My Journey Out of YECism

 

My journey away from Young Earth Creationism (YECism) began with a simple yet profound question: Is YECism supported by Scripture?

I was raised in a YEC environment, and my only real exposure to apologetics came from Answers in Genesis. As a result, I believed evangelism meant convincing people that evolution was false and that YECism was true. To me, Christian apologetics was synonymous with young-earth apologetics, and loyalty to Christ and Scripture meant loyalty to Answers in Genesis and its model of YECism.

My commitment ran so deep that I even considered moving my family to Kentucky to work at the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter. In my mind, defending YECism was defending the Gospel itself, and I instinctively treated any criticism of Ken Ham’s model as an attack on the authority of God's Word.

However, after witnessing close friends and family deconstruct their faith one after another, I was compelled to study apologetics more deeply—focusing on the essentials, particularly the evidence for Jesus and His resurrection. This naturally led me to explore topics like textual criticism, the reliability of the New Testament, and the cultural context and literary genres within Scripture.

Much to my surprise, I discovered that the evidence for my faith was far stronger than I had ever known, based on what I had been taught by AiG. This realization prompted me to apply the same principles I used in studying the New Testament to my YEC beliefs. At the time, I was still committed to YECism and approached the question with a genuine desire to determine whether the teachings I had accepted and had shared with others were truly supported by Scripture.

I was not questioning whether the Bible was true or authoritative—I already believed it was. Nor was I seeking to reinterpret Scripture to accommodate a secret fascination with evolution or millions of years. Rather, I wanted to ensure that the things I had claimed about Scripture were indeed biblically grounded. If they were not, I understood that I needed to adjust my thinking to align with God's Word.

Applying the same critical criteria that had confirmed the reliability of the New Testament and using the logic I had previously employed to challenge non-YEC interpretations, I soon became convinced that the Bible did not support YECism or many of the claims I had once made about it. As a result, I changed my stance.

My departure from YECism was not based on accepting evolution or scientific evidence imposed onto Scripture—it was rooted in a deeper understanding of the text in its original context.

Contrary to the claims of AiG and other YEC organizations, there is a fundamental difference between asking, "Is the Bible true?" and "Does the Bible support a particular teaching?" The former is often a question of trust—whether the Bible is reliable on a given point. Someone asking this question may ultimately rely on their own judgment, potentially dismissing Scripture if it contradicts their preconceived ideas.

Conversely, someone asking whether the Bible supports a specific teaching is engaging in discernment. They are more likely to allow Scripture to shape their conclusions, adjusting their understanding if their initial beliefs prove to be inaccurate.

As Christians, we should strive to be in the latter category—approaching Scripture with humility and a willingness to be shaped by God's truth rather than filtering it through our own biases. Instead of seeking confirmation for our existing beliefs, we must allow the Word to refine and correct us, growing in wisdom and understanding.

Science and the Bible: Darwin vs. Galileo

   



    Is empirical science in direct opposition to Christianity and the Bible?

    There are many today who would argue that the obvious answer is yes, the Bible and Christianity are completely incompatible with modern science. The Bible's claim that almighty God created the universe in six days flies in the face of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution, which in many ways has become the very foundation of modern science. Likewise, it was the Roman Catholic Church who banned the writings of Nicolaus Copernicus and condemned Galileo Galilei to house arrest for daring to challenge the Holy Word of God. How then can the Bible be justified? 

    In the hopes of shedding some light on the topic, I have compiled the following comparison between the scientific theories, personal histories, and spiritual beliefs of two of the great fathers of Modern Science mentioned above: Charles Darwin and Galileo Galilei. While the following is in no way an exhaustive examination of the two men, I feel that it may help to better understand the nature of both individuals, their contributions to science, the controversies surrounding their theories, and the relationship between science and God's Word.

Charles Darwin
1809-1882

    Charles Darwin was raised in the Unitarian tradition of the Church of England, though even as a young man he held views that were widely regarded as non-conformist. He attended the University of Cambridge with the intention of joining the clergy in the Anglican Church, at which time he became fascinated with natural history and geology. It was this passion for nature that lead Darwin to embark on his famous voyage of discovery aboard the HMS Beagle from 1831-1836.

    Initially, Darwin remained orthodox in his Anglican beliefs. However, in the face of growing criticisms from his peers aboard ship, he soon became skeptical of the Bible's validity as a historical account and by 1836 he wondered why all religions should not be equally true.

    A chief cause of Darwin's growing skepticism was the question of how a benevolent God could create creatures specially designed to cause pain and suffering in others. As Darwin himself said in a letter to his American collaborator, Asa Gray in 1860: 

    "There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice."

    In spite his doubts Darwin did not challenge Christianity outright, and still believed that God existed and was both the "ultimate lawgiver" and "original cause" of the natural world.
However, Darwin's personal belief in the existence of God began to waver over the years, and by 1849 he had ceased attending church, choosing instead to go for long walks while his wife and children worshiped. 

    In 1850 Darwin's daughter, Annie, died. This proved to be the critical tipping point at which time Darwin abandoned his belief in the Christian God, salvation, and the afterlife. However he never claimed to be an atheist, saying in 1879, "an agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." 

    Nine years later, in 1859, Darwin published his theories on natural selection. In his book On The Origin of Species, Darwin presented the evidence he had gathered through careful study of biological adaptation within species. Having proved that such adaptation (micro-evolution) was possible through natural selection, Darwin theorized that larger adaptations leading to the transmutation of species (macro-evolution) was possible. Given enough time, he theorized, a fish would become an amphibian, an amphibian a reptile, a reptile a bird etc. Thus all life originated from a common primordial ancestor and adapted to survive in a specialized capacity through random chance and natural selection, completely independent of intelligent design.

    Despite the atheistic ramifications of his claim, Darwin insisted that it was not his intent to write aesthetically. (As stated in the 1860 letter to Asa Gray sited above)  Furthermore, many Christians believed—and continue to believe to this day—that there is no conflict between Darwin's Theory of Evolution and the Biblical account of creation. In the words of noted author and Christian Socialist, Charles Kingsley: 

    "(The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is) just as noble a conception of Deity, to believe that He created primal forms capable of self development... as to believe that He required a fresh act of intervention to supply the lacunas which He Himself had made."

    Astonishingly, a creationist reading of the Biblical account does appear to show some support of Darwin's initial observations. According to this understanding of Genesis 1 God created all life on earth, the birds of the air, the fish of the sea, plants and land animals "each according to its kind." In this sense Darwin was absolutely correct in saying that each species originated from a single progenitor of that species. (ie. Darwin's finches were all descended from a common finch ancestor. The variation he observed in the individual populations of the Galapagos Islands came through breeding and natural selection.)  
    However, contrary to the opinion of Darwin and his contemporaries, who held to the common belief that the Bible explicitly taught that each species had been independently created in its ideal environment and had existed in its present form since creation, the Bible makes no such claim. The Bible simply states that God created each kind of animal. The Bible does not say that the highly specialized forms we see today were created as such. 

    That said, Darwin's theory of adaptation through natural selection is completely consistent with scripture. It is Darwin's theory on the transmutation of species through natural selection that is debatable.

    The Bible's claim of special creation was not the only challenge to Darwin's theory. Geology and the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record presented an equally convincing argument.

    Recognizing this inherent weakness, Darwin wrote: 

    "The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.
    "In the first place it should always be borne in mind what sort of intermediate forms must, on my theory, have formerly existed. I have found it difficult, when looking at any two species, to avoid picturing to myself, forms directly intermediate between them. But this is a wholly false view; we should always look for forms intermediate between each species and a common but unknown progenitor; and the progenitor will generally have differed in some respects from all its modified descendants. To give a simple illustration: the fantail and pouter pigeons have both descended from the rock-pigeon; if we possessed all the intermediate varieties which have ever existed, we should have an extremely close series between both and the rock-pigeon; but we should have no varieties directly intermediate between the fantail and pouter; none, for instance, combining a tail somewhat expanded with a crop somewhat enlarged, the characteristic features of these two breeds. These two breeds, moreover, have become so much modified, that if we had no historical or indirect evidence regarding their origin, it would not have been possible to have determined from a mere comparison of their structure with that of the rock-pigeon, whether they had descended from this species or from some other allied species, such as C. oenas."

 In short, Darwin believed that subtle changes between different species and their ancient, common ancestors would not be preserved in the fossil record. Since these slight modifications happened over so great a span of time with fossilization being a relatively rare occurrence, it would therefore be very unlikely that direct intermediate links would be preserved in the fossil record. Instead, the fossil evidence would appear to preserve two distinct forms rather than a gradual line of succession between ancestors and descendants. This is further evidenced by Darwin's pigeon analogy. Both the fantail and pouter pigeon are different breeds of the same species with wildly different physical characteristics brought about through intelligent design. (ie. Selective breeding by humans with a specific purpose in mind.) However, the physical remains of each breed could be easily misidentified as belonging to two distinct species if their lineage were unknown.

With this in mind, Darwin theorized that, given the great span of time between the unaltered progenitors of each major class of organism and their highly adapted descended, fossil evidence of direct intermediate forms between species as well as unchanged forms existing through multiple geological eras, even to the present day, would be virtually non-existent. "...such a case" He argued, "would imply that one form had remained for a very long period unaltered, whilst its descendants had undergone a vast amount of change; and the principle of competition between organism and organism, between child and parent, will render this a very rare event; for in all cases the new and improved forms of life will tend to supplant the old and unimproved."

    Despite Darwin's skepticism towards the Bible and religion, much of what is written in The Origin of Species caries with it a strong undertone of theism and the need for an original cause. Though originally open to the possibility of spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter, (as evident in his now famous letter to Joseph Hooker, in which Darwin speaks of life originating in a "warm little pond.") Darwin later felt that such a likelihood was "beyond the confines of science."

    Thus, Darwin chose to avoid addressing the question of how life on earth came to be, stating on numerous occasions that studying the origin of life was, at that time, "mere rubbish thinking." 
    He would maintain this view until the end of his life, as evidenced in a letter mailed to George Wallich in 1882: 

    "You expressed quite correctly my views where you say that I had intentionally left the question of the Origin of Life uncanvassed as being altogether ultra vires in the present state of our knowledge, and that I dealt only with the manner of succession. I have met with no evidence that seems in the least trustworthy, in favour of the so-called Spontaneous generation. I believe that I have somewhere said (but cannot find the passage) that the principle of continuity renders it probable that the principle of life will hereafter be shown to be a part, or consequence of some general law; but this is only conjecture and not science."

    Nonetheless, the paradox of the origin of life confounded Darwin. In 1873, nine years before his death, he wrote in a letter to a colleague at the University of Utrecht: 

    "I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came from and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world. I am, also, induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment of many able men who have fully believed in God; but here again I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion seems to me to be that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man's intellect; but man can do his duty."

    In the end Darwin's grand conclusion was that there may very well be a "god", but that such things were so far beyond the scope of human intellect as to be beyond hope of understanding.

Galileo Galilei
1564-1642

    Like Charles Darwin, Galileo Galilei was born and raised in the Christian faith. However, unlike his 19th Century counterpart, Galileo believed that the Bible was the authoritative Word of God, given to man for the redemption of human souls. A belief he shared with many of the earliest fathers of modern science such as Francis Bacon, Nicolaus Copernicus, and Sir Isaac Newton. 
    Galileo likewise believed that God had given humanity logic and reason with the intent that we use both to understand the natural world, as show in his letter to Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany in 1615:

    "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them. He would not require us to deny sense and reason in physical matters which are set before our eyes and minds by direct experience or necessary demonstrations. This must be especially true in those sciences of which but the faintest trace (and that consisting of conclusions) is to be found in the Bible."

    That said, Galileo also thought that, while the Bible could not speak untruth so long as its true meaning was understood, human interpretation of passages could be in error when the empirical study of creation produced evidence contrary to the commonly held interpretation of the Holy Word of God. 

    For this reason, he boldly claimed that the scriptures should apply only to spiritual matters, and should be interpreted through the eye of science. The Bible's true purpose, after all, is the salvation and redemption of mankind, with the ultimate goal of restoring man's relationship with God through the death and resurrection of his son, Jesus Christ. The Bible therefore was never intended to be an authoritative book of science, and actually says very little in that regard. As Galileo himself was keen to point out:

    "Of astronomy; for instance, so little is found that none of the planets except Venus [The Morning Star] are so much as mentioned, and this only once or twice under the name of "Lucifer." If the sacred scribes had had any intention of teaching people certain arrangements and motions of the heavenly bodies, or had they wished us to derive such knowledge from the Bible, then in my opinion they would not have spoken of these matters so sparingly in comparison with the infinite number of admirable conclusions which are demonstrated in that science. Far from pretending to teach us the constitution and motions of the heavens and other stars, with their shapes, magnitudes, and distances, the authors of the Bible intentionally forbore to speak of these things, though all were quite well known to them."

    While true in most respects, Galileo's views and brash, sometimes abrasive personality gained him little favor in the eyes of his peers or the dogmatic religious hierarchy of medieval Europe. Even so, Galileo's heliocentric theories were not a veiled attack on the Bible's validity, but rather a direct assault on the ancient geocentric doctrines of the Greeks and Romans. 

    The Ptolemaic geocentric theory and Aristotelian doctrines on physics gained popularity among scientists and church leaders in the Second Century AD when Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria accurately predicted the movement of the celestial bodies with a greater degree of accuracy than that presented by existing heliocentric models. By the 1600s the church had intertwined scientific dogmatism with religion. As a result passages of scripture were found, wrenched from their context, and used to support the commonly held belief that the earth, not the sun, was the center of the solar-system. However, many of the passages used to in defense of the geocentric model were nothing more than poetic verse describing God's majesty and power (as seen in Psalm 93:1, 96:10 and 1 Chronicles 16:30) or, in the case of  Ecclesiastes 1:5, figures of speech not unlike those we continue to use today. For example: No one living today would marvel at a sunset and declare: "The earth is rotating on its access." They would say, "What a beautiful sunset." We say that the sun is going down (setting) or coming up (rising) on a daily basis. Does this mean that the sun is moving? Of course not! The sun merely appears to move based on our relative position here on earth. 

    In light of this, Galileo's heliocentric theory was not an attack on the Bible so much as it was a challenge to Greco-Roman science and dogmatism. Nothing in his theory conflicted with the scriptures. The foremost authority on Catholic theology of the day, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine—who was himself an admirer of Galileo's work—even went so far as to say that, "If there were a real proof that the Sun is in the center of the universe, that the Earth is in the third sphere, and that the Sun does not go round the Earth but the Earth round the Sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true. But this is not a thing to be done in haste, and as for myself, I shall not believe that there are such proofs until they are shown to me."  

   If the leading theologian of the day was willing to reconsider his interpretation of scripture in light of scientific evidence, where then did the accusations of heresy against Galileo originate?

    Surprisingly, the first challenge brought against Galileo came from his colleagues in the University, specifically those belonging to the Aristotelian school of thought. As Arthur Koestler pointed out in his book, The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man's Changing Vision of the Universe:

    "But there existed a powerful body of men whose hostility to Galileo never abated: the Aristotelians at the Universities. ... Innovation is a twofold threat to academic mediocrities: it endangers their oracular authority, and it evokes the deeper fear that their whole laboriously constructed edifice might collapse. The academic backwoods-men have been the curse of genius ... it was this threat—not Bishop Dantiscus or Pope Paule III—which had cowed Canon Koppernigk [ie. Copernicus] into silence. ... The first serious attack on religious grounds came not from clerical quarters, but from a layman—none other than delle Colombe, the leader of the league. ... The earthly nature of the moon, the existence of sunspots meant the abandonment of the Aristotelian doctrines on perfect and unchanging nature of the celestial spheres."

    The first people to accuse Galileo of challenging God were not the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church, but scientists! The geocentric theory challenged by Galileo's observations originated not in the Bible, but in the minds of ancient pagan philosophers. Jealous scientists espousing the ideas and theories of Plato, Aristotle and other pagan philosophers accused Galileo of challenging God and the Bible with science! The irony cannot be over-exaggerated.

    It was not Galileo's intent to deny the existence of God or the validity of the Bible. On the contrary, he was himself a devout Christian who believed that both "...the holy Bible and the phenomena of nature proceed alike from the divine Word the former as the dictate of the Holy Ghost and the latter as the observant executrix of God's commands."

    Regardless of Galileo's faith, he was called before the inquisition in 1616 to defend the heliocentric views he published six years earlier in his short treatise Sidernus Nuncius. 
    Contrary to the popular narrative, Galileo was not interrogated at this first summons. Instead, after a short deliberation, the inquisition concluded that Galileo's heliocentric model was "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture." They then warned Galileo not to teach heliocentric theory as physical truth, demanding that he "... abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing."

    This warning, however, did not forbid Galileo from exploring heliocentricity as a philosophical theory. Sixteen years later, in 1632, Galileo once again published his theories in his book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, this time with official permission from the Inquisition and the support of Pope Urban VIII, who was a great admirer of Galileo's work. However, Galileo was soon called before the Inquisition on grounds of heresy when it was discovered that he had placed the words of Pope Urban VIII into the mouth of the fictional character Simplicio—a name which means simple or simpleton. Furthermore, Galileo used Simplicio to make the arguments for an earth-centered solar system look foolish while promoting his own heliocentric theories. It was this literary blunder and not his scientific theories that placed Galileo under suspicion of heresy and alienated him from his closest allies within the church. 

Unlike his previous trial, this time Galileo was questioned—though only for the span of half a day. In his defense Galileo said quite falsely: "I have neither maintained or defended in that book (Dialogue) the opinion that the earth moves and that the sun is stationary but have rather demonstrated the opposite of the Copernican opinion and shown the arguments of Copernicus are week and not conclusive." 

     Having been caught in this lie, Galileo was threatened with torture, and ultimately recanted.

     It is important to note here that, according to the standard practices of the Inquisition, Galileo's lie should have resulted in an intimidate examination under torture to determine the validity of his faith. However Pope Urban VIII had issued an official order in advance of the trial stating that Galileo was not to be harmed in any way. This allowed for intimidation, but ultimately limited the Inquisition to empty threats.

    Without enough evidence to condemn Galileo as a heretic, the Inquisition's final ruling instead found him "vehemently suspect of heresy." Galileo was then released into the custody of Archbishop Siena who allowed Galileo to live in his palace for five months before he was permitted to return to his own villa in Florence. Galileo would remain under house arrest for the majority of his remaining years, though he was permitted to travel to visit his daughters in the convent of Saint Matteo. 
Galileo was also allowed to continued his scientific pursuits and made many more contributions to science and astronomy during this time. However, he never fully abandoned his heliocentric theories. Nor did he forsake his faith in God.

    In closing, I believe that the greatest difference between the two men and their contributions to science lies upon the matter of faith. 
    Charles Darwin viewed Christianity—and religion in general—as little more than a social characteristic of highly evolved culture, and dismissed the Bible as a "manifestly false history of the world." For this reason he was forced to seek out some other explanation for the origin of life as an alternative to the will of an omnipotent creator. Because of the manifest suffering he witnessed in this fallen world, Darwin rejected the notion of a benevolent God and abandoned all hope in the afterlife. In so doing he lost sight of God's ultimate plan of salvation for mankind and the restoration of all creation. Thus Darwin was forced to expand his theory in an attempt to explain the absence of God, sin, and redemption; pushing the laws of adaptation through natural selection far beyond the point of empirical evidence and into the realm of philosophical speculation and conjecture. Even though his initial observations were not in conflict with the Bible, Darwin's skepticism lead him down an unstable path where he could neither accept nor deny the existence of God, and ultimately left him with more questions than answers.
    Galileo, on the other hand, retained his belief in the sovereignty of God and the infallibility of scripture in spite of his unjust treatment at the hands of his peers. He was not forced to reconsider his understanding of the natural world, nor did he lose sight of God's redemptive plan: The salvation of mankind through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Galileo did not attempt to use science to disprove the Bible or the existence of God because that was not his intent. Instead he used science to challenge the majority consensus of his day and exposed both a scientific and theological falsehood without contradicting the scriptures.
   Thus, while the theories and observations of both men did not conflict with the Bible, personal bias towards the scriptures determined their motivation for study and ultimately influenced their conclusions. Both men saw what they wanted to see. One recognized God's hand in nature and was falsely accused by his academic peers, while the other saw no such evidence and was praised as a genius in his time.

    It is my conclusion therefore that science correctly practiced cannot be in conflict with properly interpreted scripture and serves to strengthen one's understanding, while the misinterpretation or misuse of either the scientific method or the Word of God leads only to chaos, confusion, and the concealment of truth.  

The Nature of Truth

    Is it possible for one to be completely objective in their search for truth? The simple answer is: No. True objectivity involves the ability to think for oneself, completely independent of others. Since we are relational creatures by design, it is impossible for an individual to progress through life without being influenced by another. From the moment we are born we are in contact with others, we crave contact with others and require contact with others in order to thrive. It is this contact that shapes us through infancy and childhood and continues to mold us as individuals throughout our lives.
    We continue to be influenced by others beyond our formative years, whether consciously or subconsciously, by the things we read, hear, and see. Every word, written or heard, influences us in our interpretation and perception of reality. To be truly independent of the influence of others we must avoid all human contact from birth. Something that is not only impossible, but also detrimental to normal psychological and physical development.
    Even those who seek originality cannot escape this fact. In the quest for original thought, the one who seeks originality must do so by avoiding those thoughts, ideas and theories which have already been explored so as not to repeat them.One cannot create a new thought or present a new theory or idea without first understanding the thoughts and ideas of others in order to avoid presenting an idea that has already been presented. Therefore the quest for originality is also directly influenced by the ideas and thoughts of others, if only for the sake of omission!

    Since our interpretation of reality has been unavoidably influenced by the thoughts and opinions of others, we are as a result biased in both our opinions and our quest for truth. Realizing this, one must also realize that the quest for truth itself is in reality a quest to prove which bias is true.
    This is of course assuming that their is absolute truth. If truth is subjective, then it is fluid and can be changed depending on the bias of the observer. The result of subjective truth is a perception of reality in which something that is true to the bias of one individual is not necessarily true to the bias of another.
    In this scenario, if a particular aspect of truth is uncomfortable, or challenges the bias of the observer, then the observer simply has to ignore that particular aspect of truth. This is the only instance when it is possible for one to be objective in their search for truth because one can simply change the truth in order to fit one's bias! Logic however dictates that nothing can be both equally true and equally false at the same time. Thus two opposing biases cannot both be true.
    Furthermore, the belief in subjective truth is itself a statement of absolute truth. It cannot be absolutely true that there is no absolute truth if there is no absolute truth! To believe that nothing is absolutely true is to adhere to the belief in the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth. Therefore, the belief in subjective truth proves that truth is, by it's very nature, absolute. It is not fluid. It is not subjective. It is absolute and unyielding. To believe otherwise is to live within a world of self delusion governed by logical fallacy and denial.

    If truth is absolute and each observer is biased, how then can anyone be objective? The only way to be completely unbiased in one's evaluation of truth is if one is omniscient. In order to know truth, one must know the difference between false bias and the truth without being influenced by the bias of others. The only way to accurately discern between bias and truth free of the influence of others is if one is intimately antiquated with absolute truth and knows the answer and ultimate outcome of every idea conceived by man, past present and future.
    In order to know every idea conceived by man past, present and future, one must also exist outside of time, thus one would have to be omnipotent, being master of both time and space. And if one were the master of time and space, then one would of course be unhindered by the laws of the natural universe and would therefore be omnipresent: existing everywhere in the universe and beyond simultaneously.

    If one were omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, then one would be able to know truth, for such a being would be the very author of truth itself.

    How then can we, who are unashamedly biased in our presuppositions know truth? By drawing close to the One who is the author of truth: Jesus Christ. 

    Jesus is the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent author of truth. As such, He is the only one who can fully know truth and be completely objective in his interpretation of truth. Likewise, since Jesus is the author of truth, knowing the ultimate outcome of every human thought past, present and future, He is completely just and fair in His understanding, evaluation and judgment over all creation. He is Himself the truth.  It is impossible for truth to exist without God. And it is impossible for us to know truth apart from Christ.

    "Jesus told him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me."  ~John 14:6 New Living Translation (NLT)

Saved by Faith or by Works?

    Understandably, the issue of whether or not a person is saved by faith or by works is a very common topic of debate among those seeking God. On the one hand, passages like Ephesians 2:8-9 and Titus 3:3-8 clearly teach that a person is saved by grace through faith, and not by works. Yet James 2:14-26 states that faith without works is dead.
    This apparent contradiction in the scriptures should of course raise some serious questions for those who believe in biblical inerrancy, not to mention the countless millions who are staking their eternal salvation on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
    If salvation is to be earned, then those claiming to be saved by faith alone are risking eternal damnation, for both themselves and others, by omitting the obvious works required. Likewise, if salvation cannot be gained through righteous deeds, then those attempting to earn their place in heaven are walking an equally treacherous path.
   The question therefore is whether or not the Bible is in conflict on the point of salvation; and whether one's path to eternal life is dependent on works or faith.

    In order to answer this question, we must first understand the context of the Book of James.

   Chronologically, James is the first book of the New Testament, written to Jewish Christians scattered by persecution somewhere between 10-20 years after the resurrection of Jesus Christ in the year 30-33 AD. Given the persecution facing early Christians at this time, faith, endurance, self-discipline and obedience to God are major themes throughout the book.
   Knowing this, the greater context of James 1-2 is exercising faith through living life in obedience to God's word. That said, we find that the Christians in James 2:1-13 were guilty of living a double standard. They were claiming to have faith in Jesus, yet they were guilty of showing favoritism within their community.
    After addressing the issue of discrimination in the church, James goes on to say that if a person claims to have faith but their life shows no evidence of faith, then that person's faith is dead and is of no use to anyone. (James 2:14-17) James further elaborates on this in verses 18-25 by comparing the faith of Abraham and Rahab the prostitute, both of whom were shown to have genuine faith by their actions.
    Finally, James' closing statement in verse 26 makes his point clear: Faith without good works is like a body without breath; it is dead and useless. Having dead faith, therefore, is not the same as as having no faith. A dead body is still a body. But just as a body without breath is lifeless and inanimate, so too faith without good deeds is also dead and useless.
    James is not saying that salvation comes from works instead of faith. He's saying that good works complete a person's faith, giving it life and movement and making it real. If a person's life is devoid of righteousness and good works, then how can anyone else know that that person has faith?

    Faith without works is dead, but the inverse is also true: Works without faith are also dead.

    In Matthew 7:15-20 Jesus warns his followers to be cautious of false teachers saying: "Just as you can identify a tree by its fruit, so you can identify people by their actions." Jesus then goes on to say that many people who do good works and miracles in his name will be turned away from heaven because they never knew him. (Matthew 7:21-23)
    It is important to note here that these individuals did many miraculous works in the name of Jesus and even called him "Lord." However, Jesus said that they would still be turned away on the grounds that they did not personally know him, and continued to break God's laws even though they did many mighty works in his name.
    In this regard, Jesus himself makes it abundantly clear that salvation comes from knowing and being known by him, and not from good works. Good works are still important—they are the proof that a person has indeed been saved by faith in Jesus Christ. But it is God's grace that saves, not the good works themselves. The Christian's faith is nonetheless made complete by doing good works, which God prepared for us long ago, and by living a righteous life. (Galatians 5:16-25, Ephesians 2:10)

   In conclusion, we can see from the greater context of the scriptures that salvation comes not from works, but from grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness and good works are not a means of earning salvation, rather they are the evidence of salvation.
   That said, if a person says that they believe in God and claims to have faith in Jesus but their life and words show no evidence of salvation, then the validity of that person's faith should be seriously questioned. If a person claims to be a follower of Jesus but is living in open sin then their actions show that they don't really know God at all. If a person knows God, then there should be evidence in their life to prove it.
   Likewise, a person can appear to know God on the outside by doing and saying all of the right things, when in reality their heart is far from him. Instead of trusting in God's saving grace, they try to earn salvation by doing good works and playing the part of the devoted Christian. But a bad tree cannot produce good fruit. Eventually the person living behind a mask of self-righteousness will be exposed, and all the good works in the world will not be enough to save them in the end.
    Salvation therefore is a matter of the heart and depends on the individual and their personal relationship with Jesus Christ. It is between them and God. No one else can make that choice. But once the choice has been made, salvation is assured and the works of a righteous person complete their faith and prove that it is genuine.
 
 

See Also:

The Issue of Faith: Is Faith Irrational?

Who is Jesus?

 
   

What is the Gospel?

The Gospel

It's a term many of us are aware of, and most of us have heard used countless times through out our lives. But what is the Gospel exactly? What is this good news that has been handed down for thousands of years, surviving persecution and the test of time; this message of hope so powerful that untold millions have been willing to lay down their lives so that future generations might hear it?

That you are completely known by God, and are completely loved by Him. No matter who you are, or where you have come from, the creator of the universe knows you by name. He knows everything about you, every detail of who you are, good and bad, and He loves you. But our sin--the bad things we have done--separates us from God and his love and leads to brokenness in our lives and evil in the world around us. People try to fix the brokenness we feel with other things; religion, drugs, alcohol, relationships and possessions, but nothing will ever satisfy the emptiness in our hearts--the longing to be made whole. Ultimately our sins lead us all to death. But God loves you and I so much that He was willing to die in our place so that the death penalty for all our sins would be paid in full--paid with His own blood.

Not only that, He rose from the dead three days later to prove to you and I that He is God and to show us that through faith in Jesus Christ we too can have the assurance--the absolute, beyond a shadow of a doubt promise--that we will live forever with Him when we die. All you have to do is trust Jesus and give him control of your life.

It's not about the good that you do. Eternal life isn't your reward for a good life or religious piety. Salvation is a free gift for those who will simply say yes to it.

That is the Gospel: the message of hope and salvation through Jesus Christ, the savior of man-kind.

So now that you have heard the Gospel, what will you do with it? Will you believe?

See Also: 

What Makes a Person a Christian?

Amazing Grace


Religion or Relationship: What Must I do to be Saved?

The Greatest of Missed Opportunities

A few weeks ago, my wife and I had an incredible opportunity to sit down and talk with one of my co-workers about Christ. The young woman I work with was scrolling through her Facebook feed one day when she came across one of the articles I had shared from this blog: What Makes a Person a Christian? She contacted me shortly thereafter and asked if it would be possible to meet and talk more in person.

Now, even though I've been writing articles on Christianity for almost three years, I have rarely engaged people in face-to-face conversations about my faith. In fact, most of the conversations I have had in the past have mostly consisted of me listening to others explain why they don't believing in "organized religion," and have therefore been very one-sided to say the least. Suffice it to say, I initially interpreted this young woman's interest with skepticism. However, I soon realized that she was indeed interested, not only in asking questions about my faith, but also in listening to what I had to say. (When a person arrives at a meeting with notes and questions prepared ahead of time, you know they're interested!)

About halfway through what ended up being a three-hour conversation, we began discussing the topic of salvation and what makes a person right with God. I explained that the Bible teaches us that it isn't about what we can do for God that makes us righteous, but rather what He has done for us; that we are all sinners who can never be good enough to make ourselves right with God, and that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone, not by being a good person or reading the bible or going church on Sunday. We also talked about the Fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:16-25) and how Christians are not saved by the way we live, but rather live the way we do out of a grateful heart because we have been saved. (We follow God out of love and therefore our lives change as a result.)

After we had discussed these things for about an hour or so she said something that really struck me. She said: "This makes a lot of sense … I feel like this is how things are supposed to be. But why haven't I heard this before? I'm 26 years old and no one has ever explained it (Christianity) to me like this. It's so simple! Why isn't anyone talking about this?"

It was a very good question, and to be quite honest, it was not one that I was prepared for. Here was a young woman who had grown up in small town America, surrounded by churches and Christians, and yet had never heard the Gospel—the Good News about Jesus Christ.

After thinking about it for a moment, I said at last, "I'm not sure ... I guess a lot of it has to do with our culture. People assume that others don't want to talk about religion, so often times we just keep it to ourselves."

Sadly, I feel that too often this is indeed the case. We who have been entrusted with sharing the Good News about Jesus Christ to the whole world fall silent when it comes to those closest to us. We feel that people living in our culture today don't want to hear about God. But I now feel that nothing could be farther from the truth. Yes, there will be those in our lives who will oppose the truth. But there will also be those like this young woman who not only want to talk about "religion," but also want to hear the truth of what God has done for them. Like the Bible says:

 "For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by openly declaring your faith that you are saved. As the Scriptures tell us, 'Anyone who trusts in him will never be disgraced.' Jew and Gentile are the same in this respect. They have the same Lord, who gives generously to all who call on him. For 'Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'

"But how can they call on him to save them unless they believe in him? And how can they believe in him if they have never heard about him? And how can they hear about him unless someone tells them? And how will anyone go and tell them without being sent? That is why the Scriptures say, 'How beautiful are the feet of messengers who bring good news!'"

~Romans 10:10-15 New Living Translation (NLT)

The greatest of missed opportunities is the opportunity standing right in front of us—the unsaved people God has placed in our lives. But be encouraged Christian; God is with us! His spirit is going before us to prepare the way for His Gospel. The harvest is ripe, but the workers are few, and we all need to be willing to go into the fields and do the work God has planned for us. (Matthew 9:35-38)

Related Article:

Go Therefore

Tax the Church?

Once again it is the political season here in the United States, and with only one week remaining until the 2016 elections there has been much talk of values, presidential candidates, and amendments to our national and state constitutions. One particular topic that I have had the privilege of debating lately has been the issue of whether or not the Church should be taxed.

Currently, churches in America are classified as non-profit organizations, and are therefore tax-exempt. However, since the Church is often viewed as a "religious institution," there are many who feel that the government should revoke the Church's non-profit status. These individuals often believe that it is wrong for any religion to take their money, to which I would agree. According to the Bible, tithes and offerings are just that—offerings. That is to say, they are meant to be voluntary, not mandatory. (I go over this in greater detail in my previous article: Money and the Church) 

That being said and contrary to popular belief, most churches are not government funded; they are funded by the donations of their members, not your tax dollars. Which is why I find it so fascinating that those who are the strongest advocates for taxing churches often times have never stepped foot in a church themselves, much less given a tithe or donation to the church. Ergo: Their money is not going to the church—or any religious institution for that matter. Which begs the question: Why do people care so much what other people do with their own money, when it's really none of our concern? If our neighbors want to donate to their church then that's completely up to them. What right do we have to tell them they can't or shouldn't do what they feel lead to do?

That being said, some would argue that tithes and offerings are just a way for religion to rob people. However, as stated before, these offerings are voluntary, and are usually a small percentage of what a person actually makes. (The word "Tithe" literally means "One-tenth.") Furthermore, since churches are classified as non-profit organizations, this means that any tithe or offering given to a church automatically becomes tax-deductible. This means that anyone who gives money to their church can claim that money as a tax write-off, just as they would any other donation to a charity or non-profit organization. (This is of course a poor reason to donate to your church, but it is a valid argument against taxing churches.)

Additionally, many people base their tithe on their gross income. That is to say, their ten-percent tithe comes out of their income before taxes. This means that if the government begins to tax the Church, they will literally be taxing Christians twice; once when they tax our income, and again when they tax our churches. 

In short, stripping the Church of its non-profit status will essentially turn Christians into a cash-cow for government spending. The government would be able to tax Christian's twice, while at the same time penalize people who donate to their local churches by invalidating the tax-deductible status of the aforementioned donations. Thus the government would be able to use a person's faith to their advantage, doubling the tax revenue from Christians without having to give any of it back as a tax return. Not only is this course immoral and unethical, it is also a blatant violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

That being said, I hope you will consider the facts and weigh all the evidence before casting your vote this political season.

See Also:

Should Christians Pay Taxes? 

Money and the Church

What Makes a Person a Christian?

   
   What is a Christian?

   Many people say that they are Christians—in fact, nearly one third of the earth's population would call themselves Christian. But what is it that makes a person a Christian?

    Is a person a Christian simply because they believe that God exists? Are they a Christian because they pray, or read the Bible, or attend church or mass on a regular basis? Or maybe being baptized into the church and observing the Holy Sacrament is what makes a person a Christian?

    Some people would say that living a moral life or following the Ten Commandments is what makes you a Christian. While still others would argue that being born into a "Christian Nation" like the United States automatically makes a person a Christian.

    Indeed, millions of  people all over the world hold to these beliefs—among others. But the truth is, none of these things makes a person a Christian. And they most certainly do not guarantee you a place in heaven when you die.

    According to the Bible, I am not a Christian because I was born into a Christian home and grew up going to church every Sunday. I am not a Christian because I believe that God exists. Nor am I a Christian because I read the Bible. And while it is true that some might say that I am a "good and moral person" by human standards, having morals doesn't make me a Christian either. I am not made right with God by obeying religious laws, following my own moral compass, or by doing good deeds. Nor am I justified in His sight by avoiding sinful behavior.

    No.

    What makes me a Christian is the fact that I have believed God's Word and have trusted God as a result. Therefore, I have been made righteous in God's eyes, not because of anything I have done for God, but because of what God has done for me. (Romans 4, Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:3-7) 

    There are only two kinds of people in the world: Those who are forgiven, and those who are not. Good people don't go to heaven. Forgiven people do.

    That is why Christianity isn't a religion. A Christian knows that they don't have to earn God's forgiveness. Nor do they have to prove anything to Him to gain His favor. If you are a follower of Christ then God has already poured out His favor on you, and has forgiven you through the death and resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ. (Ephesians 1:3-14)

    "Therefore, since we have been made right in God’s sight by faith, we have peace with God because of what Jesus Christ our Lord has done for us. Because of our faith, Christ has brought us into this place of undeserved privilege where we now stand, and we confidently and joyfully look forward to sharing God’s glory.

    "We can rejoice, too, when we run into problems and trials, for we know that they help us develop endurance. And endurance develops strength of character, and character strengthens our confident hope of salvation. And this hope will not lead to disappointment. For we know how dearly God loves us, because he has given us the Holy Spirit to fill our hearts with his love.

    "When we were utterly helpless, Christ came at just the right time and died for us sinners. Now, most people would not be willing to die for an upright person, though someone might perhaps be willing to die for a person who is especially good. But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners. And since we have been made right in God’s sight by the blood of Christ, he will certainly save us from God’s condemnation. For since our friendship with God was restored by the death of his Son while we were still his enemies, we will certainly be saved through the life of his Son. So now we can rejoice in our wonderful new relationship with God because our Lord Jesus Christ has made us friends of God."
~Romans 5:1-11 New Living Translation (NLT)

    So what is it that makes a person a Christian?

    Faith.

    For it is only through faith in Christ—trusting him as God's promised salvation—that we can be made right with God, and have the assurance of eternal life with Him when we die.

See Also:

Amazing Grace

The Problem with Religion 

Religion or Relationship: What Must I do to be Saved?

The Issue of Faith: Is Faith Irrational?

Saved by Faith or by Works?

Who is Jesus?

Why so offended?

     Have you ever stopped to wonder what it is about Jesus that people find so offensive? I mean really, what logical reason do people have for hating a man who lived over 2,000 years ago?

    From an academic viewpoint, there really isn't any logical reason for it. Historically speaking Jesus was a peasant, a carpenter from Nazareth in Judea. The Bible itself says that there was “nothing beautiful or majestic about his appearance, nothing to attract us to him.” (Isaiah 53:2) And Nathaniel, one of Jesus’ own disciples, even scoffed at him for being a Nazarene saying: “Can anything good come from Nazareth?” (John 1:45-50)

    Not only was Jesus’ appearance common; his name was, too. Jesus (Yeshua in Hebrew) was one of the most popular names in First Century Israel. There were literally thousands of people named Jesus living in Judea at the time of Christ. As far as his humanity was concerned, Jesus was as common as common could be.

    So why do people hate him so much? Is it his teachings? Do they somehow find it offensive to love their enemies and pray for the people who hate and persecute them? (Matthew 5:43-48) Is it wrong to treat people the way you want to be treated? (Luke 6:31-36) Or maybe it's the fact that Jesus hated religious hypocrisy and told his follower not to judge others? (Matthew 23:1-36, Luke 6:37-42) 

    Most people would agree that these are all good things. So perhaps it is the fact that Jesus associated himself with women and “notorious sinners” on a regular basis that offends people? It certainly offended the religious leaders in Jerusalem. (Matthew 9:9-13, Luke 7:36-50) But since most people these days would be classified as “sinners” by the Pharisees, one would have to assume that this is not the reason Jesus offends people.  

     

    Indeed, when you study Jesus’ teachings it becomes clear that Christianity is a very passive belief system. Not the war-like religion it is often portrayed as. Which begs the question: If Jesus taught his followers to be peaceful, then why did the Roman Empire try so hard to stamp them out? What logical reason did an empire that prided itself on it's ability to maintain order have for trying to wipe out a religion that encouraged people to submit to the government and pay their taxes? (Mark 12:13-17) Why did people who believed that all authority came from God, and that it was therefore sinful to rebel against authority threaten the Roman Empire? (Romans 13:1-7) Isn't Christianity precisely the sort of religion the Romans would want to have on their side—a religion that would pacify their subjects and ensure imperial rule throughout the known world? 

    There really isn’t any logical reason for the Roman Empire to persecute Christians. Yet we know from history that Christianity was heavily persecuted for almost 400 years. 

    Historically speaking, the Roman Empire was quite accepting of other religions. They had numerous gods in their Pantheon, and countless cults throughout the Empire. So why was Jesus so offensive to them? Why did they hate a peaceful religion that believed in one, true God, when they themselves worshiped numerous gods? What difference did it make? 

     

    The same question applies today with religions like Hinduism that teach tolerance and the idea that all religions lead to God. If this were true, then why are Christians constantly being beaten, arrested, and killed in India? If all religions are just “different parts of the same elephant,” then why do Hindus burn down churches? 

    Furthermore, why is it that Christianity seems to be mocked more than any other religion in the world? If we as a society really are tolerant and accepting of other religions, then why is Christianity a banned topic in schools? Why is it that other religions can be discussed openly and curiously in the public forum, while Christianity is mocked and insulted on television and social media? 

     You hardly ever see Islam being mocked—even though Mohamed taught that people should only worship Allah. And you certainly don't see many insulting memes about Buddha on Facebook. But with Jesus and Christianity it's a whole other story. Why is that? Why are people so offended by Jesus that they feel compelled to insult him and his followers on a regular basis, while at the same time pretending to be tolerant of everyone? 

     One could of course argue that it is intolerant to believe that there is only one true religion, or that the only true God is the God of the Bible. But followers of every religion—including Atheism and Secular Humanism—believe that their religion is the only true religion; that everyone else is wrong; and that it is their duty to sway others to their way of thinking. So this can't be the reason why Jesus offends people—everyone believes that their beliefs are true, even though logic dictates that it is impossible for two, diametrically opposed worldviews to both be true.

    But maybe people are offended because Jesus taught about Hell? That might be a reason for some to be offended. But Christianity isn't the only belief system to teach about Hell. Nearly every religion has some sort of Hell, or at least the idea of negative consequences in the next life for wrongs committed in this one. What makes Christianity different however, is that the Bible tells us that God does not want anyone to go to Hell. (Ezekiel 18:23, 2 Peter 3:9) In fact, He was so opposed to the idea that He sent Jesus to die in our place so that anyone who put their trust in him would be saved from Hell. Not because of anything they have done. Not because they were a “good person.” But because Jesus died in their place. (Romans 5:6-11)

    Perhaps it is the fact that Jesus claimed to be God, that is the chief offense? After all, it was this claim of divinity that persuaded the Jewish religious leaders to murder him in the first place. (John 10:30-33) 

    Or maybe people are offended by the thought that a loving God would humble himself, taking on a body like we sinners have, so that he could die in our place? (Philippians 2:6-11) Perhaps it is equally appalling to them that such a God would then raise himself from the dead three days later, in fulfillment of prophesy, so that he could then offer them the promise of eternal life if they would only chose to accept his forgiveness and mercy? (1 Corinthians 15:3-8) Or maybe people are offended by the fact that no matter what they have done—no matter where they have come from—God loves them and wants to forgive them? Or perhaps they are offended by the fact that because of Jesus, this forgiveness is free and cannot be earned through any pious works or religious deeds? (Ephesians 2:8-9) 

    Is that why Jesus is so offensive—because he claimed to be the only way to God? (John 14:6-7) It seems that this is the only logical conclusion. But if Jesus wasn't God, and was just a man, then why is he such an offensive person? If he never existed, then how can anyone hate him? (You can’t hate what doesn’t exist.) His teachings obviously aren't offensive. The man himself isn't offensive. Yet he offends people. Why? Maybe it is because deep down people know that he was right when he said, “I AM He” (Yahweh/Jehovah) (Luke 22: 66-71, John 18:1-9, etc.)

    

    In short, if Jesus was not God then he was a mad-man. No sane person would make the claims Jesus made, nor would any sane person follow him—especially after his death! If this is true, then there is no logical reason for anyone to believe a word Jesus said, or even be offended by him. But what if Jesus was telling the truth? What if he and God really are one and the same? (John 14:6-9) This would not only imply that God is real, but also that every person in the world—living, deceased, or yet unborn—will one day have to give an account to him for the way they've lived. That is why people are offended by Jesus; because even though they know that there is no logical alternative, they are unwilling to believe the unimaginable truth:
   

    “‘For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him.

    “‘There is no judgment against anyone who believes in him. But anyone who does not believe in him has already been judged for not believing in God’s one and only Son. And the judgment is based on this fact: God’s light came into the world, but people loved the darkness more than the light, for their actions were evil. All who do evil hate the light and refuse to go near it for fear their sins will be exposed. But those who do what is right come to the light so others can see that they are doing what God wants.’”

~ John 3:16-21 New Living Translation (NLT)

Other Related Articles on this Blog Include:

Was Jesus Real?

Did Jesus Say He was God?

Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?

Was Jesus' Physical Body Raised from the Dead?