Romans 5 Is A Problematic Passage For Calvinism

• Discussion:

          -"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned." (Romans 5:12)

          -"For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men." (Romans 5:17-18)

          Just as the curse of sin infected the entirety of mankind through the fall of Adam, so the Lord Jesus Christ made atonement for the sins of the whole world. Salvation is not given only to an elect group of individuals, anymore than condemnation was passed on only to an elect group. In other words, there is a universal problem presented alongside a universal solution. The parallelism involved here is undeniable. The consistency of this message is utterly incompatible with Calvinist theology. If Jesus does not save all who come to Him by faith, then He must also be a liar. Romans 5:6-10 expressly tells us that Christ died for the ungodly, which would include us all. This message flatly contradicts any notion of limited atonement. It also flies right in the face of the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election.

Spontaneous Generation Is Delusional Thinking

"No, there is not a single known circumstance in which microscopic beings may be asserted to have entered the world without germs, without parents resembling them. Those who think otherwise have been deluded by their poorly conducted experiments, full of errors they neither knew how to perceive, nor how to avoid."

Louis Pasteur, “Sorbonne Scientific Soiree” of April 7, 1864

Why I Reject Darwinism As Science

• Discussion:

          Allow it to be confessed openly that I am certainly no expert on Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Nevertheless, this article presents reasons for a person to accept biblical creationism. Possible critics can label believers foolish, uneducated, and mentally deranged all they want. That is just how the world is with Christianity and the Bible in general. It is not as though our Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles failed to warn us of upcoming hostility or ill treatment by enemies (2 Peter 3:3).

          In short, the concept of evolution revolves around changes in physical structures which take place over given periods of time. According to the Theory of Evolution, a source of matter brought about all the existing life forms that we see in our world today. It is maintained that all this took place stochastically through the processes of genetic mutation and natural selection.

          Microevolution is the small, rapid changes within a particular animal species or a small group of living organisms. Macroevolution is the very gradual, major evolutionary transition which takes place among the different species of organisms/animal species becoming different species (this type of evolution has no evidence).

          The first major promoter of evolution named Charles Darwin was raised a Christian. In fact, he received seminary training. Darwin eventually became an atheist for the remainder of his life as a result of studying this naturalistic philosophy. This apostatizing process was not immediate, but took place gradually. The Theory of Evolution is now taught as a proven fact by many in the secular world, which stands in stark contrast to the creation narrative recorded in the first two chapters of Genesis. Even Darwin recognized that people would make objections to his novel scientific proposals:

           "...why, if species have descended from other species by fine graduation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not nature all in confusion, instead of species being, as we see them, well defined?" (The Origin of Species) 

          One other factor that has made it especially difficult for me to accept the validity of macroevolution is that it can neither be tested nor repeated in a laboratory. It cannot be verified using the scientific method. We have never seen life forms reproduce different life forms. In other words, all life forms produce after their own kind. Thus, the life reproduction pattern laid out by the Book of Genesis is more consistent with the modern scientific realm than evolution. Transitions between basic features in organisms are also rendered impossible by the fact that other vital functions would simultaneously be disabled. Yet, prominent biologist Richard Dawkins made this ridiculous statement during an interview with Bill Moyers:

          "Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it has not been observed while it’s happening."

          Consider this excerpt from Associate Professor of Biochemistry Douglas L. Theobald, who is definitely not sympathetic to biblical creationism:

           "Universal common ancestry (UCA) is a central pillar of modern evolutionary theory. As first suggested by Darwin, the theory of UCA posits that all extant terrestrial organisms share a common genetic heritage, each being the genealogical descendant of a single species from the distant past. The classic evidence for UCA, although massive, is largely restricted to ‘local’ common ancestry—for example, of specific phyla rather than the entirety of life—and has yet to fully integrate the recent advances from modern phylogenetics and probability theory. Although UCA is widely assumed, it has rarely been subjected to formal quantitative testing, 7,8,9,10, and this has led to critical commentary emphasizing the intrinsic technical difficulties in empirically evaluating a theory of such broad scope 1,5,8,9,11,12,13,14,15. "

          A commonly accepted postulate by atheistic defenders of evolution in regards to how the universe began is the Big Bang Theory, which is in itself preposterous. It is simply contrary to reason to suggest that something can originate from nothing. Living matter cannot originate from non-living matter and chemicals. Nothing cannot be the cause of an explosion. It is a fact that the Theory of Evolution cannot account for the origin of life. The probability for such events happening is impossible. It is more reasonable by an infinite margin to believe that God created all things ex nihilo. Consider the following:

           "It is a physical and mathematical impossibility for matter to create itself from nothing as in the 'Big Bang' theory; the universe cannot be eternal because this violates several scientific laws such as the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, which teach that the universe had to have a beginning, is slowly running down (or running out of energy), and that, left to its own, will one day become lifeless and inert. Creation scientists argue it is more logical that the universe was created by God than by nothing, because 'out of nothing, nothing comes.' To ascribe absolute power to nothing is to engage in myth-making and magic, not science." (Creation VS. Evolution What You Need To Know Quick Reference Guide, John Ankerberg and John Weldon)

           Genetic mutations are very rare, and are generally harmful. Changes can be made, but new genetic information cannot be added to an organism's genetic code (which is what is required for evolution to work). Moreover, there is no agreed upon explanatory mechanism for evolution. Our DNA is intelligent information, which points to an intelligent designer. Also, language development and proliferation is problematic for evolution. Interestingly enough, we have discovered soft dinosaur tissue. How did mammals reproduce before they somehow evolved into a male and female of the species? Did some mysterious organism that had both pairs of genitalia have intercourse with itself? How did our essential organs (heart, lungs, stomach, etc.) develop in the first place? Why is it that some creatures supposedly evolved to a certain state of complexity over millions of years just to cease in the process since (i.e. we have found snakes and spiders that are dated back millions of years that are the same today as they were back then)?

            If the Theory of Evolution has so much evidence backing it up, then why are critics so harshly assaulted with ad hominem attacks? Academics who question particular features of Darwinism are at risk of having their careers terminated and reputations destroyed. How does one account for the times when proponents of Darwinism made forgeries? Examples would include Piltdown Man and the Archaeoraptor. How does one account for the fact that humans have characteristics that provide no advantages for survival such as music and religion? Where did our emotions come from? Why do living organisms have symmetry? Where did all the elements originate? How does one account for their precise design? When and where did compounds come into being? Many compounds must have came into existence as compounds because interaction between elements is relatively scarce. Which elements and compounds were included in the primordial soup? Where did gravity and energy come from? Where did life begin? Why are babies still born helpless? How could the precise, natural process of blood clotting arise from blind, unguided chance? Is it reasonable to believe that the 37.2 trillion cells in our bodies are products of mindless evolution (one cell alone contains several volumes of intelligent information)? These are only a few of the countless questions that render Darwinism inadequate as a scientific postulate.

            The worldview that develops as a result of embracing the Theory of Evolution is horrendous. One cannot simply have objective, reliable truths and laws in a philosophy of life which maintains that everything is merely a product of unguided chance. This could yield unspeakably evil consequences, if carried out to its logical end. Nothing would make sense, if carried out in a consistent manner. The survival of the fittest mentality can only result in negative philosophical implications. Neither can it account for the overall design and complexity of creation. It cannot explain why anything happens. This materialistic worldview literally has no explanatory power. It is not livable because it violates the nature of reality. It is nonsensical. It is incoherent. Consider this excerpt from an article that first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume 21, number 1 (1998):

            "No rational person looking at Leonardo da Vinci’s Last Supper would suggest that this masterpiece came into being through blind chance. Incredibly, however, many blindly believe that chance operating through natural processes can account for the masterful precision and design of the universe in which we live. The eye, the egg, and the earth are but three examples of organized complexity that can not be accounted for apart from the existence of an omniscient designer. As the science of statistical probability demonstrates, forming even a protein molecule by random processes is not only improbable; it is indeed impossible."

            Contrary to what supporters of evolution would readily have us believe, there is a recognizable number of reputable scientists who reject (or at least have problems with aspects of) Darwinism:

            "Scientists on this list include Russell W. Carlson, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Georgia; Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U.C. Berkeley; Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus of Biology, San Francisco State; Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath; Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College; Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology, Technische Universität München; Marvin Fritzler, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Calgary, Medical School; Lennart Moller, Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Inst., U. of Stockholm; Matti Leisola, Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki U. of Technology; Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute (2002)" (Georgia Southern University, "NO EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION")

            This is not a scientific battle, but rather is a competition of worldviews (i.e. naturalism vs supernaturalism). This is not a matter of who has the most evidence, but rather how the available scientific data should be interpreted. In simplest terms, the Theory of Evolution is a cornucopia of bias, speculation, assumptions, and assertions. Evolutionists draw their conclusions based on already preconceived naturalistic beliefs, which is circular reasoning. Evolutionary presuppositions are used to verify evolutionary presuppositions. Darwinism is simply another one of man's attempts to remove God from the equation of life.

Notes On The Christian Prayer Life

• Defining The Issues:

          -The fact that God seemingly ignores certain prayer requests has been a major source of discouragement in daily religious life, and has in fact destroyed the faith of some. We have all been disappointed from time to time with how He decides to answer our prayer supplications. But this is by no means a valid reason for turning away from God, for we are in no place to question the intentions of our Maker. Neither are we fully able to comprehend His will. Anyway, there are several biblical principles for a Christian to take into account in his or her daily prayer life.

• Keep In Mind The Possibility That God May Be Trying Our Faith For The Purpose Of Building Our Character:

          -"Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance." (James 1:2-3)

• Keep In Mind That In Order To Have A Deep Relationship With God We Must Pray To Him On A Regular Basis:

          -"Rejoice always; pray without ceasing; in everything give thanks; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus." (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18)

• God Will Not Answer The Prayers Of Somebody Who Has The Wrong Motives:

          -"You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures." (James 4:3)

• God Will Not Answer The Prayers Of People Who Have Doubt In Their Hearts:

          -"But he must ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind. For that man ought not to expect that he will receive anything from the Lord, being a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways." (James 1:6-8)

• God May Be Reluctant To Answer The Prayers Of People Who Are Not Fulfilling Their Duties As A Christian Or Have Cherished Sin In Their Hearts:

          -"Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; and whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do the things that are pleasing in His sight. This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us. The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us." (1 John 3:21-24)

• Other Things To Keep In Mind:

          -Even when God says no to a prayer request, that is still an answer to prayer.

          -God can answer our prayers in totally unexpected ways.

          -Maybe God wants us to wait for a period of time before He answers a prayer.
          -The forgiveness of sin does not entail the undoing of negative consequences.
          -God wants us to pray according to His will (1 John 5:14).

• There Are Different Types Of Prayer:

          -If the conscience of a person is burdened by sin, then he or she can pray and meditate on Psalm 51.
          -If a person does not know what to say or how to pray, then he or she can always recite from the heart the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:6-14).

          -If a person even needs encouragement, then he or she can pray and meditate on Psalm 23.

DNA Is Problematic For Darwinism

        "Furthermore, atheism faces dozens of "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" conundrums that stop evolution before it can even start. For example, DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is what makes protein, yet DNA is itself made of protein. So, which came first: the DNA that makes protein or the protein out of which DNA is made?

        There is no life without DNA, but DNA itself has life. What came first, the DNA that is essential for life or the life that is essential for DNA? Living cells are made up of incredibly complex nano-chemical machinery, and some of this machinery synthesizes DNA. So, which came first, the DNA without which there could be no cell or the cell without which there could be no DNA?

        ...And there are no enzymes without life because it takes life to produce them. Which came first-the enzymes without which there can be no life or the life without which there can be no enzymes? The enzymes that make the amino acid histidine contain histidine. Which came first-the histidine or the enzymes that manufacture it, which themselves contain histidine?

        Many different enzymes are required to translate the genetic information encoded on the DNA Yet the enzymes are themselves encoded by DNA. Thus, the genetic code cannot be translated except by products of translation. This is a vicious circle that allows for only one conclusion: the molecules that encode the information and those that decode it existed simultaneously from the beginning. That fact cannot be explained by any gradual natural process.

        It requires an act of creation by God. Yet the major motive of Darwin (who knew nothing of DNA) was to prove that God was not needed to explain life and the universe.

         As noted, the incredible nano-chemical machinery in the cell is responsible for synthesizing DNA. But it is the DNA that carries the code that constructs and operates the cellular machinery. Which came first, the DNA that carries the information for producing each cell or the machinery in the cell produced by DNA, which must first make the DNA? Obviously, both had to exist simultaneously from the very beginning or neither would exist. That fact requires a creative act of God.

         The genetic code has vital editing machinery, which is itself encoded in the DNA. What came first, the machinery that edits DNA or the DNA that produces the editing machinery?

         Again, the DNA molecule is made of protein; but it is the DNA by which alone protein is produced. DNA cannot function without at least 75 pre-existing proteins-but only DNA can produce these 75 proteins. The machinery to convert the DNA information into the protein is itself made of the protein it alone can produce. There is only one sensible answer to the classic question, "Which came first?" Obviously, God." (The Berean Call, "QUESTION: WHAT WILL BE YOUR MAIN [DEBATE] POINTS IN OPPOSING ATHEISM/HUMANISM?")

Global Warming Is Nonsensical

"The big news from Antarctica these days is the record low temperature of -135.8 degrees Fahrenheit, which is the coldest temperature ever recorded on the planet. What seems to be going unreported, is that on top of the record cold in Antarctica, the southern ice sheet is growing at a pace faster than Global Warming theories can account for. 

Sea ice around the Antarctic averaged 17.16 million square kilometers (6.63 million square miles) in November. The long-term 1981 to 2010 average for November is 16.30 million square kilometers (6.29 million square miles). The arguments from the Climate Change camp all seem to be “no matter what happens, it is still evidence of Global Warming.”

If contradictory evidences -like record cold vs. rising global temperatures- can be sited as equally proving the same hypothesis, can it really be called science?...

When questioned about the utter lack of warming recorded over the past few years, the Climate Change camp will quietly, grudgingly, admit to a “pause.”...Perhaps, the chill of growing ice and the record cold in Antarctica have caused China to theorize that global warming is a hoax.

An analysis of scholarly literature, found in such august journals as the Geophysical Review Letters, Science and Nature, shows that more than 500 scientists have published articles contradictory to the current Anthropogenic (man made) Global Warming theories. Most of the articles produced evidence that a 1,500-year cycle is responsible for more than a dozen “warmings” linking back to the last Ice Age—which Man can have had no impact on, whatsoever. 

It is much more reasonable to come to the conclusion that our modern warming is also linked primarily to fluctuations in solar irradiance, just as past warmings always have been.

...Traditionally, in order to eliminate potential bias which might be caused by personal friendships or philosophical differences, an editor would remove an author’s name, then send the article to peers who would review and comment. A “double blind” peer review process, kept everyone honest. Unfortunately, in today’s politically charged, grant-hungry world of “climate science” where billions of dollars in research money influence trillions of dollars in policy, peer review has become something far less than honest. There is simply no “double blind” practiced anymore. All of the major climate journal editors have taken to leaving the authors’ names on the documents sent out for review so the “in crowd” reviewers can rubber stamp one another’s papers." (The Berean Call, "RECORD ANTARCTICA COLD CHILLS GLOBAL WARMING THEORIES")

Global Warming Proponents Grossly Exaggerate The Facts

"The [UK Daily] Mail on [February 5 revealed] evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change. A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates...has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data....His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.

In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’. Dr Bates was one of two Principal Scientists at NCEI, based in Asheville, North Carolina...

The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’. The paper relied on a preliminary, ‘alpha’ version of the data which was never approved or verified. A final, approved version has still not been issued.

The paper was published in June 2015 by the journal Science. Entitled ‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus’, the document said the widely reported ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ was a myth.

Less than two years earlier, a blockbuster report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which drew on the work of hundreds of scientists around the world, had found ‘a much smaller increasing trend over the past 15 years 1998-2012 than over the past 30 to 60 years’." (The Berean Call, "HOW WORLD LEADERS WERE DUPED OVER MANIPULATED GLOBAL WARMING DATA")

A Biblical Proof For The Deity Of Jesus Christ

• Discussion:

          -The following passage from the Book of Revelation describes our Lord Jesus Christ as metaphorically having pure white hair and sounding like the voice of many waters:

          "and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His chest with a golden sash. His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire. His feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace, and His voice was like the sound of many waters." (Revelation 1:13-15)

          The fact of the matter is that Old Testament texts referring to the Father have also been applied to the Son, which proves Him to be God:

          "and behold, the glory of the God of Israel was coming from the way of the east. And His voice was like the sound of many waters; and the earth shone with His glory." (Ezekiel 43:2)

          "I kept looking until thrones were set up, and the Ancient of Days took His seat; His vesture was like white snow and the hair of His head like pure wool. His throne was ablaze with flames, its wheels were a burning fire. “A river of fire was flowing and coming out from before Him; Thousands upon thousands were attending Him, and myriads upon myriads were standing before Him; The court sat, and the books were opened." (Daniel 7:9-10)

Liberals Avoid Debate By Charging ‘Homophobia’

"Writers who have written for years, or even decades, without ever mentioning homosexuals have been denounced for “homophobia” because they began to write about the subject after the AIDS epidemic appeared—and did not take the “politically correct “ position on the issues. How can someone have a “phobia” about something he has scarcely noticed? Many people never knew or cared what homosexuals were doing, until it became a danger to them as a result of the AIDS epidemic. Whether those people’s reactions were right or wrong is something that can be debated. But attributing their position to a “phobia” is circular reasoning, when there is no evidence of any such phobia other than the position itself. Like so much in the vocabulary of the anointed, it is a way of avoiding substantive debate.

Among the writers who took non-“politically correct” positions on AIDS was the late Randy Shilts, whose best-selling book And the Band Played On is a chilling exploration of the political irresponsibility, based on fears of offending the organized gay lobby, that led to thousands of unnecessary deaths before the most elementary public health measures were taken to reduce the spread of AIDS. No doubt he too would have been called “homophobic” if he were not himself an avowed homosexual who later died of AIDS."

Thomas Sowell, "The Vision of the Anointed," pg.216-217

The Suffering Servant Of Isaiah 53

• Introduction:

          -Isaiah chapter fifty three is perhaps the most keen, vivid description of the Jewish Messiah provided in the entire Old Testament. It portrays Him as being a servant who suffers for the sins of mankind. It contains the very basic message of redemption as revealed more fully through the gospel preached in the New Testament. We Christians naturally identify this suffering servant figure to be the Lord Jesus Christ. While the text of Isaiah 53 may seem pretty straightforward to us, many Jews absolutely refuse to see the emphatic implications set forth by the natural reading of the passage being discussed. They insist that that the suffering servant refers to the Nation of Israel, but the evidence simply does not point in favor of that interpretation. Isaiah 53 is clearly a Messianic prophecy that has long been fulfilled by Christ.

• It Appears That Virtually All Jewish Rabbis Once Believed That The Suffering Servant Of Isaiah 53 Was Referring To The Coming Of A Promised Messiah. In Fact:

          -"Rashi (1040-1105 a.d.) might have been the first to deny that this incredible passage is messianic. But many Jewish sages, before and after Rashi, saw the Messiah in Isaiah 53." (Daniel Mann, Jews for Jesus, "Rabbis, Skeptics and the Suffering Messiah")

• Following Are Some References Cited In The Article From Which The Excerpt Above Was Taken:

          -"The highly regarded first-century Rabbi Shimon Ben Yochai stated: “The meaning of the words ‘bruised for our iniquities’ [Isaiah 53:5] is, that since the Messiah bears our iniquities, which produce the effect of his being bruised, it follows that whoso will not admit that the Messiah thus suffers for our iniquities, must endure and suffer them for them himself."

          -"The mystical Zohar records: “The children of the world are members one of another. When the Holy One desires to give healing to the world, he smites one just man amongst them, and for his sake heals all the rest. Whence do we learn this? From the saying, “‘He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities“‘ (Isaiah 53:5)” (Numbers, Pinchus, 218a)"

          -"Many different rabbis – Gaon Rabbi Saadia, Rabbi Naphtali ben Asher, and Rabbi Moshe Alshich adamantly opposed Rashi’s new interpretation, and demanded that the Sages of Israel should ignore him and return to the original interpretation, the most famous of among them was Mamonides, who categorically declared that Rashi was completely mistaken."

• Not surprisingly, modern day Judaism rejects the concept of vicarious atonement.

• Additionally, Isaiah 53 Has Been Called The Forbidden Chapter In Jewish Communities. As This Source Notes:

          -"The 17th century Jewish historian, Raphael Levi, admitted that long ago the rabbis used to read Isaiah 53 in synagogues, but after the chapter caused “arguments and great confusion” the rabbis decided that the simplest thing would be to just take that prophecy out of the Haftarah readings in synagogues. That’s why today when we read Isaiah 52, we stop in the middle of the chapter and the week after we jump straight to Isaiah 54." (Eitan Bar, One For Israel, "Isaiah 53-The Forbidden Chapter")

• Other Quotes From The Linked Article Above:

          -"In Midrash Tanhuma it says, “Rabbi Nachman says, it speaks of no one but the Messiah, the Son of David of whom it is said, here a man called “the plant”, and Jonathan translated it to mean the Messiah and it is rightly said, “man of sorrows, acquainted with grief”."
          -"Midrash Shumel says this about Isaiah 53: “The suffering was divided into three parts: One for the generation of the Patriarchs, one for the generation of Shmad, and one for the King Messiah”."

• The Suffering Servant Of Isaiah 53 Cannot Simply Be A Reference To Israel, But To A Person:

          -"At the end of Isaiah, the individual servant takes on the role that Israel as a nation failed to achieve. Nonetheless, the Servant in Isaiah 53 cannot be the people or the remnant, because he is said to be cut off from the people (Isa 53:8) and is said to die for our sins and iniquities (Isa 53:5, 11). This cannot be the nation, because how can the Servant be cut off from himself? In addition, he is a righteous sufferer. That cannot be the nation, as Isaiah has portrayed the nation as being in sin (just look at Isaiah 58)." (Matt Smethurst, The Gospel Coalition, "The Suffering Servant and Isaiah 53: A Conversation with Darrell Bock")

• Modern day Judaism simply discards and ignores the overwhelming evidence proving that our Lord Jesus Christ is the promised Jewish Messiah. These people must be converted by accepting the gospel if they truly wish to be saved.

Children And Salvation

          There are competing theological speculations among Christians as to what happens to the souls of children who depart into the supernatural realm. Some have postulated that unbaptized infants perish eternally in hell. For centuries, the Roman Catholic Church unofficially taught that the souls of deceased children go to a place called Limbo. Other folks like me believe that the destination of little children who pass away immediately enter into the presence of God in heaven, which is the position that will be defended in this article.

          Judeo-Christian tradition does affirm the scriptural concept that we call the age of accountability (Deuteronomy 1:39; Isaiah 7:15-16; James 4:17). This is relative due to the fact that everybody develops differently. Thus, there exists a period of time in childhood where God does not count sins against a person due to lacking reason and understanding. They have no knowledge of good and evil. While babies are born with a sin nature, they still cannot commit acts of evil. Additionally, our Lord Jesus Christ stated that the kingdom of God is not only for little ones, but also for those who become like children in their faith (Mark 10:13-15; Luke 18:15-17).

          The God of the Bible is a God of love, mercy, righteousness, and truth. He would not condemn to hell somebody who never even had a chance to live, let alone a chance to accept the gospel and grow spiritually. We must also keep in mind those who have severe cognitive disabilities. Though it is a teaching of Scripture that God has inscribed a moral law into the hearts of all people, each individual nevertheless needs to be capable of understanding it. Each person will be judged according to his or her own conduct (2 Corinthians 5:10; 1 Peter 1:17). Babies can accomplish neither good nor evil. So what could God judge them for?

          Of course, divine revelation does not seal every crevice of human perception and inquiry regarding what happens in the afterlife. But I still think believing that God allows the souls of innocent babies into heaven is the most reasonable stance to endorse.

The Trinitarian Perspective Of 1 John 4:1-4

• Passage Of Scripture Being Discussed:

          -"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world." (1 John 4:1-4)
       
          This text is a call for believers to discern the substance of messages proclaimed by teachers who claim to be faithfully serving God. It focuses particularly on their beliefs concerning the identity of our Lord Jesus Christ. It stresses the correct development of christology. What also has significance is the fact that the Apostle John was combating early Gnostic heresies. Thus, those who fail to conform to the doctrine of Christ as originally delivered by the apostles are to be deemed heterodox. The nature of Christ as revealed through Scripture is to function as a standard of determining whether a minister is truly from God. Following are a handful of commentaries on 1 John 4:1-4 as it relates to the biblical doctrine of the Trinity:

          "Furthermore, John’s test requires believing in the true deity and humanity of Jesus. “Has come” implies His preexistence as the eternal Son of God. Jesus stated His own preexistence when He told the Jews, “Before Abraham was born, I am” (John 8:58). Or, as John begins his gospel (John 1:1), “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

          When John states (1 John 4:2) that “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh,” he is referring not only to His true deity, but also to His true humanity. The Docetists taught that matter is evil; thus Jesus was only a spirit-being who seemed to be a real man. The Cerenthian Gnostics, whom John was probably combating, taught that Jesus was a mere man, but that “the Christ,” a divine emanation, came upon Him at His baptism, but left just before His crucifixion. John’s test refutes both of these heresies. Jesus is the Christ (the Anointed One, or Messiah) who was conceived supernaturally by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin Mary. He had a human body, although apart from sin." (Steven J. Cole, Bible.org, "Lesson 18: Spiritual Discernment--1 John 4:1-6")

           "There's one thing demons will inevitably deny in all their demonic systems, and that is they will deny the deity of Jesus Christ. They will deny God in human flesh. In a word, they deny the incarnation.

           ...He's just saying basic to testing the validity of any teacher as coming truly from God is that teacher's doctrine of Christ. In fact, go back with me to chapter 1 for a moment and John says in verse 1, "That he beheld, and actually touched, the Word of life." That is a term expressing the very deity of Christ, for Christ emanates from God as His living Word. He was in verse 2 with the Father. One with the Father, sharing the same essence with the Father and dwelling in an affable light with the Father before He came to earth. He was manifested to us. The end of verse 3 tells us that our fellowship consequently is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.

          John's language then starts out with the fact that Jesus Christ emanates from God as the very living Word of God. There is the written Word of God on the one hand, Scripture. There is the living Word of God,namely the One John says that was from the beginning that we heard, we saw and we touched. That One, that Word of life was the eternal One, the eternal life, verse 2, who was with the Father prior to His incarnation and was then manifested to us in the flesh that we could see and hear and touch. Now that we know Him, and that you know Him, we have fellowship with Him and our fellowship is with the Father and with the Son Jesus Christ. He is therefore the very Word of God incarnate, He is the eternal life who became flesh, He is one with the Father, manifested to us. He is namely the Son in the Trinity who is Jesus Christ. So John starts out with a very definitive Christological statement in his epistle." (John MacArthur, Grace to You, "How to Test the Spirits")

The Danger Of The “#MeToo” Movement

"The #MeToo movement has uncovered real abuses of power. But the solution to those abuses is not to replace valid measures of achievement with irrelevancies like gender and race. Ironically, the best solution to sexual predation is not more feminism, but less. By denying the differences between men and women, and by ridiculing the manly virtues of gentlemanliness and chivalry and the female virtues of modesty and prudence, feminism dissolved the civilizational restraints on the male libido. The boorish behavior that pervades society today would have been unthinkable in the past, when a traditional understanding of sexual propriety prevailed. Now, however, with the idea of “ladies and gentlemen” discredited and out of favor, boorishness is increasingly the rule."

Heather MacDonald, “The Negative Impact of the #MeToo Movement”

Good Reasons To Remain A Virgin Until Marriage

"There are many valid reasons that it may be a good thing to remain a virgin until later in life. Forgoing sex proves that one is disciplined enough to delay gratification for the sake of a greater good. It allows one to concentrate one’s efforts on one’s work and perhaps achieve greater professional success than one would if one were constantly scheming about how to bed one’s next partner, and it virtually guarantees that you’ll never catch an STD. If you’re a believing Christian, Jew, or Muslim, it gives you the security of knowing that you’re protected from committing any number of soul-damning sexual sins. If you’re an intellectually oriented atheist or agnostic, it frees you to live a life of the mind without becoming enslaved to the passions of the body. If you’re a human being with a living, beating heart, it saves you from the messiness, tedium, and soul-crushing heartbreak that so often accompanies romantic relationships.

Linking sex to lifelong, committed, married love—the very bond that much of the sexual revolution was intent on severing—can make sex truly wonderful."

Daniel Ross Goodman, “The War Against Abstinence: Blockers, American Pie, and the Last Great Sexual Taboo.

Per Fidem Solam: Romans 3:24 In The Würzburg Glosses, 8th Century

.... Very interesting: Per Fidem Solam: Romans 3:24 in the Würzburg Glosses, from an Irish theologian in the 8th Century:

"23 For all have sinned and do need the glory of God. 24 Being justified freely by his grace [that is, by faith alone, i.e. the faith of belief in Jesus Christ], through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, [that is, it is He that has redeemed and it is He also that is the ransom, i.e. by the blood] 25 Whom God had proposed to be a propitiation [that is, it has been set forth in the mysteries of the Godhead, to make atonement for those who believe his liberation would be in the blood], through faith in his blood, [that is, through the faith of every one who believes in his salvation through His blood] to the showing of his justice, for the remission of former sins."

https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2013/03/per-fidem-solam-romans-324-in-wurzburg.html

Does Romans 3:10-18 and 1 Corinthians 2:14 Support Calvinistic Total Inability?

• Discussion:

           -There is no denying that Calvinism can be extremely controversial subject matter among professing Christians today. This is true especially of the doctrines of unconditional election and limited atonement. Quite simply, the purpose of this short article is to answer Calvinists who believe that the texts of Romans 3:10-18 and 1 Corinthians 2:14 substantiate their understanding of total depravity.

           Romans 3 simply tells us that we cannot merit salvation on the basis of good deeds. We are all unrighteous according to God's Law. The passage from Romans says plainly that the lost cannot please God, but it does not affirm the inability of us accepting or rejecting the gospel. We either choose to serve or rebel against God. We obtain righteousness by His grace through our faith (Galatians 3:1-6).

           As for 1 Corinthians 2:14, the distinction should not be viewed as saint verses sinner. Rather, the contrast should be drawn between the wisdom of God and the wisdom of man. The "spiritual" person can discern the things of God through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, whereas the "natural" man cannot understand the things of God because he tries to do so by means of his mere intellect (discernment is to be rooted in Scripture along with the Holy Spirit aiding our understanding). This text is speaking of divine inspiration (1 Corinthians 2:13). It is speaking of God revealing the truths of the gospel, which has already been done through the apostles (Ephesians 3:3-5). Divine revelation is powerful enough to convert the lost soul to Christ (John 20:31; 2 Timothy 3:15). Carnal people cannot understand the things of God because they simply do not want to. They naturally refuse. The Apostle Paul's point in 1 Corinthians 2:14 is that a person who uses human wisdom to interpret spiritual truths will only come to view the cross as foolish and consequently die spiritually. In short, this text has nothing to do with Calvinism.

Calvinism Is Inherently Irrational

"Why would Jesus preach repentance to the multitudes (Matthew 4:17) if their fate had already been predestined? What was the point of Jesus upbraiding cities where His miracles were done because they did not repent? Did they have a choice? Why would Jesus beckon all who labor and are heavy laden to come unto Him (Matthew 11:28) if those who are not of the elect cannot? Why would Jesus draw a little child to Himself (Matthew 18:1-4) and say, “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven”? Shouldn’t He have qualified that: “Elect little children”? He said further (Matthew 18:14), “Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these [elect?] little ones should perish.” Why would Jesus call “all the people unto Him” (Mark 7:14) and say, “Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand,” if they could not come or understand until they were regenerated? Did the angel who appeared to the shepherds (Luke 2:10) get his message wrong when he said, “Behold I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people”? If Jesus predestined untold numbers of souls to a horrendous destiny, why would He say, “For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them” (Luke 9:56)? Why is there “joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth” (Luke 15:10) if it was coerced by “irresistible grace” and was previously programmed? John writes, “And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world” (1 John 4:14) and “Many more believed because of [Jesus’] own word; and said unto the woman [at the well], Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world” (John 4:41-42). Were all those Samaritans regenerated before coming to Him?"

The Berean Call, "The Enigma of Calvinism", McMahon, T.A.

The Calvinist Misuse Of John 6:32-58

• Calvinists Commonly Cite John 6 As Evidence For Their Doctrines Of Unconditional Election And Irresistible Grace:

          -"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out." (John 6:37)       
          -"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:44)
       
          This passage of John's gospel narrative is known as the Bread of Life Discourse, where the Lord Jesus Christ had delivered a speech at a Synagogue in Capernaum. In the sermon, He likened bread and wine to His body and blood so as to articulate the point to His unbelieving Jewish audience that He was indeed their promised Messiah, who would offer Himself up as an expiatory sacrifice for the sins of mankind. It should be noted that Christ chose not to fully reveal Himself to all members of society during much of His earthly ministry so that He could complete His mission of atoning for the sins of the world.

          Additionally, these Jews were not born with a seared conscience against God. This is not a matter of people being born hated by God and predestined to eternal condemnation since the timing of creation. The context of John 6:32-58 nowhere indicates an irredeemable situation. It says nothing concerning regeneration leading to faith which is required for salvation. It says nothing concerning an irresistible calling of the human will. Does regeneration proceed faith? No, regeneration comes after faith. That is what the Scripture teaches (John 20:31; Acts 11:18; Romans 5:1; Ephesians 1:13).

           More precisely, these Jewish people willfully turned their backs against the Lord (i.e. John 5:39-40; Acts 28:27). They wanted to be self-righteous. They wanted to be arrogant. They wanted their own sinful lifestyles. They wanted to rebel against the God who created them. In short, this was a totally voluntary hardening of the human heart by sin, which God allows. The mission of Christ was accomplished through the unbelief of Israel. They were handed over to their vices, which explains why they were rejecting Christ. This willful blinding of the conscience was never meant to be permanent, for God has always wanted to save His chosen nation Israel. The Father draws the sinner who listens and learns (John 6:45). They must accept the truth of the gospel that we preach in order to be saved (Romans 10:14-17). We have the responsibility of hearing, knowing, and understanding the revealed truths of God. We absolutely must make the decision of accepting the forgiveness of God as proclaimed through the gospel.

           In John 6:32-58, Jesus Christ was simply trying to get the Jews to see their disconnect from God. They did not truly love the Father because they did not love the Son. One cannot come to have a true relationship with the Father without also believing on the Son. Nobody can come to Christ without first hearing and accepting the truth of the gospel. Hence, the unbelieving Jews were under spiritual condemnation. Their hearts were not right with God. The twelve apostles, however, were drawn by the Father through the miracles and sound teachings of Christ. Their hearts were open to God. As a result, those obedient to the Father also chose to follow the Son. The will of the Father was that all who come to Him and believe on His name be saved (John 6:40). As a result of the crucifixion, God wants to draw the whole of mankind to salvation through faith in Him (John 12:32-33; Romans 11:32).

           It is important to note that consistent Calvinism does not actually allow adherents to have assurance of salvation, seeing that there is no way for us to know whether we are really a part of God's elect. Also, it would be irrational for Calvinists to teach that God allows the hearts of people to become hardened by sin, since Calvinism teaches that we are already totally depraved. Neither can unconditional election account for how the names of various individuals can be blotted out of the book of life (Exodus 32:32-33; Psalm 69:28; Revelation 3:5; 22:19). And if the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement is true, then why is it that our Lord Jesus Christ wept for all the unbelieving inhabitants of Jerusalem for rejecting Him as their Savior (Luke 19:41-44)? Calvinists are guilty of limiting God when they argue that He cannot foreknow what He did not foreordain. He is sovereign enough to give us the freewill to accept or reject Him. He can do whatever He wants. He is limited by nothing. The debate should not so much be centered on whether or not we are able to make choices, but rather what the object of our faith is. The fact of the matter is that the Calvinists have misconstrued the meaning texts such as John 6:37 and John 6:44 to fit their own preconceived theological conclusions.

The Calvinist Misuse Of Ephesians 1:1-13

• Calvinists View The Following Passage Of Scripture As Conclusive Evidence For Their Belief In Unconditional Election: 

          -"just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will...also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will." (Ephesians 1:4-5; 11)

          To preface, it should be noted that the verses in question do not actually say anything about God choosing before the creation of the world which individuals will be saved. In fact, Ephesians 1:1-13 does not even mention anything about the unrepentant and the unbelieving, nor an irresistible calling of the human will. The text says nothing about being predestined to be a Christian, either.

          Quite simply, this passage from Ephesians discusses God predetermining the character, purpose, and plan of those who get saved. It concerns predestination for blessings, not salvation. It concerns what will happen to those who get saved. Those who are faithful to God have been predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son Jesus Christ. He wants to have a relationship with mankind. He wants to redeem us. He wants to make us His children. We are included in Christ the moment we believe from the heart the message of the gospel (Ephesians 1:13). We were not predestined to be in Christ. Rather, we are predestined "in Him".

          The truth of the matter is that Calvinists misunderstand Scripture due to having a confirmation bias. These people take out of context words such as elected, predestined, foreknew, and before the foundation of the world to fit their deterministic theological paradigm. Thus, Calvinists altogether miss the point of Ephesians 1:1-13. The same is true of other texts that Calvinists use to substantiate their view on predestination such as 1 Corinthians 2:7 (which discusses God predetermining His plan of salvation). Scripture very clearly tells us that salvation is for all who come to God by faith and the gospel. A God of love would obviously not give us something beyond our reach.

           If our eternal destinies have already been determined by God since the beginning of time, then why would the Apostle Paul exhort people to keep themselves pure (1 Timothy 5:22)? Why would Paul pray for the salvation of all people (1 Timothy 2:1-2)? Does God believe and repent on behalf of the sinner? How could God reason with His chosen nation Israel (Isaiah 1:18)? Why would He tell His people to make the choice of either serving Him or idols (Joshua 24:15; Deuteronomy 30:15-19; Jeremiah 21:8)? Why would the Lord draw near to those who seek Him (1 Chronicles 28:9; 2 Chronicles 15:2; Jeremiah 29:13)? How is it possible for people to harden their own hearts against the Lord (Psalm 95:8)? Why should Christians even be concerned about the loss of heavenly rewards (1 Corinthians 3:15; 2 John 8-9)?

           Hence, the Calvinist view of predestination is irrational at best. The Bible presupposes the existence of our free will. It presupposes our capacity to reach out to God through faith and humble repentance. God has no desire in punishing the wicked (Ezekiel 18:30-32; 33:10-11). God delights in showing mercy (Micah 7:18). The Lord does act in a contingent manner (i.e. Jeremiah 18:1-13). Election is conditional, not unconditional.

The Calvinist Misuse Of Jeremiah 17:9

• Following Is A Commonly Cited Proof-Text By Calvinists To Substantiate Their Believe In The Total Inability Of Mankind To Choose And Do Good:

          -"The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; Who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)

         First of all, this passage of Scripture does not tell us how mankind became totally depraved. In fact, this "proof" for total depravity is merely assumed by proponents.

         

          Secondly, the people of Israel were "sick" because they *refused* to obey the Lord's instruction (Jeremiah 17:23). The Scripture repeatedly says that man is unwilling to come to God, not unable to approach Him.

          Thirdly, we need to keep in mind the distinction between feelings and reason. It is not about the inability of the human will. The person who follows after the lusts of his or her own mortal flesh is foolish. That is precisely the message conveyed by texts such as Jeremiah 17:9.

          Fourthly, while it is true that mankind inherited a sin nature as a result of the fall, that in no way suggests that we are incapable of choosing good over evil. God does expect us to accept the gospel on the basis of our freewill (Romans 10:9-13). Our fallen nature has made it impossible for us in our current state to perfectly obey God's Law, or to even get ourselves right with God. Man in his natural state is fallen to the core of his being. We have all fallen short of His glory, which is why He sent His Son Jesus Christ into the world as an expiatory sacrifice for sin. He obeyed in our place, and gives to us His righteousness. He saves us completely through our faith in Him. Justification is entirely by His grace. But we must choose to be saved.

No Such Thing As Innate Homosexuality

"In a letter to the editor of the Toronto Globe and Mail newspaper, February 26, 1992, Dr. Joseph Berger, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, writes, “in my 20 years of psychiatry I have never come across anyone with innate homosexuality. That notion has been a long proclaimed gay-activist political position, intended to promote the acceptance of homosexuality as a healthy, fully equal alternative expression of human sexuality. It has zero scientific foundation, though its promoters latch on to even the flimsiest shreds of atrocious research in their attempts to justify the notion.”

Scott Lively; Kevin Abrams, The Pink Swastika, pg.11

Atheism Refuted: The Impossibility Of Abiogenesis

• Discussion:

          -Following is an excerpt from an article originally published by the Cosmos Magazine, which has now apparently been deleted:

          "Since he and colleague Tracey Lincoln first succeeded in creating this artificial genetic system that can undergo self-sustained replication and evolution last year, the molecules have changed dramatically as they evolve better and better solutions."

          Naturalistic atheists seem to believe that the creation of these allegedly self-replicating RNA enzymes vindicates the notion of abiogenesis, which is the theory that life originated spontaneously from inanimate materials.

          However, this effort to demonstrate the possibility of life coming from non-living matter does not hold water, considering that these enzymes did not actually create themselves. They did not evolve. They did not simply appear from nothing.

          If this scenario proves anything at all, then it only means that all created things require an intelligent designer. After all, these RNA enzymes were created by scientists, who have intelligence. They were developed in laboratory conditions, which are artificial, controlled, and customized. Indeed, the Scripture is correct when it claims that creation testifies to the overall magnificence of God (Psalm 19:1-3; Romans 1:20). The naturalist worldview is incoherent in every way.

          There is no scientific evidence existing whatsoever to support the idea of a self-sustaining cell that could arise spontaneously in the appropriate environment. The modern theories of abiogenesis cannot account for the extraordinary complexity and design of living organisms. Neither is there a known explanatory mechanism for how such an unguided process could work.

More On Alien Octopi: New Paper Admits Failure Of Evolution To Explain Life

• Following Is An Interesting Excerpt From From An Article Written By Cornelius Hunter Of Evolution News:

          -Regarding origin-of-life studies, which try to explain how living cells could somehow have arisen in an ancient, inorganic, Earth, the paper explains that this idea should have long since been rejected, but instead it has fueled “sophisticated conjectures with little or no evidential support.”

          …the dominant biological paradigm — abiogenesis in a primordial soup. The latter idea was developed at a time when the earliest living cells were considered to be exceedingly simple structures that could subsequently evolve in a Darwinian way. These ideas should of course have been critically examined and rejected after the discovery of the exceedingly complex molecular structures involved in proteins and in DNA. But this did not happen. Modern ideas of abiogenesis in hydrothermal vents or elsewhere on the primitive Earth have developed into sophisticated conjectures with little or no evidential support. [Emphasis added.]

          In fact, abiogenesis has “no empirical support.”

          …independent abiogenesis on the cosmologically diminutive scale of oceans, lakes or hydrothermal vents remains a hypothesis with no empirical support…

           One problem, of many, is that the early Earth would not have supported such monumental evolution:

           The conditions that would most likely to have prevailed near the impact-riddled Earth’s surface 4.1–4.23 billion years ago were too hot even for simple organic molecules to survive let alone evolve into living complexity

           In fact, the whole idea strains credibility “beyond the limit.”

           The requirement now, on the basis of orthodox abiogenic thinking, is that an essentially instantaneous transformation of non-living organic matter to bacterial life occurs, an assumption we consider strains credibility of Earth-bound abiogenesis beyond the limit.

           All laboratory experiments have ended in “dismal failure.” The information hurdle is of “superastronomical proportions” and simply could not have been overcome without a miracle.

           The transformation of an ensemble of appropriately chosen biological monomers (e.g. amino acids, nucleotides) into a primitive living cell capable of further evolution appears to require overcoming an information hurdle of superastronomical proportions, an event that could not have happened within the time frame of the Earth except, we believe, as a miracle. All laboratory experiments attempting to simulate such an event have so far led to dismal failure.

           Diversity of Life

            But the origin of life is just the beginning of evolution’s problems. For science now suggests evolution is incapable of creating the diversity of life and all of its designs:

            Before the extensive sequencing of DNA became available it would have been reasonable to speculate that random copying errors in a gene sequence could, over time, lead to the emergence of new traits, body plans and new physiologies that could explain the whole of evolution. However the data we have reviewed here challenge this point of view. It suggests that the Cambrian Explosion of multicellular life that occurred 0.54 billion years ago led to a sudden emergence of essentially all the genes that subsequently came to be rearranged into an exceedingly wide range of multi-celled life forms — Tardigrades, the Squid, Octopus, fruit flies, humans — to name but a few.

            As one of the authors writes, “the complexity and sophistication of life cannot originate (from non-biological) matter under any scenario, over any expanse of space and time, however vast.” As an example, consider the octopus.

We Learn About Humanity From History, Not Science

"Why is it that, contrary to what people think, we can learn more about humanity from history than from science? (As John Lukacs notes, history seeks to understand human beings as agents and subjects, whereas in science they can never be more than objects.)

How do secularists hope to help the advanced modern world rise above a hedonistic mass culture and civilization when they have no strong values to offer, let alone transcendent values, when they have deliberately destroyed such institutions as tradition and the family, and when they are now intent on gutting the independence of the world of civil society and allowing it to be invaded by the forces of the state and market?"

Os Guinness, Impossible People, pg.150