Jesus Is Our Example by Alfred Shannon Jr.

https://biblicalproof.wordpress.com/2011/07/page/3/

Jesus Is Our Example

We learned how to walk, and talk as children by following our parental example. We learn how to walk, and talk as Christians by following our biblical example, Jesus Christ. Jesus obeyed God’s commandments explicitly, and did only what God instructed him to say, and do. Jesus followed the will of God by being baptized, though he sinned not, and remained faithful, even to the cross, to take away the sins of the world. Christ commanded with full authority that the gospel be preached unto all the world, and stated it clearly: Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, and whoever believes not will be condemned. Jesus gave us the example, he gave us the commandment, and he gave us the ultimatum. How beautiful it is to walk in the steps of the Savior, and in the light of His Word.

1 Pet 2:21; 1 Cor 11:1; Eph 5:1,2; John 7:16,17; John 12:49; Col 1:10; Col 2:6; 1 Thess 2:12; 1 Thess 4:1; Mk 3:13-17; Philip 2:8; 1 Cor 15:3; Jn 1:29; Rom 6:4; Mk 16:15,16

Chapter 5 LIMITED ATONEMENT by CA Feenstra

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Feenstra/C/A/1931/ch05.html

Chapter 5

LIMITED ATONEMENT

Man's words

Canons of Dordt - Second Head of Doctrine

Article 8

For this was the sovereign counsel and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of His Son should extend to all the elect, for bestowing upon them alone the gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly to salvation; that is, it was the will of God that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby He confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given to Him by the Father; that He should confer upon them faith, which together with all the other saving gifts of the Holy Spirit, He purchased for them by His death; should purge them from all sin, both original and actual, whether committed before or after believing; and having faithfully preserved them even to the end, should at last bring them, free from every spot and blemish, to the enjoyment of glory in His own presence forever.

* * *

"The Biblical or Calvinistic position is that Christ intended that his death should atone only for the elect and not for others. According to this position, man is totally depraved, and God, loving some with a great love, elected them, or in other words, determined that they should be saved. He sent Christ to die for them and them alone, thereby saving them. Thus the atonement of Christ is limited to some and is not intended for all. Hence, the name 'limited atonement'. That is all there is to the doctrine. It is very simple." The Five Points of Calvinism, Edwin H. Palmer, Th.D., page 35

"Historical or mainline Calvinism has consistently maintained that Christ's redeeming work was definite in design and accomplishment -- that it was intended to render complete satisfaction for certain specified sinners and that it actually secured salvation for these individuals and for no one else. The salvation which Christ earned for His people includes everything involved in bringing them into a right relationship with God, including the gifts of faith and repentance. Christ did not die simply to make it possible for God to pardon sinners. Neither does God leave it up to sinners as to whether or not Christ's work will be effective. On the contrary, all for whom Christ sacrificed Himself will be saved infallibly. Redemption, therefore, was designed to bring to pass God's purpose of election.

All Calvinists agree that Christ's obedience and suffering were of infinite value, and that if God had so willed, the satisfaction rendered by Christ would have saved every member of the human race. It would have required no more obedience nor any greater suffering for Christ to have secured salvation for every man, woman, and child who ever lived than it did for Him to secure salvation for the elect only. But He came into the world to represent and save only those given to Him by the Father. Thus Christ's saving work was limited in that it was designed to save some and not others, but it was not limited in value for it was of infinite worth and would have secured salvation for everyone if this had been God's intention." The Five Points of Calvinism, Steele and Thomas, page 39

Q. Is Calvinism's "Limited Atonement" true, OR does GOD'S WORD teach that God loves all men?

"For Jehovah your God, he is God of gods, and Lord of lords, the great God, the mighty, and the terrible, who regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward. He doth execute justice for the fatherless and widow, and loveth the sojourner, in giving him food and raiment. Love ye therefore the sojourner; for ye were sojourners in the land of Egypt." Deut. 10:17-19

"Jehovah is gracious, and merciful;
Slow to anger, and of great lovingkindness.
Jehovah is good to all;
And his tender mercies are over all his works." Ps. 145:8-9

"Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else." Isa. 45:22

"Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord Jehovah, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" Ezek. 33:11

"But I say unto you, love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you; that ye may be sons of your Father who is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust. For if ye love them that love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?... Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matt. 5:44-46, 48

"But love your enemies, and do them good, and lend, never despairing; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be sons of the Most High: for he is kind toward the unthankful and evil. Be ye merciful, even as your Father is merciful." Luke 6:35-36

Q. Is Calvinism's "Limited Atonement" true, OR does GOD'S WORD teach that God loves all men and that He desires the salvation of all men?

"Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked? saith the Lord Jehovah; and not rather that he should return from his way, and live?...For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord Jehovah: wherefore turn yourselves, and live." Ezek. 18:23, 32

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life." John 3:16

"And we have beheld and bear witness that the Father hath sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world." I John 4:14

"For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men" Titus 2:11

"This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth." I Tim. 2:3-4

"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Jehovah hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Isa. 53:6

"And the angel said unto them, Be not afraid; for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all the people." Luke 2:10

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness; but is longsuffering to you-ward, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." II Pet. 3:9

Q. Is Calvinism's "Limited Atonement" true, OR does GOD'S WORD teach that Jesus died for all men?

"Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all." I Tim. 2:5-6

"And he (Jesus) is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world." I John 2:2

"But we behold him who hath been made a little lower than the angels, even Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God he should taste of death for every man." Heb. 2:9

"And he (Jesus) died for all, that they that live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again." II Cor. 5:15

"Who needeth not daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people: for this he (Jesus) did once for all, when he offered up himself." Heb. 7:27

"By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." Heb. 10:10

* * *

Q. Is Calvinism's "Limited Atonement" true, OR does GOD'S WORD teach that God earnestly calls all men to hear and obey the gospel of His Son that they may be saved?

"...Jesus answered and said...Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; ...and ye shall find rest unto your souls." Matt. 11:25, 28-29

"And he (Jesus) said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned." Mark 16:15-16

"And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:" Matt. 28:18-19

"And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem." Luke 24:47

"And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." Rev. 22:17 AV

* * *

Q. If God loves all men and Jesus died for all men, does this mean that all men will be saved?

"Enter ye in by the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many are they that enter in thereby. For narrow is the gate, and straitened the way, that leadeth unto life, and few are they that find it." Matt. 7:13-14

"For many are called, but few chosen." Matt. 22:14

Q. Is Calvinism's "Limited Atonement" true, OR does GOD'S WORD teach that Jesus died for some men who will be lost?

"For through thy knowledge he that is weak perisheth, the brother for whose sake Christ died." I Cor. 8:11

"Destroy not with thy meat him for whom Christ died." Rom. 14:15

"Overthrow not for meat's sake the work of God.... It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor to do anything whereby thy brother stumbleth." Rom. 14:20-21

"But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them" II Pet. 2:1

* * *

Q. If God loves all men and Jesus died for all men and yet only few are saved, who are these few?

"And he (Jesus) is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world. And hereby we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his (Jesus') commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoso keepeth his (Jesus') word, in him verily hath the love of God been perfected." I John 2:2-5

"...The living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of them that believe." I Tim. 4:10

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven." Matt. 7:21

"This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." Matt. 17:5

"He (Jesus) became unto all them that obey him the author of eternal salvation." Heb. 5:9

"He that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." John 3:36b

* * *

Q. Is Calvinism's "Limited Atonement" true, OR is there a great amount of teaching in GOD'S WORD which shows us that God loves all men and that He desires their salvation, and that Jesus' death made salvation possible for whosoever will obey him?

"On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!" John 1:29

"And they (the Samaritans) said to the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy speaking: for we have heard for ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Saviour of the world." John 4:42

"For the bread of God is that which cometh down out of heaven, and giveth life unto the world." John 6:33

"I am the living bread which came down out of heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: yea and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world." John 6:51

"Again therefore Jesus spake unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life." John 8:12

"I am the door; by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and go out, and shall find pasture." John 10:9

"And I (Jesus), if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself." John 12:32

"And if any man hear my sayings, and keep them not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world." John 12:47

"For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in him should all the fulness dwell; and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross..." Col. 1:19-20

"Behold, I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." Rev. 3:20

"...God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses..." II Cor. 5:18-19

"He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all things?" Rom. 8:32

"For whosoever shall do the will of my Father who is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matt. 12:50

"Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." Matt. 18:4

"Jesus answered and said unto her, Every one that drinketh of this water shall thirst again: but whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall become in him a well of water springing up unto eternal life." John 4:13-14

"Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth on me, though he die, yet shall he live; and whosoever liveth and believeth on me shall never die." John 11:25-26

"I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me may not abide in the darkness." John 12:46

"And it shall be, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." Acts 2:21

"For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek: for the same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich unto all that call upon him: for, Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Rom. 10:12-13

"...Whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's shall save it." Mark 8:35

"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine (Jesus), and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:" Matt. 7:24 AV

"Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven." Matt. 10:32 AV

"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." Acts 10:43 AV

"Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my (Jesus') sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like: He is like a man which built an house..." Luke 6:47-48 AV

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth may in him have eternal life." John 3:14-15

"For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be put to shame." Rom. 10:10-11

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God: and whosoever loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him." I John 5:1

"As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." Rom. 9:33 AV

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life." John 3:16

* * *

Q. How are we to harmonize the few scriptures which teach that Christ died for "the sheep" and "the church", with the many, many scriptures which teach that he died for all men?

"And he (Jesus) is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world. And hereby we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him (Jesus), and keepeth not his (Jesus') commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoso keepeth his (Jesus') word, in him verily hath the love of God been perfected." I John 2:2-5

"...The living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of them that believe." I Tim. 4:10

Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

The Glass by Gary Rose

I saw this saying on Facebook this morning, posted by Casual Christian Comedy and liked it so much that I made a new graphic of it.

OK, what is so special about the saying? Well, its human nature to want “MORE” the things you want or need. So, some people often complain if they see what they have as decreasing.

Why?

Could it be that they don’t trust God enough to provide for them? Jesus’ “sermon on the mount” addresses this very issue…

Matthew 6 ( World English Bible )

 ²⁴  “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can’t serve both God and Mammon.   ²⁵  Therefore I tell you, don’t be anxious for your life: what you will eat, or what you will drink; nor yet for your body, what you will wear. Isn’t life more than food, and the body more than clothing?   ²⁶  See the birds of the sky, that they don’t sow, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns. Your heavenly Father feeds them. Aren’t you of much more value than they? 

  ²⁷  “Which of you, by being anxious, can add one moment to his lifespan?   ²⁸  Why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow. They don’t toil, neither do they spin,   ²⁹  yet I tell you that even Solomon in all his glory was not dressed like one of these.   ³⁰  But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today exists, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, won’t he much more clothe you, you of little faith? 

  ³¹  “Therefore don’t be anxious, saying, ‘What will we eat?’, ‘What will we drink?’ or, ‘With what will we be clothed?’   ³²  For the Gentiles seek after all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.   ³³  But seek first God’s Kingdom, and his righteousness; and all these things will be given to you as well.   ³⁴  Therefore don’t be anxious for tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Each day’s own evil is sufficient. 

Who really cares about exactly how much is in their glass, anyway? Whether its filled to overflowing or 80%, 60% or something lower.

If God is your Father, HE will provide because HE loves you.

Stop worrying about trivia and start trusting God to provide you with what you really need.

Still, have a problem with the glass thing -

BUY A SET OF SMALLER GLASSES.

"THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS" The Greatness Of Melchizedek (7:1-10) by Mark Copeland

"THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS"

The Greatness Of Melchizedek (7:1-10)

INTRODUCTION

1. Thus far in our study, we have seen the writer mention Melchizedek...
   a. That Jesus is a priest "after the order of Melchizedek" 

        - He 5:9-10; 6:20
   b. It has only been a brief mention, for the dullness of the readers
      required a necessary digression - cf. He 5:11-6:20

2. But now the writer returns to his theme concerning Melchizedek, in which he...
   a. Establishes the greatness of Melchizedek - He 7:1-10
   b. Shows the significance of Melchizedek's priesthood - He 7:11-19
   c. Thereby illustrating the greatness of Christ's priesthood 

       - He 7:20-28

3. Since this subject is "meat" compared to the "milk" of the Word 

    (cf.He 5:10-12)...
   a. We want to approach it slowly and carefully
   b. Allowing ourselves to slowly "digest" what is said in this 
      seventh chapter of Hebrews

[For this reason, this lesson will limit itself to the first ten 
verses, in which we read of "The Greatness Of Melchizedek". To 
appreciate his greatness, we must be aware of...]

I. THE HISTORY OF MELCHIZEDEK (1-3)

   A. THE HISTORICAL RECORD AS FOUND IN GENESIS 14...
      1. We first read of "The Battle Of The Kings" - Gen 14:1-11
      2. In which Lot is captured, and then rescued by Abram (Abraham)
         - Gen 14:12-17
      3. Upon his return, Abram is met by Melchizedek - Gen 14:18
         a. Who is "king of Salem" (thought to be later known as Jerusalem)
         b. Who is also "the priest of God Most High"
      4. In this meeting, two things happen...
         a. Melchizedek blesses Abram (Abraham) - Gen 14:19
         b. Abram pays tithes to Melchizedek - Gen 14:20b

   B. IN REFERRING TO MELCHIZEDEK, THE AUTHOR OF HEBREWS...
      1. Summarizes the events in He 7:1-2
         a. How Melchizedek met Abraham and blessed him
         b. How Abraham gave "a tenth part of all" (i.e., tithes) to Melchizedek
      2. Explains the meaning of his name and title - He 7:2
         a. The name "Melchizedek" means "king of righteousness"
         b. The title "king of Salem" means "king of peace"
      3. Makes some intriguing statements about Melchizedek...
         a. "without father, without mother, without genealogy"
         b. "having neither beginning of days nor end of life"
         c. "made like the Son of God"
         d. "remains a priest continually"

   C. WHO IS THIS "MELCHIZEDEK"?
      1. Some have suggested that he was:
         a. An angel (Origen, Didymus)
         b. Enoch (Husius, Calmet)
         c. Shem (Jerome, Luther)
      2. Others have taken the statements in v.3 to suggest that 
         Melchizedek was a "theophany" (a pre-incarnate appearance of 
         Christ), for the following reasons:
         a. The name Melchizedek, meaning "king of righteousness" (v.2)
         b. The designation "king of peace" (v.2)
         c. The possibility that the lack of recorded genealogy
            mentioned in v.3 is due to actual lack of ancestors, rather
            than the mere absence of historical record
         d. He is said to remain "a priest continually" (v.3c)
         e. He is contrasted with "mortal men" (v.8a)
         f. Of him "it is witnessed that he lives" (v.8b)
      3. Most take that he was simply a man (note v.4), but because he
         appears suddenly in Scripture as a priest...
         a. With no mention of parentage or genealogy
         b. With no mention of his birth or death
         c. With only a mention of him as a priest of "God Most High"
         ...that he is a "type" of Christ, and what His priesthood would be like

[While the true identity of Melchizedek may remain a mystery because of
the brevity of scriptural information, his importance as it relates to
the superiority of Christ's priesthood becomes very clear as we 
consider...]

II. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF MELCHIZEDEK (4-10)

   A. MELCHIZEDEK RECEIVED TITHES FROM ABRAHAM (4-6a)
      1. Abraham paid a tenth to Melchizedek
      2. Just as the nation of Israel would later pay a tenth to the sons of Levi
      -- Thus Abraham, great as he was, showed his deference to Melchizedek

   B. MELCHIZEDEK BLESSED ABRAHAM (6b-7)
      1. Melchizedek blessed him "who had the promises" (Abraham)
      2. There is no dispute that "the lesser is blessed by the better"
      -- Thus Melchizedek is clearly "better" than Abraham

   C. MELCHIZEDEK'S SERVICE WAS NOT AFFECTED BY DEATH (8)
      1. In the priesthood under the Jewish system (i.e., the Levitical
         or Aaronic priesthood), tithes were received by "mortal men"
         (whose service ended at death)
      2. But it has been witnessed that Melchizedek "lives"("remains a
         priest continually" - He 7:3)
      3. How he lives and remains a priest continually, the Bible does not say
      -- But in this way Melchizedek is greater than the Levitical 
         priests (a point made concerning Jesus later in the chapter)

   D. EVEN LEVI PAID TITHES TO MELCHIZEDEK (9-10)
      1. Levi was "in the loins of his father" Abraham when Melchizedek met him
      2. Thus Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes "through Abraham, so to speak"
      -- Again illustrating the greatness of Melchizedek, as one greater than Levi!

CONCLUSION

1. There is a lot more I wish I knew about Melchizedek...
   a. Was he a "theophany", a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ?
   b. Was he is an angel?  Enoch? Shem?
   c. Was he simply a man?
      1) One whose Biblical record is such that he serves as a "type" of Christ
      2) If so, I would love to know where he came from, and how he 
         came to be "priest of God Most High"
   d. And how does he remain a priest continually?

2. But what I do know is this...
   a. Jesus is "a priest forever according to the order of 
      Melchizedek", as God swore He would be in Ps 110:4
   b. And that Melchizedek is clearly presented to be greater than 
      Abraham and Levi!

Understanding "The Greatness Of Melchizedek" helps prepare us to 
appreciate the superiority of Christ's priesthood over the Levitical
(Aaronic) priesthood, which we will consider later...

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

 

"Unlike Naturalists, You Creationists Have a Blind Faith" by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4704

"Unlike Naturalists, You Creationists Have a Blind Faith"

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

We openly grant that the accusation represented by the title of this article is true, at least for many individuals today. But not for all.

“BLIND FAITH”—MANY HAVE IT

What is “blind faith”? What is meant by the accusation? The idea behind “blind faith” is that a person chooses to believe in something or someone (namely, God) without any supporting evidence. The portrait painted in our minds is that of a person who puts on a blindfold and steps up to a ledge. He cannot see what is beyond the ledge. He has no idea how far down the drop is—whether or not he will plummet to his death, break his legs, or simply fall down. He has no idea if there is water, a trampoline, or rocks at the bottom. He simply decides to believe that he will not die if he jumps off—that he will be safe. He has no evidence, only pure, baseless “faith.” So, he takes a “leap of faith.” Question: who in their right mind would do such a thing? Whoever has such a faith truly is naïve, an extremely emotionally, rather than rationally, charged individual, and possibly is in need of counseling, or has an agenda for having such a belief system.

Sadly many people have such a “faith.” Many people call themselves Christians, and claim to believe in the Bible, but clearly have not read it. They have a “blind faith” which, according to the Law of Rationality (Ruby, 1960, pp. 126-127), is irrational. Their belief in God is not based on the evidence, but is a blind leap into the dark without it. Philosphers call this phenomenon “fideism” (Popkin, 1967, 3:201-202). However, the biblical portrait of faith (Greek, pistis—translated equally as faith, belief, trust, or having confidence in; Arndt, et al., 1979, pp. 661-664) is not what some in Christendom have defined it to be nor what Hollywood has portrayed it to be. It is not “believing when common sense tells you not to,” as the 1947 movie, Miracle on 34^th Street suggested (Seaton). It is not a “leap of faith” like Dr. Jones’ actions in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (Spielberg, 1989). The Bible does not advocate a “Feel, don’t think” mentality, like that encouraged by Qui-Gon Jinn in Star Wars (Lucas, 1999). Biblical faith is based on evidence (Hebrews 11:1). It is trust—comparable to the trust one has in a parent or friend—that is based on proof. We trust someone when he has proven himself to be trustworthy. When one listens to or reads revelation from God’s Word (i.e., what Bible believers call “special revelation”) and the information therein proves to be true, one develops faith in God (Romans 10:17). When one examines the evidence from the created order (i.e., what Bible believers call “general revelation”), and it points to the existence of a supernatural Being as Creator—rather than blind, random, accidental change over time—we learn to trust God based on that evidence.

In short: The biblical model of faith requires evidence. According to the biblical model, the truth of God can be known—not felt or accepted without proof—and it will set men free (John 8:32). Sincere truth seekers examine what they have been told and investigate its veracity by pondering the evidence, as did the “fair-minded” Bereans of Acts 17:11, before becoming Christians. In fact, God (through Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5:21) tells the creationist that he is expected to prove or test something before believing it—only accepting what has been proven right or good. Do such passages give the impression that the Bible advocates a blind, evidence-less faith?

Sadly, evidence-based faith is not the faith of many within Christendom. But “don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.” Many of us base our view squarely on the evidence—such as the evidence presented below. [NOTE: See Miller, 2003a for more on the topic of “blind faith” and the Bible. Also, Miller, 2003b.]

BUT WE DON’T

In order for a belief to not be “blind” or irrational, it needs supporting evidence. While the creationist does not claim to hold direct, observable evidence of God, since we cannot taste, touch, see, hear, or smell Him, the indirect evidence—a legitimate source of scientific evidence—is overwhelming. What supporting evidence do creationists put forth? A thorough treatment of this subject is outside the scope of this article, but hundreds of articles and books deal eloquently and credibly with the subject. [NOTE: See www.apologeticpress.org for a library of said material.]

In short, the creationist argues, among other things, that:

1. The available evidence contradicts the atheistic model (cf. Miller, 2012b; Miller, 2013c), which logically leaves theism—the Creation model;
2. The fundamental evidence that contradicts the naturalistic model, supports the contentions of the creation model, which never contradicts the scientific evidence;
3. The existence and teachings of the laws of science demand a non-material, uncaused Cause for the Universe;
4. There are numerous natural evidences in the Universe that exhibit the characteristics of intent, purpose, and complexity, which indicate a Mind behind them. Such attributes testify to the presence of intelligent design, which implies a Designer;
5. Objective morality exists, which implies a higher Law that transcends mankind, which in turn demands a supernatural Author;
6. A Book exists that contains certain characteristics that can only be explainable if it is what it says it is—the Word of the Creator.

These proofs, and many others, provide evidence that demands an explanation and cannot be satiated by naturalistic theories. Only supernatural Creation provides an answer in keeping with the evidence. The Creation model can hardly be deemed unscientific. Its legitimate followers cannot be brushed aside as “blind” believers. Such sweeping accusations are unfair and betray a prejudiced, stereotypical mindset, to say nothing of the fact that such accusations fall victim to the ad hominemlogical fallacy (“Fallacies,” 2012).

ACTUALLY, EVOLUTIONISTS DO

In truth, Creation is the reasonable choice—the one not beholden to evidence-less leaps of faith. It is not contingent on the baseless, mythical claim that aliens exist and initiated life on Earth (cf. Miller, 2013a); that abiogenesis—like magic from a fictional novel—is somehow possible (cf. Miller, 2012b); that non-humans give birth to humans, as they do in the tabloids (cf. Flew and Warren, 1977, pp. 25,45,65); or the fanciful idea that Universes spontaneously pop into existence (cf. Miller, 2013c). Indeed, atheistic evolution is simply well-packaged superstition. Creation is the option in keeping with reason and the evidence.

While some who call themselves “Christians,” do, indeed, have an unscriptural, blind faith, in truth, the same can be said of the evolutionary community—and more so. Why? (1) Because unlike evolution, the evidence does not contradict Creation but supports it, even though some have accepted Creation without that evidence; (2) because not all creationists hold to a blind faith. Some examine the evidence and draw the reasonable conclusion that a Creator exists. However, all naturalists musthave a blind, evidence-less faith, since atheistic evolution is based on certain baseless, unprovable assumptions, including abiogenesis, naturalism, spontaneous generation or the eternality of matter, etc. (cf. Miller, 2013b and Kerkut, 1960 for other key, baseless evolutionary assumptions). Belief in those assumptions is purely blind. They (1) are not supported by the evidence, which classifies evolution as irrational; (2) actually contradict the evidence; and (3) even show the naturalist to be engaged in self-contradiction, which he blindly ignores when confronted with the evidence of his contradictions (cf. Miller, 2012a). It seems clear that it is the evolutionist—not the creationist—who holds to a blind faith.

Consider the following timeless quotes from various prominent evolutionists concerning the character of the naturalist’s faith:

• Robert Jastrow, evolutionary astronomer and founder and former director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA: “At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth. Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists  [i.e., naturalists—JM] are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited; either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet. The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is alsoan act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief” (1977, pp. 62-63, emp. added).
• John Sullivan, once a popular evolutionary science writer: “The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith” (1933, p. 95, emp. added).
• Richard Lewontin, evolutionary geneticist of Harvard University: “Our willingness to accept scientific claims against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs..., in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to naturalism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”(1997, p. 31, 2^nd and 4^th emp. in orig.).
• G.A. Kerkut, British evolutionary physiologist: Spontaneous generation is “a matter of faith on the part of the biologist…. The evidence for what did happen is not available” (1960, p. 150, emp. added).
• Loren Eiseley, evolutionary anthropologist of the University of Pennsylvania: “With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past” (1957, pp. 201-202, emp. added).
• Robert Hazen, evolutionary geologist who received his doctoral degree in Earth Science from Harvard University, a research scientist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington’s Geophysical Laboratory, and a professor of Earth Science at George Mason University: “I make an assumption that life emerged from basic raw materials through a sequence of events that was completely consistent with the natural laws of chemistry and physics. Even with this scientific approach, there is a possibility that we’ll never know—in fact, that we can’t ever know. It is possible that life emerged by an almost infinitely improbable sequence of difficult chemical reactions. If life is the result of an infinitely improbable succession of chemical steps, then any scientific attempt to understand life’s origin is doomed to failure; such a succession could not be duplicated in a program of lab experiments. If the origin of life was an infinitely improbable accident, then there’s absolutely nothing you or I or anyone else could do to figure out how it happened. I must tell you, that’s a depressing thought to someone like me who has devoted a decade to understanding the origin of life” (2005, emp. added).
• Fred Hoyle, distinguished atheistic British astronomer, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor of astronomy and applied mathematics at University College, Cardiff, Wales: “It is doubtful that anything like the conditions which were simulated in the laboratory existed at all on a primitive Earth, or occurred for long enough times and over sufficiently extended regions of the Earth’s surface to produce large enough local concentrations of the biochemicals required for the start of life. In accepting the ‘primeval soup theory’ of the origin of life, scientists have replaced religious mysteries which shrouded this question with equally mysterious scientific dogmas. The implied scientific dogmas are just as inaccessible to the empirical approach” (1978, p. 26, emp. added).

If these quotes from eminent evolutionists do not prove that naturalistic evolution is a religious faith, and a blind one at that, what would? It’s no wonder that the late Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, said about evolution, “One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me, or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory” (1981, emp. added). These quotes simply do not characterize true Christianity or the true Creation model—but they do characterize evolution.

Thus, it seems that the rank and file evolutionist’s self-incriminating, venomous accusations towards the creationist are well-represented by the Shakespearean quote, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” (III.2). Be wary of the one who makes accusations the loudest and attempts to deflect attention from his own inadequacies.

Bottom line: The true model of origins will be based on the evidence. It will be the rational model. It will not contradict the evidence at every turn. So atheistic evolution is not the true model of origins.

REFERENCES

Arndt, William, F.W. Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker (1979), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), second edition revised.

Eiseley, Loren (1957), The Immense Journey (New York: Random House).

“Fallacies” (2012), The Writing Center at UNC Chapel Hill, http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/fallacies.

Flew, Antony G.N. and Thomas B. Warren (1977), The Warren-Flew Debate on the Existence of God(Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).

Hazen, Robert (2005), Origins of Life, audio-taped lecture (Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company).

Hoyle, Fred and Chandra Wickramasinghe (1978), Lifecloud (New York: Harper & Row).

Jastrow, Robert (1977), Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton).

Kerkut, George A. (1960), The Implications of Evolution (London: Pergamon).

Lewontin, Richard (1997), “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review, January 9.

Lucas, George, dir. (1999), Star Wars Episode I—The Phantom Menace, Lucasfilm.

Miller, Dave (2003a), “Blind Faith,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=444.

Miller, Dave (2003b), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation--EXTENDED VERSION,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1399.

Miller, Jeff (2012a), “The Atheistic Naturalist’s Self-Contradiction,” Reason & Revelation, 32[5]:53, May, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1029&article=1763.

Miller, Jeff (2012b), “The Law of Biogenesis,” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-11, January, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018&article=1722.

Miller, Jeff (2013a), “Directed Panspermia and Little, Green (Non-Existent) Men from Outer Space,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4620.

Miller, Jeff (2013b), “Don’t Assume Too Much: Not All Assumptions in Science Are Bad,” Reason & Revelation, 33[6]: 62-64,69-70, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1122&article=2153.

Miller, Jeff (2013c), “Evolution and the Laws of Science: the Laws of Thermodynamics,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2786.

Patterson, Colin (1981), Written transcript made from audio tape of lecture presented at the American Museum of Natural History, November.

Popkin, Richard (1967), “Fideism” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (New York: McMillan).

Ruby, Lionel (1960), Logic: An Introduction (Chicago, IL: J.B. Lippincott).

Seaton, George (1947), Miracle on 34^th Street, Twentieth Century Fox.

Shakespeare, William (2011), Hamlet, The Literature Network, http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/hamlet/10/.

Spielberg, Steven, dir. (1989), Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Paramount Pictures.

Sullivan, J.W.N. (1933), Limitations of Science (New York: Viking Press).