Genesis has been a battleground for some time, and today is no different. This is particularly true of Genesis 1-3, which is the account of the creation and the fall. When I first began studying the Scripture, I recognized the importance of the first eleven chapters of Genesis but in retrospect I did not fully appreciate the magnitude of their significance. As I studied other areas of the Scripture and began learning the breadth and depth of God’s revelation, I saw that without the truthfulness and perspicuity of the first eleven chapters of Genesis, every major theme of Scripture lay in jeopardy.
Probably the most hotly debated issue, at least among those who would claim any God honoring respect for the Scripture, is whether or not the days of Genesis 1 are lunar days or indefinite periods of time. In other words, did God create the world in 6 days or is the simple language of Genesis concealing a deeper esoteric meaning only fully revealed to scientists quite apart from the Scripture. Scientists like Hugh Ross accept the theory of evolution and seek to interpret Genesis through the prism of evolution. In doing so, they seem to undermine what is otherwise the clear teaching of Scripture.
The place to start is always the Scripture rather than psychology, sociology, evolution, etc. We should evaluate the teachings of man in light of the clear teachings of Scripture rather than seeking to harmonize the Scripture with modern theories about man, God and His world. I am not at all against learning from science, and/or other disciplines, but to interpret Scripture in light of them rather than through consistent and sound hermeneutics is to subjugate the Scripture to the whims of man.
Consequently, this article looks at the strengths of interpreting the word “day” in Genesis chapter 1 as a normal lunar day and answers objections to this normal reading of the text.
Recently, I was asked what the Bible says about public nudity. As you well know, many believe that the taboo of public nudity is merely social, and that apart from societal mores, there is nothing immoral about public nudity. What does the Bible say?
First let me be clear. I draw a distinction between task nudity and social or sexual nudity. Task nudity refers to a person being nude for such things as taking a shower at the gym. Therefore, this article does not refer to task nudity but rather whether it is moral to be nude in public, in mixed company other than with one’s spouse, and/or for the purpose of being nude, disrobed etc., for either sexual or social nudity. Read the rest of this entry »
This is my last individual article concerning my views on salvation and Calvinism. The next article will include all of the articles that I have written along with a table of contents and an introduction. You will be able to find the article that you are searching for rather easily. Read the rest of this entry »
Recently, Page Lynn presented a paper on the environment in The Ethics Round Table. From which, I suggested four guidelines to The Round Table to assist us in thinking and acting christianly about environmental issues and our involvement. Following are those four suggestions. For a fuller discussion of this issue I recommend Cornwall Alliance web site, or sign up for the Round Table next year. Read the rest of this entry »
One of the weakest links in Calvinism is the teaching that Christ died only for the elect. The Scripture seems lucidly clear in proclaiming that Christ died for everyone who is lost–the world, which reality has caused many to wear the label “four point Calvinsit”. Here are my thoughts on what the Bible teaches concerning whom Christ died for. Read the rest of this entry »
“There is a God” is the title of an excellent new book by the internationally known former atheist, Antony Flew. The book chronicles his journey into and from atheism over his long and influential life. Years ago I remember Norman Geisler saying that Antony Flew was the most formidable debater for atheism.
Well, I have learned—actually been reminded of—some things from this former atheist, which I think are worth mentioning. Read the rest of this entry »
I affirm that Christ’s sacrifice paid the price for the sins of the world (John 1:29; 1 John 2:2, 4:14); further, not only is the Atonement of Christ unlimited in its value, but also in its provision; further, the benefit of His atonement is offered to everyone, not merely all people groups or nations, but rather individuals; therefore, the Holy Spirit is presently working to convict the world—all men (John 16:8,9) of sin whereby all men can believe and be saved as is God’s desire (2 Peter 3:9; 1 Tim. 2:4). Hence, the Father desires that every individual repent and be saved, and therefore the Son, whose desire is one with the Father, died for all so that they could be saved according to the Father’s desire; consequently, the Holy Spirit, whose desire is one with the Father and the Son, convicts all of sin thereby allowing every person to have a real chance to be saved by faith in Jesus Christ. Moreover, the mandate to the church to go and take the gospel into the entire world is not merely to provide the means of salvation to a select few and a good faith offer to everyone else,1 but rather a real offer that can either be accepted or rejected.
I disaffirm that God’s desire for everyone to experience eternal life, knowing that some will not trust Christ, in any way diminishes His sovereignty since He without constraint or coercion chose to grant man that opportunity; further, that people rejecting Christ’s death on the cross for them and His payment for their sin somehow makes Christ’s unused sacrifice wasted; it is not wasted since Christ’s death on the cross accomplished precisely what God desired, which is to provide every person, by mercy, an opportunity to be saved (2 Corinthians 5:14; 1 Timothy 2:6; Hebrews 2:9; 1 John 1:2, 4:14), and to save forever all who believe (John 3:16).
- As mentioned elsewhere, Calvinists sometimes use this to explain how and why they can in good conscience present the gospel to everyone. In other words, since they do not know who can and cannot believe, it is a good faith offer. However, theirs is still a different message than I think is presented in the Scripture. The Calvinist cannot, if true to Calvinism, look into the eyes of an individual, any individual, and say God loves you and Christ died for you, and God wants you to be saved, and you can be saved, if you will only trust Christ, and you can by the grace of God trust Christ if you will. If one is unwilling to accept that reality, along with a belief in irresistible grace resulting in regeneration prior to faith, he cannot be a Calvinist. [↩]
Here is my ninth article regarding God’s work of salvation and what I consider to be shortcomings of the teachings of Calvinism. Read the rest of this entry »
As a pastor, I am intimately concerned about what is included in preaching of the gospel. I realize that all Christians are concerned, and rightly so; but since I do this week in and week out it is of utmost importance to not only understand the gospel, but to articulate the gospel message in such a way that it clearly reflects what the Scripture teaches and what I believe. I offer this article to elucidate my understanding of the call to preach the gospel. This is my eighth article concerning issues related to salvation. Read the rest of this entry »
Here are my thoughts on the relationship of faith and works with regard to salvation. Read the rest of this entry »