Category Archives: My Beliefs

YEC and Nuclear Decay Rates

Posted on by

YEC’s tell me God changes the laws of physics in various ways and at numerous times. This seems to be a basic tenet of YEC belief.

This is demonstrated by a statement in RATE 2 as follows:


The quote was taken from the RATE2 statement. Here is the URL for RATE2: https://www.icr.org/rate2

The author suggest that YEC must question whether the laws of physics are constant. Basic laws of physics include speed of light, gravitational constant, and rate of nuclear decay. But there are also others. Strong forece, weak force, electromagnetic force, gravitational force all depend on basic laws of physics. When these change so does chemistry and biochemistry. And life.

Where did I find this? Virginia Peterson pointed this out on her comment to a post in Answers to Answers in Genesis. https://www.facebook.com/groups/answers2aig and her comment took place around July 19, 2026 in a post by Jeff Reichman.

This summer I had a discussion with YEC Chris Coatney about what do YEC advocates believe. Chris Coatney insisted God changes the laws of physics for special purposes and has done so capriciously from time to time in response to human behavior.

Chris specifically mentioned the laws of nature changing instantaneously at the fall of man, and again at the flood. And possibly more times.

These changes are allegedly a massive supernatural event that affects the entire universe, not just the earth. These ideas align with the statement in the image above taken from RATE2.

Virginia Peterson didnt identify which specific RATE2 document containing the quote. I will have to search for that in the RATE documents. The reader is invited to do so as well.

Why did this come up?

There is an AiG article by Andrew Snelling:

https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/when-did-dinosaurs-live/review-dinosaur-blood-age-of-the-earth/dinosaur-blood-review-3/

And Jeff Reichman made a post with his take on it. And that led to a discussion where Virginia Peterson shared the RATE statements.

Also Riley Barton had written about it.
https://theevidenceisplain.blogspot.com/2026/07/the-carbon-14-paradox-why-we-trust.html

I have been following radiometric dating arguments from ICR since I was a college student. I had basically just started ignoring YEC because I decided it was a scam. Why? The image shown above which admits to old earth unless the laws of physics are vary over time.

Getting YECs to admit they believe laws of nature are variable is like pulling teeth. If they do believe it then I don’t believe them. I just don’t like being lied to. They say they care about truth. well, then they need to tell some.

What about Dino Bone Dating?

Andrew Snelling wrote articles in 2026 about this, claiming dinosaur bones have be carbon 14 dated to be recent.

Snelling references Vance Nelson and Brian Thomas in a 2015 article as follows:

Thomas, Brian, and Vance Nelson, “Radiocarbon in Dinosaur and Other Fossils,” Creation Research Society Quarterly 51 (Spring 2015): 299–311.

Here is a result of their research. Typical measurement, 3rd from the bottom, a horn of a Triceratops, dated at 40,000 BC. Does not support a 6000 year old earth.

One of my goals is to more fully understand how bones become fossilized so that carbon dating applies to their fossils.

I am frustrated that nothing is mentioned about the strata the bones were found in because if the strata is far older than the bones then this indicates an anomaly.

What minerals are in fossils?

To make fossils the following minerals can be involved.

Common minerals that replace or crystallize within ancient organic remains include:

Silica (SiO₂): Often found in petrified wood and agate. Replaces organic tissues in exquisite detail.

Calcite / Aragonite (CaCO₃): The primary building block for many marine fossils, such as ancient shells and coral.

Pyrite (FeS₂): Also known as “fool’s gold,” it can replace soft tissues and shell structures, resulting in brilliant, metallic golden fossils.

Phosphate (Apatite): Frequently replaces shark teeth and bone, giving the specimens a jet-black coloration.

Hematite / Goethite (Iron minerals): These produce rich red, brown, and orange colorations within the fossil matrix.

Sorry, I don’t have any reason to think C14 dating works on any of the fossils made of these materials.

What about anthracite (coal?). It is all carbon.

Some counter comments about Andrew Snelling.


Jeff Reichman writes, “Dr. Snelling’s entire argument hinges on a fundamental logical contradiction: he treats the presence of carbon-14 as an objective “clock” to date fossils, while simultaneously arguing that the dating system used to interpret that carbon-14 is a deceptive, “uniformitarian” construct.”

“Snelling posits that finding C-14 in dinosaur bones proves they are “only thousands of years old.” To arrive at this conclusion, he must rely on the stability of the radioactive decay constant. He needs this constant to be an immutable law of nature so that the presence of C-14 implies a specific, limited age. Yet, in the same breath, he attacks the “uniformitarian practitioners” who established that very constant, labeling their calibration curves as “biased, overinflated, and thus useless.” Snelling is caught in a trap of his own making: if the methodology and the framework established by mainstream science are truly “useless,” then by what authority does he declare the existence of C-14 to be evidence of any age? He is “borrowing” the authority of the physics he claims to reject to provide his own conclusion with a veneer of scientific legitimacy.”

“Snelling claims that the results of 30,000 to 40,000 years produced by laboratories are “inflated” and “inaccurate” due to magnetic field decay and the global Flood. By creating these ad hoc explanations to “correct” the data down to his preferred 4,500 years, he effectively admits that the machine’s output is not an objective measurement of time, but a blank slate upon which he can project his own desired history. If the clock must be adjusted by thousands of years to align with a theology, then the clock is not measuring time, it is being manipulated”

“Snelling’s argument collapses into a logical vacuum. He asserts that:

— The raw detection of C-14 is “significant” and “valid evidence.”

— The dating interpretation of that same C-14 by the scientific community is “dishonest” and “erroneous.”

This is the peak of his logical inconsistency. He demands that we trust the fact of the detection while rejecting the method of the measurement. If Snelling is right, and the dating community’s assumptions about the past are “erroneous,” then he has no grounds to claim that the detection of C-14 is “significant.” A measurement from a system that is “useless” (his own words) for obtaining true ages is, by definition, useless for his argument as well. By rejecting the framework that gives the data its meaning, Snelling renders his own “evidence” scientifically vacuous. He is not using science to date a fossil; he is using an instrument as a prop to confirm a bias, then breaking the instrument the moment it fails to provide the exact answer he requires.”

Reichman next mentions something I had noticed about YEC Chris Coatney.

“Ultimately, articles like Dr. Snelling’s are far from a pursuit of truth; they are an exercise in rhetorical misdirection designed to bypass the rigor of the scientific method. By simultaneously claiming that the radiocarbon dating framework is a “biased” and “useless” uniformitarian invention while using that same framework’s physical constants to interpret trace carbon-14 as “evidence” of a young earth, Snelling engages in a profound logical fallacy. These arguments are inherently misleading because they function as a closed-loop system: they treat the machine’s sensitivity floor as a legitimate age when it supports their worldview, but dismiss the entire system as fraudulent the moment it produces a date that contradicts their theology. By rejecting the integrity of the very tools they rely upon to generate their data, such authors are not performing science; they are performing a performative dismissal of deep time, substituting an internally inconsistent “borrowed authority” for the objective search for truth.”












About DIID and EC.

Posted on by

Matt McClure mentioned something I didn’t know before:

The DI describes ID as “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection”.

Here is the part I didn’t know: That natural selection is 100% undirected.

What they mean by undirected is “Unperturbed. No perturbations.” How can they know? Lets think slightly deeper. What if there is/was a perturbation? Is it natural or unnatural? How could they know? If it was natural how do they know there was an intelligent cause versus an unintelligent cause? Again, how can they know?

What has happened is DI has made assumptions, and rolled these assumptions into the definition of DIID. And I didn’t previously know this.

I conclude that DIID is totally metaphysical because it has no epistemological basis. Therefore it cannot be scientifically falsified.

This is not my understanding of what ID was supposed to be.

What made me think about all this? The following discussion.

Matt McClure said:

I make no arguments against Divine Design because I believe it’s true. However, the problem with Discovery Institute Intelligent Design (DIID) is that it claims to be something it is not.

To be considered science, it must lend itself to empirically testable (i.e., falsifiable) hypotheses from which conclusions can be made, and no scientific conclusion can be made without the gathering and analysis of data. In contrast, Ben Stein’s quote above is an attempt to make a conclusion based on the lack of data.

The reason DIID is not science is that it begins with an unsupportable presupposition. The DI describes ID as “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection”. Immediately we see the problem: How do they know that a transcendent intelligent designer cannot or will not direct natural selection? How do they know that a transcendent intelligent designer cannot or will not direct ordinary natural processes in scientifically undetectable ways? How do they know? Answer: They don’t know it. They only assume it, and yet this assumption is completely unsupportable. So how can DIID possibly be science when its primary assumption is empirically unfalsifiable?

Given that the transcendent intelligent designer is God (i.e., the God of the Bible), then everything is designed whether it looks designed or not and whether it has a “naturalistic” explanation or not. So how can intelligent design possible be empirically testable when there is nothing un-designed for which to objectively compare?

The problems with DIID go beyond scientific veracity. Given that the transcendent intelligent designer is God then we can consult the Scriptures about God, and Hebrews 11:3 says “by faith we know” God did it. It does not say “by empirically based methods of inquiry we know”. Therefore, the premise that science can affirm God as Creator is inseparable from the premise that science can replace faith, and that premise is scientism. Despite the claims of Dawkins and Meyer, God is not a testable scientific hypothesis. Someone very important once said “thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test” and then later said “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”.

ID (not necessarily DIID) is true, but ID is not science because the Designer is transcendent of nature and science is limited to the study of natural things. DIID falsely positing itself as science is the reason DIID has lost in the courts, and it is the reason why it will lose in the evangelical field as well.

My thoughts:

Here is the central question poses by the above:

“How do they know that a transcendent intelligent designer cannot or will not direct natural selection?

They don’t.

Also,
How do they know that a transcendent intelligent designer cannot or will not direct ordinary natural processes in scientifically undetectable ways?

This is a separate question because it is more general than just natural selection. It extends to all natural processes.

And the answer again is, they don’t.

To me there is yet a third question. How do they know that an intelligent designer will not perturb ordinary natural processes so they give a different outcome than ordinary natural unperturbed processes would have given?

They don’t.

So, How do they know? Answer: They don’t know it. They only assume it, and yet this assumption is completely unsupportable.

Also, how can DIID possibly be science when its primary assumption is empirically unfalsifiable?

We do know one thing. Natural processes, left to themselves, are not likely to produce the physical results we see. It would take a lot of faith to believe it could or did. And it still would not explain the non physical aspects of the universe. Love, hate, justice, fairness, etc. The intangibles which have no natural explanation but nevertheless are real.

So DIID defeats atheism. But it does not defeat EC or TE.


Matt McClure also said:

DIID does not do what science does. You need to go back and read my comment because DIID still begins on the unsupportable, unfalsifiable presupposition that a transcendent intelligent designer cannot or will not divinely guide natural processes in scientifically undetectable ways, which is especially problematic for believing Christians because that presupposition is clearly contradicted by such scriptures as Psalm 139:13-15, Proverbs 16:33, and Acts 1:26.

What about this presupposition? That DIID posits that a transcendent intelligent designer cannot or will not divinely guide natural processes in scientifically undetectable ways?

How do they know? They cannot. So they have made a terrible mistake.

Stated slightly differently, what they also cannot know is this: How is it that an intelligent designer, employing just the laws of the universe, could not perturb ordinary natural processes so these perturbed processes give a different outcome than ordinary unperturbed natural processes would have given?

Again, they cannot know. But they dismiss the idea anyway without giving a reason.

Seems to me DIID actually would support both DIID and EC equally well if they would allow that God, being in the universe can perturb natural processes.

Matt gives Psalm 139:13-15, Proverbs 16:33, and Acts 1:26 for consideration.


Psalm 139:13-15 speaks of God’s ongoing creation activity. That which takes place after the beginning.


Matt McClure Also said:

DIID does not do what science does. You need to go back and read my comment because DIID still begins on the unsupportable, unfalsifiable presupposition that a transcendent intelligent designer cannot or will not divinely guide natural processes in scientifically undetectable ways, which is especially problematic for believing Christians because that presupposition is clearly contradicted by such scriptures as Psalm 139:13-15, Proverbs 16:33, and Acts 1:

Some Introspection

Posted on by


My thoughts on purpose and place in the universe.

A friend received a bunch of messages or posts from me which had not been delivered. Until today. So she sent them back to me, telling me facebook had bunched them up and delivered them all together. Really? I didn’t remember them. Then slowly it came back to me, yes, I had written them. I told her I would write a raindrop because they are all on the same topic, and who can trust facebook? Better to blog.

I may have them copied in the wrong order here. I told her I must surely have been feeling introspective when I wrote them.

Two of these were marked 2 years old. I have put them at the top.


Two years ago it seems I wrote this to my friend:

At some point in time you realize you appreciate that God hangs in there and keeps annoying you by re-arranging you life. You start to look forward to it. It creates a smile. HEY HEY HEY, just get your hands off that vase! That MY vase!

Every born again Christian experiences this. Sometimes Jesus just dusts a shelf in a corner. Because you throw things at him! I figure most people do that. They are not comfortable with him. Because they are the captain of their ship and want to control control control.

Later, you might decide he is more welcome and he moves a piece of furniture.
This is a process.

I meet scholars and bible students and church goers who haven’t got a clue what I am talking about. They got religion. They don’t got Jesus as the Christ of their life though. They talk big. Its like tinkling chimes blowing against a window pane.

There’s two kinds of people in the universe. Those who have eternal life (being adopted children of God) and those who will spend the next several trillion years in oblivion (at best).

The first kind do not have it easy. It can be agonizing as the spirit of the new redeemed man wars with the old unyielding carnal nature.

The second kind have no internal struggle, just the old self centered egotistical sin nature that rules them.

A bit later:
Today someone told me “I am very different from you”.

She refused to recognize the internal struggle that Paul writes about. SHE IS THE CAPTAIN OF HER SHIP. Not Jesus.
All the religious talk was just talk.

I have heard that “I am very different from you” before. It means “I am obstinate and you are full of crap”. And that was to my question “Who do you serve? Is Christ in your life anywhere?” It was a denial of Christ. Just like Peter. Lets hope it doesn’t hold. But there is no meeting of minds past that point. There is no fellowship possible.




March 8 2026:
I daily ponder with growing enjoyment that Jesus moves into your life (your inner house) and re-arranges the furniture. I used to resist and resent this.



A couple of days ago: This is when all the above were delivered as a bunch. She had never seen the previous messages.

I am meeting some people that whatever they do, whatever it is, is liturgy. Service to God. I see it. Even the miscreant Christians have some of that. The unadopted not so much.
What about the undiscovered adopted?
Not meaning to sound Calvinist here. 😉 There are some “shall be redeemed in the future” people out there.
Maybe our purpose is to weed, water, fertilize, and serve God by serving them?
Thats not trivial. There is a cross to bear in that process.
Jesus is a power boat, twin 427 hemi engines, and I am here on skiis, white knuckled grip on the tow rope. Afraid to let go. Tempted. But I cant swim. The apostle Peter was a skiier. Same thing. . 😉







Do the Laws of Physics Change Over Time?

Posted on by

Hugh Ross writes: “The biblical principle of unchanging and pervasive physics launched the scientific revolution.”

Before that happened Galileo told the cardinals that because of the established laws of heaven and earth when you find the laws in contradiction to your understand of scripture then your understanding is flawed. The church eventually agreed with him. Why?

Fixed Naturals Laws and the Christ.

https://www.bible.com/bible/111/JER.33.NIV

19The word of the Lord came to Jeremiah: 20“This is what the Lord says: ‘If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night no longer come at their appointed time, 21then my covenant with David my servant—and my covenant with the Levites who are priests ministering before me—can be broken and David will no longer have a descendant to reign on his throne. 22I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars in the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore.’ ”

23The word of the Lord came to Jeremiah: 24“Have you not noticed that these people are saying, ‘The Lord has rejected the two kingdoms he chose’? So they despise my people and no longer regard them as a nation. 25This is what the Lord says: ‘If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth, 26then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them.’ ”


What got me to thinking about this? Answers in Genesis claims that the laws of physics have been different in the past. Drastically different physical constants. Physical constants that vary. Such as the speed of light.

Hugh Ross writes about physical constants and physical laws remaining constant. he references the above scriptures.

New Evidence Further Affirms Biblical Prediction of Unchanging Physics
by Hugh Ross

August 9, 2021

(from reasons.org)

It may be surprising for some readers to learn that the Bible declared millennia ago that the fundamental physics of the universe has not and does not change. In Jeremiah 33, for example, God avows that he is not like humans, who habitually change their minds, their convictions, and their loyalties. God uses the physics of the universe as an analogy for his immutable nature. As God “established the fixed laws of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25), so, too, his character attributes, convictions, and commitments are unchanging.

Another biblical example is found in Romans 8:20–22. Here, Paul states that “the whole creation has been groaning” as a result of its “bondage to decay” (NIV 1984). This passage summarizes the long discourses in Ecclesiastes, especially chapters 1–3, 10–12, declaring that the law of decay, known today as the second law of thermodynamics, applies ubiquitously throughout the universe.

Foundation of Modern Science
The biblical principle of unchanging and pervasive physics launched the scientific revolution. During the Renaissance, students of the Bible began to recognize that if the laws of physics are the same for all times and places throughout the universe, then experiments and observations about natural phenomena will reveal reliable and trustworthy knowledge and understanding about the natural realm. Such understanding would not only satisfy our curiosity about nature but also yield economic and technological advances. During the Reformation, the recognition of unchanging and pervasive physics became widespread throughout Europe and gave birth to the scientific revolution.

It is no accident that the scientific revolution was birthed in Reformation Europe. Biblical literacy, for the first time, flourished in Reformation Europe and led to the widespread acceptance that the laws of physics could be trusted to reveal truth about nature.

Tests of Unchanging Physics
Even though the biblical principle of constant and pervasive laws of physics forms the foundation of the scientific method and scientific research, scientists continue to subject the principle to rigorous and exhaustive testing. They have two reasons for doing so. First, affirming the fundamental assumption undergirding the scientific method and scientific research to a greater degree of precision and to a greater extent of space and time builds confidence in the value and successes of the scientific enterprise. Second, searching for very tiny departures from the constancy of known laws of physics might reveal the existence of new, as yet undiscovered, laws of physics. For example, what appeared to astronomers at the end of the nineteenth century as a tiny departure from Newton’s laws of motion in their observations of Mercury’s orbit1 led to the discovery of another nonvarying law of physics, the theory of general relativity.2

Christians also have a vested interest in subjecting the biblical principle of constant and pervasive laws of physics to more rigorous and exhaustive testing. Millennia before scientists had any hint that the laws of physics are constant and that they apply ubiquitously to the entire universe, the Bible stood alone in making such claims. These tests present an opportunity to demonstrate the Bible’s unique power to accurately predict future scientific discoveries. Such a demonstration provides strong evidence for the existence of an all-knowing, all-truthful God and that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant revelation from that God.

Past Tests
I have written many Today’s New Reason to Believe articles documenting the most rigorous observations and experiments that establish that the laws of physics are constant and pervasive.3 The most stringent tests achieved to date, with years over which measurements have been made, are as follows:

Physical law test Measurements’ Span of YearsVariation
fine-structure constant variation  4 years4<2.0 x 10-16/year
fine-structure constant variation  12.9 billion years5<6.2 x 10-16/year
electron-to-proton mass ratio variation  4 years6<2.3 x 10-14/year 
electron-to-proton mass ratio variation  12.9 billion years7<1.6 x 10-17/year 
gravitational constant variation  24 years8<5.2 x 10-14/year  
gravitational constant variation   11.0 billion years9<7.9 x 10-12/year

The two tests performed over 4–year spans were achieved in laboratories. Helioseismic observations of the Sun were responsible for the test over a 24-year span. Observations of the spectral lines of galaxies and quasars over a broad range of light-travel times yielded the three tests over billions of years. To less precision, tests show no sign of variation in the values of the fundamental constants of physics with respect to regional location in the universe.10

Latest Test
The past tests establish to high precision that no change has occurred in the fundamental constants of physics from 11.0–12.9 billion years ago until the present. That’s 93.5% of cosmic history. Until the James Webb Space Telescope and the Extremely Large Telescope become operational, it will not be possible for observations of galaxy and quasar spectral lines to push the time range earlier than 12.9 billion years ago. However, two British astronomers, Luke Hart and Jens Chluba, analyzed data from the Planck 2018 map of the cosmic microwave background radiation to determine values for the fine-structure constant and the electron-to-proton mass ratio when the universe was only 370,000 years old, or 13.79 billion years before the present.11

Hart and Chluba determined that just 370,000 years after the cosmic creation event the value of the fine-structure constant compared to its value measured in present-day laboratories = 1.0005 +/- 0.0024. The value of the electron-to-proton mass ratio 370,000 years after the cosmic creation event compared to the present-day value = 1.0005 +/- 0.0099. Though Hart and Chluba’s measurements are not as accurate as the past tests, they extend the demonstration that the fundamental constants of physics remain unchanged over the past 93.5% to now 99.9973% of cosmic history.

Philosophical Implications
Observations now show that the laws of physics that govern the universe indeed are unchanged to high precision over (what for all practical purposes is) the entire history of the universe. The accurate forecasting of this scientific discovery thousands of years ago in the writings of the Bible establishes that the One who inspired the Bible authors to write what they did must be superintelligent, superknowledgeable, superpowerful, trustworthy, and truthful. These observations show, too, that the study of nature is a worthwhile endeavor that can be trusted to reveal truth not only about the natural realm but also about the attributes of the One who brought it all into existence.

Endnotes

  1. Simon Newcomb, “Discussion of the Observed Transits of Mercury, 1677–1881,” Astronomical Papers Prepared for the Use of the American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac, vol. I (Washington: Bureau of Navigation, Navy Department, 1882), available at http://relativitycalculator.com/pdfs/mercury_perihelion_advance/S.Newcomb.pdf; G. M. Clemence, “The Relativity Effect in Planetary Motions,” Reviews of Modern Physics 19, no. 4 (October 1, 1947): 361–364, doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.19.361.
  2. Albert Einstein, “Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie,” Annalen Der Physik 354, no. 7 (July 1916): 769–822, doi:10.1002/andp.19163540702; Albert Einstein, translated by Satyendra Nath Bose, “The Foundation of the Generalised Theory of Relativity,” last edited December 30, 2020.
  3. Hugh Ross, “New Fine-Structure Constant Measurement Affirms Cosmic Creation,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), March 1, 2021; Hugh Ross, “More Evidences for Biblical Claim of Unchanging Physics,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), June 22, 2020; Hugh Ross, “Stronger and More Comprehensive Tests Affirm the Universe’s Unchanging Physics,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), July 1, 2013; Hugh Ross, “TNRTB Classic: Testing the Biblical Notion of Unchanging Physics,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), July 4, 2013.
  4. Nathan Leefer et al., “New Limits on Variation of the Fine-Structure Constant Using Atomic Dysprosium,” Physical Review Letters 111, no. 6 (August 6, 2013): id. 060801, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.060801.
  5. S. A. Levshakov et al., “An Upper Limit to the Variation in the Fundamental Constants at Redshift z = 5.2,” Astronomy & Astrophysics: Letters 540 (April 2012): id. L9, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219042; Franco D. Albareti et al., “Constraint on the Time Variation of the Fine-Structure Constant with the SDSS-III/BOSS DR12 Quasar Sample,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 452, no. 4 (October 1, 2015): 4153–4168, doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1406.
  6. J. Kobayashi, A. Ogino, and S. Inouye, “Measurement of the Variation of Electron-to-Proton Mass Ratio Using Ultracold Molecules Produced from Laser-Cooled Atoms,” Nature Communications 10 (August 21, 2019): id. 3771, doi:10.1038/s41467-019-11761-1.
  7. Levshakov et al., “An Upper Limit.”
  8. Alfio Bonanno and Hans-Erich Fröhlich, “A New Helioseismic Constraint on a Cosmic-Time Variation of G,” The Astrophysical Journal Letters 893, no. 2 (April 21, 2020): id. L35, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab86b9.
  9. Earl Patrick Bellinger and Jørgen Christensen-Dalsgaard, “Astroseismic Constraints on the Cosmic-Time Variation of the Gravitational Constant from an Ancient Main-sequence Star,” The Astrophysical Journal Letters 887, no. 1 (December 3, 2019): id. L1, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab43e7.
  10. Jon O’Bryan et al., “Constraints on Spatial Variations in the Fine-Structure Constant from Planck,” The Astrophysical Journal 798, no. 1 (January 1, 2015): id. 18, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/18.
  11. Luke Hart and Jens Chluba, “Updated Fundamental Constant Constraints from Planck 2018 Data and Possible Relations to the Hubble Tension,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 493, no. 3 (April 2020): 3255–3263, doi:10.1093/mnras/staa412.

Slouching Toward Heresy: Early Confessions

Posted on by

The Christian church makes use of two types of confession of faith.

  1. The symbol set up once for all, and drawn up in the language of the new testament. This is ascribed to the apostles as an authentic summary of scripture. [Cullmann, p 10]

    Cullmann points out an example of this first type is the so called Apostle’s Creed. An example of the next one, below, is the Nicene Creed. The Niceno-Constantinopolitan symbol represents a mixed type, on the one hand containing the anti-Arian formula, but on the other often regarded as apostolic. [Cullmann, referring to Caspari]

  2. The symbol conditioned by circumstances, which transcribes the Biblical Gospel into the language and concepts of a certain period. On the basis of the New Testament, this symbol takes up position over against new problems and heresies unknown in the apostolic age. [Cullmann, p 10]

I would like to point out the New Testament in the 27 book form we see today was compiled by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in 367 AD, 32 years after the Council of Nicea. So for over 300 years the New Testament did not exist as a bible. It consisted of scattered manuscripts and letters copied and sent around the world from region to region as separate writing. Not all books were accepted. Jude, James, 2 Peter are examples of rejected books in many parts of the world.

So when someone says “I go only by the New Testament” what they are referring to is that which was compiled in 367 AD, translated into Latin, translated into English 1100 years after the fact. [Duvall and Hays, p 499].

And was accepted by the Bishops of the catholic church after 367. Protestantism was far off in the future.

What Cullman is really talking about, and Habermas is evaluating, is having rules of faith and formulas which trace back to the apostles. The purpose was (and is) to dethrone every future tradition in the name of apostolic tradition. Not to set ecclesiastical tradition above scripture. [Cullmann, p. 13], [Habermas, p 143-170]

Is fundamentalism now a new ecclesiastical tradition? Is it slouching towards heresy? Hard to say. But when one gets criticized for affirming the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed because “it is not Baptist belief, Baptists don’t have creeds” one begins to seriously wonder.

So, a reasonable course of action is to study the teachings of the apostles and how these were written down, and how these writings were spread across the world, ending with the compilation of the New Testament in 367 AD.

In decades of attending Baptist churches I have never heard of this. It seems to have been buried and is the best kept secret of the 21st century, as if it is some sort of rotten fruit.

REFERENCES:



Oscar Cullman, The Earliest Christian Confessions, 64 pp., published 1949 and 2018.

Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 304 pp, published 1997.

Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays, Grasping God’s Word, 592 pp., published 2020.




Creed of Calcedon

Posted on by

Source: Protestant Reformed Churches in America:

https://www.prca.org/about/official-standards/creeds/ecumenical/chalcedon

The Chalcedonian Definition (also called the Chalcedonian Creed or the Definition of Chalcedon) is the declaration of the dyophysitism of Christ’s nature, adopted at the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451.

This refuted monophysitism.

The Creed of Chalcedon, A.D. 451, is not mentioned by name in any of our three forms of unity, but the doctrine set forth in it is clearly embodied in Article 19 of our Confession of Faith. It constitutes an important part of our ecumenical heritage. The Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon settled the controversies concerning the person and natures of our Lord Jesus Christ and established confessionally the truths of the unity of the divine person and the union and distinction of the divine and human natures of Christ. It condemned especially the error of Nestorianism, which denied the unity of the divine person in Christ; the error of Apollinarianism, which denied the completeness of Christ’s human nature; and the error known as Eutychianism, which denied the duality and distinction of the divine and human natures of our Lord Jesus Christ. What was confessionally established at Chalcedon concerning the person and natures of Christ has continued to be the confession of the church catholic ever since that time.

The Creed

We, then, following the holy fathers, all with one consent teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and body; coessential with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the mother of God, according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one person and one subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the creed of the holy fathers has handed down to us.

I believe in the creed because I reject monophysitism.

Athanasian Creed

Posted on by

Whoever desires to be saved should above all hold to the catholic faith.

Anyone who does not keep it whole and unbroken will doubtless perish eternally.

Now this is the catholic faith:

    That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
    neither blending their persons
    nor dividing their essence.
        For the person of the Father is a distinct person,
        the person of the Son is another,
        and that of the Holy Spirit still another.
        But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,
        their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.

    What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.
        The Father is uncreated,
        the Son is uncreated,
        the Holy Spirit is uncreated.

        The Father is immeasurable,
        the Son is immeasurable,
        the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.

        The Father is eternal,
        the Son is eternal,
        the Holy Spirit is eternal.

            And yet there are not three eternal beings;
            there is but one eternal being.
            So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
            there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.

    Similarly, the Father is almighty,
        the Son is almighty,
        the Holy Spirit is almighty.
            Yet there are not three almighty beings;
            there is but one almighty being.

        Thus the Father is God,
        the Son is God,
        the Holy Spirit is God.
            Yet there are not three gods;
            there is but one God.

        Thus the Father is Lord,
        the Son is Lord,
        the Holy Spirit is Lord.
            Yet there are not three lords;
            there is but one Lord.

    Just as Christian truth compels us
    to confess each person individually
    as both God and Lord,
    so catholic religion forbids us
    to say that there are three gods or lords.

    The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
    The Son was neither made nor created;
    he was begotten from the Father alone.
    The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
    he proceeds from the Father and the Son.

    Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers;
    there is one Son, not three sons;
    there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

    Nothing in this trinity is before or after,
    nothing is greater or smaller;
    in their entirety the three persons
    are coeternal and coequal with each other.

    So in everything, as was said earlier,
    we must worship their trinity in their unity
    and their unity in their trinity.

Anyone then who desires to be saved
should think thus about the trinity.

But it is necessary for eternal salvation
that one also believe in the incarnation
of our Lord Jesus Christ faithfully.

Now this is the true faith:

    That we believe and confess
    that our Lord Jesus Christ, God’s Son,
    is both God and human, equally.

     He is God from the essence of the Father,
    begotten before time;
    and he is human from the essence of his mother,
    born in time;
    completely God, completely human,
    with a rational soul and human flesh;
    equal to the Father as regards divinity,
    less than the Father as regards humanity.

    Although he is God and human,
    yet Christ is not two, but one.
    He is one, however,
    not by his divinity being turned into flesh,
    but by God’s taking humanity to himself.
    He is one,
    certainly not by the blending of his essence,
    but by the unity of his person.
    For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh,
    so too the one Christ is both God and human.

    He suffered for our salvation;
    he descended to hell;
    he arose from the dead;
    he ascended to heaven;
    he is seated at the Father’s right hand;
    from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
    At his coming all people will arise bodily
    and give an accounting of their own deeds.
    Those who have done good will enter eternal life,
    and those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.

This is the catholic faith:
one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully.

I agree with the creed. I am a trinitarian.




Source: https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/creeds/athanasian-creed

Nicene Creed

Posted on by

The Nicene Creed

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
 of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
 the Only Begotten Son of God,
 born of the Father before all ages.
 God from God, Light from Light,
 true God from true God,
 begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
 through him all things were made.
 For us men and for our salvation
 he came down from heaven,
 and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
 and became man.
 For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
 he suffered death and was buried,
 and rose again on the third day
 in accordance with the Scriptures.
 He ascended into heaven
 and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
 He will come again in glory
 to judge the living and the dead
 and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
 who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
 who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
 who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
 I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
 and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
 and the life of the world to come. Amen.

I affirm the Nicene Creed.

Source: https://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

Comparison of Nicene Creed 325 AD and revised Nicene Creed 381 AD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed#Comparison_between_creed_of_325_and_creed_of_381

Greek Version
Πιστεύω εἰς ἕνα Θεόν, Πατέρα, Παντοκράτορα, ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, ὁρατῶν τε πάντων καὶ ἀοράτων.
Καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων·
φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο.
Τὸν δι’ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ σαρκωθέντα
ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα.
Σταυρωθέντα τε ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, καὶ παθόντα καὶ ταφέντα.
Καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τὰς Γραφάς.
Καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Πατρός.
Καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον μετὰ δόξης κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος.
Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον, τὸ κύριον, τὸ ζῳοποιόν,
τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον,
τὸ σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον,
τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν.
Εἰς μίαν, Ἁγίαν, Καθολικὴν καὶ Ἀποστολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν.
Ὁμολογῶ ἓν βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.
Προσδοκῶ ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν.
Καὶ ζωὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος.
Ἀμήν

Apostles Creed

Posted on by

The Apostles’ Creed

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.

I affirm the apostles creed.


Source: Church of England. https://www.churchofengland.org/our-faith/what-we-believe/apostles-creed

Other links on my beliefs:
https://randomraindrops.com/berean-baptist-church-statement-of-faith/

Berean Baptist Church Statement of Faith

Posted on by

The points of belief number 15. I may have further comments in the future as I ponder the reference scriptures. These 15 are doctrinal beliefs, but I personally have more than the 15. Such as the Nicean Creed. I adhere to certain creeds and certain confessions and that is part of my personal faith separate from these 15 points but not in conflict with them.

Point 1: The Word of God

We believe the Bible is the Word of God, fully inspired and without error in the original manuscripts, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and has supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct.

Psalm 119:89; Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 10:11; 2 Timothy 2:15; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; 1 Peter 1:23-25; 2 Peter 1:21

I believe the manuscripts were inspired and given error free. In the original manuscripts. Do we have those? I don’t know. Have they been preserved intact? Good question. I don’t know.

I do know a lot of alleged Christians claim interpretations about the meaning of the manuscripts which are vastly flawed.

Point 2: The Trinity

We believe there is one living and true God, eternally existing in three persons; these are equal in every divine perfection, and they execute distinct but harmonious offices in the work of creation, providence, and redemption.

Genesis 1:1; Deuteronomy 6:4; Matthew 3:16; Matthew 28:19; John 5:18; Acts 5:3-4; Romans 1:20; Philippians 2:6


I agree with this.

Point 3: God the Father

We believe in God the Father, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, an infinite personal spirit perfect in holiness, wisdom, power, and love. We believe he concerns himself mercifully in the affairs of men, hears and answers prayer, and saves from sin and eternal death all who come to him through Jesus Christ.

Genesis 1:1; Matthew 6:9-13; John 3:16, 4:24, 5:26, 17:11, 25; Romans 8:33

I agree. Spirit.

Point 4: Jesus Christ

We believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only begotten Son, conceived by the Holy Spirit. We believe in his virgin birth, sinless life, miracles, and teachings. We believe in his substitutionary atoning death, bodily resurrection, ascension into heaven, perpetual intercession for his people, and personal visible return to earth.

Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:34-35; John 1:1, 3:16, 11:25; Acts 1:3, 9, 16:31; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5; Revelation 1:7

I agree.

Point 5: The Holy Spirit

We believe in the Holy Spirit, who came forth from the Father and Son to convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment and to regenerate, sanctify, and empower all who believe in Jesus Christ. We believe that the Holy Spirit indwells every believer in Christ and is an abiding helper, teacher, and guide.

John 14:17, 16:8; Acts 5:1-4; Romans 8:1-17, 15:16; I Corinthians 2:12, 3:16; Titus 3:5; I John 2:27

I agree.

Point 6: Man

We believe that all people are created by God in his image to glorify him forever. Because the first couple, Adam and Eve, disobeyed God’s command when tested, they and all people since are alienated from God and are sinners by nature and by choice. Because God is holy and cannot tolerate sin, all people are under condemnation and unable to save themselves.

Genesis 1:26; Psalm 50:15; Matthew 5:16; Romans 3:23, 15:6; Revelation 4:11

I agree.

Point 7: Salvation

We believe that Jesus Christ was crucified to bear our condemnation and that “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” By doing so, we are freed from condemnation and given eternal life. 

Romans 10:9; John 1:12, 3:8, 6:40, 14:6; Ephesians 2:8-9; Isaiah 53:5-6; 1 Peter 2:24; 2 Peter 3:9

I agree. There is absolutely no statement here about the age of the earth, or how the earth was made. There is no belief requirement pertaining to those issues.

Point 8: The Church

We believe in the Universal Church, a living spiritual body composed of all regenerated believers of whatever race or nation. We believe in the local church consisting of a company of believers in Jesus Christ, baptized in a credible profession of faith, and associated with worship, work, and fellowship.

Matthew 28:17-20; Acts 2:41-42; I Corinthians 12:12-31

I agree.

Point 9: Christian Conduct

We believe that Christians should live for the glory of God and the well-being of others, that their conduct should be blameless before the world, that they should be faithful stewards of their possessions, and that they should seek to realize for themselves and others the full stature of maturity in Christ.

I Corinthians 2:14-3:3; Galatians 5:22-26; Ephesians 5:1-33

I agree.
On conduct I have run into some issues at Berean.
Part of promoting the well being of others is speaking the truth in love and being edifying. And that means allowing others Christian freedoms. It means allowing the Holy Spirit to convict Christians of sin and not trying to take over his job as if a human could ever do a better job than God. It means not being a busy body but to focus on one’s own relationship with God, one’s own sin, not the sins of others.


Point 10:The Ordinances

We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ has committed two ordinances to the local church: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. We believe that Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Triune God. We believe that the Lord’s Supper was instituted by Christ to commemorate his substitutionary and atoning death. We believe that these two ordinances should be observed and administered until the return of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Acts 8:26-40; Romans 6:3-5; I Corinthians 11:17-34

I agree.

Point 11: The Last Things

We believe in the personal and visible return of the Lord Jesus Christ to earth and the establishment of his Kingdom. We believe in the resurrection of the body, the final judgment, the eternal joy of the righteous, and the endless suffering of the wicked.

John 14:3; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; Revelation 20:11-15

I agree.

Point 12: Religious Liberty

We believe that every human being has direct relations with God and is responsible to God alone in all matters of faith and that each church is independent and must be free from interference by any ecclesiastical or political authority.

I agree.

Point 13: Church Cooperation

We believe that local churches can best promote the cause of Jesus Christ by cooperating with one another in a denominational organization. Such an organization, whether a regional or district conference, exists and functions by the will of the churches. Cooperation in a conference is voluntary and may be terminated at any time. The church may likewise cooperate with interdenominational fellowships on a voluntary independent basis.

I agree.

Point 14: Baptism

We believe that Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Triune God. It is the first step of obedience following salvation and serves as a public declaration of the believer’s devotion to Christ and a commitment to their local community of faith. Immersion in water identifies the believer with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as one dies to self, surrenders to him, and is raised with him in newness of life.

Romans 6:1-5; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Acts 8:36-39; Acts 2:38, 41

At Berean, baptism is required for membership. Attending our First Connection gathering is the first step in baptism and/or membership. If you are interested in being baptized or becoming a member of Berean, sign up for First Connection here: 

I agree. I was baptised by immersion at the age of 18 in my home town.

Point 15: Church Membership

We believe that membership is a covenant relationship with God and one another to pursue the gospel in our lives, our community, and our world. The Bible explains the existence and importance of local churches, as well as the necessity to belong to a local church for our spiritual growth and health. 

Accountability:
Hebrews 13:17
Church membership provides accountability for the members and church leadership. Accountability is designed to help us be faithful in our walk with Jesus as well as to help the pastors and elders shepherd and protect the body.

Belonging:
Hebrews 10:24-25
Belonging to a local church provides love, acceptance, stability, and purpose as we intentionally live our lives together as Christ-followers. 

Care:
Acts 20:28; Ephesians 4:11-16
As members, we come alongside each other to encourage, equip, and empower one another to grow in our relationship with Jesus.

Biblical Requirements for Membership:

Salvation
Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man and is offered freely to all who put their faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Baptism

Baptism takes place after salvation when a professing believer is immersed in water in the name of the Triune God. Baptism is not essential for salvation; however, it is essential for obedience.


I agree.

ITS NOT ENOUGH.

I feel like I do not fit.



As of August 2024 I am in a dazed state of confusion.

The church has not proven to be safe space for me. But WHY?

I have constantly been badgered by some of the members to believe in ideas I do not see in scripture. This is on both doctrinal and on practical levels. And I have been badgered to follow a vocation that has not been assigned to me by God, effectively becoming a busy-body. For example, I have been told by parishioners to care too much about people outside the church (people who the church does not even know) and to get involved in the lives of those parties in unhealthy ways that would result in further abusive relationships.

Then there is the matter of becoming excessively involved in the lives of the folks inside the church. I have sometimes been urged to sin-hunt other believers when there is no obvious sin evident. I am supposed to assume there is sin and hunt for it because this does a service for the other person. But this is God’s job, not mine. It is not my task in life to watch other people’s sin and try to convict them of it. Only a busy-body would do such a thing! I am constantly protesting “leave it to God.” It also is not my job to impose external standards of righteousness on anybody.
I do consider it a duty to exhibit GRACE.

These aspects are obviously a Christian life-style choice of some. But they do not derive from the above 15 statements of faith and as far as I can tell they do not derive from scripture either. I want to stick to just the 15 listed points in the statement of faith. I want to stick to just the 15 points and not go beyond that.


A toxic environment.

I have come to a point where I dare not tell anyone about my life, who I am, what is going on with me, or what my personal concerns might be. Why? People have to comment and try to fix me. It seems like they think it is their duty to fix others by giving unwelcome advice not asked for. And they urge others to do likewise!!!! They do not seem to be able to just listen or to tell (teach) solid principles and practices. They have to comment on a person’s journey, on their story, to tell them what they are doing wrong. It is called cross-talk, or, well, gossip. The gossip level is, well, really high.

This creates fear.

It is very important for a person to be able to tell their story without judgement. If you cannot do that then you are not going to trust anybody. You are going to HIDE.

Since I am in treatment for addiction the commentary is incredibly most unwelcome. I cannot hear the voice of God when people are clamoring at me. So, I just have to hide myself and do technical bible study.

This then is the traditional church I have always experienced. People judge and they judge out-of-turn. This kind of fellowship has kept me a stranger for most of my life. I never connected with a church body anywhere. it is a stumbling block.

What is weird is I have found secular (outside the church) organizations that foster trust. The church is failing.

What about Point 15, Belonging: “Belonging to a local church provides love, acceptance, stability, and purpose as we intentionally live our lives together as Christ-followers.”

I don’t find love, acceptance, stability, and purpose. I am an adult child of alcoholics and I am not like other people.  I pursue 12 step recovery. And most Christians do not want to hear about that let alone accept it, even though it is in accordance with biblical teaching. As an adult child I have characteristics most people don’t have. Such as the Laundry List. (See other posts — links forthcoming).

How does the church minister to Adult Children? It should be part of the church’s mission, shouldn’t it?