Trying to find God

People often talk about “finding God” as though it is God who is lost. On the contrary. Jesus said, “For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10). This illustration might help. If you are studying an inanimate object, you have to go to the object as the initiative lies fully on your side. If you are studying a wild animal in its natural environment, it will not come to you, but it can run away from you. A bit of the initiative lies on the animal’s side. Now, a step further. If you want to get to know a person, you will not get to know them if they are determined not to let you. You first have to win their trust and so on. In this relationship, initiative is equally divided. When it comes to “finding” God, the initiative lies fully on His side. If He does not reveal Himself, nothing you do will enable you to “find” Him. Luckily, He has revealed Himself to us. Not only in the Bible, but in all of creation. As Martin Luther said, “God writes the gospel not in the Bible alone, but on trees, and flowers, and clouds, and stars”.

Evolution and irreducible complexity

In “On the Origin of Species” Darwin admitted that the problem of irreducible complexity would stand as a refutation of his theory. He wrote, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down”. Molecular biology has done just that – shattered his theory. The problem of irreducible complexity is a logical argument about how wholes are constructed from parts. An aggregate structure, like a pile of rocks, can be built up gradually by simply adding one rock at a time. However, an organized structure like a computer processor, is built according to a preexisting plan. Each interlocking piece is structured to contribute to the functioning of the whole. If there is any piece missing, the whole cannot work. The question then is whether living structures are aggregates or organized wholes. This is what science says: Not only on the level of body systems, but also within each tiny cell, living structures are incredibly complex organized wholes. Structures like the tiny string-like flagellum attached like a tail to some bacteria require dozens of precisely tailored, intricately interacting parts, which could not emerge by gradual process, otherwise it would not work. Instead the coordinated parts must somehow appear on the scene all at the same time, combined and coordinated in the right patterns, for the molecular machine to function at all. Biologist David DeRosier in, The Turn of the Screw: The Bacterial Flagellar Motor, [Cell 93, April 3 1988] wrote, “More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human”. Irreducible complexity also exists in the blood clotting system as well as vision. The most reasonable explanation therefore is that the pieces were put together according to a preexisting blueprint, by an intelligent designer. Despite the fact that the evidence points towards an intelligent designer, Darwin’s disciples continue to vehemently defend evolution. One such disciple, Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin says that he is a materialist not because of the facts, but in spite of them. He goes on to insist, “we cannot allow a divine foot in the door”. Huston Smith was therefore right when he said, “Darwinism is supported more by atheistic philosophical assumptions than by scientific evidence”.

Reaction to Mr. Stahl’s article from tueorigins.org

Mr. Stahl is certainly adept at smoke and mirrors. His prose is packed with the same ignorance, half-truths and outright falsehoods that typically litter the landscape of evolutionary “thought” -- the same boilerplate "answers" readily trotted out for the standard dog and pony show. His ignorance of the empirical evidence supporting the “created kinds” paradigm doesn't quite entitle him to claim “no evidence” exists. His treatment of ID and irreducible complexity as one and the same betrays yet another layer of ignorance; his use of the obsolete 98-99% figure in chimp-human DNA similarity betrays another... ...the list could go on and on... But I regret that I currently haven't the time to answer such hooey in detail (not that a “newspaper” that would blithely print Mr. Stahl's claims would also publish a fact-based rebuttal).

Answers in Genesis

I totally agree with Spurgeon when he wrote, “A witty answer is often a very proper thing; at the same time, a gracious answer is better. Try to say to yourself: It does not, after all, matter whether that man proves me to be a fool or not, for I know that already I am content to be thought a fool for Christ’s sake, and not to care about my reputation. I have to bear witness to what I know, and by the help of God I will do so right boldly.” And this is what I know. For the theory of evolution to be true, abiogenesis has to be a fact. Yet, no evolutionist can answer the question: How did life come from non-life? Any answer generally goes like this: We know it is impossible, but we have to start somewhere. So let us start with an impossibility and see where it leads. Recent developments in the areas of molecular biology and genetics confirm what is arguably the most fundamental law of biology: “omni cellules e cellules” [all cells come from other cells]. Life can only come from life. The truth about origins, like any other truth, always rises above falsehood as oil above water. Readers might want to avail themselves to the material at Answers in Genesis. As always, the table is open to come to the One who said, “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?” (John 11:25-26).

Using natural disasters to further an agenda

It is repugnant how some of the most unlearned men use pain and suffering to further their agendas. The atheistic murmurer continues to pen empty words in an effort to detract people from God. Another plays the race card as expected. Maybe the reason a certain black rapper “rolls with a unit” named after the seventh letter of the alphabet and refers to himself as spare change is because of the imperialistic white record owners. But not the time to discuss such matters. Now is as good a time as any to look to Jesus Christ who said, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls” (Matthew 11:28-29). Interestingly enough, the atheistic murmurer’s jest would not be valid if the human beings who lost their lives were not valuable. If human beings did not have this unique value in creation, there would be no tragedy. So the real question the atheist must ask themselves is: Where do human beings derive this special value that differs from a material object? That value comes from God who created them in His image; not from matter and a long series of chances. The divine mind trumps matter. A bit of advice from the third heaven: carefully reconsider the continual mocking of God in the public square. “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” (Galatians 6:7). They say you should speak the truth; but leave immediately. On that note, I’m out.

On faith and reason

In contemporary western thought, belief in God is considered irrational and infantile, primarily for two reasons: lack of evidence and evidence contrary to God’s nature. This evidentialist objection of the enlightenment period is rooted in a theory of knowledge known as Classical Foundationalism. Classical Foundationalists take a pyramid, or a house, as metaphors for their conception of knowledge or rationality. A secure house or pyramid must have secure foundations sufficient to carry the weight of the subsequent floors properly attached to that foundation. They argue that a belief in God is neither self-evident nor evident to the senses. Such a belief is therefore irrational and theism hinges on the success of rational argument. However, in a view called Reformed Epistemology, it is argued that the belief in God does not require the support of evidence or argument in order for it to be rational. There is a limit to the things that human beings can prove. If we were required to prove everything there would be an infinite regress of proving. Belief in God is more like the belief in a person than the belief in a scientific hypothesis. Beliefs are therefore innocent until proven guilty, rather than guilty until proven innocent.

Contrary to popular opinion, faith and reason are not polar opposites. Faith is a trust in what we first have reason to believe is true. In this way, faith is seen to be built upon reason. Of course at this point someone will probably quote me Hebrews 11:1. However, Matthew Henry in his commentary on that verse says, “Faith is the firm assent of the soul to the divine revelation and every part of it, and sets to its seal that God is true.” But divine revelation is achieved through the contemplative life, which involves the intellect or mind. Therefore, faith is built upon reason. One should therefore have good reasons for believing Christianity before dedicating one’s life to it. In turn, the Christian should have solid evidence that their understanding of a biblical passage is correct before applying it. But having said all that, some things have to be believed to be seen. Make what you will of it.

Did man evolve from the chimpanzee?

It was recently reported that the chimpanzee has 98-99% identical Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) when compared to humans. Researchers now claim that the total percentage difference between man and the chimpanzee is only 4%. Darwin’s disciples will continue to use percentages because it obscures the real difference between humans and chimpanzees. This allows them to hold firm to their evolutionary hypothesis. All life on earth uses two molecules, DNA and Ribonucleic acid (RNA), as blueprints for reproduction. Both DNA and RNA consists of a chain of chemical compounds called nucleotides. These chains are arranged like a ladder that has been twisted into the shape of a winding staircase, called a double helix. The sequence of these nucleotide bases makes up an organism’s genetic code. Genetically speaking, that “tiny” percentage difference translates to approximately 40 to 45 million bases that are present in humans but absent from the chimpanzee.

In Genesis 1:25 we read, “And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” There was no sharing of common ancestry between the species because everything was created “after their kind”. The recent report is even more problematic because of claims made by evolutionists themselves. They tell us that most evolutionary change is due to random genetic drift, which means that change occurs without natural selection in operation. So without natural selection to explain away everything, how do we explain a 40-45 million difference in the nucleotide bases between humans and chimps? The theory of evolution is a joke and we have not even touched the problem of irreducible complexity yet. A lot of what passes for science these days is nothing more than naturalistic philosophy repackaged. The truth about the origin of life is in the book of Genesis.

The greatest Comforter

For those serious about apologetics remember this:

"Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh. Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake. Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets." (Luke 6:21-23)

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not." (Galatians 6:7-9)

"I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world." (John 16:33)

Blessed be His hold name...

We believe on the basis of historical evidence

“We preach Jesus Christ to those who want Him, and we also preach Him to those who do not want Him: we keep on preaching Christ until we make them feel that they do want Him and cannot do without Him” – Charles Spurgeon

The vast majority of what the average person believes is believed on the basis of historical evidence. For example, how do we know Aristotle wrote the Poetics? We cannot prove it by abstract reasoning; neither were we there. The first manuscript was available some 1,300 years after he had lived. Therefore, we have to believe that Aristotle wrote the words in Poetics solely on the basis of the historical evidence, that is, the ancient manuscripts. Any man who says he does not believe anything solely on the basis of historical evidence would have to be content to know nothing for the rest of his life. F. F. Bruce wrote, “There is no body of ancient literature in the world that enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament”. In your last submission you asked for enlightenment. Well, here it is, from God Himself: “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3). Unless you become “poor in spirit” and humble yourself before Christ, you will forever be trapped in the darkness, gleaning little comfort if any, from the works of Hume, Kant et al. All of which the Lord warns you, are boys’ philosophies. But of course, your opinion is more worthy of belief than God’s Word. That I’m afraid, is the main problem with the disciples of the pagan philosophers. They are so full of themselves, there is no room for Christ.

Are Christians 'nice' people?

If Christianity is true, then why are not all Christians obviously ‘nicer’ than non-Christians? The Pharisees still ask, as they always have, “Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?” (Matthew 9:11). To which the Lord promptly answers, “They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick” (Matthew 9:12). The difference between the non-Christian and Christian is this: the Christian has the Christ-life in them, the non-Christian does not. A Christian is not a person who never goes wrong. Rather, it is a person who because of the Christ-life inside them, is able to repent and pick themself up after each stumble. That is why the Christian is in a different position from a self-righteous prig who tries to be ‘nice’ on their own steam. The world hopes that by being ‘nice’ they can somehow please God, if they believe in Him, or win the accolades of men, if they do not. The Christian however thinks that any niceness they exhibit comes from the Christ-life inside them. The world must realize that God is not impressed by any humanistic efforts to be a ‘nice’ person. He will make you good however, through the Christ-life working in you, because He loves you. One writer said, “Do God or do good”. I’m afraid the two are not mutually exclusive. This is why it is written, “But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away (Isaiah 64:6). What we call ‘nice’ is still ‘filthy rags’ in His sight. Our finite minds cannot possibly conceive how holy, pure and perfect God is. Christ therefore calls the world to repentance, not to be ‘nice people’ (Matthew 4:17). Being ‘nice’, as noble a virtue as it may seem, is secondary. Of primary importance is this, “Ye must be born again” (John 3:7). After that, and not a moment sooner, everything else falls into place.

Experience true joy

“Money never stays with me. It would burn me if it did. I throw it out of my hands as soon as possible, lest it should find its way into my heart” – John Wesley

There are few things in this world that compare to the joy of giving. I can therefore do the reader no better favour than to recommend that you read the book, Money Possessions and Eternity by Randy Alcorn. It will change your life forever. One of the greatest pieces of advice I have come across on the topic of finances is from John Wesley who said, “Make as much as your can, save as much as your can, and give as much as your can”. The best part of that advice is to “give as much as you can.” Do you care to experience true joy? Experience the joy in giving. Of course, it goes without saying that you give to legitimate causes, preferably a cause that is much bigger than yourself. Should you develop a habit of giving consistently, you will very quickly realize that it is much harder to give money away responsibly, than it is to make it in the first place. I think one of the main reasons Bill Gates is consistently the richest man in the world is because of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Of course we can’t all give at that level, indeed we might not all be able to give financially. But we all have at least one talent and 24 hours in a day, why not start there?

Light the lamp

“Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house” (Matthew 5:15)

To what then shall we compare the preaching of the Gospel to the lost. It is like a man who was sleeping comfortably in darkness and the light suddenly floods the room. The man, who was comfortable in the darkness, is upset at the bright light which completely removed the darkness. He begs for the light to be turned off. The lost are spiritually dead and that is why the light will be left on. Sooner or later, they will realize: it is time to get up. “And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth” (John 11:43).

Lying: Islam's moral dilema

Does Islam permit lying?

Lying in Islam

Know Islam

To tell you the truth. This is the reason I have a problem believing anything a Muslim apologist says. No wonder it is written, "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free" (John 8:32) .

A response to Mr. Suleiman Bulbulia

I read with great amusement the tantrum thrown by a local Muslim apologist which appeared in the Daily Nation recently. Sadly, there were no shades of Averroes. The truth is Mr. Bulbulia, you were not amused at the article I referenced. You were upset at the section Why they Converted. Especially the part where it reads, “For some of these brothers and sisters it is important that the area where they live now, or where they originally come from, is not too closely identified to ensure either their own safety or that of their families.” If readers are confused at that statement, a quick visit to both www.persecution.net and the persecution section at Christianity Today, will open your eyes. That Mr. Bulbulia, is the world I live in. But the question still remains unanswered: How can you regard Jesus as a great teacher whilst, in the same breath, claim that the central message of His teaching, “Ye must be born again”, is not true? Jesus reminds you, don’t shoot the messenger now: “Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again” (John 3:7). He asks that you note two things. One, the word “Ye” is plural in the original Greek, which means it applies to all men and women. Two, the word “must” is a very strong word and does not imply an option. I really see no way around this except to believe that Jesus is wrong; which immediately negates the claim that “He is a great teacher”. This places you squarely in the “religious intolerant” camp (previously thought to be monopolized by Christendom). Let me make it abundantly clear, I do not have a beef with Muslim people. Ever so often, I still fondly remember searching the streets of England with my friend from Malaysia who insisted that we must find a Halal meat shop to shop at for the farewell barbeque for our group. However, I do have a beef with your philosophy. A philosophy that would have us believe that all of the problems in Muslim countries are the direct result of "the occupation of the Western imperialist Zionist forces". Funny enough, I wonder if this response would be published in the “dailies” in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Praise the Lord for democracies where we can respond. Apparently, certain people do not want us to Know Islam. A bit of an appeaser perhaps?