explanation of why they reject Him- it is because it has not been granted to them by the Father to come to Him. This is the reason for the statement.
This is precisely one of the uses of the doctrine that people often shy away from- as an understanding of why people don’t come to faith. And yet this is exactly how Jesus uses the doctrine. When people reject the truth of Christ, we don’t want to ascribe that to God’s election- it feels harsh and unloving. We don’t know God’s election and so we cannot confidently assert that someone who rejects the gospel is not elect and will never accept the gospel. But if God is sovereign over our salvation, and determines our ability to come to faith, then at least we can say that the one who doesn’t come to faith was not predestined to come yet. The day may come when they will, but in the meantime we can stop beating ourselves up that we somehow didn’t present the gospel right and confidently assert what Christ asserts- “My sheep hear my voice”. In that case, all we have to do is do everything we can to assert that the words we are speaking are actually the words of Jesus, and not our own invention. If we speak the gospel faithfully, we can have complete confidence that Jesus’ sheep will respond.
The second way that this doctrine is used is to illustrate the true nature of our faith. And both in John 10 and in one of the other cardinal passages on this subject, Romans 8, predestination is presented as the grounds for our confidence as Christians. In John 10, Jesus describes what it means to be His sheep, granted to Him by the Father- they hear His voice, they follow, and nobody can ever take them away from Him. Why? Precisely because our Father who is greater than all has given them (us) to Jesus, and who is powerful enough to countermand the decree of the Father? Similarly in Romans 8, those three verses that every good Calvinist has memorized, 28-30, are presented not simply as teaching predestination for its own sake, but as the grounds of the complete confidence that the Christian can have that all circumstances and forces, both external and internal to himself, are working toward the goal of his salvation.
We as Reformed then ought not use the doctrine of predestination simply as a group identity marker, something showing how we’re different (and better) than other kinds of Christian. It should instead function in our lives as it does in Scripture- to help us understand why some accept the truth and others don’t, and to show us the true nature of the salvation which Christ has assured for us.
I’ve signed the pledge. I hope you will too.
I know it’s been kind of a one-trick pony around here for a bit, but I can’t get this stuff out of my mind right now.
If you’ve followed this discussion over the age of the universe, one thing you’ve likely noticed is the prevalence of a particular view of truth. This view is the one that permits people to say that Genesis 1 is religiously, but not historically, true. Essentially this is Kant’s old epistemology, dividing the world of truth into the noumenal and phenomenal, where things we see and can reason out and know by science are phenomenal truths on the one hand, and on the other we have religious truths, emotional truths, things like love and spirituality, and these are noumenal truths. I don’t mean to condemn by association, but it is helpful to refer to Kant since he did such a good job of explaining his philosophy. And so, Genesis 1 (and Genesis 1-11, all too often) are said to communicate noumenal, but not phenomenal truths.
One of the frequent defenses of this kind of thinking is that a lot of people will never believe in Christianity if the Bible is allowed to make the historical claims that it makes. Ignorant people might believe it, but people who are in the sciences will know better and not become Christians, because they know these things in the Bible could not possibly be true. So we need to protect the Scriptures by not trying to make the Scriptures do things they’re not intended to do, like teach science or history.
Whenever you hear someone referring to these stories in the Old Testament as “myths”, but try to say that that doesn’t mean they think they’re false, just true in the mythological sense, this is essentially what they’re saying. Genesis 1 is a myth in the sense that it communicates religious but not historical truth.
This concern to protect Christianity from the attacks of modernity was just what motivated Kant as well. He was unable to answer the empiricism of Mill and Hume, and so to preserve some realm of truth, he did what was essentially a tactical retreat, conceded the world of the logical and rational to science (the “phenomenal”), and carved out for himself a realm called the “noumenal” where Christianity could be safe. If Christianity is made to be essentially subjective and irrational, then science could never get it. It was safe.
To put it another way, he thought Christianity was like the good china- really pretty and nice, but not up to the rigors of everyday use. So you put it up in the china cabinet and look at how pretty it is and bring it out for special occasions, but you really didn’t use it for all the day-to-day stuff.
One of the big problems with this view (besides the small matter of being completely unscriptural), is the fact that rationalism is never content with the treaty. They keep grabbing more territory. Over time, more and more things that were said to be matters of the noumenal have been seized by the phenomenal. It’s like thinking Hitler will be content with the Sudetenland. We gave them science, the understanding of the rational world, and then they came for the miracles. At first those were a matter of religion, but David Hume wrote “On Miracles” and we had to give them that. Then we said morality was a matter of the noumenal but along comes Freud and we had to give them that. Spirituality, right and wrong, love itself- what is there that the rationalist doesn’t say belongs to him?
But what Kant failed to realize is that Christianity is not the good china. Christianity is an all-purpose tool and it doesn’t need to be protected. It’s rugged, durable and very useful. If it talks about history, then we can trust it. If it talks about science then we can trust it.
The doctrine of inspiration does not teach that God’s truth is contained in Scripture. This it the way of liberalism. The doctrine of inspiration says that all of Scripture is the very words of God- God-breathed. So if the Bible says that Seth lived five hundred years and then begat Enos, then God says that Seth lived five hundred years and begat Enos. And if we say that people have never really lived for five hundred years, then we’re calling the Holy Spirit a liar. Otherwise, the Bible isn’t the Word of God, it just _contains_ the word of God, and it’s every man for himself to decide which bits are true and which bits aren’t. And guess what the next part to go usually is- the resurrection.
The Word of God is a light to our feet. The Word of God is our strong shield and buckler, a high tower, a rock of defense. The word of God is bread and water, a life giving stream. It’s not some fragile thing that can only be used for a few delicate tasks but for the most part has to be kept safe up in the china cabinet. Throw it out into the business of life. Use it in every occasion. Get comfortable with it, like your favorite pair of shoes or your work vehicle. Use it all the time for everything you do. You might be surprised at how durable it actually is. It’s like those commercials for Ford trucks where they show them doing all kinds of crazy things, in the mud, in the snow, climbing up crazy rock piles. Built Ford tough. That’s the word of God, only more so.
If the word of God addresses the origin of the universe, then we can trust it completely. If it addresses the sinfulness of homosexuality, we can trust it completely. If it addresses the history of the Egyptian nation or the decrees of Emperor Tiberias or whether or not a certain man in a certain time walked on water, we can trust it completely. And just as the Allies eventually realized Hitler wasn’t going to stop and had to go to war with him, eventually we are going to have to realize that there is no compromise with rationalism. We must cede no territory at all to it. We are going to have to go to war whether we like it or not, because rationalism is at war with us.
To use another example, it’s like wondering whether a chair will really hold your weight if you settle down on it. Those in the sciences, with scientific backgrounds, too often don’t seem to think that the chair can really bear their whole weight. So they say, It’s really just ornamental, like those old chairs that Dutch people hang on their walls. Useful once upon a time, but now just a reminder of our heritage. I’m challenging you- take the chair down and sit on it. See if it holds your weight. Start doing science assuming the Bible is true in all its details and see where it gets you. Trust His word- I triple dog dare you.
The problem of the scientist is not unique. They seem to think it is, but it’s not. All of us have problems trusting it. Are God’s ways really the best? Is homosexuality really a sin? Should wives really submit to their husbands? Does it really matter if I go to church or give tithes? Did Jesus really die for my sins and rise from the dead? Is He really coming again?
The problem here is faith. Do we really believe what God said? Can we really trust it?
Proverbs 30: 5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
I think that pretty much says it all.
The last three chapters of the Romans Bible study have been posted on the SermonAudio site – Romans 4, 5 and 6.
Well, I’ve about wrapped it up over at the Evangelutionist.
The last statement from GJG, the main guy I’m arguing with:
So it all comes down to that question. How does accepting a scientific approach to natural history in any way compromise fundamental Christian doctrine?
My response:
I already answered you a couple of times, but you didn’t apparently like the answer. And I’m sorry, but I think I’m just about done with the civility you value so much. The core doctrine you’re compromising is inerrancy and infallibility. You think the Bible has errors, lots of them, beginning to end. And you think that science is possessed of sufficient authority to correct Scripture, when the opposite is in fact the case. You think yourself in a position, possessed of sufficient wisdom, to correct the mistakes of Moses, Peter, Paul, and anyone else in the Bible that doesn’t match up to your level of understanding (even Jesus? He mentions Abel in Matthew 23:35- is Abel a real person?). And you say that the YEC-ists are lacking in humility! Your doctrine isn’t insulting to me. It’s insulting to God. You are lacking in humility. You are the one confused. You think your little telescope, your Discovery channel special, your Carl Sagan magazine article can correct the Holy Scriptures? You think your test tubes and Geiger counters are a more accurate source of information than the Holy Spirit? Moses talked with God FACE TO FACE (Deut. 34:10), as God said He would never talk to any other man until Christ came, and you think you know better than him. Appalling arrogance, and makes me realize what a waste of time this whole thing is, thinking you’d ever listen to me when you won’t listen to Moses. Scripture doesn’t need your help. You need its help, because you’re on the path to death. You apparently believe that God, who said that the mythologies of the nations around Israel were abominations, then used those abominations to teach Israel religious truth. Do you think God incapable of telling the the truth about His own creation in a way that they could understand? Do you really think the Israelites were such idiots that if God had told them “the universe is in fact very old” that they couldn’t understand it, despite the fact that other ancient cultures believed that too? That God could have told Moses (face to face, remember), that some of his details about who was whose parents and how long they lived weren’t right? And maybe Jesus (created all the world, remember) could have dropped a bug in Peter’s ear that Genesis 1 was just a “fable” before Peter would embarrass himself by relying on that fable in the very same passage that denies that he follows fables? Maybe you’d like to rewrite the Bible the way it should have been done? Could have avoided all those poor souls going down to hell because God wasn’t smart enough to write the Bible the way you thought He should have? You should be on your knees asking forgiveness. I could go into quite a bit of detail, how your doctrine destroys the parallel Paul makes in Romans 5, which wrecks the doctrine of imputation of sin and therefore the doctrine of imputation of Christ’s righteousness. The whole covenantal structure is standing on quicksand when the actual historical events that established the covenant may or may not have actually occurred. Original sin is foundering when Adam’s existence is called into question. Death is supposed to be the penalty for sin according to lots of passages (Romans 6:23 for one), but death is just part of God’s mechanism for progress if you’re right. Another contradiction. But you’ve failed to understand or deal with my arguments from the beginning, just accusing me of illogic and ignorance (even accusing me of being ignorant of the meaning of the word ignorant!). I’ve spilled thousands of words on this already. It’s all there. These are the doctrines you compromise as I’ve said from the beginning. I mention Bultmann because I thought you might be interested to know whose arguments you’re using, and what bitter fruit those arguments have borne. And just as a personal exercise I’ll try one more time with my argument about 2 Peter: Peter says that following a myth would be bad, and denies that he does it in verse 16 of chapter 1. Yes, he’s talking about Christ. If your argument is right, then just fifteen verses later, he does just what he said is a bad thing to do by using the flood as proof for his argument- he is following a myth. You seem to think following myths (”religiously, not historically”) is OK, but the word (”muthos”) or the concept everywhere in Scripture is something to avoid. A myth is something that is false, a lie, in Scripture. You say the mythological nature of the flood doesn’t affect his argument, but you apparently don’t understand his argument then. Here it is: Major: God punishes false prophets. (Proof: Flood, Sodom and Gomorrha)
Minor: False prophets exist today.
Conclusion: God will punish those false prophets as well. If the proof for the major premise didn’t happen, then the argument doesn’t work. And also just as a personal exercise, I’ll try this part of my argument again as well: What bar is there to using your exact interpretive method, as many have, to discount the resurrection of Christ? If historical and religious truth can be separated, couldn’t they be separated there as well? Couldn’t I believe in the principle of forgiveness of sins and resurrection and atonement without needing to actually believe in a virgin birth (which science tells us is impossible)? Or to put it another way, who are you to decide which doctrines of Scripture can be tossed aside and which are essential? Who are you to decide that any given truth that God saw fit to communicate to us in Scripture can just be discounted? I say these things for the benefit of anyone else who may be reading. It’s clear to me you’re not going to listen to any arguments I make. Why should you? I’m not greater than Peter. I’m not greater than Moses. You ignore them; you’ll ignore me too. John 5:44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? You appear very much to be more interested in being well-regarded by your fellow “scientists” than being approved by God. I won’t judge your heart, but I will warn you. See the above passage and prayerfully consider whether this applies to you or not. This is why I believe Genesis 1. I believe it because I love Jesus, my Savior, who died for my sins and rose again. I am not my own. I belong to Him. And He told me to believe Moses, without qualification. So I’m going to believe Moses, and all the “science” of the world be damned. Jesus didn’t tell me to believe Moses “religiously but not historically”. He just told me to believe him. If Jesus thought that belief needed a caveat, He could have mentioned it somewhere. See, all I care about is what I’m going to answer for myself when I’m standing in front of His holy throne. I don’t care if it turns people off to the gospel. That’s God’s business. He elects, He calls people to Him anyway. It’s not my job to make Scripture more palatable. It’s an offense, a stumblingblock, and it always has been. I’m not ashamed of it. So, worst case scenario- I’m completely wrong and you’re right. I think I will be able to claim good intentions, that God’s words on this point were a little unclear. I’ve lost nothing, really. I just believed God’s word. I have a hard time thinking God will condemn me for that. But switch it around- I’m right and you’re wrong. What are you going to do when you’re standing in front of God and He wants to know why you didn’t believe the plain teaching of Scripture, and taught other people to do so as well? Whose honor are you interested in receiving? Again, the essential doctrine is the cross of Christ. What’s the link? Verse 46 above. Jesus says if you don’t believe Moses then you won’t believe Him either. I think there’s a little too much at stake here for you to play your little word games. Just believe Moses. He spoke face to face with the creator of the universe, and he knows more than you. I know that you, in your breathtaking arrogance, don’t think that’s true. But I’m going to take the revelation of God over all your little scientists and rock hammers and telescopes and chemistry sets any day of the week. All who contradict the word of God will be weighed in the balance and found to be nothing, the chaff that is blown away. Repent, I am urging you. Your doctrine is the doctrine of devils, and leads to death.
UPDATE: His response is here.
From this discussion:
Touchstone and GloverGJ,
I just can’t leave it alone. I’ve learned from past experience not to say I will not reply to an argument anymore, because often I can’t resist.
So. The OT says that a legal matter could be decided on the evidence of two witnesses. You’ve implied I must be ignorant of the scientific evidence. So I’ll tell you this, to make you aware of my educational background and capacity to understand your argument: I’m not a scientist. But I have received a B.A. degree from a secular university, including classes in physics, astronomy, chemistry and calculus. I have taught calculus, geometry and trigonometry on the high school level. I am trained in logic. I am aware of the arguments regarding the speed of light, the distance of stars and the Doppler shifts we have observed. I am also aware of the arguments regarding radiometric dating of rocks, though to a lesser degree.
So let me ask you- what are, in your minds, the strongest two arguments for the old age of the earth? What are the two witnesses you would appeal to? Please don’t make it lengthy- let’s just name the evidences and briefly summarize them. If I need to do research to understand the arguments, I know how to do that research. You will know from my replies whether I understand well enough or not.
Update: Here is the discussion on Evangelutionist’s site. It’s quite lengthy. The discussion revolves not so much around the specific evidences, but on the question of epistemology, the basis for our knowledge and understanding of things.
I am endeavoring to show that belief in old or young earth is a choice you make. Judge for yourself whether I am successful or not. The evidence does not compel belief in an old earth as there are possible explanations for the evidence. Even if the evidence says what they say it does, there is simply the possibility that God created it that way six thousand years ago, with some processes already advanced:
All of the data you presuppose could have simply been created in that state by God six thousand years ago. I know that such a solution is usually mocked, but really, why should it be? There’s a perfectly good reason why God would create the light of the stars already on earth, and that’s that He wanted us to see the stars. Stars are very useful for navigation and other things. And all of these heavy elements and radioactive isotopes must have their purposes too. Just because we don’t know why God would do something like that doesn’t mean He didn’t do it, or that there isn’t some reason of which we are unaware. Can you prove that it’s impossible for God to have created everything six thousand years ago with some processes already advanced? It is necessary for you to prove this in order to make your case. And there’s another possible reason that He did it that way, and that is the real possibility that He did it in order to test people, to see whether they would believe Genesis 1-11 or the theories of God-hating idolaters. Unworthy of God, perhaps you might say? Isn’t that deceptive, dishonest? But God told us He would do exactly that: Deuteronomy 13:1 “If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder,
2 “and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods’ — which you have not known — ‘and let us serve them,’
3 “you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the LORD your God is testing you to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. This isn’t the only passage that tells us God would do this. Revelation mentions it several times. Many passages speak of God clouding the minds of people with madness and giving their minds over to lies to punish them for their rebellion. It’s not really deception when God told us He would do it for the purpose of testing us, and provided the truth in clear and unambiguous language as well. He said He would introduce misleading and difficult evidence into play to see whether or not we would believe what He has clearly told us. I think that’s exactly what’s going on here. Another example of this exact thing is the story of Micaiah and King Ahab in 1 Kings 22, where the prophet tells Ahab that God sent lying spirits to deceive him through his false prophets so that he would go to war against Syria and be killed. God at the same time provided the true witness in the form of Micaiah, telling him the truth, so that Ahab would be tested, to see whether he would follow God or not.
His response:
“Can you prove that it’s impossible for God to have created everything six thousand years ago with some processes already advanced?” Absolutely not – such a thing is impossible to prove. Neither can you prove that the earth was creation this morning and all of our childhood memories are false. You can never prove these things. As a result, the “appearance of age” argument is the only logical YEC argument out there. If you agree to this, then we can stop all of this silly arguing over the “evidence” because it will always favor an old earth, and you will always have a logical way to dismiss it – since the “actual” age as revealed by God is much younger. If this is your position, why concern yourself with the evidence for an old earth in the first place?
The point is to show the fact that this belief is a choice you make. The evidence does not require it. It may be a hard choice in the face of the pressures the world puts on us. But everything about Christianity flies in the face of the world. This is no different. Christians must make hard choices and suffer the scorn of the world.
Actual conversation:
Andrea walks into my office and says, “Could you explain to Katie what a spiritual marriage is?”
Me: “huh?”
She says, “well, I was explaining to her that Jesus is our king, and she asked who Jesus’ queen is, since every king needs a queen. So I told her the church is Jesus’ bride.”
Me: “ah.”
So I say, “Katie, it, ah, just means that when we die, we’ll all go to live with Jesus and be with Him forever.” (Oversimplification, I know, but she’s 4.)
Katie: “Oh, when we die. OK. Cause I didn’t know that CHURCHES could marry LORDS.”
