Category Archives: Theology

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.”












Biblical Fundamentals: Not YEC.

Posted on by

Norm Geisler concludes:

After seriously pondering these questions for over a half century, my conclusions are: (1) The Young Earth view is not one of the Fundamentals of the Faith. (2) It is not a test for orthodoxy. (3) It is not a condition of salvation. (4) It is not a test of Christian fellowship. (5) It is not an issue over which the body of Christ should divide. (6) It is not a hill on which we should die. (7) The fact of creation is more important than the time of creation. (8) There are more important doctrines on which we should focus (like the inerrancy of the Bible, the deity of Christ, the Trinity, and the death and resurrection of Christ, and His literal Second Coming. As Repertus Meldenius (d. 1651) put it: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty, and in all things charity.” And by all counts, the age of the earth is not one of the essentials of the Christian Faith.

Does Believing in Inerrancy Require One to believe in Young Earth Creationism?

Norm Geisler was a member of the committee that published the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy. He said the committee voted to exclude YEC from being a biblical inerrant teaching. That was in a 2014 paper and I hope to quote from it in a related article.

About the quote “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty, and in all things charity.” I have encountered quite a number of folks who promote YEC as the only true biblical theory of origins. In all of them I only found perhaps five who recognized “in non-essentials, liberty.” The rest insisted I must kiss their ring to be saved, otherwise God would condemn me eternally. In other words, they did not recognize that any Christian could reject YEC. As far as I know this latter teaching comes from the followers of Henry Morris, and Hovind, and Ken Ham. They are convinced of a creed, where creed means belief required of all Christian believers. And they are very insistent, and would split churches wherever necessary. In other words they break communion.

That contradicts “in non-essentials, liberty.”

The core tenet here is “YEC is essential.” They do not recognize it as non-essential.

Some of them, Gale Anderson is an example, told me YEC itself goes all the way back to Jesus himself and has always been the standard belief of all Christians. My investigations into bible, history, and inerrancy do not support that claim. (More articles to come on that subject).

Anderson claimed Hovind as his muse and denied ever having heard of Ham.

Others use non-essentials as a test for Christian fellowship. That was my experience for 30 years in the Converge denomination in Minnesota. Why they cancel people based on non-essentials remains an unexplained mystery. I personally witnessed a culture of many people being harmed by requiring them to believe non-essentials fabricated by parishioners. In that culture figuring out what church doctrine is does not seem easy to do. There is a doctrinal statement at Berean Baptist. To be a member you must affirm inerrancy. But what does inerrancy mean? Getting a coherent answer leads me to study the Chicago Statement and the basis for it.

So, I am reading Hugh Ross, Rescuing Inerrancy. Hugh Ross, founder of Reasons to Believe, is considered to be a heretic by most YECs I have met.

The problem is YEC teaches that 6 24 hour days of creation IS ESSENTIAL. And if you don’t go along with that you are to be denied communion.









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:

God and Individuals, Part 1

Posted on by


Some scriptures on God’s immanance, God working through nature.

Commentary on each verse provided by https://www.bibleref.com/

I would like to point out the use of “created” (qanah) in Psalm 139:13 is interesting. See separate post.

Psalm 139:13-15

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;your works are wonderful,I know that full well.


My frame was not hidden from youwhen I was made in the secret place,when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.


What does Psalm 139:13 mean?

Scripture credits God with creating children long before they are physically born. David addresses God as having formed his inner being before birth. Job says something similar: “You clothed me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews” (Job 10:11).

We know from Genesis 1:27 that we were created in the image of God. This passage also reveals that God wove us together in the womb. We are, therefore, not a product of randomness or nature, but of God’s omnipotent handiwork. God crafted each person in his or her mother’s womb to be a distinct individual. We owe our existence to Him and not to happenstance.

Because of this, human life both before and after birth is sacred. The unborn child is not simply tissue to be discarded at the mother’s discretion. Since every human being is created in the image of God, it is a heinous sin to commit murder, whether by aborting the unborn, killing oneself, or taking someone else’s life in an act of rage. Every person, whether male or female, no matter the ethnicity, age, or political persuasion, is someone made in the image of God and known completely by Him. Believers are called upon to love even our enemies (Matthew 5:44); often that begins by first acknowledging their inherent worth as a human knit together by God.

What does Psalm 139:14 mean?

Contemplating the fact that God wove him together in his mother’s womb, David praised God for His omnipotent act of creation. He especially notes how God’s creative power is beyond human comprehension.

The human body that God created in the womb is indeed wonderfully made. For instance, the heart beats about 70 times per minute and pumps about 2,000 gallons—7,500 liters—of blood per day. An average body contains nearly 100 trillion cells. The brain contains 100 billion nerve cells. Human kidneys process daily about 130 quarts—about 123 liters—of blood to filter out waste and water. Our skeletal system has 206 bones connected to an intricate system of tendons, cartilage, and ligaments. The skeletal system not only enables us to move but also helps to produce blood, and it stores calcium.

David recognized God’s creation of man was both marvelous and distinct from the creation of everything else. No two persons are completely identical, and human beings are distinct from animals. David was fully convinced that God had fearfully and wonderfully made him. He wrote: “My soul knows it very well.”


What does Psalm 139:15 mean?

In this verse David mentions his frame was not hidden from God when God made him in secret. “My frame” signifies the strength or framework of the body, essentially meaning the skeletal structure. The expression, “in the depths of the earth,” is a poetic term that describes the womb as being just as dark and hidden from human view as the subterranean caverns.

“Woven,” as rendered in this verse, is from the Hebrew word raqam. This term refers to the skill of an embroiderer or someone skilled in needlework. God’s creation of the human body in the womb is a masterpiece of design and workmanship. Conception and gestation have been designed by God as miracles that lead to birth.

Beyond the physical wonder of the human body, every person is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). To murder what God creates in the womb is an attack on the image of God, as is any other murder (Genesis 9:6).

In Bible times conception and birth were occasions to celebrate. Children were considered gifts from the Lord (Psalm 127:3). When Eve conceived and bore Cain, she said, “I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD” (Genesis 4:1). When Hannah bore a son, she called him Samuel, and said, “I have asked for him from the LORD” (1 Samuel 1:20). When she had weaned Samuel, she dedicated him to service in the temple, and she offered praise to the Lord (1 Samuel 2).

Proverbs 16:33

The lot is cast into the lap,but its every decision is from the Lord.

What does Proverbs 16:33 mean?

This proverb emphasizes the Lord’s sovereign control over all things. Many common English expressions about luck relate to rolling dice. The point of dice is belief that well-balanced cubes will give a completely random result each time they are used. Casting lots in the Old Testament era might have involved one or more methods meant to seek an uncontrolled, arbitrary result. Such techniques are often used when a decision needs to be completely free from human bias (Proverbs 18:18; Joshua 14:2; Jonah 1:7).

The truth is that what human beings call “luck” is merely the sum of all the factors we cannot see or control. No dice roll, or casting of lots, ever takes God by surprise. Some things do happen “by chance,” from the human perspective, as even Jesus noted (Luke 10:31). That does not mean they are arbitrary or random from God’s point of view. Even those things we perceive as determined by chance are in the Lord’s control (Psalm 16:5). This proverb points out that even those things we think of as “pure chance” are still under God’s sovereign control.



Acts 1:26

Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.



What does Acts 1:26 mean?

One hundred twenty Jesus-followers wait in an upper room in Jerusalem for the coming of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5, 15). After prayer and consideration, they have identified two men, Joseph Barsabbas and Matthias, who are qualified to replace Judas Iscariot as one of the twelve apostles. Both men witnessed Jesus’ ministry from His baptism to His resurrection (Acts 1:21–22). Now the group needs to know which one God has chosen.

The practice of casting lots was an honored tradition in Israel for determining the will of God. Unlike fortune telling or scrying, God ordained and directed the Urim and Thummim that were kept with the high priest (Leviticus 8:8). Lots were used often in the Old Testament, most importantly in dividing up the Promised Land to the twelve tribes (Joshua 18:6). In this case, the names of Joseph and Matthias are probably written on stones and placed in a jar. The jar is shaken until one of the stones comes out.

This is the last recorded case in the Bible of God’s people using lots. Within days, the Holy Spirit will come upon this room and permanently dwell inside the hearts of the people (Acts 2:1–4). As Jesus promised, the Holy Spirit will guide Jesus-followers into truth; lots are no longer needed (John 16:13).

There is great discussion as to whether God really wanted Matthias to be the twelfth apostle or if he was a placeholder until Paul was converted. Everything points to Matthias. Although Paul saw Jesus after the resurrection (1 Corinthians 9:1), he did not witness Jesus’ baptism or travel with Him during His ministry, as Peter stipulated (Acts 1:21–22). There were many godly men and women in that room, and thousands more came after God sent the Holy Spirit. Each of them had specific roles, chosen by God (Ephesians 2:10). Matthias’ role is that of an apostle.







Extrapolation and Poor Assumptions

Posted on by

I am forming some thoughts here based on discussion with Riley Barton and Jeff Reichman. I stole this first paragraph from Jeff Reichman. Jeff describes the situation very well.

[BEGIN]

Science, Assumptions, and the YEC Double Standard

Young Earth Creationists often argue that radiometric dating cannot be trusted because it rests on “unprovable assumptions.” At first glance, this sounds like a serious critique, but the reality is that all of science rests on assumptions. The difference is that these assumptions are tested, confirmed, and relied upon every day in ways that even YECs accept without question.

Every airplane that takes off depends on the assumption that the laws of aerodynamics apply universally and consistently. Every bridge that stands depends on the assumption that material strength behaves predictably under stress. Every car, phone, and GPS device depends on the assumption that electromagnetic laws, atomic behavior, and relativity are stable and reliable. These assumptions cannot be proved in a final metaphysical sense, but they are confirmed through repeated observation and practical success. Without them, modern technology would collapse.

And yet, occasionally those assumptions appear to be violated: a bridge collapses, a plane crashes, a car malfunctions. But even in the face of these failures, no one concludes that the underlying assumptions of physics or engineering are invalid. We recognize that accidents happen due to design flaws, human error, or unforeseen variables, not because the laws of aerodynamics or material strength suddenly ceased to exist. YECs themselves continue to fly, cross bridges, and ride in cars without hesitation, despite these occasional breakdowns. The inconsistency is outstanding: they accept the reliability of scientific assumptions in every area of daily life, but reject them only when those same assumptions support radiometric dating and an ancient earth.

Radiometric dating makes the same kind of assumptions as engineering and medicine: that decay rates are constant, that isotopes behave in predictable ways, and that contamination can be detected and accounted for. These assumptions are no different in kind from those underlying the technologies YECs rely on every day. If they dismiss radiometric dating because of its assumptions, they must also dismiss the airplanes they fly in, the bridges they drive across, and the phones they use daily. Since they do not, their critique collapses under its own weight.

The real issue is not whether science uses assumptions, it always does. The issue is whether we apply those assumptions consistently. YECs accept them when they support everyday life but reject them when they challenge their interpretation of Genesis. That double standard reveals that the objection is not scientific but theological. Science rests on assumptions, but those assumptions are the bedrock of every technology we trust. If we reject them selectively, we undermine not just radiometric dating but the very foundations of modern life.

[END]

A few days previously, on November 29th, I had mused the following.

Old earthers believe in

1) the doppler shift is real

2) the red shift is real

3) the universe is expanding

4) the laws of physics are constant over the life of the universe.

5) singularities exist and the universe may have been designed before the big bang (and maybe during?)

Young earthers believe all the above violates their definition of scripture and are wrong.

I wonder:
What does the evidence say?

Can we extrapolate truth from what we see, or is it all deception?

Today, on Dec 3, 2025, I am thinking the issue is EXTRAPOLATION. On a known set of data in current time where the data is bounded this subject is called INTERPOLATION. In other words, predicting a value y=f(x) where x is an independent but unmeasured value and we are looking to guess (or interpolate) a value for the dependent variable y.

If we are looking for values outside our observational purview, for example the distant past or the distant future this becomes EXTRAPOLATION. So what young earthers are saying is “we cannot validly extrapolate laws based on physics. But why not? Theology! That is the reason. They essentially say “theology trumps physics because we say it does.” This is not based on inductive logic. Science itself is based (at least in part) on inductive logic – making observations within the purview of humans. That has to do with epistemology, ie, our purview, which is an observable domain of knowledge.

Christianity is also based on our human purview, an observable domain of knowledge, because of eyewitness testimony provided by history. Please note history here is defined as records of events observed by humans. But ORIGINS is an extrapolation because no humans were present to observe the alleged events.

Science offers an extrapolation of origins known as the Big Bang based on the idea that we can assume physical constants are constant across all time. This is temporal invariance. This is an extrapolation of our purview which old-earthers accept.

Another such extrapolation is evolution. Young earthers reject both extrapolations.


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.




Two discussions.

Posted on by

Two discussions on how Christians figure things out.


I was discussing Christian Education with a friend, PERSON 1, and why so many become deceived by YEC (Young Earth Creationism).

At some point I mentioned to him the reliance on an expert to decide a belief without themselves thinking through it : “This is what was wrong with the catholic church in the middle ages. The only experts were the priests. The bible was only in Latin. Malpractice was everywhere. The solution was mass education. Why not Christian Education then? But Baptist churches want to focus only on holiness, not promoting sound minds in the pews via education. This is why they are so sesceptible to YEC propaganda.

PERSON 1 replies to me:

Personally, I think this problem extends beyond just the Baptist denominations. Again, there’s nothing wrong with teaching people to live holy lives. That is important. But it shouldn’t become a means to salvation. That’s where I would be concerned. My experience in Baptist/non-denominational churches has been that they tend to focus more on evangelism than holy living or Christian education. Most of the sermons are focused on trying to get new converts in the door rather than shepherding the existing flock. Sadly, most seminary pastors are only taught how to teach the gospel. Their education seems to be largely focused on making essential things very easy to grasp and preach but not much else. As the great theologian, Mr. Miagi once said: “No such thing as bad student, only bad teacher. Teacher say. Student do.” It’s not that our pastors are bad. It’s that their education is condensed and watered down. Most of them do not hold master’s or doctorate degrees. They do not know Greek and Hebrew. Some have a little bit of experience with Church history, but not much. It’s simply the limit of their 4-year seminary degree. They have the basics. But they usually don’t move beyond that before they begin preaching. Some don’t even have this much! When an undereducated pastor instructs his flock, the flock likewise becomes undereducated. The student only knows as much as their teacher, typically. So, we end up in our current predicament where most churchgoers are noticeably undereducated about their own faith. They have the basics down–the spiritual milk, as it were. But they are not ready for heavier spiritual food and oftentimes never are. But I think that is starting to change now with so many good sources available online. More and more laypeople are starting to educate themselves. Particularly the millennials and Gen Z. Which is refreshing. But there is still a lot of ground to cover before the American/Evangelical church is on par with their historic counterparts.


Another conversation with PERSON 2, where I said, “My concern is about the tools everyone uses to decide what is believable versus unbelievable.”

PERSON 2 replied, “Excerpt:

Origen of Alexandria, wrote in his commentary on Genesis in the third century:

“What reasonable person would read that the first three days of creation had a morning and evening, when the sun and moon were not created until the fourth day, and believe it to be literal? I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries… not literally.”

What reasonable person would take this literally?

Origen wrote this before we knew how old the earth was. He wrote it before Darwin. He wrote it before we knew anything about cosmology. Origen did not write this because scientists made fun of him and he made up an interpretation so he could stop crying.

Origen was highly educated and he could actually read the languages that the Bible was originally written in. Other influential church fathers like Augustine, Tertullian, etc. tend to agree with Origen on reading Genesis non-literally.

When people read Genesis in ways that are non-literal, we aren’t making up something new. We are returning to an old way that Christians used to read it before people like Ken Ham ruined everything.

– Zach Christensen”

PERSON 2 said, “Augustine’s attitude to science.

Often, a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, … and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant person is laughed at, but rather that people outside the faith believe that we hold such opinions, and thus our teachings are rejected as ignorant and unlearned. If they find a Christian mistaken in a subject that they know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions as based on our teachings, how are they going to believe these teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think these teachings are filled with fallacies about facts which they have learnt from experience and reason.”



ME: ” Fascinating! I knew about Augustine but I didn’t know about Origen. I am undereducated about the Christian faith in general.

By contrast my point to Sarah lies in a different field. It is based not on the bible but on modern science. Its science that leads me to reject atheism.

Im not a mathematician. I cannot wax poetic about Hermitian spaces (can you? Can your critics?) But I ran into this guy named Ludvig Boltzmann. He figured out how energy, measured in terms of P,V,n,T tells us how many elements in an ensemble are in a certain state. If at a given moment of time you take any given state and count the number of elements in that state the number *is* the probability of that state having that number. The number and the probability are the same thing. This is a fundamental law of physics, like the pythagorean theorem.

BTW, to me this is an article of faith. Do we believe in it? Well, do we believe in Riemann sums? If we don’t, well guess what? We cannot do calculus. 😉

But I digress. We can use Boltzmann’s Law to tell us about what we should believe about the physical universe. That is what scientists *do*.

I have just defined for you what I mean when I say the word probability. And I realize Sarah means something different. There is a communications gap. I struggle to find ways to breach that gap. It does affect what humans are willing to believe, and whether their beliefs are warranted (to parrot WLC).

Physics people like to think their beliefs are warranted. To convince them their beliefs are not warranted you have to show them using math and physics.”

“Having said that, nobody has shown me why biologos is wrong. I think I have the rational option to believe in biologos. Your critics and those who call you names can show no such proof as far as I can tell. Their arguments are vacuous.”

PERSON 2 said to me: “I think you know more about the history of mathematics than I do. The BBC produced a series on it hosted by Jim Al-Khalili that I liked very much, but that’s about as far as I have gone. I have spent much more effort on the history of science and the philosophy of science.

I think the notion that knowledge consists of “warranted true belief” goes back to Theatetus, a dialog by Plato. The Gettier problem is a modern challenge to it, but I am not convinced that it really is a problem.”

ME, “I have listened to 8 lectures so far out of the audible book of Cary’s Great Course on Augustine, Philosopher and Saint. The photos are from the pdf notes from the course. I got this course for $10 just as a backgrounder on Augustine. I now seem to know more about Augustine than any of the baptists at church. I have toyed with the idea of asking a sunday school class if they realize they have bought off on greek philosophy because they are all neo-platonists. And they got that from Augustine. 😉

Its true! They just dont know it. So I expect looks of horror. 😉

It seems like God is raining Plato on me lately.”

PERSON 2:said, about Augustine: “I also own that Course as well, and have listened to it multiple times. The lecturer is excellent.

Augustine did a lot of good, but he also took some positions that I can’t endorse.”

ME, ” I understand. He and Luther probably didn’t see eye to eye either. The problem I have is I cannot understand church history without understanding the church fathers. But my baptist upbringing left me with zero knowledge. It does not matter one tiny bit how righteous and holy my life was if I die from being a dumbass and have a faith based on a fantasy world held up by quicksand. Why? Because our floundering about in the dark produces random effect on the world rather than purposeful effect. One may as well say that a highly moral atheist acting properly had good effect on the world. How could anyone tell the difference? The difference is the belief and the message. But if one doesnt care what the correct message might be what does one even have?

Our core beliefs are first order knowing but we also have second order knowledge comprised of *gasp* philosophy. 😉 So, I turn to philosophy.”

PERSON 2 then says to me, “//But my baptist upbringing left me with zero knowledge.//

Same here. I only learned about them when I attended Wheaton College.”

Mark 9

Posted on by

49 Everyone will be salted with fire.

50 “Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt among yourselves, and be at peace with each other.”


This tells me to worry about salting myself and focus only on my own journey. And to back off on harassing other believers who have their own journey. Advocating truth is different than hunting someone else’s sins. And it is different from human pressure to conform.

12 steps isn’t about fixing someone else. If we try to do that we will stumble them. And then earlier verses in Mark 9 apply to us.

12 steps also isn’t about holding to right church doctrine. Instead it is about how God is touching our own particular soul. Not about how someone else is supposed to experience God touching their soul. Only God knows the inner needs of another human. Only God can decide how to minister to them.

Telling another person “your experience must be my experience” is not being salty. So how do believers share saltiness? By confession, by sharing their own yieldedness with each other. That confession has nothing to do with condemning another believer for “doing it wrong”, or pressuring them to “shape up.”


Cant Be A Christian Without YEC?

Posted on by

A letter from an anonymous person raised an issue over her kids. Here is her letter and some responses.

Hi All,

I am looking for resources to share with my kids (oldest is 12 but they all can handle middle-grade type stuff – my oldest loves to read pretty advanced tech books, has read the Jurassic Park novel, etc.).

Long story short – I am divorced and since the divorce the ex has taken a very deep dive into AiG, among other troubling things, and is doing his best to indoctrinate the kids. He subscribes to AiG TV (or whatever it is) and the kids have tablets at his house with all the media on it. He “homeschools” them on the weekends (they go and have always gone to public school) with AiG materials.

One of my bigger concerns is that he’s planning on taking the kids to the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter next Summer. From what I have gleaned about it from YouTube videos, etc., it just sounds traumatizing for my more sensitive (and ND) kids.

So I think I have this school year to try to inoculate the kids as best I can in preparation of that trip, and of course long term I want my kids to not be afraid to ask questions, to feel free to think for themselves and make their own decisions. A big concern is that the kids are being taught that anyone who doesn’t embrace YEC isn’t a Christian (and really is evil) – and I don’t want them to be worried about my salvation if/when I speak openly to them about my own concerns with AiG, or their own salvation as they grow and hopefully start to ask their own questions.

So I’m looking for media of all types that can gently and gradually influence/open their minds to know it’s ok to have doubts, to want to think twice, or even to learn more about evolution (right now they can recite all the reasons why evolution, and those who think it is correct, is stupid and wrong – in their words). I will support them whatever they belive – but I want them to decide for themselves, and I’m not ok with the extremist take of YEC (us vs. them, and that the denial of YEC is the root of all evils in the world) that AiG promotes!

They will outright reject anything that blatantly states anything but the YEC viewpoint (and, for that matter, any children’s bible that has a “bathtub”ark in it…) so it really does have to be a subtle, gentle approach.

Books are great, podcasts are even better, and videos, too, although we don’t have tons of time to sit and watch but we do do a lot of driving so listening is great!

And if this isn’t the best group to post this question in, I appreciate references to other groups that would be helpful, too!

Thank you in advance!!!

One person answered:
You’re in a difficult spot. I’d probably advise letting them know that you don’t agree on everything they’re being told and many fine Christians have a different viewpoint.

Another answer:
Know that your children probably see YEC as the bedrock on which their entire faith is grounded. Attacking YEC head on will be seen as an attack on Christianity itself. This tends to be based on the following arguments: 1. If the earth wasn’t created in 6 days, then God is lying; 2. Jesus can’t be the second Adam if there was no first Adam, 3. Life comes through Jesus as death came through Adam, 4. There was no death before sin. I’m sure you’re aware that those are all straw man arguments and don’t hold up, so I won’t go into detail unless you ask. So what I would recommend is teaching them about other interpretations outside of a YEC context. Show them the importance of context. Let them know that we can disagree charitably with other viewpoints and calling people names for disagreeing is not christ-like.

As for exposing them to real science, try to avoid (for now) making it “science vs YEC”. If they ask why they should learn about “wrong things”, explain that we should always try to understand ideas we disagree with and make sure we’re disagreeing with things others are actually claiming and that even those with the best intentions have trouble presenting strong versions of other viewpoints. Maybe show them videos of people non-charitably presenting YEC or Christian positions to illustrate the point.

Resources:


https://docs.google.com/document/d/120YkDporc_xK8o655_dT6ENmN2Aemjs1lWsgkMRjHZU/edit#heading=h.780c1iaa3j9v

https://docs.google.com/document/d/15R4uQpASz-UL-d2Jd46nlBm5PUQq9nIyB7qBndLUTFQ/edit#heading=h.xfu9qm91oycp

My response:
I go to a Baptist church that does not have a worldwide global flood as part of it’s statement of faith. It also does not hold to any particular doctrine of origins. So this AiG/YEC idea stands outside church doctrine and is something that is added on as an extra. My church is not fundamentalist either. The church is, as far as I know, in line with the Fundamentals. But as Stackhouse points out, fundamentalism took the name but only the name and did not take the principles of the Fundamentals, and is just a cultural movement.
So a church can endorse the principles of the Fundamentals but not be fundamentalist.

This idea of adding onto scripture bothers me. I see Answer in Genesis as non-Christian. Just like Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christian. The doctrine is different. The ontology is different. The epistemology is different. It has a different concept of knowledge than Christianity. And a different concept of science. And many of the AiG followers destroy the work of the blood of Christ by requiring belief in things which have nothing to do with Christ as a condition of salvation. So to me it is like voodoo. Or the Mormons. Or the Moonies. It is a religion based on the bible. It is a Christian-like religion. But it is different than Christianity. It has a lot of philosophical and logical mistakes involved in it. And it distorts the bible. I would not call it a heresy but it would be fair if the catholic church were to declare it a heresy.

The pharisees were a non-Christian religion, but they were based on the bible. What about the Arians? The Donatists? Both bible-based heresies. Most heresies are bible based.

AiG is a big faith killer for millions of people. Perhaps it is a cult?

Look at Mark Chapter 7. Verse 6. What is the foundation of faith? Is it a crowd of people? Is it a teaching? Is it a status? A way of life? Is it a doctrine or an understanding of Genesis? Why are people so vested in one particular interpretation of Genesis to the exclusion of all others?


Mark 7:

Posted on by

My thoughts on Mark 7, based on a sermon by Deven MacDonald.

Mark 7:

1 The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus 2 and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.[a])

5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”

6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.

7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’[b]

Hypocrisy.

Why is it hypocrisy? Because it focuses on what people can see, not what God sees.

When Christians focus on the externally visible sin of another but ignore the inner transforming work of God they are being hypocrites.

Check all the boxes!!!!! Then you are a proper Christian.


Handwashing is an external human behavior. The pharisees criticized Jesus over this external behavior. Jesus focused on the heart as seen by God.

The trap of self righteousness.

1a. Self righteous people are quick to attack. Why?

The trap is building identity on an exterior outwardly visible stuff. Their identity is fragile. They will lash out at anything or any one who challenges that fragile identity.

The self righteous also criticize the sinner who has come to experience God and forgiveness. And anybody who celebrates a sinner coming to God is also criticized. Why? Because the latter person isn’t likewise criticizing the sinner.

Happened to me just tonight.

1b. Repeating, Self righteous people are quick to attack. Why?

Because in large part they don’t understand grace.

2. Self Righteous people are quick to make up rules that aren’t actually found in the bible. (verse 5 was a ritual about hand washing).

3. Self righteous people are quick to focus on outward habits and practices as the foundation for their standing with God.

4. Self righteous people are quick to justify their actions.

WHAT DEFILES A PERSON?

Continuing in Mark 7:

14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15 Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.” [16] [f]

17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

20 He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. 21 For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly.

So, What comes out of the HEART is what defiles. Not the external.

WHAT SAVES US?
Titus 3:5

5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,

Not because of the criticism of instruction of the self righteous Christian.

1 John 1:9
New International Version

9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

Remember point 4 (above) about the self righteousness? 4. Self righteous people are quick to justify their actions. In other words, their criticism of sinners.

Christ will forgive your sins, even if Christians won’t.

My Sin of the Day (and why I wrote this now).

My sin of the day was I celebrated a lesbian who came to Christ and was transformed. Then I did the horrible: I said I wish I could bring my other lesbian friend to church to hear the gospel. But the people at church would only condemn.

Then I was attacked by the self righteous Christians (who want to condemn and attack lesbians instead of bring them to Christ.).

I kept repeating it is the job of the Holy Spirit to convict of sin, not me. And not them.

The critics kept ignoring this. It is clear they want to criticize sins of others. Even if it means those folks don’t get saved.



Evangelical Free Church of America Statement On Christian Living

Posted on by

We believe that God’s justifying grace must not be separated from His sanctifying power and purpose. God commands us to love Him supremely and others sacrificially, and to live out our faith with care for one another, compassion toward the poor and justice for the oppressed. With God’s Word, the Spirit’s power, and fervent prayer in Christ’s name, we are to combat the spiritual forces of evil. In obedience to Christ’s commission, we are to make disciples among all people, always bearing witness to the gospel in word and deed.

Source: https://www.efca.org/sof

My comments.

Why point this out? The doctrinal statement about caring for others is sometimes misunderstood. Some people think it means “be a busy body”. And they go too far. Why? They think God has ordered them to do that! My question is, “Does the EFCA actually endorse this mistake?” I do not think so. And neither does any Baptist church. Try telling that to the Baptists!

On the statement:
“others sacrificially, and to live out our faith with care for one another, compassion toward the poor and justice for the oppressed.”

Justice for the oppressed precludes allowing continued abuse by abusers just because one has compassion for the abuser. There is no requirement on a Christian to allow himself to continue to be abused in any fashion.

A person in 12 step recovery has no moral obligation to allow himself to continue to be abused. There is no teaching in the bible that says he does. This may mean moving across country in order to stop abuse. It may mean putting up walls and barriers. And it may mean complaining to civil authorities for protection.

It means watching one’s own bobber, not somebody else’s, especially not the abuser’s. It means not getting involved in the drama of other parties.

I suspect that a lot of people believe when they comment upon another’s confession they are “caring for one another” when in fact they are sabotaging the other’s 12-step recovery. This is especially true for ACA’s (Adult Children of Alcoholics). The Big Red Book has at least three sections dedicated to explaining why cross-talk (commenting on another’s story confessed in a meeting) is forbidden. (More on this in a separate post).

The caring thing to do is to keep opinions to one’s self until such time as a confessor indicates he welcomes feedback. That is normal practice in an ACA group. Apparently it is normal practice to violate it in a Baptist Church. The EFCA really needs to clarify this. And so do all Baptist churches.

To me this is a matter of lack of grace. Not focusing on grace but instead focusing on rules. Rules that people make up for other people. A biblical example: condemning someone for eating meat offered to idols. I.E., not allowing Christians moral freedom as believers. As I recall it is called a ‘principle of deference’. Not putting rules on people. And this would include not putting non-doctrinal personal beliefs on others.

I now have decades of experience with Baptist style churches that think they are doing therapy because it is a ministry. They want to “fix you” rather than let God fix you or let you experience God at your own pace. Instead of telling you their own story they tell you how your story should be. How you should be, because you are not good enough. Sometimes they hunt sin, your sin, and become sin hunters. They will tell you that you need to repent of something.


The result on the community:

I have met dozens, if not hundreds, of people who call themselves “recovering fundamentalists.” I am now one of them. I may even have to change churches because I cannot hear the voice of God when people are handing me a whole bunch of rules and beliefs to follow when it is merely their personal opinion.

Why I study Doctrine.

This is why I study doctrine. I want to know what a church’s doctrine is. Because when people go nuts on me I would like to know if it is just them and not the church.

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

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?