Darwinian Evolution: Science or a Belief System?

Is Darwinism a religion?

I love science. I always have. I can’t resist clicking to news articles that talk about the discovery of a new species, or some tech advancement, or about the chemical makeup of my favorite soft drink. At the same time, I don’t always love discussions about science. The reason is simple: most people don’t think very well.

Evolution is a loaded word. It means a number of different things. One common use of the word suggests that all animals and humans ‘evolved’ from a common ancestor. I’ve long suggested that this isn’t a scientific conclusion, but a faith-based conclusion. I’ve seen no evidence to suggest otherwise…and I’ve looked. There are a lot of ideas, and a whole bunch of leaps in logic, but I see no actual, scientific evidence. In fact, the evidence I’ve seen points away from this kind of evolution.

In this video, Ray Comfort asks a bunch of folks who believe in evolution for one simple thing: a single bit of solid, scientific evidence that shows one kind of animal turning into another kind of animal. He makes the natural and reasonable distinction between adaptation (changes in a population to match environmental conditions) and speciation (where one kind of animal, over a long period of time, becomes another kind). It’s interesting to see the different reactions from those being asked. One man appears to get angry when his viewpoint is questioned. Some seem thoughtful.

One final note: Comfort somehow got PZ Myers to appear on camera. Myers is a very well-known biologist, and an outspoken critic of any idea that challenges or competes with Darwinism. I find his inclusion in this video very telling, especially since he doesn’t appear to have a good answer to the question.

Universalism: Will God Save Everyone?

Recently, a friend asked me to look at a blog post and let him know what I think about it. This post might not make much sense by itself, because it’s my response to that article. Please take note: I haven’t written this to demean the author, but to discuss the idea of universalism with my friend. It’s too long to post on Facebook, and someone else might benefit from reading it, so I share it with you here. I appreciate the author’s desire to know the truth, and his systematic approach to his beliefs. I wish more people – Christians and non-Christians alike – would do the same. My disagreement isn’t with him, but with the conclusions of his article. Note as well that I’m only addressing the first of a series of posts. If someone asks, I may address the rest…but when the foundation of an argument has been removed, the whole thing falls down. I believe that the points raised here are sufficient.

To see if the author’s position is flawed, let’s look at his assumptions. The primary assumption in the article is that, because God is sovereign, He always gets what He wants…and, because He wants everyone to be saved, everyone will be saved. Let’s take a closer look.

Universalism: will God save everyone?

First, the Bible does say that God wants everyone to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4). Second, every Christian I know would say that God is certainly sovereign. That’s found throughout Scripture. So, why would I disagree with the author’s conclusion? Simple: he assumes that God’s sovereignty gives Him everything He wants. I’m not convinced.

It’s interesting that while the author claims that Calvinism is depraved, he duplicates their error. He claims that Calvinism’s problem is the combination of total depravity and unconditional election, but it’s really rooted in the same problem we’re talking about here: a misunderstanding of sovereignty. Calvinism teaches that God predestines some for Heaven and some for Hell and, because He is sovereign, we play no part in our own salvation. If we did, we could thwart God’s will…making us more powerful than God. That’s known in Calvinism as “irresistible grace”. The author teaches that God predestines everyone to be saved and, because of His sovereignty, everybody will be saved. That’s the textbook definition of irresistible grace…the author simply includes everyone, while Calvinists only include some. Both must ignore much of the New Testament to make their claims.

Let’s look at his use of THELO. He cites Thayer’s (the go-to Greek lexicon) to support his claim that THELO indicates God’s resolve and determination that all should be saved. Unfortunately, he’s only telling part of the story. There’s only ONE definition in Thayer’s: “to will, have in mind, intend”. That one definition has several shades of meaning:

  1. to be resolved or determined, to purpose
  2. to desire, to wish
  3. to love
    1. to like to do a thing, be fond of doing
  4. to take delight in, have pleasure

He cites Thayer, but doesn’t account for ALL of Thayer. I’m not saying that he’s being dishonest, but it does seem that he’s cherry-picking. Did Paul, when writing 1 Timothy 2, mean that God would be delighted if everyone were saved? Did he mean that God likes to save people? These definitions, without the context in which they were written, carry equal weight. In this case, the context of 1 Timothy 2 actually works against the author. Paul tells Timothy that believers should live their lives in specific ways. Why? Because God wants everyone to be saved. If everyone is going to be saved anyway, there’s no connection between the activities of Christians and the fate of unbelievers. That Paul wrote this passage presumes that it needed to be written.

Let’s look at the section where he addresses the word “all”. For the sake of discussion, let’s grant his point: that “all” literally means “every single person”. He points out the universality of the word with regard to being made alive, being reconciled to God, being justified, being offered mercy, and so on. He also (rightly) says that the subset is part of the larger group. If we’re granting his definition of “all”, and granting that the subset is part of the whole, why would we still disagree with his conclusion? Simple: none of those things are salvation.

1 Corinthians 15 doesn’t say that all will be saved. It says that all will be resurrected. The entire chapter, as one can see by actually reading it, is designed to convince the reader that Jesus was resurrected, and that everyone else will be resurrected as well. In fact, this passage also undermines the author’s claim. Verse 2 says that we are saved by the Gospel IF we hold firmly to it. Otherwise, we have believed in vain. If Paul believed that everyone would be saved, there would be no “if”. Verse 18 says that if there’s no resurrection, then “those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.” If Paul believed that everyone would be saved, he would not write that ANYBODY could be lost. Verse 23 refers to Jesus’ second coming, and of those who ‘belong to Him’. Since some will NOT belong to Him, some will apparently not be saved.

The author then cites Romans 5, Romans 11, 1 Timothy 4:10, and 1 John 2:2, noting the use of “all” in each. The assumption in every case is that the passages indicate that all will be saved…but is that what Scripture, as a whole, teaches? No, it’s not. One of the best-known verses in the New Testament says that ‘the wages of sin is death’ (Romans 6:23). A lesser-known verse says that one (Jesus) died for all, therefore all died (2 Corinthians 5:14). Jesus’ died to take our place…that is, He died the death we deserved. Does that mean that, because the penalty for sin has been paid, everybody goes to Heaven? Look at the whole passage:

If we are “out of our mind,” as some say, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.

So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. As God’s co-workers we urge you not to receive God’s grace in vain. For he says,

“In the time of my favor I heard you,
and in the day of salvation I helped you.”
I tell you, now is the time of God’s favor, now is the day of salvation.

2 Corinthians 5:13 – 6:1

The author cites Colossians 1, which says that God has reconciled to Himself “all things”. Paul wrote Colossians, and he wrote the above passage in 2 Corinthians. When you look at the two, it’s clear that while God reconciled “all things” to Himself, there’s something else that must occur: we must reconcile ourselves to Him as well. God’s grace was extended to everyone, but that grace can be received in vain. Note the meaning of “in vain”…that it does no good, and doesn’t fulfill its purpose. What are we talking about in this passage? How, through Jesus’ death, God reconciled us to Himself. This passage guts the author’s view as well as the Calvinist view, because it puts the final piece of the salvation puzzle in the hands of mankind. God has done the work of salvation by coming to Earth and dying for us, but WE MUST RESPOND or it’s all for nothing.

The Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, expresses that mankind has both the freedom and the obligation to respond to God. From the call of the Old Testament prophets for the people to turn their hearts toward God to John the Baptist’s call to repent, our role in our own salvation is clear. Every mention of salvation in the New Testament becomes meaningless if the author, and the Calvinists, are right. Why write about turning our hearts toward God if salvation is only a matter of God forcing His will on us? If everyone will be saved, why encourage Christians to live lives worthy of respect that might lead to the salvation of another?

In Matthew 25, Jesus talks about the Ten Virgins, the Bags of Gold, and the Sheep and the Goats. In each section, He describes the day of His return in stark terms: some will get in, and some will be left out. There’s no indication at all that being excluded from God’s coming Kingdom is a temporary situation. The only way to find that in the text is to insert it yourself, because it’s not there. We could look at dozens of passages in which we are told to take responsibility for our salvation, and that not doing so is a grievous mistake. God, in His sovereignty, has not chosen to control us entirely. He gives us a measure of sovereignty, and expects us to use it to choose wisely.

7 Questions about the Noah Movie

The 2014 movie Noah is clearly The Most Divisive Movie Ever, except for all of the other religious movies ever made. I don’t do movie reviews…but, since so many are asking questions about the theological content in the movie, I figured I’d better get to work. WARNING: SPOILERS.

Is the Noah movie good or bad right or wrong?

Is the movie Biblically accurate?

No. The Biblical story of Noah is the background for the movie, but the story told in the movie is a composite, created from a number of sources:

…and more. In other words, the movie is an exploration of the Noah story as told throughout history. Not only is the movie not designed to tell the Biblical story of Noah, Director Darren Aronofsky called it “the least Biblical movie ever made”. There are a few places where the movie directly contradicts the text (Genesis 5-9 ).

What’s the deal with the Watchers?

For those expecting the Bible story they heard in Sunday School, one of the most surprising elements of the story is the inclusion of “the Watchers”. Some say that these are just made-up characters designed to make the story cool, but the truth is more interesting than that. The Watchers are found in the Book of Enoch, a pseudepigraphal work. The movie tells us they were disobedient angels, exiled to Earth. The Watchers are redeemed in the end, and ushered back into God’s presence as a result of helping the main characters. Stylistically, they’re a lot like the Ents from The Lord of the Rings.

Are the film-makers trying to undermine the Bible?

No. Co-writers Darren Aronofsky and Ari Handel are Jewish, and they are telling a story. In an interview with Christianity Today, both of them explained that they consider the movie to be midrash. For those who didn’t grow up with Judaism, midrash is a method for interpreting the Tanakh. This traditional Jewish practice attempts to fill gaps in the text to make difficult passages easier to understand.

As a Christian, I’m a Bible guy…so I try to stick closely to the text. I wouldn’t tell the story in this way, but it’s not my movie. Noah tells an ancient pre-Christian story, and doesn’t contain any anti-Christian sentiments at all. If Christians want to tell the rest of the story, they’ll have to make their own movie.

What are the film-makers really trying to say?

It’s clear from the interviews I’ve read that Aronofsky doesn’t consider the story of Noah to be specifically and technically true. That is, he doesn’t seem to consider it an accurate description of actual events. It’s equally apparent that he considers the story to be valuable, and to contain some truth…that is, to convey meaningful messages that we need to hear. Here are a few of those messages:

Environmentalism 101:
The underlying assumption of the movie – both expressed and implied – is that mankind is the source of all bad things on Earth. While on the ark, Noah retells the story of creation…and everything through the first 5.5 days of creation was “good”. Then, we are told, mankind came along and messed it up. While it’s true that some people do all kinds of awful things to other people and to our world, the Biblical account shows that we are part of the “good” in God’s creation (Genesis 1:27-31 ).

Environmentalism 201:
The Watchers gave technology to the descendants of Cain. This was a Very Bad Thing to do, since they then used that technology to create cities and wreck the planet. Technology isn’t the planet’s primary problem, and neither are cities. This is as true today as it was before the flood. The primary problem is sin, which is disobedience toward God, from which all creation still suffers (Romans 8:18-22 ).

Environmentalism 301:
The good guys (Noah and his family) are caretakers for the planet. They wouldn’t even pick a flower unless they needed it for something specific. The bad guys (everybody else) want dominion over the planet, using and abusing nature to suit their selfish and evil desires. The problem with this departure from the original text is that the idea of dominion was God’s: God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” (Genesis 1:28 ) That doesn’t mean, of course, that mankind is not to take care of the planet…we surely are. It means that God intended for us to also use the resources that He provided.

Mercy
The idea that man is irredeemable gets an “on the other hand” at the end of Noah. For most of the movie, mankind must be eliminated for the good and innocent (the animals, that is) to thrive. Only Noah’s family is exempt from destruction but, in a pivotal moment of insight, Noah realizes that he and his family are capable of the same great wickedness as everyone else. He concludes that, once the animals are safe from the flood, mankind should be no more. This adds an element of confusion for the viewer. Noah appears to lose his mind at this point in the story, and appears willing to murder to make sure that humanity does not spread beyond the ark. Right before he kills, he seems to come to his senses. His explanation is that he chose mercy instead of justice. Movie-goers are left to wonder whether Noah’s mercy was obedience or disobedience to The Creator.

Did you like the movie?

Yes and No. As movies go, it was pretty good. The movie has an all-star cast, and Russell Crowe and friends did an excellent job. The special effects were generally excellent. I didn’t notice the music, which seems just right…it helped tell the story without drawing attention away from it. The first half of the movie went pretty well, but the second half seemed to drag a bit. There were some directorial decisions that distracted, and detracted, from the story…notably that Biblical Noah’s sons all had wives in the ark, but movie Noah’s sons didn’t. In fact, a major plot point in the story revolves around this issue. Another noteworthy decision was to put a stowaway on the ark. No, it wasn’t a unicorn. It was The Bad Guy.

Would you recommend this movie?

Mostly. It’s certainly not for young children, who might have nightmares due to dramatic depictions of evil. It’s an interesting movie, but not one I’d care to see over and over.

Do you have any reason to NOT see the movie?

Yes and No. While I disagree with the environmentalist message in the movie, and question a few of the decisions to deviate from the text, I don’t see anything seriously wrong with the movie. It could be used as a springboard to in-depth discussion of things like justice and mercy, human nature and original sin, the character of God, and redemption.

At the same time, there is certainly a negative involved with movies like Noah. Many will see the movie and NOT engage in any in-depth discussion. A lot of these people will assume that the elements in Aronofsky’s film are factually accurate, in spite of the fact that the writers never make such a claim. Two recent examples come to mind:

  1. Titanic:
    A whole bunch of young people saw the movie Titanic, and thought it was just a movie. They were shocked to learn that the movie was based on actual events. This isn’t James Cameron’s fault, of course. One could make the case that he did history teachers a favor, telling a (mostly) true story. Will moviegoers believe that the movie Noah is the real Noah? I don’t really know. In the end, I’m more concerned that many will see it as Aronofsky does: worth moralizing over, but not actually true.
  2. The DaVinci Code:
    GodWords has received hundreds of thousands of visitors looking for information about The DaVinci Code. Author Dan Brown stole a story from some conspiracy theorists, rewrote it enough to avoid prosecution, and published it as a novel…but he confused a lot of people in the process. How? By stating that the essential components of his story were absolutely, without question, 100% true. I can’t tell you how many people wrote to me at that time, looking for someone to help them through their crisis of faith. While Dan Brown’s motivation was admittedly anti-religious, I don’t believe that Aronofsky and Handel have any desire to create in their viewer a crisis of faith. Still, some will watch Noah and come away confused. For that reason, I’m a little wary.

Conclusion

Noah is a pretty good movie, but it’s not awesome. It’s not a Bible movie, and shouldn’t be praised or criticized as though it were.

Can you go to Heaven if you’re not baptized?

Can you go to Heaven if you're not baptized?

I saw your comments regarding baptism and you said baptism is not necessary to get to heaven…but its Jesus’ commandment for us to be baptised. If we don’t, aren’t we disobeying? Isn’t disobedience a sin? How can we get to heaven without baptism?

Aaron

You ask an interesting question, and it’s one that puzzles a lot of people. Your question isn’t really about baptism, but about salvation. How, you ask, can a disobedient person go to Heaven? You may be surprised at the answer:

Sin isn’t what sends people to Hell, so it’s not the disobedient who go there.

I know: that’s not what you’ve heard before. Let’s walk through it together…

  1. The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23) . The Bible is very clear on this. There’s a penalty for sin.
  2. Jesus paid the penalty for all sin, for all people, for all time. 2 Corinthians 5:14 tells us this very clearly: ‘one died for all, therefore all died’ . Jesus died to take our place…He paid the penalty for ALL of our sin. There’s no sin that His death did not cover.
  3. Because #1 is true, and because #2 is true, then #3 is equally true: were you to sin by never being baptized, that would not send you to Hell. God would not make you pay the penalty that Jesus paid for you!

Now, that leads us to another question: why does anyone end up in Hell? The Bible is abundantly clear that some people will be there, but it’s not because of their sin. Read more in 2 Corinthians 5: “We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.” Those who are reconciled to God go to Heaven. Those who are not reconciled to God go to Hell. Sin is no longer the issue because, as that passage tells us, “all died” when Jesus died for us. There’s no penalty left to pay.

So: because all sins for all time were covered by Jesus’ death, nobody would go to Hell for not being baptized. They would only go there for not being reconciled to God. Let me ask you: are YOU reconciled to God? We’re not perfect, but God’s children will naturally mature and look for ways to please Him. If you’re a Christian, you should be baptized…not so you can go to Heaven, but because you want all that God has for you. If God thinks baptism important enough to command it, then we should do it.

Can churches work together?

Can churches work together?

Is it okay for a church to fellowship with other churches and denominations?

Elvis

Yes, it’s totally okay for a church to fellowship with other churches and denominations. The Body of Christ is made of all Christians, everywhere, from all times. We’ve all been adopted by God, so we’re truly spiritual brothers and sisters. While we often disagree about how Christianity really works, we should all be gracious and loving toward one another. We shouldn’t be afraid to hang out with, and learn from, each other.

Can I be a Christian and an Anarchist?

Anarchy, pacifism, and Christianity

Is it possible for a Christian; a follower of Jesus Christ to be a pacifist and an anarchist, who simply rejects all forms of violence and all worldly systems of government and business…?

Tony

Thanks for writing! You ask an intriguing question. Pacifism and anarchy seem like an odd combination to me. Of course, for anarchists to succeed, it helps to have a lot of pacifists around. =) Let’s take them one at a time. It’s certainly possible for a follower of Christ to be a pacifist. There have been plenty throughout history. While I don’t believe that being a Christian equals being a pacifist, they’re certainly compatible.

Anarchy means a number of things, of course. I’m going to assume that you mean that you reject human government, preferring to live by the teachings and example of Jesus. That sounds good. Unfortunately, there are two drawbacks to this kind of anarchy:

  1. It’s purely theoretical. There has never been a long-lasting society without human leadership, including the 1st-century church. It’s a pleasing idea, but it simply doesn’t work. Therefore – in one sense – you can’t be a Christian and an anarchist, because you can’t sustain anarchy.
  2. Romans 13. There’s absolutely no wiggle room in Romans 13 for those who wish to engage in anarchy, civil disobedience, or to just ignore the laws of their country. Here are a few verses from Romans 13:

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

I completely understand the desire to ‘opt out’ of certain parts of society. At the same time, the truth is inescapable: we’re to obey our government. Unless our government tries to force us to disobey God, we’re to follow the rules. As Peter said in Acts 5, we must obey God rather than man…but, as long as we can do both, we SHOULD do both. To disobey government simply because you don’t like it, or because you disagree with it, is to also disobey God.

There you go. Seems pretty straightforward. If you can think of a way for obedient Christians to get around Romans 13, let me know. I’m a patriotic American, but I don’t blindly support the USA or Israel. Many (if not most) of our leaders are corrupt, seeking not God’s will but their own. As with every other human system, America is destined to fail because humanity is at the center instead of God. Even the nation of Israel, when given the opportunity to let God be their king, asked for a human ruler so they could be like other nations. Take heart: God is still in control, even when things don’t feel like it. The battle is not ours, it’s God’s…we just follow orders. We don’t need to strategize about how to win, or how to minimize losses, or how to keep ourselves safe. God will do whatever needs to be done, and we simply need to be obedient. Walk in the Spirit, Tony. That’s all you need to do.

Theology is a Lie

Jesus is theology

Recently, a GodWords reader sent me a personal message in which he stated, “Theology is a LIE!!!”. He may have actually used four exclamation points, come to think of it. Either way, part of his point was that…well, that theology is a lie.

I’ve heard that before. I’ve also heard these:

  • I don’t need theology. I just need Jesus.
  • Don’t give me any theological mumbo-jumbo. Give me the truth.
  • Who needs theology when we have the Bible?

Maybe you’ve heard similar things. If so, please share them in the comments.

It would be nice if we could settle this issue once and for all, but we can’t. We can only chip away at it, hoping that we’ll tip the balance from bad teaching to good teaching. I’ve written about this before, but it bears repeating:

Theology means words about God. THEOS = God, LOGOS = word or words. Every time we think about God or write about God or talk about God, we’re ‘being theological’. The very first verse of the Gospel of John says this:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Who is John writing about? Jesus, that’s who. Jesus is theology! Even saying that “Jesus is theology” is a theological statement. Christians can’t really avoid doing theology, can we?