Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited

 

The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?

 

READ ABOUT IT...

Showing posts sorted by relevance for query truth project. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query truth project. Sort by date Show all posts

Friday, January 25, 2008

Empty Arguments Against the Christian Worldview


Looks like my liberal blogger buddy Cory Heidelberger is busy bashing the Truth Project again (have you attended a Truth Project yet, Cory?). This time, Cory treats us to a link to a piece entitled "The Christian Right Goes Back to Bible Boot Camp" by Alexander Zaitchik at a website called AlterNet.

The Truth Project is a 12-week DVD and discussion course on Biblical worldview, or seeing the world through God's eyes as revealed by the Scriptures. It's led by Dr. Del Tackett, who holds several degrees, served more than 20 years as an officer with the U.S. Air Force, and is an adjunct professor at New Geneva Theological Seminary.

If you look to this liberal cesspool called AlterNet, you'll get what you pay for: a lot of anchor-less liberalism. This article oozes with it.

About the only thing the author was correct on is that not only is our culture woefully ignorant of the Bible and the Christian worldview, so is the church. I sadly couldn't dispute that for a second.

The author says the Truth Project seminar contains "more than a whiff of a Holiday Inn get-rich-quick seminar." Really? I haven't seen a single bit of money-hungry talk, or money talk at all, in the Truth Project. I guess the author just pulled that one out of the air to make it sound bad. He does admit that the Truth Project isn't about "financial independence," but the quick mention is enough (he hopes) to taint the Truth Project in the reader's mind.

He calls Tackett "energetic yet predictably dull." That's odd, since I've always found Tackett and the material he presents to be very exciting. I get pretty worked up by things that are intellectually stimulating, logical, insightful, and increase understanding of life. Maybe those things are just dull to Zaitchik.

The cheap shots continue:

Sitting on stage next to Tackett during the length of the seminar is a serious question of adolescent construction: "Do you really believe that what you believe is really real?"

Or, as a secular humanist might put it: In your heart of hearts, do you guys honestly buy, or even understand, all this Bible crap?

In case the author or a reader of this post misses the meaning of Tackett's statement, what it means is that if we truly "owned" our beliefs, had such faith in those truths that it was like the faith we exercise when we sit in a chair or drive across a bridge, then we would be acting differently (more boldly, more like Christ) than we actually are. But I understand that such concepts are hard to grasp when one is busy mocking truth.

This might be as close as the author comes to actually forming a coherent criticism rather than crass ad hominem attacks:
This text analysis is often ridiculous, with Tackett probing the possible double meanings of Biblical diction, as if the King James Bible had been transcribed directly from the mouth of God, and was not an artistic creation of a team of 17th-century scholars in Oxford and Cambridge.

If Zaitchik knew anything about the Book for which he holds such disdain, he'd know (like Tackett) that the King James Version wasn't "transcribed directly from the mouth of God," and no serious student of the Bible believes that (though the original Scriptures themselves were inspired by God). He might know that the Old Testament was written thousands of years ago, originally in Hebrew. He might also know that the New Testament was written shortly after Christ ascended into Heaven, and was written in Greek and Aramaic. He might know that many copies of the Scriptures were made in the years after the time of the apostles, many of which were translated into Latin. He might also know that the translators of the King James Version looked back to hundreds of these manuscripts, translating them from their original language into the English of the time. He might also know that since the time of the King James translation in 1611, many more manuscripts have been found, providing even more insight into the original meanings of these ancient languages.

He might know these things...if he took more time to learn and less time to mock God.
Even more striking than the production values, though, is how little knowledge Tackett assumes on the part of his committed born-again audience. Even John 3:16 is reviewed as if for the first time.

Well, if surveys have revealed that only 4% of the American population has a Biblical worldview (meaning they understand what the Bible says, and are trying to apply it to their lives), and if only 9% of born-again Christians hold a Biblical worldview, then I think it is quite in order to assume a broad lack of knowledge and conduct a review of the basics. If the basics were better understood, most Christians would have progressed beyond an elementary, pop-definition of Christianity to the "meat" of Christian theology. But they haven't; as Paul points out in 1 Corinthians 3, they're still stuck on the milk.

Zaitchik is predictably critical of the lesson on "The State," but beyond charges that Tackett "rambl[es]," Zaitchik doesn't explain why he thinks Tackett is wrong here. He doesn't say so, but that seems to be the implication. If Tackett is wrong, why not explain why so from a Biblical basis?

Zaitchik also seems critical that Tackett finds a Biblical basis for contending that our current tax rates are too high (if God only demanded 10%, doesn't 39% to the government seem a little outrageous?), a lack of Biblical justification for the welfare state, and the Bible's clear statements that homosexuality is wrong. Again, if Zaitchik believes Tackett is in error, why doesn't he point out the contrary evidence in the Bible?

The author then attempts the predictable and obligatory effort to rewrite history and claim that America was not founded by Christians on Christian principles:
He also provides an orgy of selective quotation from America's overwhelmingly Deist founding fathers, as well as genuinely Christian revolutionary B-listers like Benjamin Rush and Noah Webster.

This might just be the biggest lie in the whole article (most of the others are couched in ambiguity and veiled insinuations).

While there were a handful of deists among the founders, and Tom Paine did pretty much walk away from the faith later in life (and Benjamin Franklin took him to the woodshed for some of his anti-Christian writings during this time), all the rest were committed Christians beyond a shadow of a doubt. This includes George Washington, John Adams, Patrick Henry, James Madison, and a host of others. Even the lesser-religious ones such as Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin at the very least recognized the Christian religion and worldview as the best one and paid it every respect.

Anyone who says the Founders were not overwhelmingly Christian in their faith and worldview is either profoundly ignorant or a brazen liar.

We also receive the obligatory bashing of business and the free market from Zaitchik:
The Truth Project devotes much energy to warnings about the greedy state becoming a monster, but the modern corporation makes not even the briefest cameo.

As I have endeavored to point out to a number of socialists who never miss an opportunity to bash the free market while singing the praises of the "Government God," the Bible does not condemn business or the free market, and you will find businessmen and entrepreneurs spoken of favorably throughout the Bible--not because they are entrepreneurs, but because they were men of character. God condemns evil business practices, but not business. The Bible does warn about oppressive governments, though. And the Founders, who had a solidly Christian worldview, had much to say about the dangers of powerful government, but little to say about the dangers of business. Maybe because business do not make the law and exercise police authority, but governments do?

The author gets in a jab at opposition to unionism and minimum wage laws. The Bible clearly indicates that God recognizes and honors property rights and authority. When the state forces a business owner to negotiate with a group of workers against his will, or forces him to pay more than the labor may be worth, property rights and authority go out the door. The Bible admonishes bosses to be fair with their employees, but it does not does not advocate using the power of the state to extort property from the business owner. After all, the employee is free to go find another job if the wages aren't to his satisfaction.

Again, Zaitchik somehow misses the opportunity to tell us where Tackett has departed from the Bible in this view of market and state. I wonder why?

You know what I find most humorous (and sad, at the same time) about this writer's tirade, and Cory's apparent embrace of it? He spends 2,141 words telling us he doesn't like the Truth Project. Not a single time does he explain where Tackett and the Truth Project have gone astray theologically or Biblically.

Zaitchik is entitled to his opinion, of course. But if an opinion can't be backed up with some kind of evidence, it's pretty much worthless. And if a theological opinion can't be backed up by Scripture, it's not only worthless, it's heresy, which is dangerous to one's life here on earth and to one's eternal soul.

If I told you I'd been elected King of America, you'd want some evidence before you'd believe me, right? Without evidence to back up my claim, I'm either a monumental liar or a nut. Zaitchik doesn't present any evidence whatsoever that the Truth Project is not in harmony with Biblical teaching. What does that say about him?

Could it be that there is really nothing amiss in Tackett's presentation or the Truth Project itself? It seems that the only thing really wrong with the Truth Project, from Zaitchik's perspective, is that it doesn't fit very well with his secular, socialist worldview.

But that's the whole point of the Truth Project: helping Christians develop the discernment to tell the truth from the lies.

It looks like the author badly needs to sit through the whole Truth Project, with an open mind instead of one struggling to justify his hate of what God has to say. He might need to sit through it a few times in order to get it, but it'd be worth it.

As a wise man once said, "What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?" (But He was a little more than just a "wise man," wasn't he?)


Monday, December 10, 2007

The Truth Project in Rapid City

I just learned yesterday that South Canyon Baptist Church in Rapid City will be hosting a Truth Project study for 12 weeks starting January 6, 2008. The study will be from 8:57 am to 10:15 am, so if you attend another church, you could come to the Truth Project and still make your morning worship service elsewhere.

The Truth Project is about a biblical worldview, or seeing the world through God's eyes as revealed by the Scriptures. The course is 12 weeks long. An hour-long DVD is played and then there is discussion of the concepts.

Dale Bartscher of the South Dakota Family Policy Council has been teaching three of these per week at various times and locations around Rapid City for the past three months. Everyone I've talked to who has been through one of these can't say enough good things about it. The study apparently has the potential to radically change one's way of thinking, allowing the participant to recognize aspects of their own worldview which spring from a secular perspective, and what a biblical worldview looks like.

There's no cost to the course, and participants receive handouts with each lesson to take with them. Below is a video which demonstrates what the Truth Project is about.



This is the extended trailer for Focus on the Family's The Truth Project. The Truth Project is an innovative DVD curriculum that teaches viewers how to develop a systematic and comprehensive biblical worldview. Educator Dr. Del Tackett is both engaging and winsome as he teaches Christians to apply biblical truths to every area of life.

Visit www.thetruthproject.org for more information.


Sunday, December 16, 2007

Consider The Truth Project



A promo for Focus on the Family's 'The Truth Project' - An In-Depth Christian Worldview Experience

South Canyon Baptist Church in Rapid City will be hosting a Truth Project study for 12 weeks starting January 6, 2008. The study will be from 8:57 am to 10:15 am, so if you attend another church, you could come to the Truth Project and still make your morning worship service elsewhere.


Friday, January 04, 2008

The Truth Project Starts This Weekend

South Canyon Baptist Church in Rapid City will start the Truth Project this Sunday, and for the next 12 weeks, at 8:57 am to 10:15 am. Even if you worship at an other church, you would still likely have time to attend and then make your 10:45 or 11:00 worship service. You won't be disappointed!



This is the extended trailer for Focus on the Family's The Truth Project. The Truth Project is an innovative DVD curriculum that teaches viewers how to develop a systematic and comprehensive biblical worldview. Educator Dr. Del Tackett is both engaging and winsome as he teaches Christians to apply biblical truths to every area of life.

Visit www.thetruthproject.org for more information.


Saturday, January 05, 2008

Truth Project Lesson 1 - Veritology: What is Truth?



The Truth Project begins by defining truth as "that which corresponds to reality." This absolute and eternal truth, at the heart of Jesus' mission on earth, continues to be the focal point of the Cosmic Battle in our own time.

Visit www.thetruthproject.org for more information.

South Canyon Baptist Church in Rapid City will start the Truth Project this Sunday, and for the next 12 weeks, at 8:57 am to 10:15 am. Even if you worship at an other church, you would still likely have time to attend and then make your 10:45 or 11:00 worship service. You won't be disappointed!


Sunday, February 17, 2008

Notes from History

Today was Lesson 6 of the Truth Project entitled "History: Whose Story?" at South Canyon Baptist Church in Rapid City.

Here are a few of my notes from the lesson:

The lesson begins by examining history as God's story:

Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please. From the east I summon a bird of prey; from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose. What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do. - isaiah 46:9-11

The lesson examines history from the perspective that it is a narrative of God's work, and his plan of redemption to save his creation which was damaged in The Fall.

The lesson uses a series of numbers to illustrate that the individual numbers, and combinations of those numbers (such as 8:59 being a time, 1859 being a year, 1 being a number, 11 being not just two ones, 911 being either nine hundred eleven or nine-one-one or nine-eleven, etc), have different meanings based on what we've been taught and our experiences--in other words, our present perceptions and concepts are shaped by history.

And if someone can "rewrite" history, they can "rewrite" our perceptions, concepts and opinions of the present and the future.

An example provided by the Truth Project leader, Dr. Del Tackett, was the book "I Rigoberta Menchu," written by a Guatemalan woman who received a Nobel prize for it's Marxist accusations...which later turned out to be fraudlent.

However, that didn't stop Marxist promoters like Marjorie Agosin, who plans to keep using it to "teach our students about the brutality of the Guatemalan military and the U.S. financing of it." Whether the book is true or not: ""Whether her book is true or not, I don't care." Apparently truth will not be allowed to get in the way of the Leftist agenda.

Want to see a brazen, in-your-face example of historical revisionism? Here is the text of the 1620 Mayflower Compact from Yale Law School's Avalon Project:
IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid: And by Virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions, and Officers, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general Good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due Submission and Obedience. IN WITNESS whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, Anno Domini; 1620.

Now see how some of those "icky Christian" parts have been "revised" out of the text in various modern places such as How to Become a U.S. Citizen by Debra R. Shpigler



Or The Susan Constant and the Mayflower by Minnie G. Cook at JSTOR:



Or at your taxpayer-funded ostensibly objective PBS:
"Having undertaken … a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts … [we] covenant … ourselves together … to enact … laws … for the general good of the Colony; unto which, we promise all due submission and obedience

Even the audio clip embedded in this PBS piece "revises" out any reference to God or the Christian religion (click here to listen).

America is not a Christian nation, and has no Christian heritage, we hear some say today. No wonder, with revisionism like this at work!

Why would revisionists want to "revise" our Christian heritage out of history? It robs God of the credit he's due, for one thing. It also removes a reminder, a foundation, a cornerstone that we as a people might look to for guidance about where we should be going. If we never WERE a Christian nation, why should we be worried about whether we're one NOW? And if we WERE one at one point, but we're not NOW, and we have problems NOW that we didn't have THEN, then maybe we should look back or go back to that Christian period for answers? If you're an atheist or secularist who despises America's Christian heritage and doesn't want to live under the slightest influence of Christianity, does this sound like a good reason to rewrite history?

The Truth Project lesson points out that historical revisionism has been going on against God's truth since nearly the beginning. After all, what was the first thing Satan said to humans: "Did God really say...?"

Two powerful quotes were provided to illustrate the importance of history, and the tremendous power revisionism can have over the present and future. One as from George Orwell, of the famous 1984 and Animal Farm: "He who controls the past, controls the future." And Karl Marx: "A people without a heritage are easily persuaded."

You don't get very much truth from Karl Marx, but he hit the nail on the head with this one. If a fiction writer and the atheistic father of communism can get it, why do so many conservatives and Christians seem so oblivious to this???

Even this morning I read a horrifying example of historical ignorance at the New York Times. The article is about Susan Jacoby and her new book The Age of American Unreason. I don't agree with everything this woman says (she is herself a victim of historical revision, since she believes Christians are hostile toward science), but some of the examples she cites as her motivation to write the book are illustrative of this ignorance. For instance, a woman on a national game show who thought Europe was a country, and didn't know "Hungry" was a country (she meant Hungary). And this discussion of Pearl Harbor:
Walking home to her Upper East Side apartment, she said, overwhelmed and confused, she stopped at a bar. As she sipped her bloody mary, she quietly listened to two men, neatly dressed in suits. For a second she thought they were going to compare that day’s horrifying attack to the Japanese bombing in 1941 that blew America into World War II:

“This is just like Pearl Harbor,” one of the men said.

The other asked, “What is Pearl Harbor?”

“That was when the Vietnamese dropped bombs in a harbor, and it started the Vietnam War,” the first man replied.

The Bible is filled from front to back with admonitions to remember things, to remember the past, to remember the truth, to remember what we have seen.

Here is one powerful example, one that speaks not only to ancient Israel:
When you have eaten and are satisfied, praise the LORD your God for the good land he has given you. Be careful that you do not forget the LORD your God, failing to observe his commands, his laws and his decrees that I am giving you this day. Otherwise, when you eat and are satisfied, when you build fine houses and settle down, and when your herds and flocks grow large and your silver and gold increase and all you have is multiplied, then your heart will become proud and you will forget the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. He led you through the vast and dreadful desert, that thirsty and waterless land, with its venomous snakes and scorpions. He brought you water out of hard rock. He gave you manna to eat in the desert, something your fathers had never known, to humble and to test you so that in the end it might go well with you. You may say to yourself, "My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me." But remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you the ability to produce wealth, and so confirms his covenant, which he swore to your forefathers, as it is today. If you ever forget the LORD your God and follow other gods and worship and bow down to them, I testify against you today that you will surely be destroyed. Like the nations the LORD destroyed before you, so you will be destroyed for not obeying the LORD your God.

Does that sound like America? A nation founded by devout Christians, trusting God and reverencing him in all they did, from the founding of the first colonies, to the victory of the American Revolution...who then became fat and happy and came to believe we had done this all on our own, by the strength of our own hands, by the great wisdom and reason of our own minds? Those final verses scare the daylights out me as an American, to see the arrogant, self-centered nihilism of our people.

I don't think a week goes by (sometimes, for a spell, not a day goes by) that I don't argue with someone who seems to genuinely believe that America was not founded by Christians, that our government was not established on Christian principles, that ours was not (at least until recently) a nation that was Christian in character and flavor. Every bit of the mountain of evidence which speaks of America's Christian heritage is at first ignored, and if it is shoved in their faces, they make every attempt to reason away why the obvious cannot be what it seems.

Those same revisionists want to not only blot out the direct evidence of God's hand on America, but the indirect evidence as well. America is far from perfect, and has committed some terrible evils, including slavery of black people, and some of the despicable ways we've treated Native Americans, especially in the west. But they completely ignore the tremendous good that God has wrought through America, the tremendous freedoms, opportunity, comfort and affluence God has brought about through this country, the innocents and suffering we have rescued around the world.

We should certainly be able to acknowledge America's sins and imperfections in history without dwelling endlessly on those sins as if no good ever came from this nation. Yet that is what we hear from the "blame America first" crowd. They never have anything good to say about this country that provides them freedom, safety, and more comfort and opportunity than any people enjoys anywhere around the world throughout human history. From them, there is nothing worth mentioning about America except her sins.

Ultimately they want to blot out God's truth altogether. That's what the postmodernist moral relativism is: there is no truth. It (in their minds, at least) disarms the truth of God by saying, "Well that may be true for you, but not for me." In their minds, they believe that if they can simple "reject" that truth, then that truth has no power over them.

What a terrible surprise they will receive if they wake up in eternity having continued to believe that.

This lesson points out the important reason why we must take the time to be students of history. We must understand where it is we came from, both the sins and the triumphs in our heritage, to properly understand where we are today and where it is we're going.

There is a higher purpose for humanity, especially for the Christian. Don't miss out on it by letting a Leftist historical revisionist rob you of your heritage and your very history.


Sunday, February 10, 2008

Notes on 'Science: What is True?'

Lesson 5 of the Truth Project is on "Science: What is True." It is a two-part lesson, the first of which I attended last week, and finished up the second part today.

The first part of lesson 5 opens with an examination of God's truth revealed in His creation.

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. - Romans 1:18-20

In other words, the very universe around us (it's majesty, it's complexity, it's obvious design) testifies to the reality and truth of God, so that even if humans claim no one told them about God, they are nevertheless without excuse, because creation itself has testified to them.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. - Romans 1:21-23, 25

Do we see this today? Some have exchanged the worship of God as the ultimate source, the ultimate truth, for the worship of the cosmos (remember Carl Sagan?) and man's reason as the ultimate beginning and end.

Speaking of Carl Sagan, the Truth Project showed a clip of Sagan in an earlier lesson from Sagan's PBS series "Cosmos" stating that "The cosmos is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be." Dr. Del Tackett, the host of the Truth Project, asks the question, "If the universe has 'always been,' then shouldn't entropy have rendered it dead by now?"

This lesson also asks the questions, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" and "Why is anything in motion rather than everything still?" and "Why is there order rather than chaos?" and "Why is there life rather than deadness?" and "Why is there music?"

The lesson also reveals how evolutionists and materialists can come up with their fantastic theories to explain a universe without cause, when otherwise we would look at their claims and instantly recognize them for the foolishness they are: time. Quoting George Wald from "The origin of life" in Scientific American:
...Time is the hero of the plot...what we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Give so much time, the impossible becomes possible.

In other words, most of the claims of materialists don't make sense, but if we throw in the key ingredient (billions of years of TIME), then in our minds the impossible somehow becomes possible. After all, millions or billions of years is beyond our human comprehension.

Also examined are some basic assumptions articulated by Sagan in Cosmos:
I believe our future depends powerfully on how well we understand this cosmos
We wish to pursue the truth no matter where it leads. But to find the truth, we need imagination and skepticism both.
We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact.

We will see in the course of lesson 5 that assumption 2a is a lie (materialists will not pursue the truth if it leads to God), and assumption 3 is a lie (the vast majority of evolution and materialism is speculation that is being marketed as fact).

Also examined is how the line between science and philosophy has become blurred in the past century. Science attempts to understand the "particulars" of the universe (how it works, etc.) while philosophy is concerned with the "universals" or the big "why" of things. Science has gone beyond the investigation of how things work, to attempting to answer the philosophical "why" of the universe. And in doing so, it has lost it's way, and a great deal of it's credibility.

Evolutionists love to claim that Christians are opposed to "science" (they are NOT, they are simply opposed to science that tries to answer the big "why" based on speculation). Yet scientist Johannes Kepler, a creationist, said
The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God.

Some say evolution is no longer a theory but is established FACT. This means it has become recognized as a scientific LAW. Yet while science normally requires repeatable testing, observation and verification, evolution has somehow been given a free pass from these requirements. We have never observed evolution occurring, we have no recorded evidence that it occurred, and we have no tests that can make it occur. Yet we call it "fact."

Lesson 5 also points out that evolutionists have not only moved science from the particulars to the universals, they have moved from the objective to the religious in their attitudes. Do you see anything "religious," dogmatic, or judgmental in this statement from Richard Dawkins:
It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).

I wonder if Dawkins realized that in making the value judgment implicit in the term "wicked" that he was dangerously close to showing his hand, and revealing that evolution is a religion to him?

Tackett points out another important truth about the creation/evolution debate. Contrary to the claims of evolutionists, creationists do not deny the evidence, they do not deny the fossil record or anything that science has showed us. Yet they reach a different conclusion. Tackett uses the analogy of a football game where one set of fans clearly sees a touchdown, where another set of fans clearly sees an "incomplete." Only one is true, yet both are convinced of a different reality. Is bias and presupposition a factor? Evolutionists will never admit to bias or presupposition, but it is every bit as present as it is for the creationist.

Tackett also highlights the tremendous discipline it takes for the evolutionist to keep on believing in random progression, especially in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. Consider this quote from Francis Crick: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." In other words, no matter how much this looks like it was designed, keep telling yourself it evolved randomly.

Even Darwin had these unpleasant intrusions from reality: "I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint, and now small trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!" Remember what Romans 1 said above?

Part 2 of the lesson today examined a biological function a simple as blood clotting, and how it is evidence of design. What did organisms do until the function of blood clotting "evolved?" One tiny injury to the organism and it would bleed to death. What a wonder that any organisms survived long enough to "evolve" blood clotting. The odds are so high, it'd almost be considered a miracle...but that would assume a supernatural agent, which we must not even consider!

In fact, Crick essentially said so himself:
An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.

What a refreshing, if incomplete, admission of honesty!

Darwin also laid out the test of veracity for his own theory:
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.

In fact, many scientists have become convinced that the gradual, successive changes posited by Darwin are in fact impossible. So they have come up with the theory of "directed panspermia" which finds that living cells are so complex that even the billions of theoretical years the earth has existed would not be enough time to evolve that kind of function and complexity, so the first living cell on earth must have been transported to earth from some other planet outside our solar system. (Haven't I said before that evolution is "science fiction?")

Scientists who are hopelessly devoted (enslaved?) to their religion of evolution face some tough choices when they are smacked in the face with the reality that the universe is far too complex to have come into existence without design. They are so desperate that they will come up with more and more outlandish theories in order to escape facing the one conclusion that is utterly unacceptable: that there is a Creator to which they are accountable.

Consider this statement from George Wald in Scientific American:
Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternate belief in special creation, are left with nothing. I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation.

The lesson examines irreducible complexity. This is where one part of an organism has no purpose or function without other parts, so there is no "evolutionary need" for the development of one part until others involved in the process develop, but they too have no need to exist without the others--so many parts would have had to spontaneously evolve at the same time and coincidentally work together to perform some useful function. Quite a stretch?

For an example, consider the simple mousetrap. Do any of it's parts (the piece of wood, the spring, the trigger, the locking arm, the locking ring) serve any useful function without all the others? The simple mousetrap would perform no useful function without all the parts in the exact correct configuration.

Michael Behe in Darwin's Black Box examines this unworkable problem for evolutionists and compares it to Darwin's own test of veracity for his theory of evolution:
To Darwin, the cell was a "black box"--its inner workings were utterly mysterious to him. Now, the black box has been opened up and we know how it works. Applying Darwin's test to the ultra-complex world of molecular machinery and cellular systems that have been discovered over the past 40 years, we can say that Darwin's theory as "absolutely broken down."

Another of Darwin's veracity tests is examined:
...[T]he number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth, [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.

That was 150 years ago. We have seen much more of the geologic column that had been discovered in Darwin's time. So have we found those myriad transitional forms which prove evolution? Uh, no.

Even Stephen Jay Gould admits that, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils."

Scientists have also come up with a new theory to explain evolution since Darwin's theory obviously doesn't cut the mustard: punctuated equilibrium. This theory basically posits that there was sudden, immediate change in organisms, that organisms remained stable for many years, and would suddenly evolve into new species, remain stable for many more generations, then suddenly evolve again.

I wonder what theoretically triggers such sudden changes. And I wonder how it happens that out of the alleged millions of years there has been life on earth, how it happened that two biologically compatible organisms, capable of complimentary reproduction, happened to exist at the same time to be able to reproduce and carry forward such spontaneous changes? But when you're dealing with sci-fi, I guess anything is possible in the movies...and in evolution.

Why are evolution scientists so willing to come up with wild theories that just don't hold up under the very laws of nature they claim to worship? I believe that it is because evolution is a form of worship. A worship of the universe, or a worship of man's reason. And the motivation to hold onto that belief is not generated by scientific integrity, but by a religious and philosophical faith.

I believe the following revealing statement from Richard G. Bozarth in American Atheist demonstrates that evolution is a religiously dogmatic position:
Evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing."

The theory of evolution is a religious, worldview-attack on Christianity.

Evolution is not science, but a philosophy, a religion--a religion that holds the universe or man's reason as deity.

The Truth Project also quotes S. Lovtrup:
I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?

I couldn't agree more.


Sunday, January 13, 2008

From the Philosophy and Ethics Lesson Today


The second week of the Truth Project at South Canyon Baptist Church in Rapid City was excellent--just like the first. This week's lesson this morning dealt with Philosophy and Ethics.

One of the first biblical references examined in the lesson was 2 Timothy 2:24-26

24And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.

And Colossians 2:8
8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

This analogy of captivity is a very apt one. Because when we accept an idea or philosophy, it dictates what we will do and how we will do it. We operate within its boundaries and not beyond. So just like physical captivity, an idea can also hold us captive.

The lesson also examined the philosophy of Carl Sagan, a brilliant astronomer and author of the book/TV series "Cosmos." I've read the book (still have it on my bookshelf) and seen the entire series at least 2-3 times. Sagan was brilliant in his grasp of the immense scope of the universe, with only one critical flaw: he denied the existence of the Creator of the universe.

It struck me as they played a clip from the Cosmos series where he said "The Cosmos is all there is, or ever was, or ever will be," that the cosmos was Sagan's god. It was what he looked to for meaning, it was what he admired and saw as greater than himself. He even alludes to a type of creation act (like when God created man), only in Sagan's theology, human beings come from "star stuff" or the same essence of the stars themselves. Again, when he does so, he sounds amazingly like a Christian who speaks admiringly of his Creator or Savior.

I believe we all have a built-in drive to seek the ultimate truth (i.e. our Creator), but for those who don't know God or refuse to know him, they end up substituting something else for God...but nevertheless look to something greater than themselves to believe in. For Sagan, it was the cosmos. For many others in our world and in America, they look to government as the almighty provider of answers and material blessings. Some, especially in the scientific world, worship the wisdom (reason) of man as their god. But man is always in search of something greater than himself, always in search of a god.

The lesson examined the meaning of the word "philosophy," which, as R.C. Sproul pointed out, is a combination of the Greek phileo meaning love and sophia meaning wisdom, or the love of wisdom. The teacher, Del Tackett, looks to the Webster's 1828 dictionary (he says this one lacks the political correctness of today's dictionaries, and he's right) for a definition of philosophy: "the objects of philosophy are to ascertain facts or truth, and the causes of things or their phenomena; to enlarge our views of God and his works." That dictionary also included a quote from S.S. Smith which said, "True religion and true philosophy must ultimately arrive at the same principle." He's absolutely right. If the religion and the philosophy are both true, they will both reach the same conclusion. If they do NOT reach the same conclusion, then at least one of them is wrong.

The lesson also examined the struggle between "the universals" and "the particulars." Some people seek to understand the universals (the big truths) through examining the particulars (the little, everyday truths), while others seek to understand the particulars by understanding the universals. Tackett pointed out that the world's way is focusing on the particulars to understand the universals, but God's approach is to understand the universals, and then the particulars tend to fall into place.

An illustration of this might be that secularists examine the morality of business, wealth creation, sex education, and so on, and by examining the results or outcomes of certain particulars, they hope to understand which ones are a part of the ultimate truth.

God's way, however, says we are to understand God's universals (that He is creator, that right is what conforms to his character, that wrong is what does not conform to his character, that loving and obeying Him is the only way to real peace and happiness, etc.) and that once we start living God's universals, then all the particulars (how to be a good boss, how to be a good employee, how to be a good parent, how to be a good citizen, etc.) will fall into place.

We examined a number of hollow and deceptive philosophies such as materialism (i.e. matter is the only reality), idealism, empiricism, rationalism, naturalism (true knowledge comes ONLY through scientific study), determinism, relativism, mentalism, mechanism, solipsism, subjectivism, intuitionism, and hedonism.

Out of those, I believe the dominant ones in today's American society are materialism, naturalism, relativism and hedonism.

One of the scholars consulted for the Truth Project was Ravi Zacharias, who told the story of a building created as a monument to postmodernism. It contained columns that served no purpose, stairways that went nowhere, etc. In other words, it was filled with random features that often served no purpose or function--much as the materialist or naturalist says our universe came about through random chance, with no set purpose or function. The story revealed, however, that though the building was filled with purposeless features, one part of the building was NOT created in this fashion: the foundation. For if the foundation had been created functionless and purposeless, then the whole thing would have soon come crashing down, because it wouldn't have rested on anything solid.

This is exactly what in the end comes of these philosophies of man I listed above: they come crashing down. Remember Marxism and the Soviet Union: it came crashing down. And it's only a matter of time before it happens again in places like North Korea (where millions are starving) and Cuba (where the paint is peeling off the walls and their infrastructure is rotting).

The lesson also examined some of the implications of naturalism: no gods or purposive forces, no ultimate foundation for ethics, no free will, no reward for suffering or sacrifice, no life after death, and no ultimate meaning in life.

Hand in hand with this examination of naturalism's implications, we looked at the difference between morality, which deals with what actually is, as opposed to ethics, which deals with what ought to be. An illustration of this is how our current society tries to find the meaning of truth and "morality" through all the polls we're bombarded with. You see, in the world of morality as opposed to ethics, 51% means it's right. God doesn't take a poll to determine what's right, however.

The lesson also brought forth the sad statistic that only 4% of the general population has a biblical worldview. Sadder still is that of Christians who actually claim to be "born again," the figure only rises to 9% with a biblical worldview.

Tackett said that most people's worldview doesn't singularly fit one of those philosophies I mentioned above, but is a mix-match grab bag of elements from each. We tend to adopt the elements of the various philosophies that meet our most immediate needs.

The key to having a biblical worldview, however, is to seek to see the face of God, to try and see His true character, which is the measuring-stick of what is right and true. We do this through studying the Bible, which is the process of renewing the mind, the conscious rejecting of what is false and the adopting of what is true.

The lesson concluded with Tackett saying that if we (Christians) do not believe the truth claims of God ("Do you really believe that what you believe is really real?"), then there will be no light in this fallen world, and the suffering will continue.

Next week's lesson is on "Anthropology: Who is Man?" See you there at 8:57 am next Sunday.


Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Jesus Came to Divide


Matthew 10:34-36 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'"

When we think of the coming of the Messiah, we often think of peace, especially around Christmas time.

After all, isn't that what the songs always tell us: peace on earth, goodwill to men, silent night, etc.? All these are true. But there is another truth about Christ's coming.

We often hear in political discussions that "people are divided" and critical accusations when certain figures "polarize." The Bible does tell us that "blessed are the peacemakers," but there is a time when evil must be identified, separated from the good and dealt with.

Many people tell us that "all roads lead to heaven," and "it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you're sincere." But this is not what Jesus tells us.

Jesus says, "I am THE way, THE truth and THE life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Just as 2+2 has no other answer but 5, God's truth is absolute. Truth is unequivocal. Truth separates the good from the bad, the evil from the righteous, those who have received God's forgiveness and those who haven't.

Jesus tells us in the passage above that not all will accept the forgiveness that his sacrifice on the cross purchased for us. Sons and fathers will be on opposite sides of salvation, as will mothers and daughters, and sometimes this will mean that those who refused to accept Christ will see us as their enemies.

As important as family and relationships are, there is something more important: obedience and loyalty to God. What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world (or at least his mother/ father/ brother/ sister/ wife/ husband/ family relationship), yet loses his soul?

God requires complete loyalty, with nothing and no one coming before him.
Matthew 10:37-39 "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."

Just as we divide rotten apples from good ones, just as we separate sick animals from healthy ones, just as we choose the best wood from flawed wood in our building project, so God separates the goats from the sheep, and the wheat from the tares.

The good news is that, unlike a goat or a rotten apple, as humans we have a choice of what we will do with the condition of our soul. We can choose whether we end up with God, or end up on the other side of His grace. Unfortunately, some will choose not to go God's way.

This is a hard truth, but the truth nevertheless. Christ followers must make every effort to help their loved ones find God's truth. But they must not place relationships before God. God told us to have no gods before him, and anything we love more than him, anything or anyone we place in priority before him, is a god.

Why did Jesus come to earth 2,000 years ago? One of the reasons he came was to divide. It's a hard truth, but one we must accept along with the truth of his love, grace, forgiveness and peace. Knowing about this division, now is the time for us to ensure we're on the right side of the divide.


Sunday, February 24, 2008

The Divine Imprint on Social Structure

The following are from my notes taken at Lesson 7 of the Truth Project today entitled "Sociology: The Divine Imprint."

It examines how, just as God's "fingerprints" are all over creation, and that "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands," so God's fingerprints are all over the social order He has established for humanity.

In this capacity, the lesson is somewhat linked to Lesson 5 on science, this lesson picks up there by examining a passage from Job 12:7-8 which says

But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds of the air, and they will tell you; or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish of the sea inform you.

As an illustration, Dr. Del Tacket, leader of the Truth Project, examines the simple chicken egg, and how perfectly engineered it is (the pores, the yolk, the albumen, and the little air compartment inside). If any of the facets of the egg were just a little bit off, life would not be possible for the new chickens.

The lesson examines briefly, as it did in more detail in Lesson 5, that ORDER presents a problem for materialists and evolutionists. Even this egg is an example of order. Evolutionists tell us the universe came about through a random, purposeless, mindless chain of events; it would be logical to conclude that a random, purposeless, mindless, chaotic universe should be the result. Yet it isn't.

That's because the universe was engineered by God, who is a God of order, just as Job 25:2 tells us
Dominion and awe belong to God; he establishes order in the heights of heaven.

And 1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.

There are countless systems of order in the universe that testify to God's imprint: the water cycle, DNA, photosynthesis, lunar tides, the chicken egg, blood clotting.

But, as this lesson focuses on, God's genius and order are every bit as magnificently displayed not only in His scientific constructs, but His social constructs. Consider the God-established social systems of marriage, family, church, labor, government, and community.

Yet the world in it's willful blindness is just as ignorant to the genius of God's ordered plan in social constructs as it is to the genius of His scientific handiwork. Remember from Lesson 5 how Darwin said he was disturbed by the apparent design of the peacock's tail? And how Francis Crick stated that evolutionary biologists must work hard to ignore the implications of design in science?

The triune (i.e. Trinity) nature of God is examined in this lesson as the first example of community and social construct. God is one, but manifest in three natures: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The three of them perform different roles, yet they are not jealous, working in perfect peace, love and harmony.

The fact that Adam was made first, with no female counterpart, is examined. Tackett theorizes that perhaps God carried on his continuing act of creation during the Creation Week with this "pause" so as to emphasize to humanity the need for community. Otherwise, Adam might have been tempted to say (as men often are today): "I'm self-sufficient. I don't need anybody." Yet Adam saw community and relationships even in the animal world, as God brought the animals to him to be named.

Tackett says he finds it interesting that the threefold or triune concept can be observed in many places in the universe: God himself, states of matter (solid, liquid, gas), the construct of the atom, the primary colors, and even the family (husband, wife, children).

Yet just as the world has come to reject God's authorship of science, so it has come to reject his authorship and authority over social order.

God laid out from the first week of creation the basic foundation of all His social constructs: marriage.
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

God made it clear in both the Old and New Testaments that one man and one woman for life was to be his plan, even to the point that He says He hates divorce. While God makes it clear in the Bible that there are a few reasons when divorce is permissible, even the fact that those situations arise by the misconduct of one marital party demonstrates a violation of His design for marriage and the most basic social construct. Can you imagine the Son being divorced from or estranged from the Father? Or the Holy Spirit being divorced or estranged from the Son?

God has also provided us instructions on how husbands and wives are supposed to treat each other.

Yet now we seem to think we can take anything we want and call it marriage: two men, two women, one man and two women, three men and one woman, or whatever.

And children are the natural outcome of a marriage union (provided everything is functioning biologically, and there are no contraceptive measures utilized). Yet we now say it's okay to place children with two men or two women, when their sexual union is not capable even under the best circumstances of producing children. Why? They are using the sexual function of their bodies in a manner for which God did not design it; in fact, they are using it in a way contrary to how God has designed it. Perhaps this is why God makes it so clear in both the Old and New Testaments that He so vehemently disapproves of homosexuality--it turns his creative and social design for human sexuality upside down.

And single parenthood violates God's design. He made it clear that, barring death or divorce beyond one's control, that children should have two parents. This enables the child to have the most stable home life with the basics of life provided for. The child also has both sex roles modeled for him or her, so that the child can see demonstrated in his parents how males and females are supposed to interact socially and in the marriage bond.

And our society has also decided that those children, which are the natural product and outcome of a marital union, can be murdered if they interfere with the financial or career plans of the couple. The parent-child relationship and creation-process can be short-circuited by the self-centered designs of a mother and/or father, and we call that alright.

How do you think God feels when a husband mistreats his wife? How do you think God feels when a wife shows disrespect for her husband? How does God feel when a child is beaten, abused or ignored?

God's social constructs exist not because He is a control-freak. God's social constructs exist not only for order itself, but because our lives are better in an ordered environment. We have peace, security, safety, and our basic needs met. God wants us to live happy, peaceful, productive lives. Besides, what kind of relationship can a person of a disordered, chaotic life have with a God of order? And God wants us to have a close relationship with Him.

When we violate God's design for social order, beginning with marriage and family, we bring about great chaos, disorder, pain and suffering. It shows in the figures we see on teen rebellion, teen suicide, teen substance abuse, teen crime statistics, children struggling in school, and the poverty rates of broken homes which are about seven times higher than intact two-parent homes. We also see children more often abused when boyfriends or new husbands have replaced the father in the home.

We see drastically increased disease rates when we don't save sex for marriage. Disease rates for homosexuals are phenomenally higher in many areas; in AIDS infections alone, over 70% of AIDS cases are due to homosexual behavior. Homosexuals also suffer more anxiety, depression, substance abuse, suicide, and reduce lifespans.

No matter how we violate God's design for social order, there is a price to be paid. Too often, it is paid most heavily by those who are innocent and helpless: the children caught in the middle of their parents self-serving games. But everyone suffers.

Just as God's authority over nature is under attack in the modern world, so is His authority over social order. It's no wonder that a world which has embraced hatred of God's influence in science would also hate His influence in the social order.

There is no area of our existence to which God has not spoken. That is a key theme of the Truth Project, and this lesson on sociology is an excellent illustration.


Saturday, March 22, 2008

The American Experiment

What follows below are my notes from a recent Truth Project seminar on “The American Experiment: Stepping Stones.”

I had intended to transcribe these notes electronically as I do most of the time with Truth Project lessons, but since I knew the Easter BATS was coming up, I decided to wait and publish these notes at that time. After all, this lesson addresses well the Christian roots of America, and how our laws and government have been founded on a Christian worldview and Christian principles…without implementing a theocracy.
-------------------------------

The writings and statements of the Founders leaves no doubt to the mind willing to entertain truth that almost all were Christians, and virtually every one had a Christian worldview, regardless of how public they were in their expressions of faith.

They realized that the welfare of a civilization depends on morality, and that this new nation they had set up, based on freedom, was suitable and maintainable only by a virtuous people.

They believed that the state had to be accountable to a higher law, the “Natural Law” or the “Law of Nature’s God.” Only this could prevent the state from becoming all-powerful, accountable only to itself, and ending in the same kind of oppression from which the Founders had recently freed themselves.

The New England Primer was the second best selling book in the American colonies (the Bible was number one). It was first published around 1690. There were only four million people in America in 1776, yet 5 million copies had been sold at that time. This is the book used to teach children of that age to read and write.

The Primer used language and concepts that was not only familiar to the people of that time, but served the dual purpose of reinforcing the Christian values that parents were trying to inculcate upon their children:

A – In ADAM'S Fall We sinned all.
B - Heaven to find; The Bible Mind
C - Christ crucify'd For sinners dy'd.
D - The Deluge drown'd The Earth around. (yes, they were creationists, too)

It asked questions such as, Who was the first man, expecting the answer from the Bible: "Adam." And “Who was the oldest man,” expecting the answer from the Bible: "Methuselah." And “Who was the strongest man,” expecting “Sampson.”

It also asked more difficult questions like "Which is the Fourth commandment?" and an exposition in "What is required in the fourth commandment?"

It contains the Lord's Prayer, the Apostles Creed, and other theological items. In fact, the whole primer is pretty much 100% Christian theology.

I encourage you to read the entire text of the 1777 edition here. You can also find some images of the 1843 edition here (no significant changes).

As surprising as it may seem, knowing how anti-Christian the official positions of the National Education Association (NEA) are today, as recently as 1892 the NEA recognized the need for moral instruction in school, and the superior ability of Christianity to provide that instruction.

“…if the study of the Bible is to be excluded from all state schools, if the inculcation of the principles of Christianity is to have no place in the daily program; if the worship of God is to form no part of the general exercises of these public elementary schools; then the good of the state would be better served by restoring all schools to church control.” – Kansas State Historical Society, Columbian History of Education in Kansas (Topeka: Hamilton Printing Company, 1893), 82

It was mainly when John Dewey and his humanist philosophy took control of the education system that the worldview of our academic system began to change.
“…faith in the prayer-hearing God is an unproved and outmoded faith. There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes.” – John Dewey (Rondald Nash, The Closing of the American Heart: What’s Really Wrong with America’s Schools, United States: Probe Books, 1990, 91)

What an incredible change!

Did you know that even the universities known as “Ivy League” today were founded as seminaries and Bible colleges?

Harvard’s Rules and Precepts from 1636 said
“Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life (John 17:3) and therefore lay Christ at the bottom, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning.” – Josiah Quincy, LL, D., History of Harvard University (Boston: Crosby, Nichols, Lee, & Co., 1860), 515

Harvard’s original motto was “Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae” or “Truth for Christ and the Church.” (Samuel Eliot Morison, “Harvard Seals and Arms,” The Harvard Graduats’ Magazine, September 1933, 8)

In the 1746 founding statement of Princeton, it says, “Cursed is all learning that is contrary to the Cross of Christ.” (Mark A. Beliles & Stephen K. McDowell, America’s Providential History, Charlottesville: Providence Foundation, 1989,111)

In the Columbia University Seal can be found “Yahweh” at the top, written in Hebrew, Psalm 36:9 in Latin (“In thy light we see light”), on the ribbon it says “Psalm 27:1” (“God is my light”) in Hebrew, and on the lower part of the seal is “1 Peter 2:1-2” which admonishes us to desire the pure milk of God’s word.” (David C. Humphrey, From King’s College to Columbia, 1746-1800, New York: Columbia University Press,1976, 107)

When we look at the writings and sentiments of the Founders, we see the same Christian worldview carrying over from Colonial times to the birth of the country.

Gouverneur Morris said, “Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man towards God.”

Samuel Adams said, “Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, united their endeavours to renovate the age, by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, of inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity…in short of leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.”

Benjamin Rush said, “In contemplating the political institutions of the United States, I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes, and take so little pains to prevent them. We profess to be republicans and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government. That is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible.”

Noah Webster said, “In my view, the Christian Religion is the most import and and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed…no truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian Religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”

Even the Northwest Ordinance, one of the nation’s first important statutes, says in Article III: “Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” – July 13, 1787.

The instructor of the Truth Project, Dr. Del Tackett, says that he first began to see through the popular lie that America had been founded a secular country when he was called to a meeting with the president.

While in Washington, D.C. he saw some of the art in the rotunda of the Capitol Building. There was the “Landing of Columbus” which illustrated Christopher Columbus (“Christopher” meaning “One who bears Christ”) landing in the New World, a place he set out for to advance the glory of God.

Tackett also saw “The Baptism of Pocahontas” in the Capitol, along with “The Embarkation of the Pilgrims” which showed the Pilgrims on the deck of the Speedwell holding a religious service. Tackett realized that all these events in America’s history were “profoundly Christian.”

The “transitional moment” for Tackett in his realization and acceptance that America had been founded a Christian nation came when he went to a reenactment of George Washington’s Farewell Address, given by the first president at the end of his tenure as president.

In the address, Tackett heard the words of George Washington saying, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.”

But Washington was not alone in these sentiments. In a letter to Zabdiel Adams, John Adams, our second president, said, “Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.”

Adams also said, "[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Also, Benjamin Rush, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, said "...the only foundation for...a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments." Benjamin Rush also started the first anti-slavery organization in the country; aren't we glad he wasn't afraid to let his religious beliefs inform his public policy positions?

Rush also said, "Christianity is the only true and perfect religion; and that in proportion as mankind adopt its principles and obey its precepts they will be wise and happy."

Charles Carroll, another signer of the Declaration of Independence, said, "Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."

Patrick Henry, the first governor of Virginia and one of the most ardent advocates of independence, said, "The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone that renders us invincible."

Even Benjamin Franklin, one of the least religious of the founders, said, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

Another of the Founders, Noah Webster, a lawyer and Yale graduate who is famous for his dictionary, said, "The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all of our civil constitutions and laws.… All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible."

A few short decades after the founding of the United States, Alexis de Tocqueville, a French historian, traveled across America to find out what was so amazing about this dynamic new country. What did he find that made America such a great nation? The breadth and depth of the nation's Christian faith.
Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned in common over the same country.

de Toqueville also points out that it was the Christian worldview which which drove the notions of liberty that gave birth to the United States:
The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other.

Was this incredible Christian influence that de Toqueville saw in America established by way of a theocracy? Not at all! It was in the character of the citizens, which make up the "we the people" that forms our government:
In the United States religion exercises but little influence upon the laws and upon the details of public opinion, but it directs the manners of the community, and by regulating domestic life it regulates the State.

He also said, "Religion should therefore be considered as the first of their political institutions. From the start, politics and religion have agreed and have not since ceased to do so.”

Another of the early statesmen, Daniel Webster, who served in the U.S. House and Senate and as Secretary of State, said, “To preserve the government we must also preserve morals. Morality rests on religion; if you destroy the foundation, the superstructure must fall. When the public mind becomes vitiated and corrupt, laws are a nullity and constitutions are waste paper.”

This Truth Project lesson also revisits a concept examined in a previous lesson: that according to Romans 13, the purpose of the civil magistrate is to (1) punish evil and (2) condone good. In order to do this, the civil authority must be able to recognize both good and evil. In order to recognize it, the authority must know the basis for calling something good or evil.

On of the Founding Documents points to the source for understanding the basis for calling something good or evil: the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration begins by pointing to certain foundational truths, and says of them and their source:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Notice that these rights do not come from government, but from God. And government has been instituted by God to secure these rights for the governed.

The Declaration also says the people are entitled to these rights and good government by the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."

To understand what is meant by the "laws of nature," we look to writings of the time. Sir Edward Coke, a jurist of the late 16th and early 17th Centuries whose writings on English law were standard reading for several hundred years, said
The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction, ... the moral law, called also the law of nature.

Sir William Blackstone was another prominent English jurist. His legal works, the Commentaries on the Laws of England written from 1765–1769, were the "gold standard" of jurisprudence in that age. Blackstone said of the law of nature:
...man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker's will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature. This law of nature...dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.

On the basis of all laws, Blackstone said
Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.

This understanding passed on through the American Colonial period and into the life of the American republic.

James Wilson was a signer of the Declaration, a member of the Continental Congress, was greatly involved in the construction of the Constitution, and was one of the original Supreme Court justices appointed by President George Washington.

He said
Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine .... Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.

So if the people and leaders of the United States had such an understanding of the source and nature of law, where did things go so wrong? Where did our nation go adrift and become a people where the popular sentiment is that religion should have no influence on law or government whatsoever?

You may recall that Charles Darwin wrote his "Origin of Species" in 1859, which quickly became embraced by the scientific community as a viable explanation of our origins which "freed" us from the Christian explanations embraced by the Western world for nearly 2,000 years.

This philosophy quickly worked its way not only into the discipline of science but also law. In 1869 Charles Eliot, a believer in Darwin's theory, became president of Harvard University, the nation's premier law school. The next year, he brought Christopher Columbus Langdell, another disciple of Darwin, to head Harvard Law School.

Langell brought an "evolutionary" perspective to law:
Law, considered as a science, consists of certain principles or doctrines...Eachof these doctrines has arrived at its present state by slow degrees; in other words, it is a growth, extending in many cases through centuries. This growth is to be traced in the main through a series of cases...

John Chipman Gray, a law scholar of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, tells us that the "God standard" of law has been abandoned:
“The law is a living thing, with a continuous history, sloughing off the old, taking on the new.”

Herbert Titus said of Landgell in God, man, and law: The Biblical principles
Landgell did not merely introduce a new method of teaching law, he introduced a new faith concerning law. He believed that man, led by the ablest scholars and judges, could discover and determine the laws governing human affairs. Because he believed that man did not need the aid of God and of the Holy Scripture...

This philosophy marks the rise of legal positivism. Legal positivism can be defined as "The claim that the state is the ultimate authority for creating, interpreting and enforcing law. All legal truth is based on the decision of the state."

Titus also provides this insight:
“...Langdell sought to eliminate both from legal education—not by default, but by design. He, along with president Eliot, had embraced the new faith that swept the academic world in the latter 1800’s—that Darwin’s theory of evolution was the key to all of life, including the law.”

Yet the people of America originally considered faith in God very important in public officials.

Article 22 of the original Deleware Constitution says that all officials will make the following declaration:
"I, ___________, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ his only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; And I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration."

If the people were going to entrust the "power of the sword" to a civil magistrate, they wanted to be sure he was subject to a higher moral authority than himself--to God and His laws.

Despite the assertion by some today that America was founded by secularists on a secular foundation, one of the least religious of the Founders contradicts that lie.

From Benjamin Franklin:
“…how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly appealing to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible to danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard and they were graciously answered… And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance?...I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel...We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future agesI therefore beg leave to move—that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business…”

And so it was that one of the least religious of the Founders began the tradition of prayers to open public business, in Congress and many other governmental institutions across the country.

Where could it lead, if our country completely abandons the "God standard" for our government, and for what we require of our laws and leaders? We need only look to the bloody, abysmal history of Russia, especially under Soviet atheism.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn said in his Templeton Address of 1983
More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: ‘Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.’

“Since then I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval...

...But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.’

We can ignore history and the wisdom of the Founders. We can ignore the design for which this nation was intended to operate. We can even ignore God himself.

But if we do so, we would do well to consider Solzhenitsyn's words. For we would do so not only at our own peril, but our own ruination.


Saturday, January 26, 2008

Truth Project Lesson 4 - Theology: Who is God?

The Truth Project continues this week at South Canyon Baptist Church in Rapid City this Sunday from 8:57 am to 10:15 am. Come and join us for lesson 4. It could change the way you look at the world, and maybe even be life changing.



Eternal life, according to Jesus, is knowing God in an intimate, personal, and relational way. Such knowledge, which is possible only because of divine revelation, transforms us from the inside out as we begin to see ourselves in the light of His majesty and holiness.

Visit www.thetruthproject.org for more information.


Monday, March 24, 2008

God of Wonders

During the Truth Project lesson yesterday on "Labor," we examined the fact that work is not a "four letter word." That God himself worked (i.e. the creation week) and he created us to labor.

While work is often less enjoyable than it was meant to be because of the curse of sin, the fact remains that we were "created to create."

To illustrate the nobility of labor, Dr. Del Tackett showed a video featuring God's creative handiwork, set to the song "God of Wonders" by Third Day.

This video isn't the same one shown in the Truth Project (that one was even more awe-inspiring), but this one is pretty good.



I have appreciated the beauty and wonder of God's creation for many years, and I've also enjoyed this song for some time. Yet when I saw the two combined in a presentation highlighting God's genius and majesty yesterday, I was overwhelmed.

I hope you enjoy this video even half as much as I did the one I saw yesterday.


Dakota Voice
 
Clicky Web Analytics