5/31/14

From Jim McGuiggan... NOT ON THEIR WATCH


NOT ON THEIR WATCH

t's a great Story! There are no losers or useless among Christ's chosen. None at all! They're all on the walls keeping watch and playing their part. They come in different sizes, shapes, genders, ages, degree of giftedness, particularity of giftedness, social status, color, ethnicity, physical and mental health—but they all serve! Their service is flawed, it's true, but nobody knows that better than they do and no union or government, club or community criticizes itself more severely or more consistently than the chosen People.                    . 

They're very often happy but not always "happy" due to their life’s circumstances— they haven't been given exemption from humanity's awful pain, they're called to share it; besides, it isn't only the happy people that serve God's gracious purposes. People in the world might “go down” despite the presence of the Story people in it, but they won't go down without their taking note of it. They can't themselves take away all the world's pain but just by their very existence as the Story and Storied people, in their physical presence they offer an alternative to a sad and harrassed human family—an alternative to its sinking without trace.

The walls they guard are not just the “church” walls. These “chosen in Christ” are not just “church patriots”—they’re “cosmic patriots” (to borrow GK Chesterton’s phrase). They maintain a presence in the world and they do it for the world! Their enemies are not flesh and blood; their enemies are everything that is an enemy of flesh and blood, all that insinuates itself into flesh and blood as a parasite and a destroyer of the human family.

In their better moments these chosen ones have no sense of superiority; they are as sick and beaten-up as the peoples of the world around them. If you cut them they bleed, if you cheat them they feel betrayed, they weep at the graves of their dead ones and groan at a child that has gone astray or a marriage that has fallen apart. They have no personal charisma that the world should admire them but what they have (by God’s good and sustaining grace) is a Story and a place in that Story and as the prophetic embodiment of that Story—the Story that says there is a God who will right all wrongs and that he has given the assurance of that by raising Jesus Christ from the dead. This chosen People  in their sacraments, their Story and their embodied preaching at its best proclaim the rejected Jesus who stands for all throughout the world who experience rejection and oppression. Their embodied message is that entrenched evil, enforced poverty and ignorance and brutal oppression are not the end of the Story.  After suffering and rejection there was the resurrection and vindication of the rejected One. Believe that, they say, think noble things of God who puts his honor at stake and offers the resurrected Jesus as his assurance that he will keep his word. 

Poor souls might go down to oblivion but they won’t go down unnoticed or unmourned—not on their watch!

by Jeff Miller, Ph.D. ... Tampering with the Chief Engineer's Design

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3725Tampering with the Chief Engineer's Design

by  Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

The Great Designer designed designers. An exploding mass cannot design anything, much less design a designer. Genesis 1:28 confirms concerning mankind: “Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the Earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the Earth.’” Thus began the field of engineering. Using our ingenuity, humans have since engineered many ways to fulfill the commands to “subdue” and have “dominion over” the Earth, from harnesses for oxen to automobiles to space shuttles and beyond. God created the Universe with potential for infinite growth in human knowledge that can lead to many improvements in living conditions when we learn to harness and utilize the phenomena God designed and implemented on Earth for us to discover. Consider the effect that harnessing the power of electricity, magnetic fields, nuclear reactions, and chemical reactions has had on life as we know it. Unfortunately, as the poison of atheism becomes more prevalent in society, encroaching into the field of engineering, we can be guaranteed that progress will be slowed, and eventually, stopped or even reversed.
An image of an artificial heart exhibited at the London science museum.
A few years ago, I attended a Bio-engineering seminar concerning design improvements on artificial hearts for use in transplants. After the presentation, during the question and answer period, a professor stood up and asked the presenter a question that went something like this: “Has nature optimized the heart yet after all of these millions of years of its evolution, or is it still necessary for us to help it along with our designs?” At that moment, it struck me how dangerous the Theory of Evolution can be if allowed to run rampant in the field of engineering. Those who follow out the implications of the Theory of Evolution could cause not only a hindrance to scientific and technological progress, but could actually place us in mortal danger. How so?
If engineering design is approached from an evolutionary perspective, the above question is appropriate. Has nature optimized the ______, or do we need to fix it? If the Theory of Evolution is true, there should be a multitude of examples in the physical world of creatures and plants, and the components that comprise them, that are sub-optimal—since they are all in the process of evolving to better states. [NOTE: Such is not the case, which is further proof that the Theory of Evolution cannot effectively account for the state of the world.] After all, an explosion, plus a series of random accidents, no matter how many, do not produce optimized systems. Vast improvements would be necessary. Thus, the intelligence, experience, and wisdom of mankind could improve the condition of the system that “Mother Nature” dealt us. [Also note: the fact that we have the ability even to consider improving nature, implies that we as humans are too advanced to be the result of a series of random accidents. Nature could not create and then improve us to the point that we can take over and improve it. Mother Nature could not produce an entity greater than herself. The effect cannot be greater than the cause.]
However, if the Theory of Evolution is false, and the God of the Bible is the Chief Engineer of the Universe, an evolutionary approach could be very dangerous. To tamper with the design of the Almighty Engineer of the Universe would be tantamount to placing oneself above Him in knowledge and declaring oneself to be omniscient. Consider also that science is constantly evolving as research is conducted. Views once held as fact have been radically revised or even abandoned. Though some people for centuries held that the Earth was flat, modern science has proven that the Earth is spherical. The medical practice of “bleeding” a sick patient to eliminate ailments in the blood was common only 200 years ago. However, through further research and scientific investigation, and following many deaths, such a practice now seems barbaric.
Now consider an example that could be directly relevant today. If humans become arrogant enough to think that we have the knowledge necessary to improve the design of the heart, act on those feelings, and then find out through further research that the design of the heart was actually already optimal, what damage could have been done in the process? Those whose hearts had been “improved” by the wisdom of mankind, could have shorter life spans or suffer major physical complications due to the arrogance of atheistic engineers. Thus, humans could potentially be harmed due to atheist engineers making design decisions without adequate understanding of the intricacies of God’s design! No wonder Almighty God, by the hand of Paul, warned: “Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, ‘He catches the wise in their own craftiness’; and again, ‘The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile’” (1 Corinthians 3:18-21).
Many other examples illustrate the dangers of atheistic engineering. Since sin entered the world in Genesis three and mankind was evicted from the Garden of Eden, the pristine conditions of life on Earth have severely deteriorated. The Earth, as well as the general condition of the human body, is running down as the Second Law of Thermodynamics implies. Disease and genetic mutation, for example, attest to this. Isaiah declared: “Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look on the Earth beneath. For the heavens will vanish away like smoke. The Earth will grow old like a garment, and those who dwell in it will die in like manner....” (51:6). We have used God-given engineering abilities to combat some of this decline through designs of our own, including, for example, medicine to combat disease, and sophisticated structures to withstand the forces of natural calamity. However, with a warped perspective about Who the Author and Designer of the Universe is, mankind could attempt to fix things that do not need fixing, and thereby bring calamity, suffering, and unhappiness.
Now consider: If engineers would respect the Chief Engineer Who has surrounded us with amazing prototypes—an engineering school into which we have all been admitted—they could make quicker and better advancements in technology. Engineers of the past understood this. The Wright brothers, for example, analyzed birds to determine how to get an airplane to stay in the air (Fausz, 2008; Root, 1905), thereby achieving their objective. However, evolutionists will tend not to use God’s optimized designs since, to them, there is no ultimate Engineer to mimic. Rather, they are the results of a multitude of random accidents. Evolutionists would, therefore, have to recognize that optimized designs could not possibly come from an explosion. [NOTE: Ironically, many evolutionists openly gape at the amazing complexity and seeming design of the world, and yet fail to recognize the implications of their awe (Block, 1980, p. 52; Jastrow, 1981, pp. 96-97; Lipson, 1980, 31:138; Wylie, 1962, p. 25).] Thus, technological advancement is slowed and designs often will fail to reach their potential.
If scientists fail to ask the right question, we will begin to see notable deleterious effects in the field of engineering. If engineers ask the right question, they, and indirectly we, will continue to have major advancements in technology as blessings from the Chief Engineer. What is the right question? The correct question to ask is, “Why did the Chief Engineer do it that way?” Studying that question will help us to have better “dominion” over the Earth. He designed the Earth, and we can be assured that His design, and the rationale behind His design, will be very useful. After all, who could possibly out-design the Chief Engineer of the Universe?

REFERENCES

Block, Irvin (1980), “The Worlds Within You,” Science Digest, special edition:49-53,118, September/October.
Fausz, Jerry (2008), “Designed to Fly,” Reason & Revelation, 28[2]:9-15, February, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3599.
Jastrow, Robert (1981), The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York: Simon and Schuster).
Lipson, H. S. (1980), “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Physics Bulletin, 31:138, May.
Root, Amos Ives (1905), “First Published Account of the Wright Brothers Flight,” Gleanings in Bee Culture (Medina, OH: A.I. Root Company), [On-line], URL: http://www.rootcandles.com/about/wrightbrothers.cfm.
Wylie, Evan M. (1962), Today’s Health, July.

From Mark Copeland... The Church In Antioch Of Syria (Acts 11:19-30)

                          "THE BOOK OF ACTS"

              The Church In Antioch Of Syria (11:19-30)

INTRODUCTION

1. A major church in New Testament times was the church in Antioch of
   Syria...
   b. Begun by disciples who had been in Jerusalem - Ac 11:19-21
   c. Where disciples of Christ were first called "Christians" - Ac 11:26

2. The church in Antioch of Syria would later...
   a. Serve as Paul's starting point for his three missionary journeys 
      - Ac 13:1-3
   b. Send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem to resolve the issue of
      circumcision - Ac 15:1-2

[In our text for this lesson (Ac 11:19-30), we read the beginning of
the church in Antioch of Syria.  But first, let's review some
background material concerning the city of Antioch itself...]

I. THE CITY OF ANTIOCH

   A. BEGINNING...
      1. Founded in 300 B.C. by Seleucus Nicator, one of Alexander the 
         Great's generals
      2. Named after his father Antiochus
      3. Located on the river Orontes, 15 miles upstream from the port 
         city Seleucia (named after Seleucus himself)

   B. FAME...
      1. Became known as "Antioch the Beautiful"
      2. Famous for its fine buildings, and a long, paved boulevard
         flanked by a double colonnade with trees and fountains
      3. Absorbed by the Roman empire in 64 B.C., it became the capital
         of the imperial province of Syria (and later Cilicia)
      4. Josephus called it the third city of the empire, after Rome and
         Alexandria

   C. POPULATION...
      1. Estimated at 300,000, extremely cosmopolitan (multicultural)
      2. A Greek city by foundation, inhabitants included Latins as well
      3. With a large colony of Jews, attracted by Seleucus' offer of
         equal citizenship
      4. There were also people from Persia, India, and even China,
         earning it another name:  "the Queen of the East"

[Much of the above information about the city of Antioch is from Stott,
J. R. W. (1994). The Message of Acts: The Spirit, the Church & the
World. The Bible Speaks Today. Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press.  Now let's consider the church itself...]

II. THE CHURCH IN ANTIOCH

   A. ESTABLISHED BY EVANGELISTS...
      1. Of those scattered by the persecution in Jerusalem, who first 
         spoke only to the Jews - Ac 11:19; cf. Ac 8:1-4
      2. Some of them from Cyprus and Cyrene, began speaking to 
         Hellenists (Greeks) - Ac 11:20
      3. Preaching the Lord Jesus, with the aid of the Lord, a great
         number believed and turned to the Lord - Ac 11:21  

   B. ENCOURAGED BY BARNABAS...
      1. News of this new church reached Jerusalem, so they sent Barnabas
         - Ac 11:22
         a. Introduced earlier as also being from Cyprus - Ac 4:36-37
         b. Who helped Saul to be accepted by the church in Jerusalem
            - Ac 9:26-27
      2. Upon his arrival, Barnabas (whose name means "son of 
         encouragement"):
         a. Saw the grace of God and was glad - Ac 11:23
         b. Encouraged them to continue with the Lord with purpose of
            heart - ibid.
      3. For he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith
         - Ac 11:24; cf. Ac 4:37; 6:5
      4. Result:  "And a great many people were added to the Lord" - Ac 11:24; cf. Ac 2:41,47

   C. EDUCATED WITH SAUL...
      1. Barnabas went to Tarsus to find Saul - Ac 11:25; cf. Ac 9:30
      2. Together at Antioch, Barnabas and Saul assembled with the church
         for a year and taught a great many people - Ac 11:26
      3. It was at Antioch disciples were first called Christians - Ac 11:26; cf. Ac 26:28; 1Pe 4:16

   D. EXEMPLIFIED GOOD WORKS...
      1. Some prophets arrived from Jerusalem - Ac 11:27; cf. 1Co 12:28;
         Ep 4:11
      2. One of them, Agabus, by the Spirit foretold of a famine - Ac 11:28; cf. Ac 21:10,11
      3. The disciples at Antioch determined to send relief - Ac 11:29
         a. Each according to his ability - cf. 1Co 16:1-2; 2Co 8:2-4,
            12-14
         b. Sent by the hands of Barnabas and Saul to the elders  
      4. Thus the church demonstrated one "zealous for good works" - cf.
         Tit 2:14; 3:1,8,14

CONCLUSION

1. So began a great church in a great city...
   a. Established by evangelists
   b. Endorsed by Barnabas
   c. Educated with Saul
   d. Exemplified good works
   -- Perhaps the second most influential church after Jerusalem in the
      first century A.D.

2. We will read more of this church in the book of Acts...
   a. As an important factor in Paul's missionary journeys
   b. Contributing to the successful resolution of a problem involving 
      Gentiles

Indeed, there are good lessons we might glean from "The Church In Antioch
Of Syria", a few of which we shall look at in our next study...

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2012

From Gary... Warning: Stupidity may be hazardous to thinking
























Stupidity, sheer stupidity!!!  Reading these warning labels shows how sue-happy our society has become. But then again, consider the concept of Law versus Grace.  Paul writes...

Galatians, Chapter 3
Gal 3:2  This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?
Gal 3:3  Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?
Gal 3:4  Did you suffer so many things in vain--if indeed it was in vain?
Gal 3:5  So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?
Gal 3:6  Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.
Gal 3:7  Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.
Gal 3:8  The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU."
Gal 3:9  So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.
Gal 3:10  For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM."
Gal 3:11  Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, "THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."

Gal 3:12  However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, "HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM."
Gal 3:13  Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"--
Gal 3:14  in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Gal 3:15  Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it.
Gal 3:16  Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.
Gal 3:17  What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.
Gal 3:18  For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

Gal 3:19  Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.
Gal 3:20  Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one.
Gal 3:21  Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.
Gal 3:22  But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Gal 3:23  But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.
Gal 3:24  Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25  But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
Gal 3:26  For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

Gal 3:27  For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
Gal 3:28  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29  And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.

God accounts righteousness; man tries and fails.  Obedience to the Law of God has always been a wonderful thing and there is an eternal blessing for those who attempt to please God in every way.  BUT, no matter how hard we try, we fail (at least in some minor point). Like Abraham, it is our faith, which is expressed in our efforts to please God through obedience, that saves us.  Do yourself a favor- expand your understanding of faithfulness to God BEYOND MERE OBEDIENCE TO THE 10 COMMANDMENTS. That is why God sent his son- to show us the way!!!  Going back to rules-based religion is like following the directions listed for Dial soap "Directions: use like regular soap". You wind up trying to use common sense anyway!!!

From Jim McGuiggan... ELECT OR ELITE

ELECT OR ELITE

One of the dangers in choosing a special group to act on behalf of a larger group is that misunderstanding and envy may arise. In choosing a special priesthood out of a nation that was, at least, priestly in calling, God was willing to risk the misunderstanding and envy of some of the people. There are numerous texts that show that envy and bitterness were indeed a problem connected with this.

The book of Numbers has this as one of its recurring themes. Chapters 12, 16 and 17 mention the problem. In twelve Aaron and Miriam are chafed by Moses' authority and in sixteen Korah and his companions are maddened by the peculiar claims of Aaron and his family.

In electing a special priesthood God was not creating an elite group but an elect group; not a 'lording it over' group but a servant group; not a 'self-chosen' class but 'an obedient to a call' class of men.

It's clear from a reading of the biblical text that God didn't make these priests paragons of virtue, he didn't work a moral miracle and make them into sinless beings. The behavior of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eli's sons, Hopni and Phineas this and the frequent denunciation of the priesthood by the prophets leave us in no doubt that priests had their character flaws. Nevertheless, though flawed like all others, these God was pleased to choose as leaders of his people.

That being the case, there was no ground for priests to act as though butter wouldn't melt in their mouths. They were chosen not because they were uniformly of wonderful character. In this they were like the nation which God reminded again and again. "I didn't choose you because of your righteousness." Israel had no more reason to look down on their neighbors than the priests had to scorn their fellow-worshipers, the Israelite nation.

But while the priests had to understand and act on that truth, Israel needed to understand that the choice of Aaron and his family was God's choice and as such, when they opposed Aaron, they were opposing God. And when God called Aaron and his family, Israel needed to understand that for Aaron to say no would have been to rebel against Yahweh.

Let me say it again, both priests and the nation needed to understand that the special priesthood was on Israel's behalf. They were called to serve Israel. Envy against the priestly representatives is out of order for many reasons but it misses the mark because it is leveled against those whose very existence was to serve them.

And the priests needed to understand that they were called to serve not to enslave. Authority in the form of representation is for others rather than over others. And this remains true even though the priests are given the authority to settle certain things, they are given decision-making power. The people in many things must submit to the instructions of the priests and are required to regard them as God's representatives to the nation as well as the nation's representatives to God.

This truth of honorable representation is embedded in the very nature of humanity as God created it. He created humans for community and so he created them as interdependent. Deuteronomy 1:9-18; Exodus 18:13-26 and Deuteronomy 16:18-20 speak of the need of honorable representation. Moses isn't able to care for all the needs and troubles of the nation so men who knew and loved God and the nation are chosen to broker peace and justice and contentment between disputing or mutually ignorant parties who differ.Once more, the choice of these judges was for the benefit of the nation and to defy them was to defy God's arrangement by which the entire Community was to be blessed—it was to defy God in the form of anarchy [Deuteronomy 18:7-13]. God-given authority is not an enemy of justice or peace or community! 

Imagine thousands who wished to offer sacrifice to God at the Tabernacle. Paint the picture as realistically as you are able. Bearing in mind that the manner of sacrificing was appointed by God, how could they have managed it without priestly representation? Imagine a sinful nation with all its inner conflicts and picture it left to the physically strong or the wickedly influential or those who can gain overwhelming power because they had the money to bribe support among the people [see the case of Absalom]. Honorable and wise representation beats anarchy and national disorder.

Social justice is viewed as profoundly serious in the OT—it's one of the fundamental requirements of Israel's existence as God's nation. When leaders [priests, prophets, judges or kings] become corrupt and in this way corrupt the entire nation God moves to deal with the situation. The authority structures he put in place are not the problem—corruption in all its forms is the problem!

Up to this point I've been dealing mainly with the individuals rights of the nation and how God's choice of authoritative representation is designed to cater to those God-given "rights". But that is only one perspective of the larger picture. Israel's business was to image God and his ways before the nations of the world! The self-disclosure of God in the story of the covenant with Abraham and his children through Jacob, the Exodus and all that is part of that self-disclosure was to shape Israel's Story and national behavior. As a People they were to be a living embodiment of that continuing self-revelation of God. That imaging of God was for the benefit of the entire human family—a Community was called to bring light to the nations and salvation to the ends of the earth. This of necessity involved the pursuit of social justice within the community [note God's "hearing" Israel's groaning under Egyptian bondage—Exodus 2:23-25].

It's clear that some structures came and went with God's appointment and/or approval because they were no longer needed or no longer served their purpose. SEE. It's also true that some laws were introduced that God did not approve or promote—he tolerated and regulated them [polygamy, concubinage, divorce "for any cause" are examples (see Matthew 19:3-9]. But the truths that underlay all these structures, truths that these structures served, truths about God as creatior and Redeemer—these truths abide despite change.

Democracy and egalitarianism can foster dangerous tendencies. In a world like ours, if we pursue equality "in every conceivable area and way" too vigorously we can destroy something more fundamental that gaining our "rights" in every conceivable way. We can destroy "community" without which "rights" can't exist or if they can they could not be enjoyed.


©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, theabidingword.com.

From Kyle Butt, M.A. ... Telling People What to Think




http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=941

Telling People What to Think

by  Kyle Butt, M.A.

Dan Barker, the ex-preacher who deconverted to atheism, is most famous for his book Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist. In this treatise against God and religion, Barker discussed a book that he wrote for children that contained these words: “No one can tell you what to think. Not your teachers. Not your parents. Not your minister, priest, or rabbi. Not your friends or relatives. Not this book. You are the boss of your own mind. If you have used your own mind to find out what is true, then you should be proud! Your thoughts are free!” (1992, p. 47). Noble sentiments indeed!
But, as one digs deeper into Barker’s book, it quickly becomes clear that those sentiments do not find a willing practitioner in the person of Dan Barker. In his chapter on prayer, Barker wrote:
Don’t ask Christians if they think prayer is effective. They will think up some kind of answer that makes sense to them only. Don’t ask them, tell them: “You know that prayer doesn’t work. You know you are fooling yourself with magical conceit.” No matter how they reply, they will know in their heart of hearts that you are right (1992, p. 109, emp. in orig.).
From Barker’s statement about what should be “told” to those who believe in prayer, it is easy to see that he does not necessarily believe his previous statement that “no one can tell you what to think,” or that a person should use his own mind “to find out what is true.” In fact, what Barker is really trying to say is that a person should only think for himself if such thinking will lead him to believe that there is no God, or that prayer does not work, or that all religion is nonsense. If thinking for himself leads a person to believe in the efficacy of prayer or the existence of God, then that person should be “told” what to believe.
In truth, the Bible demands that each person weigh the evidence for himself or herself. First Thessalonians 5:21 states: “Test all things; hold fast what is good.” Among those things that should be tested are the writings of skeptics like Barker. When blatant inconsistencies pepper their pages like so many spots on a Dalmatian, then those writings should not be “held fast.”

REFERENCE

Barker, Dan (1992), Losing Faith In Faith—From Preacher to Atheist (Madison, WI: Freedom from Religion Foundation).

From Mark Copeland... Peter Defends His Actions (Acts 11:1-18)

                          "THE BOOK OF ACTS"

                 Peter Defends His Actions (11:1-18)

INTRODUCTION

1. The news of Cornelius' conversion quickly spread...
   a. Those in Jerusalem heard of the Gentiles' reception of the Word
      - Ac 11:1
   b. But Peter's actions were soon criticized by some Jewish Christians
      - Ac 11:2-3

2. As noted previously, there are two accounts of Cornelius' 
   conversion...
   a. There is Luke's description, given as it occurred - Ac 10:1-48
   b. There is Peter's description, when he is called to defend his
      actions - Ac 11:1-18

[In this lesson, we will focus our attention to Peter's description of
the events as they occurred...]

I. PETER'S ACCOUNT OF THIS CONVERSION

   A. PETER HAS A VISION...
      1. While praying in Joppa, in a trance, Peter has a vision - Ac 11:4-9
         a. A sheet descends from heaven, containing all sorts of
            creatures
         b. A voice tells him "Rise, Peter; kill and eat"
         c. Peter objects, for he has never eaten anything common or
            unclean
         d. The voice tells him, "What God has cleansed you must not call
            common."
      2. The vision is repeated three times - Ac 11:10

   B. THE SPIRIT INSTRUCTS PETER...
      1. Three men from Caesarea arrive as Peter contemplates the vision
         - Ac 11:11
      2. The Spirit tells Peter to go with them, doubting nothing - Ac 11:12
      3. Six brethren from Joppa went with him (now with Peter in 
         Jerusalem) - Ac 11:12
      4. They entered the man's house - Ac 11:12

   C. CORNELIUS EXPLAINS WHY HE SENT FOR PETER...
      1. He had seen an angel standing in his house - Ac 11:13
      2. Who told him to send to Joppa and ask for Peter - Ac 11:13
      3. "who will tell you words by which you and all your household
         will be saved" - Ac 11:14

   D. THE SPIRIT FALLS ON THE GENTILES...
      1. "As I began to speak...as upon us at the beginning." - Ac 11:15;
         cf. Ac 2:1-4
      2. Reminded Peter of the Lord's promise to the apostles concerning
         being baptized with the Holy Spirit - Ac 11:16; cf. Ac 1:5
      3. Convinced him that if God gave Gentiles the same gift as given
         to the apostles when they believed on the Lord, who was he to 
         withstand God? - Ac 11:17 

   E. THE IMPACT ON THOSE AT JERUSALEM...
      1. They were silenced, then glorified God - Ac 11:18
      2. Saying, "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to
         life." - ibid.

[Peter's account silenced the objectors, and led to the Gentiles
considered acceptable recipients of the gospel of Christ.  His account
also adds a few details of which we should take careful note...]

II. OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THIS CONVERSION

   A. THE ORDER IN WHICH EVENTS OCCURRED...
      1. Peter explained the events "in order from the beginning" - Ac 11:4; cf. Lk 1:3
      2. If there is any question as to the sequence of events, Peter's 
         account takes precedence
 
   B. THE MOMENT WHEN CORNELIUS WAS SAVED...
      1. Remember that Cornelius was told to send for Peter, who would 
         tell him...
         a. "what you must do." - Ac 10:6
         b. "words by which you...shall be saved." - Ac 11:14
      2. From this, and from what we see in other conversions...
         a. Cornelius was not saved until he heard the "words" (i.e.,
            after the sermon)
         b. Cornelius was not saved until he obeyed what he was told to
            do
      3. What were the words he and his household were told to do?
         a. They were told to believe, as implied in Ac 10:43
         b. They were told to be baptized, as commanded in Ac 10:48
      4. Thus Cornelius and his household were not saved until they
         believed and were baptized! - cf. Mk 16:16; Ac 8:12,13

   C. THE PURPOSE OF THE SPIRIT FALLING ON THEM...
      1. Some presume that the purpose was to save Cornelius and his
         family
         a. That therefore they were saved before obeying the command to
            be baptized
         b. But the Spirit came upon them as Peter "began to speak",
            before they could hear words by which they could be saved! 
            - Ac 11:14-15
      2. The purpose of the Spirit can be gleaned from the following...
         a. The effect it had on the Jewish brethren who were present,
            and Peter's response - Ac 10:45-47
         b. The reaction of those in Jerusalem when Peter explained what
            happened - Ac 11:17-18
         c. Peter's explanation at the council held later in Jerusalem 
            - Ac 15:7-11
      3. The purpose of the Spirit falling on Gentiles was therefore to 
         show Jewish brethren...
         a. That God was no respecter of persons - Ac 10:34-35
         b. That God was willing to grant Gentiles opportunity to repent
            and have life - Ac 11:18
         c. That Gentiles could be saved in the same way as Jews... - Ac 15:9,11; cf. Ac 2:38; 10:48

CONCLUSION

1. Peter's defense of his actions silenced those who accused him of
   impropriety...
   a. For socializing with Gentiles
   b. For sharing the gospel with them

2. But the issue of Gentiles in the church was not over...
   a. It will come up again later in Acts - cf. Ac 15:1-2
   b. It was a major issue addressed in several epistles (Romans,
      Galatians, etc.) 

But we who are Gentiles today can be thankful that God in His grace has
made it clear:  He is no respecter of persons, and that all can be
saved by the grace extended through His Son Jesus Christ...!
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2012

From Gary... The Real Truth (or consequences)





Somehow, Pilate's statement of "what is truth?" kept coming to my mind today; I can only guess as to why this was, but things happen.  And so, I decided to consider truth and somehow, the grouping of the above pictures seemed to make sense to me.  As I looked for pictures, I found one of the "truth or consequences" TV show of yesteryear and then of an even earlier radio show (which I only very vaguely remember). Last, I found this picture of a real place called "truth or consequences".  Surprisingly enough, there are many pictures of this town on the net!!!  After this, it was not difficult to associate the following verse with all this...

John, Chapter 17
Joh 17:17  "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.


Wouldn't it be great to actually imagine that in the town of "Truth or Consequences" there was ONLY TRUTH (and therefore no consequences [negative ones of course]). Just straightforwardness, honesty, righteousness and GODLINESS!!!  Well, I know this is really not going to happen in the here and now.  But, Jesus prayed for our sanctification (purity in the truth) and therefore it must be possible.

So, how do we do this?

The answer is found in the book below...































QUESTIONS ?????



Seek truth in the Bible and find the greatest consequences you could ever imagine!!!








5/30/14

From Jim McGuiggan... CHRISTIAN ADVANTAGE [7]


CHRISTIAN ADVANTAGE [7]

These “Christian Advantage” pieces are supposed to address the question of Christian empowerment. Let me see if I can make myself clear about what I’m working with.

The NT expressly says that the Spirit of God that indwells Christians strengthens them [see]. This is not to be denied.

The pieces I’m working with are not aimed at denying that truth or robbing Christians of the power given to them by the indwelling Spirit. Presuming that my present understanding of the Scriptures in this matter is correct [limited as it is] I just want to contribute to the Christian’s empowerment. I’d like to remove some worry that gnaws at the hearts of many sensitive Christians, give them peace and free them to rejoice in some of what the Holy Spirit does in, through and for them.

I want to help them not to be at all disappointed in God or overly disappointed in themselves. I’d like them to shift their gaze to God’s purpose in them rather than a constant checking of their spiritual/moral pulse and temperature.

My own experience [if I can judge by a huge number of people I’ve known down the years and the many letters I get] is the experience of a vast number of Christians. And what is that?

For more than one reason their experience of the biblical promises of empowerment fall short of their personal moral experience—the promises are not fulfilled and there’s always some fine print that explains why.

“I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me,” Paul says in Philippians 4:13 and Christians who find themselves defeated by Sin and sins—not just now and then but year after year after—wonder why they haven’t morally matured and experienced that blessing despite the truth of Philippians 4.

One of the worst fruits of this sense of defeat is this—they begin to doubt the truth of Philippians 4:13. Another is this— they begin to wonder if they truly belong to the Lord Jesus because, if they did, they would surely have the strength to become the devoted and morally mature Christians they long to be and aren’t. But I would suppose that the most commonly experienced bad fruit is that they think there is some fine print they aren’t seeing.

“Fine print” like, “One day but not in this lifetime you will be able to do ‘all things’ through Christ who strengthens you.” [It’s true that the passage doesn’t read like that but maybe that’s the unstated “fine print”.]

“Fine print” like, “Of course the strength of the Lord is offered to you but you have to have the strength to grasp and use it.” [That sounds plausible because the Lord doesn’t turns us into puppets, we must accept what he offers. Still, we wonder what good the offer of the Lord’s strength is if we have to have our own strength to get it. What if we don’t have the strength to get his strength?]

The trouble with these “explanations” as to why we don’t have Christ’s strength to do all these lovely things [like defeat recurring sins, grow in the lovely ways we long for and such]—the trouble with these “explanations” is that they confirm that we lack the strength the passage speaks of.

Two things make matters entirely worse. There are smug and self-righteous Christians who insist we should have already become as morally mature and lovely as they are. [Smugness is a fourth bad fruit that develops in this area.] And if the self-righteous ones are subtle about their “accusation” and confident about their own success the very sensitive tend to believe them—“We should be successful like them.”

The second thing is the realization that countless people who have made no commitment to Jesus as Lord live moral lives at least as morally upright and fine as these disappointed-in-themselves Christians. Setting aside the question: where do these non-Christians get the power? the disappointed follower of Christ wonders why his/her moral life with Christ doesn’t compare favorably with the moral life of those without Christ.

All this and more leads to other bad fruit. “Spiritual depression” and dismay deepen in the defeated and so does impatience in the mature and untroubled believers who can’t understand why no marked growth is seen in the “weaklings”. From pulpits, lecterns and bulletins verses are directed at the weaklings. Passages from the book of Hebrews, for example, which were written to people in danger of apostasy, are used to rebuke people who have no desire whatever to leave the Lord. In truth they hunger for the opposite—they want to please him more, they want his strength to help them to please him.

The concerns of the weak aren’t dealt with. Passages such as Philippians 4 or Ephesians 3 or James 4:7 are quoted as though they were self-explanatory and as though the speakers knew by experience what these passages were talking about. If the preachers, teachers and writers have already “arrived” at great moral power everyone else should have or soon should. If others are not devoted, not truly involved or not morally mature it can only be that they don’t want to be. After all, there’s Philippians 4:13 and Ephesians 1:13, 19 and 3:16.

When believers who cannot and do not want to turn from the Lord Jesus come to believe that the promises are in some definite way beyond their grasp they’re tempted to settle for less. The leaders who see this end up offering the banal and the status quo as teaching/preaching because they have tried constant rebuke or cajoling and it didn't work. It's either that or turf the "weaklings" out.

That’s what these pieces are about.

For clarity’s sake let me just spell out some points and if you choose to pursue me on them DO write me, please.

1. God is at work and always has been at work in the hearts and lives of humans down the centuries. It doesn’t matter who or what they are or where they live. God’s truth though it has been suppressed by the human family as a family has had lovely effects on countless souls though they are all sinners.

2. The Spirit of God did not begin his moral work on Christians only when they became Christians. He was already at work in them long before they came to Christ. Cornelius is a perfect illustration of that truth.

3. The same is true about talents and giftedness [in Christians and non-Christians]—they are gifts from God that develop variously in us in light of our nature and nurture. The idea that the Spirit’s gifts are newly created as if by magic when we become Christians is simply not true. People don’t become Christians and all of a sudden have administrative ability, medical brilliance, patience and other various virtues.

4. The same is true about the baggage we bring with us when we become Christians. Unhealthy fears, ingrained evil habits, ugly attitudes, cruel tendencies and such, these don’t appear by magic—nature and nurture, played on by the “world-spirit” result in our sinfulness and our choosing to sin. These are aspects of who we are when we come to the Lord Jesus for salvation, rescue and the privilege of being his companions [see].

5. The level and nature of our “bentness” differs depending on so many things that there’s no getting to the bottom of an individual profile. We have much in common as humans, of course, but no one’s life runs on the same tracks and while some of the more obvious things about us are predictable [concerning our evil or our moral decency] it’s almost humorous to listen to the gurus who know everything about everyone.

6. The same thing that happens to me and to you is not the same thing that happens to you and me. Part of “the event” is the person to whom it happens. Your father dies and my father dies—same thing! No, not the same thing! I am fragile and you are strong. My marriage falls apart and your marriage falls apart—same thing. No, not the same thing! I have a strong support network and you have no one. The “burden” is never the same because the ones bearing the burden are not the same.

7. What is true about sadness and tragedy is true about blessing and joy. Last year I was capable of "seeing" well; this year [due to trouble] I lack that good vision. It’s true about moral strength and weakness. Children raised in lovely homes with warmth, healthy authority, acceptance and such, have an advantage over children raised in homes of abuse, hyper-criticism and apathy. This is true whether the warm authoritative parents are Christians, Muslims, Jews or Hindus or agnostics.

8. People aren’t shaped by magic, not even divine magic. You want magic? Go to the movies! People are shaped by the Spirit of God but not by his working magic. People are also shaped by an invisible [but real] power of evil that the Scriptures would call satanic or demonic, but not by demonic magic.

9. All this, and more, means that when people come to the Lord Jesus they are people who enter the new creation with different weaknesses or strengths, out of different environments, with different personality traits and different support networks [or none], with different susceptibilities to different forms of sin and different sensitivity to different virtues. All these strengths and weaknesses they bring and they lay them, as part of their very selves, at Jesus’ feet.

10. Since God won’t work magic we shouldn’t expect everyone to be healed in the same way, at the same speed and to the same degree. We shouldn’t even expect to know how to judge such matters. We don’t know enough nor are we pure enough to make such judgments. We certainly know what the obvious evils are but we don’t know the strength of the currents against which people are swimming. You aren’t me! I’m not you! Judge the deed with care and truth but don’t overestimate what you know and don’t overestimate your ability to know!

11. So what’s the difference between the Christian and the non-Christian if the non-Christian is as morally upright as the Christian? So what advantage does the Christian have if God’s Spirit is at work at the moral level in the lives of both non-Christians and Christians?

12.  Paul severely critiques the Jewish nation in Romans 2:17-29 and uses circumcision and the Torah to rebuke the nation. This leads to the question [3:1], “What advantage then has the Jew?” Some scholars think the answer should have been, “None at all!” But Paul says [3:2], “Much in everyway! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God.”

13. But how was that an “advantage” if the nation as a nation proved itself faithless to God? The scriptures, the promises were “entrusted” to the Jews but it’s patently obvious from Israel’s history as a nation that the scriptures and promises didn’t transform them into paragons of moral uprightness or faithfulness.

14. The modern scholars I’ve read [I’ve read quite a few] tell us that Israel didn’t have the Holy Spirit so they couldn’t be faithful. Their story is that Christians now have the Holy Spirit so that they can do what Israel could not do because, as they say, Israel didn’t have the Holy Spirit to empower them to keep the law. I think this is nonsense but it’s a discussion for another time [see this and also note the list of faithful heroes in Hebrews 11 whose faith Christians are called to emulate].

15. Passing that by for now, Paul says that the Jews had all kinds of advantage and in particular they had been entrusted with God’s scriptures. Yes, but again, how was that an advantage if i they didn’t morally transform them into devoted followers of God? Well, since Paul said they were advantaged and since it's true that the advantages didn’t morally transform them we need to take a close look at advantage. Since it is true that Christians have been entrusted with God’s scriptures and they haven’t been transformed into moral exemplars and are no better or worse than the decent and upright non-Christian people what advantage do they have, what is the power the Spirit gives?

16. What power do Christians have that non-Christians don’t have? Since OT Israel did have the Holy Spirit’s help what is it that NT believers have that they didn’t? What does the Holy Spirit do for Christians that he doesn’t do for non-Christians?

God enabling I’d like to take that up in part 8.

If you choose, please pursue me on what I’ve said already.


From Bert Thompson, Ph.D. ... The Anthropic Principle




The Anthropic Principle

by  Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

INTRODUCTION

On more than one occasion, evolutionary scientists, while diligently struggling to banish God from His own Universe, have inadvertently accomplished exactly the opposite, and in so doing, have come face-to-face with evidence so powerful, and so astonishing, that it enshrines Him all the more as Creator. However, rather than simply admitting that their findings confirm both a creation and a Creator, they have gone to great lengths to “explain away” the data, or their implications, so that evolution can persist as the most popular explanation for origins. The literature provides multiple instances of this kind of thinking.
For example, Stephen Hawking, in his book, A Brief History of Time, observed: “The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired” (1988, p. 122). But, after acknowledging the “underlying order” in nature, Dr. Hawking quickly dispensed with it, and throughout his book extolled the rich virtues of evolution as “the way it happened.” Paul Davies, the eminent British physicist, has written a book in which the beauty, structure, and extreme complexity of both the Universe and the Earth are examined in depth. Yet Dr. Davies says we exist because of “apparent numerical accidents” and “many more apparent accidents of fortune” (1982, p. 111). Not surprisingly, then, do we discover that he titled his book The Accidental Universe. In that volume, we find this amazing statement:
Many of the rather basic features of the Universe are determined in essence by the values that are assigned to the fundamental constants of nature,...and these features would be drastically altered if the constants assumed even moderately different values. It is clear that for nature to produce a cosmos even remotely resembling our own, many apparently unconnected branches of physics have to cooperate to a remarkable degree (1982, p. 111).
John Gribbin, the renowned evolutionary cosmologist, has voiced his belief that “our form of life depends, in delicate and subtle ways, on several apparent ‘coincidences’ in the fundamental laws of nature which make the Universe tick. Without those coincidences, we would not be here to puzzle over the problem of their existence.... What does this mean? One possibility is that the Universe we know is a highly improbable accident, ‘just one of those things’ ” (1981, pp. 307,309). In the May, 1983 issue of Science Digest, Dr. Gribbin penned an article that discussed in clear terms the design which is apparent in every aspect of the creation. The article concentrated specifically on the Earth, noting how it had exactly the right distance from the Sun, exactly the right distance from the Moon, exactly the right tilt, exactly the right mass, exactly the right atmosphere, and so on. Ironically, the article was titled “Earth’s Lucky Break” (p. 36).

THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE

Perennially, evolutionists have busied themselves with avoiding the obvious design in nature, and the inescapable conclusion to be drawn from such design: there must be a designer. Realizing that design demands a designer, they have spent considerable time and effort attempting to ignore, explain away, or otherwise weaken the implications of the data. Valiant attempts have been made to give their distorted views respectability. Various “principles” of science have been elucidated to confer such respectability. For example, there is the Copernican Principle, which holds that no part of the Universe is more privileged than any other part. The Principle of Mediocrity holds that life on Earth is nothing special and that because of this, the galaxies are likely filled with other civilizations. The Perfect Cosmological Principle states that the Universe should be identical at all times. And so on.
It is, then, astonishing indeed to learn of the naming and development of one of the newest principle in science—the Anthropic Principle. As its name (from the Greek anthropos, meaning “man”) implies, this principle hinges on man’s part in the existence of the Universe. To quote Gribbin: “The ‘Anthropic Principle’ says that our Universe seems to be tailor-made for us because people like us can only evolve in this kind of Universe” (1981, p. 309).
Did Dr. Gribbin say “tailor-made”? Yes, and Robert Jastrow, founder and former director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, explained why:
Thus, according to the physicist and the astronomer, it appears that the Universe was constructed within very narrow limits, in such a way that man could dwell in it. This result is called the anthropic principle. It is the most theistic result ever to come out of science, in my view.... I really do not know what to make of this result—the Anthropic Principle (1984, pp. 21,22, emp. in orig.).
Dr. Jastrow hardly is alone in his consternation over these latest findings in science. The obvious implications of a “tailor-made” Universe have not escaped many of his colleagues. Freeman Dyson of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton commented: “As we look out into the Universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the Universe must in some sense have known we were coming” (1971, p. 50). Sir Fred Hoyle of Great Britain has stronger feelings on the matter. In speaking of the precise requirements needed in nature to synthesize the proper carbon and hydrogen atoms necessary to life, Dr. Hoyle observed:
If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just about where these levels are actually found to be.... A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature (1954, p. 121).
Paul Davies also is troubled over these events.
A clear inspection shows that the Earth is endowed with still more amazing “conveniences.” Without the layer of ozone above the atmosphere, deadly ultraviolet radiation from the sun would destroy us, and in the absence of a magnetic field, cosmic subatomic particles would deluge the Earth’s surface. Considering that the Universe is full of violence and cataclysms, our own little corner of the cosmos enjoys a benign tranquility. To those who believe that God made the world for mankind, it must seem that all these conditions are in no way a random or haphazard arrangement of circumstances, but reflect a carefully prepared environment in which humans can live comfortably, a pre-ordained ecosystem into which life slots naturally and inevitably—a tailor-made world (1980, p. 143).
What is the origin of this novel and controversial position? While the words “anthropic principle” are not new, their use in this respect is. They were first applied to these matters by Brandon Carter in 1974 in a lecture to the International Astronomical Union. Dr. Carter, then at Cambridge and now at the Paris Observatory, published his comments in an article titled “Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology.” In his lecture, Dr. Carter observed: “What we can expect to observe must be restricted by the conditions necessary for our presence as observers” (1974, p. 291). In other words, the conditions that we observe in the Universe must include those necessary to give rise to intelligent life, or else we would not be here to observe them.
Stephen Hawking paraphrased Carter’s point like this: “We see the Universe the way it is because we exist.” He elaborates as follows: “The idea is that there are certain conditions which are necessary for the development of intelligent life: out of all conceivable universes, only in those in which these conditions occur will there be beings to observe the Universe. Thus our existence requires the Universe to have certain properties...” (1974, pp. 285-286). In his lecture, and subsequent scientific articles, Dr. Carter set forth what he called the Weak Anthropic Principle, as opposed to what he called the Strong Anthropic Principle. Here is the difference.

The Weak Anthropic Principle

Carter said that there was a “biological selection effect” in operation. These were his words, but the idea for them, and thus the idea for the Weak Anthropic Principle (which is based on the concept of “biological selection”) actually were presented thirteen years earlier in a paper in Nature by Robert Dicke (1961, 192:440). Here, using Dicke’s illustration, is how the Weak Anthropic Principle would work. Dicke (as an evolutionist) was attempting to answer the question, “Why do we observe the Universe to be approximately 10 billion years old?” One response, of course (from a strictly evolutionary viewpoint) might be that it is merely a coincidence that we see a Universe that is 10 billion years old. Tony Rothman, writing in the popular science magazine Discover, explained how this problem was solved.
But Dicke reasoned that the Universe must be at least old enough to have generated elements as heavy as carbon because “it is well known that carbon is required to make physicists”—at least physicists as we know them.
Carbon, as it happens, was not created in the Big Bang. Rather it was first synthesized in the earliest stars, and then scattered through space when the stars exploded in supernova, a process that continues today. The cooking time for carbon depends on the mass of a star, but averages a billion years or so. Thus, said Dicke, it would be impossible to observe a Universe younger than the shortest-lived stars, because the very elements we’re composed of wouldn’t exist. On the other hand, if the Universe were much older than it is, most stars would already have collapsed into white dwarfs, neutron stars, or black holes, rendering our type of life impossible for many reasons. Dicke concluded that the fact that we see the Universe to be about ten billion years old is no accident but a necessary result of the biological selection effect. The Universe’s observed age, he said, “is limited by the criteria for the existence of physicists” (1987, 8[5]:91-92).
This is an example of the weak anthropic principle, and is a good illustration of what Carter meant when he said, “What we can expect to observe must be restricted by the conditions necessary for our presence as observers.” The observed values of physical quantities are restricted by the requirement that they be compatible with the development of Homo sapiens.
Stephen Hawking, in his book, A Brief History of Time, provided a simple explanation of what this means:
The weak anthropic principle states that in a Universe that is large or infinite in space and/or time, the conditions necessary for the development of intelligent life will be met only in certain regions that are limited in space and time. The intelligent beings in these regions should therefore not be surprised if they observe that their locality in the Universe satisfies the conditions that are necessary for their existence. It is a bit like a rich person living in a wealthy neighborhood not seeing any poverty (1988, p. 124).
And, said Dr. Hawking, “Few people would quarrel with the validity or utility of the weak anthropic principle” (1988, p. 124).
Of course, creationists would agree, but for different reasons. We accept the fact that the Universe is intricately designed so that it supports life as we know it. We accept the fact that if this were not the case, we wouldn’t be here to observe it (for how, pray tell, could we exist in a Universe that would not support our existence?). We accept Dr. Dyson’s conclusion that the Universe looks as if it “knew we were coming.” We accept Dr. Hoyle’s assessment that a superintellect has “monkeyed with” the physics, chemistry, and biology of the Universe, and that “there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.” We even would gladly accept Dr. Davies’ suggestion that our Universe appears to be “tailor-made.” And we concur with all these statements because: (a) The scientific evidence is in agreement with them; and (b) We know the Tailor!

The Strong Anthropic Principle

What, then, is the Strong Anthropic Principle? Carter stated it as follows: “The Universe must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage.” Most scientists interpret this strong version of the Anthropic Principle to mean that the Universe must be nearly as we know it, or life could not exist. Conversely, if life did not exist, neither, then, would the Universe.
But some scientists, while passively content to accept the Weak Anthropic Principle, are visibly upset over the implications of the strong version. There is good reason for their discomfiture. Paul Davies explained why.
Now clearly the strong anthropic principle is founded on a quite different philosophical basis from the weak principle. Indeed, it represents a radical departure from the conventional concept of scientific explanation. In essence, it claims that the Universe is tailor-made for habitation, and that both the laws of physics and the initial conditions obligingly arrange themselves in such a way that living organisms are subsequently assured of existence. In this respect the strong anthropic principle is akin to the traditional religious explanation of the world: that God made the world for mankind to inhabit (1982, pp. 120-121).
Astronomers, physicists, astrophysicists, biologists, and many others of an evolutionary bent have seen the serious implications of the Strong Anthropic Principle. Dr. Hawking thus observed:
The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. We cannot, at the moment at least, predict the values of these numbers from theory—we have to find them by observation. It may be that one day we shall discover a complete unified theory that predicts them all, but it is also possible that some or all of them vary from Universe to Universe or within a single Universe. The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. For example if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars either would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. Of course, there might be other forms of intelligent life, not dreamed of even by writers of science fiction, that did not require the light of a star like the Sun or the heavier chemical elements that are made in stars and are flung back into space when the stars explode. Nevertheless, it seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to Universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty. One can take this either as evidence of a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science or as support for the strong anthropic principle (1988, p. 125, emp. added).
Dr. Davies similarly stated: “If we believe in only one Universe then the remarkable uniform arrangement of cosmic matter, and the consequent coolness of space, are almost miraculous, a conclusion which strongly resembles the traditional religious concept of a world which was purpose-built by God for subsequent habitation by mankind” (1980, p. 162). Dr. Rothman was quite blunt in his remarks about where acceptance of the Strong Anthropic Principle will lead.
It’s not a big step from the SAP to the Argument from Design. You know the Argument from Design: it says that the Universe was made very precisely, and were it ever so slightly different, man wouldn’t be here. Therefore, Someone must have made it.
Even as I write these words my pen balks, because as a twentieth century physicist I know that the last step is a leap of faith, not a logical conclusion.
When confronted with the order and beauty of the Universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it (1987, p. 99).
Realizing the obvious implications of the scientific evidence supporting both the weak and strong versions of the Anthropic Principle, many evolutionary scientists have rebelled at even the mere mention of it in the halls of science. Yet, in their more candid moments, even these evolutionists are hard pressed to avoid the clear implications of their findings. Listen to Dr. Hawking’s admission on this very topic.
In the hot big bang model described above, there was not enough time in the early Universe for heat to have flowed from one region to another. This means that the initial state of the Universe would have to have had exactly the same temperature everywhere in order to account for the fact that the microwave background has the same temperature in every direction we look. The initial rate of expansion also would have had to be chosen very precisely for the rate of expansion still to be so close to the critical rate needed to avoid recollapse. This means that the initial state of the Universe must have been very carefully chosen indeed if the hot big bang model was correct right back to the beginning of time. It would be very difficult to explain why the Universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us (1988, pp. 126-127, emp. added).
Little wonder, then, that Dr. Jastrow referred to the Anthropic Principle as “the most theistic result ever to come out of science.” And, it hardly is surprising to hear Dr. Davies state: “Many people of a religious persuasion will no doubt find support from these ideas for the belief that the Creator did not aim the cosmic pin at random, but did so with finely computed precision, with the express purpose of selecting a Universe that would be suitable for habitation” (1982, p. 123). That is exactly what the creationists have said all along! It is comforting to see that certain evolutionary scientists finally understand why.

REFERENCES

Carter, Brandon (1974), “Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology,” Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data, ed. M.S. Longair (Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel).
Davies, Paul (1980), Other Worlds (New York: Simon & Schuster).
Davies, Paul (1982), The Accidental Universe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Dyson, Freeman (1971), Scientific American, September.
Gribbin, John (1981), Genesis: The Origins of Man and the Universe (New York: Delacorte Press).
Gribbin, John (1983), “Earth’s Lucky Break,” Science Digest, 91[5]:36,37,40,102, May.
Hawking, Stephen (1974), “The Anisotropy of the Universe at Large Times,” Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data, ed. M.S. Longair (Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel).
Hawking, Stephen (1988), A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam).
Hoyle, Fred (1954), in Astrophysics Journal Supplement, Vol. I; see also Hoyle, Fred (1964), Galaxies, Nuclei and Quasars (New York: Harper & Row).
Jastrow, Robert (1984), “The Astronomer and God,” The Intellectuals Speak Out About God,” ed. Abraham Varghese (New York: Regnery Gateway).
Rothman, Tony (1987), “A ‘What You See Is What You Beget’ Theory,” Discover, 8[5]:90-99, May.
[AUTHOR’S NOTE: Probably the most definitive book yet written on the subject of the Anthropic Principle is the 706-page volume, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, co-authored by John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler (1986, Oxford University Press). Those interested in additional information on this topic may wish to examine this book for further insight.]

Originally published in Reason & Revelation, December 1990, 10[12]:49-52. Copyright © 1990 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.