The Berean Observer
"These [the Bereans] were more fairminded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so." (Acts 17:11; NKJV)
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
We have moved!
We now have new blog called Tribulation Saint located at Tribulation Saint. This became necessary because I can no longer publish directly to this blog from Microsoft Word. I hope you enjoy the new blog!
Saturday, February 8, 2014
Velikovsky's Case for Catastrophism
Immanuel Velikovsky |
Review:
Earth in Upheaval
Immanuel Velikovsky
Abacus, 1973 (1st Ed., 1955)
263 pp., pb.
Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979) was one of the most controversial figures in modern geology. A Russian Jew by birth, a psychiatrist by profession, and an ardent Zionist, he set out to rebut Sigmund Freud's book Moses and Monotheism, in which Freud argued that the Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaton was the source for Jewish monotheism. Velikovsky set out to prove that the Exodus was a real historical event. In order to do so, however, he had to challenge widely accepted notions about archaeology, geology and astronomy.
Earth in Upheaval, first published in 1955, was Velikovsky's effort to deal with the geological evidence. In it he challenged the uniformitarian assumptions of the day, and argued the case for a form of catastrophism. Unlike Henry M. Morris, however, who tried to tie all of the evidence to a single catastrophe, the Genesis Flood, Velikovsky argued for multiple catastrophes, including one that he said took place at the time of the Exodus, which he placed at ca. 1400-1300 B.C.
Velikovsky's argument throughout the book is that there is ample evidence for multiple catastrophes throughout the earth's history for which uniformitarianism has no adequate explanation. He cites the example of several caves in northern England and Wales which are now hundreds of feet above sea level and contain the bones of numerous species of animals including, interestingly, hippopotami, which are normally found in tropical climates. How, one might ask, did hippos make their way to England?
Sir Charles Lyell, the father of uniformitarianism, speculated that during the summertime hippopotami would swim northward along the Mediterranean coast, with others making their way up rivers in Spain and France. They would then, presumably, make the return trip to Africa before the winter set in.
Velikovsky could barely contain his laughter. "Hippopotami not only travelled during the summer nights to England and Wales, but also climbed the hills to die peacefully among other animals in the caves, and the ice, approaching softly, tenderly spread little pebbles over the travelers resting in peace, and the land with its hills and caverns in a slow lullaby movement covered them with rosy sand" (p.27).
The existence of fossils themselves makes any uniformitarian explanation unlikely. "The explanation of the origin of fossils by the theory of uniformity and evolution contradicts the fundamental principle of these theories: Nothing took place in the past that does not take place in the present. Today no fossils are formed" (p. 194).
Velikovsky, however, did not reject evolution. He argued, in fact, that only catastrophism can adequately explain evolution. If evolution proceeds along a path of slow, gradual progress the formation of new species would be practically impossible. Most randomly occurring mutations would prove useless and be eliminated by natural selection. In order for a new species to come into existence, a large number of beneficial mutations would have to occur all at once, or at least within a very short time span. This, Velikovsky contended, could only happen during a geological catastrophe, when groups of organisms are exposed simultaneously to significant amounts of radiation.
Nevertheless, Velikovsky's theory of multiple catastrophes faces daunting challenges. While the physical evidence for catastrophes is abundant and obvious, how does one sort out the evidence chronologically in a multiple event scenario? Velikovsly wanted to prove that the Exodus was a real historical event. But much of the evidence he discusses can be placed in the Ice Ages, long before the Exodus, and can probably be connected with what is now generally knows as "the Quaternary Extinction Event," which saw the extinction of a number of species of large mammals. Might this not rather be connected with the Flood?
And then there is the problem of causality. A catastrophist must argue that some cause must have operated in the past that is not normally present today. But how can one identify the cause of a given catastrophe?
It is at this point that we come up against the problem that faces anyone who engages in historical geology or historical biology. While we can see the physical effects of past events, we cannot observe directly the events themselves, much less what caused them. All we can do is to speculate about what might have happened. What caused the Ice Ages? What caused the numerous mammoths to freeze with fresh food still in their mouths? In some cases we can point to a likely cause, such as the asteroid that crashed into the Yucatan Peninsula and cause the Cretaceous - Paleogene Extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs. In other cases we can rule out a hypothesis as being physically impossible. Velikovsky himself fell prey to this problem. He tried to explain various catastrophes in terms of changes in the orbits of several planets, which would violate the laws of physics! But in many cases the geologist is working with fragmentary evidence, and can only speculate about the cause of a given event. There is no way to test the hypothesis.
The challenge for the Christian believer is that even critics of uniformitarianism agree that there were successive geological ages before the appearance of human beings upon the earth. How long did these ages last? How old is the earth? Does it really matter from a theological point of view? As Velikovsky put it:
"I do not see why to a truly religious mind a small and short-lived universe is better proof of
its having been devised by an absolute intelligence. Neither do I see how by removing many
unresolved problems in geology to very remote ages we contribute to their solution or elucidate
their enigmatic nature" (p. 183).
Let it suffice that there is ample evidence in nature for both design and catastrophe.
Monday, January 20, 2014
Henry Morris and the Lewis Overthrust
Most
mainstream geologists today probably equate Young Earth Creationism (YEC) with “junk
science,” as opposed to real science, which is supposed to be based on hard
evidence. But the fact of the matter is
that most of Henry M. Morris’ seminal book The
Genesis Flood, which he coauthored with biblical scholar John C. Whitcomb,
is devoted to a discussion of the evidence.
His work should not be simply dismissed by critics; they should refute
it, if they can.
Morris was primarily concerned with
attacking geological Uniformitarianism and building the case for Catastrophism
as an alternative. More specifically, he
advocated “Young Earth” Creationism, contending that most fossiliferous rock
strata can be tied to a single geological event, the world-side deluge recorded in the Book of Genesis in the Bible. Morris’ argument is that Uniformitarianism
cannot explain much of the evidence, which actually points in the direction of
some form of Catastrophism.
How well did Morris establish his
case? Let us look at one particular
piece of evidence, the Lewis Overthrust in Montana, USA and Alberta,
Canada. The Lewis Overthrust in an example
of a formation in which the supposedly older rocks are on the top and the
younger ones on the bottom. Morris cites
this as evidence that the rock strata are out of chronological sequence, thus
disturbing the argument for evolution from the fossil record.
Chief Mountain, Glacier National Park |
The standard explanation for this
formation is that it is an example of an “overthrust,” a case in which a large
wedge of rock was forced up and over an adjacent layer of rock. In this case the rock wedge is several miles
thick and several hundred miles long, and apparently moved nearly 50 miles
eastward. Morris wondered how such a
thing could be possible on this scale.
“It seems almost fantastic to
conceive of such huge areas and masses of rocks
really behaving in such a fashion, unless we
are ready to accept catastrophism
of an intensity that makes the Noachian Deluge
seem quiescent by comparison!
Certainly the principle of uniformity is
inadequate to account for them.
Nothing we know of present earth movements –
of rock compressive and
shearing strengths, of the plastic low of rock
materials, or other modern
physical processes – gives any observational
basis for believing that such
things are happening now or ever could have
happened, except under extremely
unusual conditions” (The
Genesis Flood, pp. 180-181).
Morris denied
that the characteristic evidence of a fault thrust were present, and maintained
that the “overthrust” consists of normal bedding layers, laid down in the order
in which they are now found, and thus upsetting the evolutionary timeline.
The anti-Creationist website TalkOrigins has an article entitled “Thrust
faults” in which John G. Solum examines Morris’ argument in detail. In some ways Solum is unfair in his treatment
of Morris, sometimes misrepresenting Morris’ arguments and missing the point
Morris was trying to make. But to his
credit he does interact with the evidence and makes some telling
criticisms. In particular he cites evidence
to show that the Lewis Overthrust does indeed show evidence of being a genuine
fault thrust. He also criticizes Morris
for quoting some of his sources out of context, and notes that Morris
misidentified a lock layer in a photograph in Morris’ book (Figure 17 on page
190). There seems to be little reason to
doubt that it is a genuine overthrust.
Ironically, when Morris how such a
massive overthrust could have occurred, he could have answered his own question. He himself notes at one point that “It is
quite true that the entire area . . . gives much evidence of faulting, folding,
and general tectonic activity . . . Such activity is to be expected in
connection with mountain-uplift processes, whatever the nature or cause of
these processes may be” (p. 185). And
that is, indeed, exactly how most geologists now believe is the case. The Lewis
Overthrust was formed at the same time as the Rocky Mountains, and this, in
turn, was the result of colliding tectonic plates on the west coast of North America.
But in refuting some of Morris’
evidence, Solum ironically reinforced Morris’ central thesis. The overthrust is just a part of a much
larger system – the entire Rocky Mountains.
If it is true, as Morris said of the overthrust itself, that “It seems
almost fantastic to conceive of such huge areas and masses of rocks really behaving in such a fashion,” how much
more true is it of the entire Rock Mountains?
And if the principle of Uniformity states that “The present is the key to
the past,” and that “Rocks formed long ago at the earth’s surface may be
understood and explained in accordance with physical processes now operating”
(Gilluly, Walter & Woodford, Principles
of Geology, p. 18), then how can we account for something on so large a
scale? As Morris put it, “Nothing we
know of present earth movements . . . gives any observational basis for
believing that such things are happening now.”
“It seems almost fantastic to conceive of such huge areas and masses of
rocks really behaving in such a fashion unless we are ready to accept
catastrophism” -- a catastrophism that exceeds even Henry Morris’ imagination!
See also:
Morris and Whitcomb Fifty Years Later
Here's the link to Solum's TalkOrigins article : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/lewis/
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
The End of American Democracy?
We were startled recently to see an editorial in one of our local newspapers, the Elmira (NY) Star-Gazette, entitled "Obama must take emergency control now." We have long suspected that it would eventually come to this. Nevertheless it came as a jolt to see someone actually make the case in print.
The author of the piece, a Mr. Sherman Moreland, is a graduate of Cornell University and a former student of the well-known political science professor there, Clinton Rossiter. Mr. Moreland contends that the Founding Fathers anticipated the need for the exercise of emergency powers by the executive branch, and cited Federalist Paper No. 70, by Alexander Hamilton, in support of his contention.
Mr. Moreland then lists a number of contemporary crises that he says call for the exercise of emergency power by the president. He mentions the government shutdown, the near default on the national debt, a gridlocked Congress, the influence of PAC money on government, the maldistribution of wealth, and global warming.
Alexander Hamilton |
Although Mr. Moreland's list of crises sounds like a litany of liberal complaints, the fact of the matter is that many of the things he lists really are serious problems, and we could mention several others besides. One cannot escape the impression that we are living under a dysfunctional government with a gridlocked Congress chronically unable to address the governments long-term fiscal crisis. We also note with alarm the growing tendency of successive presidents to legislate by means of signing statements and executive orders. And then there is the growing surveillance by the government of our citizens.
And that is just what is going on in Washington. When we look at the international scene we see an increasing integrated global economy which will require regulation at the supranational level. And then there is the threat of international terrorism which will call for joint security measures by the world's nations.
And closer to home we see alarming social and cultural disintegration. There is a growing underclass of the "working poor." The breakdown in public morality has resulted in large numbers of children being born out of wedlock and living in single parent households. We have a dysfunctional public education that defies repeated attempts at reform, a coarsening popular culture, and the receding influence of religion. In short, what we are seeing is a recipe for revolution.
Ironically, the Tea Party movement, which prides itself on its patriotism, has taken us one step closer to dictatorship. While we sympathize with many of the Tea Party's goals and aims, we deplore its tactics. A democratic government is supposed to reflect the will of the people. But this requires negotiation and compromise on the part of our legislators. It requires respect for the opinions of all of our fellow citizens. Our elected officials must lead by peaceful persuasion. But when we sign "no new tax" pledges and threaten default on the national debt in order to get our way we are undermining the very basis for democracy. It is nothing less than fascism.
And then there is the massive defense establishment, or as President Eisenhower called it, the military-industrial complex. The Founding Fathers viewed with alarm a large standing army in times of peace as a threat to liberty and democracy. Part of the reason that gun rights are protected by the Second Amendment is to enable the people to defend themselves from a potentially tyrannical government. The memory of England under Cromwell was still fresh in mend. But when we harbor imperial ambitions, and maintain a large military establishment to project our might around the globe, we have let the gorilla out of his cage, and he may return to haunt us.
It does not take too much imagination to see a sharp financial crisis leading to riots in the street leading to the imposition of martial law. And in all likelihood it will be a Republican president that will sign the declaration of emergency; it is unlikely that a Democrat could get the necessary support from the Pentagon. Like Caesar of old and Hitler in more recent times, the pretense of constitutional government will be maintained. But the proverbial man on the white horse is just around the corner.
And now Mr. Moreland has actually made the suggestion.
Friday, January 10, 2014
The Fruit of the Spirit
The Descent of the Holy Ghost |
We
have seen how that the Bible states, quite unambiguously, that people who
practice certain things (the “works of the flesh”) will not inherit the kingdom
of God. The kingdom of God is
“righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:17; NKJV), and
therefore there can be no room for the works of the flesh. The works of the flesh are the opposite of
what God requires of us in the way of Christian character.
The marks of a godly character are
described in Galatians 5:22,23 as “the fruit of the Spirit.” They are: love, joy, peace, longsuffering,
kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.
First and foremost among these is
love, for in a sense love encompasses the rest.
By Christian love we do not mean simply liking other people. We are sometimes called to demonstrate love
toward those whom we distinctly do not like.
Or model in this is God’s own love for us: “But God demonstrates His own
love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom.
5:8). Here we see that love involves an
element of self-sacrifice (“Christ died”), and is directed toward the
undeserving (“while we were yet sinners”).
Negatively, love does no harm to
others. “Love does no harm to a
neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (Rom. 13:10). Positively, love responds to human need. “But whoever has this world’s goods, and sees
his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God
abide in him?” (I John 3:17).
It can be seen, then, how many of
the other of “the fruit of the Spirit” follow from this cardinal virtue of
love. On the one hand we are required to
exercise “self-control,” which means holding in our selfish desires and
impulses. It requires “longsuffering,”
the willingness to endure the bad conduct of others without becoming angry or
taking revenge. It also requires
“gentleness” in dealing with others.
“And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able
to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God
perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth” (II Tim.
2:24,25).
On the positive side love manifests
itself in “kindness” and “goodness.”
Greek scholars debate whether there is a real difference between these
two terms. Some see “kindness” as a
conciliatory attitude toward others, while “goodness” is a readiness to do
good. But in either case Paul draws the
contrast between this aspect of good and evil this way: “Let all bitterness,
wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all
malice. And be kind to one another,
tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you” (Eph.
4:31,32).
There are several other aspects to
the fruit of the Spirit as well. One of
these is “joy.” The Christian can
rejoice, even in the worst of external circumstances, because he knows God and
he knows that everything will eventually turn out for the better. We have a “living hope” and “an inheritance
incorruptible and undefiled . . . reserved in heaven for you.” “ In this you greatly rejoice, though now for
a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials . . .” And though we today have not seen Christ
physically, “yet believing you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of
glory” (I Pet. 1:3-9).
And then there is “peace.” Peace is that sense of inner calm and
wellbeing that comes from knowing that we are secure in God’s love, and that He
is actively caring for us. We are
invited to bring all of our cares and concerns to the Lord in prayer, “and the
peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and
minds through Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:6,7).
And then there is “faithfulness,”
the essential trait of trustworthiness.
It manifests itself in the willingness to honor commitments and fulfill
obligations. This was illustrated in
Christ’s parable of the talents in Matt. 25:14-30, in which a certain man gave
different amounts of money to various ones of his servants. (A “talent” was an ancient unit of
measurement which, when applied to precious metals, represented a very large
some of money. Our English word “talent”
is derived from this parable.) Some of
the servants invested their assigned amounts wisely; one did not. To the wise servants the master said, “Well
done, good and faithful servant; you were faithful over a few things, I will
make you ruler over many things. Enter
into the joy of your lord” (vv. 21,23).
So too we need to be the kind of people who can shoulder responsibility.
It will be noted that these
character traits are inner dispositions of the heart. They should flow from us naturally, and not
simply be things we do merely to please others.
God is not impressed with hypocrisy.
It will also be noted that these
traits are called “the fruit of the Spirit,” i.e., they are the result of the
spiritual life produced in the heart of
the believer by the Holy Spirit dwelling inside of him. And yet, at the same time, the individual
believer has a definite responsibility in all of this. First of all, if indeed he is a genuine
believer, he has put his past, sinful life behind him. “And those who are Christ’s have crucified
the flesh with the passions and desires” (Gal. 5:25). But once he has become a Christian he bears
the responsibility of following the leading of the Holy Spirit within him. “If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk
in the Spirit” (v. 25). “If we live in
the Spirit.” Here Paul points to a basic
about the Christian – he is spiritual alive (he lives) because of the Holy
Spirit living within him. That being the
case, “let us also walk in the Spirit.”
The word translated “walk” might better be rendered “march in step
with.” It is almost as though we are
soldiers marching in formation and the Holy Spirit is calling the cadence. This, moreover, is the key to
sanctification. Paul began the passage
by saying, “Walk in the Spirit and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the
flesh” (v. 16). If we follow the Holy
Spirit’s leading as He seeks to produce His fruit in us, will not fulfill the
desires of our sinful, fallen nature.
This, then, is how we enter the
kingdom of God.
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
The Works of the Flesh
Pieter Claesz, A Vanitas Still Life, 1645 |
This passage does not mention
homosexuals specifically. But it does
mention a wide variety of sins, some of which are sexual in nature. What makes the passage especially interesting
is that it probes the inner psychology of sin.
In this passage the apostle Paul is
primarily addressing Christian believers, urging them to live the Christian
life. At the heart of his discussion is
a contrast between “the works of the flesh” (vv. 19-21) and “the fruit of the
Spirit” (vv. 22,23).
When Paul uses the word “flesh” here
it is apparent that he is not talking about just physical appetites. Some of the things he describes do involve a
craving for sex or alcohol, but others do not.
Contentions, jealousies, dissensions and heresies are also on the
list. Rather, Paul is using the term
“flesh” in a specialized sense to refer to man’s sinful , fallen nature – our
inner propensity to do evil. The New
International Version translates the phrase “the acts of the sinful nature.” Paul explains that “the flesh lusts against
the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one
another; so that you do not do the things that you wish” (v. 17; NKJV). In other words, there exist in the heart of a
believer two opposing principles. One is
the “flesh,” the human nature with which we are born, and the other is the Holy
Spirit, Who takes up His residence in the heart of the believer at the point of
conversion. The two opposing forces are
constantly at work in the heart of the believer, pulling him into opposite
directions.
Paul then goes on to enumerate these
“works of the flesh.” The first four,
adultery, fornication, uncleanness, and lewdness (v. 19) clearly involve
sex. (The word translated “lewdness” might
better be rendered “licentiousness,” “wantonness,” or “excess.”) What this suggests is that there is a
difference between love and lust, and that lust is morally wrong. The difference is that with love we genuinely
care about the other person and want to please him/her, whereas in lust we are
primarily thinking of our own physical pleasure. When we exploit others for our own selfish
desires, or are unfaithful to our spouses, or make our bodies available for commercial
gain, we are desecrating something that God created for a pure and noble
purpose. It is not that sex itself is
bad; it is the underlying motive that is evil.
Sex should be an expression of genuine love and devotion to a member of
the opposite sex, a most intimate of all relationships not to be shared with
anyone else. And if the love and
devotion are genuine, they will express themselves in a lifetime commitment in the bond of matrimony. And make no mistake about it, marriage really
is a “bond” – a binding obligation that requires that requires self-sacrifice
for the sake of the other. If we are not
willing to make the commitment, we are simply being self-centered louts.
Idolatry and sorcery (v. 20) mainly
involve pagan practices more common in the ancient world than in modern Western
society, although we are seeing a revival of it in Wicca. Why does magic have a fascination for
people? Isn’t it because it is a way of
controlling others for our own advantage?
And it involves misplacing our loyalty on something other than the God Who
created us.
Then we come to “hatred,
contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions,”
and “heresies” (v. 20). These, sadly,
reflect problems that often occur in churches.
We trust that most respectable Christians will not be found in either
the brothel or the saloon. But
unfortunately all too many of them are involved in church fights. Why?
Because the same fallen human nature that leads the lecher to his porn
and the drunkard to his bottle is also at work in the Christian as well. It is simply that the professing Christian
has more refined tastes. He professes to
be fighting for a worthy cause, a worthy purpose. He is doing it for the benefit of
others. Or is he? What is often at work is a determination to
have his own way, to win the esteem of others, even if it means disrupting the
peace and unity of the fellowship. At
the bottom of it is pure self-centeredness.
These behaviors, these “works,” are
bad enough in themselves. But what makes
them especially pernicious is that they spring from a heart bent on evil and
unwilling to submit to God’s law. It is
the rotten fruit of a diseased tree.
These things are so contrary to the
character of God that He frankly cannot tolerate them. This is why the text states, “I tell you
beforehand, just as I told you in time past, that those who practice such
things will not inherit the kingdom of God” (v. 21). Or as Paul put it in Ephesians 5, “Let no one
deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God
comes upon the sons of disobedience” (Eph. 5:6).
It is not just homosexuals who are
under God’s judgment. All of human
society is essentially corrupt because we all have the same principle of evil
working within us. The world is filled
with violence, exploitation and fraud.
And it will all come to an end when Christ returns to judge the
earth. The message Jesus proclaimed was
not, “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.” It was “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is
at hand” (Matt. 4:17).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)