Pastor's Blog

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. ~ Genesis 1:1 ~ This simple statement is staggering in its implications. It provides us with a wealth of information. A series of affirmations and denials can be derived from it that has a bearing not only on theology, but also anthropology, philosophy, history, science, and ethics. In fact, there is no area of human thought that ought not presuppose the truths contained in it. (1) The statement denies atheism, not so much by affirming as by assuming the existence of God. [1] (2) It denies polytheism in all its forms and affirms by implication the existence of one eternal God, the Creator and Lord of all. (3) It denies pantheism and affirms the existence of God before and apart from the heavens and the earth. (4) It denies emanationism [2] and affirms that all things were made by a purposeful act of divine will. (5) It denies eternality to the cosmos and affirms its beginning. (6) It denies tha...

When it comes to evaluating the scientific data allegedly supporting the theory of evolution, it’s important to remember the philosophical foundations of the theory. Evolution is the inevitable theory of origins for the one who has made a prior commitment to the philosophy of naturalism, the belief that there is nothing beyond nature. Carl Sagan expressed the view about as concisely as it can be stated in his famous paean to the Cosmos. “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” [1] It’s this basic underlying philosophical assumption that determines in advance the outcome of one’s scientific investigation concerning origins. This is reflected in a statement made several years ago by Richard Dawkins, one of the world’s foremost promoters of evolution. In a speech delivered at Washington University in St. Louis, Dawkins said, “We don’t need evidence. We know it [evolution] to be true.” [2] We don’t need evidence? Isn’t a scientific theory based on evidence? An...

Is it best to understand creation as six literal days? Yes it is, and I think it’s apparent to anyone reading the text without any preconceived notions to defend, that the author intends his account to be taken as a literal historical narrative, and not merely in a figurative sense. Many try to combine the biblical account of creation with the theory of evolution and of course to do that you need to greatly extend the length of time that appears in the Bible. Taking the chronology of the Bible at face value only gives us about 6,000 years, not nearly enough time for evolution to take place. So where do we find the necessary time? We insert it into the account of creation, by taking the days of the creation week not as literal 24 hour days, but as symbolic of very long periods of time. But Dr. Ken Gentry, who has written extensively on this subject, gives several reasons to take each of the days of the creation week as a literal 24-hour period. First, he mentions what he calls ...

In August the general presbytery of the Assemblies of God backed away from a commitment to uphold the Scriptural teaching of a recent six-day creation by issuing a wavering statement that reveals the denomination has made a dangerous compromise with the spirit of the age. The advance of scientific research, particularly in the last few centuries, has raised many questions about the interpretation of the Genesis accounts of creation. In attempting to reconcile the Bible and the theories and conclusions of contemporary scientists, it should be remembered that the creation accounts do not give precise details as to how God went about His creative activity. The "lack of precise details" is no reason to reject what is clearly revealed. We should not be dogmatically  more precise than the creation accounts themselves (Gen. 1-2), but we most certainly shouldn't be less precise either. This is true of other portions of Scripture as well. Shall we say that because Script...

Earlier this week, the Louisiana State Senate voted 36-0 to approve a bill that passed the House by a vote of 94-3. The bill would allow science teachers to use supplemental materials, in addition to state-issued textbooks, on issues like evolution, global warming, and human cloning. The purpose of the supplemental materials, the bill explains, is to encourage “critical thinking skills, logical analysis and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied.” The bill is particularly aimed at giving teachers the assurance of academic freedom to actually teach that there is such a thing as a controversy over these subjects (especially evolution), instead of simply being intimidated into silence. Governor Bobby Jindal is expected to sign the bill. As you can imagine the secular fundamentalists are in a tizzy. The bill—titled “The Louisiana Science Education Act”—allows the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to act upon complaints and toss out any supplement...