In This Edition of Contemplations:

Friends Of God

Be Strong in the Lord

Living But Dead

Where Do You Stand?

Through the Door of Hope

God’s Promise vs. Man’s Effort

Two Bethlehems?

A Good Job

“The Laws of Thermodynamics Don’t Apply to the Universe!”

A Stone Of Stumbling

What Really Matters

Road from Jerusalem to Damascus

 

“From Gilgal to Gilboa, the life of King Saul is a study in stubbornness. The text was supplied by Samuel when he confronted the obstinate king: “For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry” (I Samuel 15:23). There was a New Testament Saul who was an equally determined man but he chose the path of submission to Jesus Christ. The first Saul died a suicide and lost his crown, the second died a martyr and gained a crown. It makes a lot of difference whether you take the Gilboa Road or the Damascus Road!”

~Vance Havner

 

Friends Of God

By Vance Havner

 

And he was called the friend of God.
James 2:23

Of all the preachers and teachers and religious folk of our day, how few impress us that they know God! Able and successful, earnest and aggressive, we find in them much that is good. But can we not count on our fingers those who have gone far into the deeper things of the Spirit, who have learned those precious secrets of intimacy with God? To how few could we go in an hour of deepest trouble, to how few dare we tell our inmost problems!

This age of Phenobarbital and psychoses does not lend itself to a closer walk with God. The price is great nowadays, and he who chooses to be God’s friend may be overlooked in the worship of celebrities. But in our better and needier moments we turn from heroes to seek some lowly soul who has learned those rare lessons of the school of Enoch who walked with God. Our efficient American Christianity is too busy putting things over to be interested in the quiet, slow saints who take time to be holy instead of just singing about it.

Give us more friends of God!

 

Be Strong in the Lord

by Pastor Kevin Sadler

 

“Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of His might” (Ephesians 6:10).

As Paul begins to close the letter to the Ephesians, he addresses the spiritual warfare of the Body of Christ.  Paul’s instruction is for us to “be strong in the Lord, and in the power of His might.”  In this spiritual battle, we need spiritual strength.  As we are on the Lord’s side, Paul points us to the Lord Almighty, from Whom we are to get our strength.  In this epistle, Paul has been showing believers that we are “in Christ,” in perfect, eternal union with Him.  Being in Christ, we find that His life is our life and His power is our power.  We, the Body, draw the strength and power for living the Christian life from our living Head.

“What is the exceeding greatness of His power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of His mighty power, which He wrought in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead…” (Ephesians 1:19,20).

Being strong in the Lord and in the power of His might has to do with living by faith in the resurrection life and power which resides in every believer through Christ.  The same power that raised Christ from the dead is the same power we’re to use to stand in this spiritual battle.  The strength of the Christian life is dependence on God.  So Paul points the Church to be “strong in the Lord,” to depend upon Him.

Before salvation, Paul says we are “without strength” (Romans 5:6).  We are weak and absolutely unable to please God or save ourselves.  Salvation is only through trusting Christ, and by Him alone we have victory over sin’s penalty and punishment.  After trusting Christ as our Savior, we are still weak in ourselves, and in the Christian life our sufficiency must be of God (II Corinthians 3:5).  Victory over sin’s power in our lives occurs the same way we are saved from sin’s penalty, by wholly trusting Christ and Him alone.  His strength is more than sufficient for the battle, and we are guaranteed victory over anything Satan throws at us when we turn to our Lord (Philippians 4:13).

The question was asked in a Sunday School class: “How can we defeat Satan?”  One little girl answered, “Let Jesus answer the door when Satan starts knocking.”  To be instructed to be “strong in the Lord and in the power of His might” tells us that our might is not strong enough for us to be able to stand in this spiritual battle, and it tells us that we face an enemy much stronger than we are apart from Christ.  Therefore we need the infinite power of our Lord in this spiritual battle, and we appropriate that strength by yielding to the indwelling Spirit, through prayer and dependence on God, and by knowledge of, faith in, and obedience to His Word, rightly divided (cf. Ephesians 6:17,18).

 

Living But Dead

by Vance Havner

 

I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.
Revelation 3:1

The prodigal was dead but came alive (Luke 15:24). So it is with all who believe (Romans 6:13). The Sardis church was alive but dead. It had a name to live, but Jesus had another name for it. The name we have for ourselves is not always what our Lord calls us. You say you have eternal life. Does God say so? Not every one who calls Him Lord, Lord, is known of Him. Some Christians seem active enough, but it is not the vitality of the spirit, it is only the vivacity of religious flesh. And how many busy churches are called live churches, while the Lord looks on and says, “Thou art dead.” Does Jesus say that yours is a live church? How does it look to Him? Mere activity does not deceive Him.

“She that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.” She may be animated and really get around, but God says “dead.” And a lot of go-getter Christians and churches draw no better word from Him who looks on the heart.

Are you one who was once dead and now lives, or do you seem to live but are dead?

 

 

Where Do You Stand?

by Pastor Cornelius R. Stam

 

“And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand. And Joshua went unto him, and said unto him. Art thou for us, or for our adversaries? And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the Lord am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my Lord unto his servant?” (Joshua 5:13,14).

God had appointed Joshua to lead the people of Israel into the land of Canaan. It was just before the battle of Jericho that the great leader looked up to see a man with a drawn sword facing him. His sudden appearance must have startled Joshua, but he showed no trace of fear — not Joshua!

Advancing toward the man Joshua demanded: “Art thou for us or for our adversaries?” No wonder the answer brought him to his knees! He had been standing face to face with the captain of the Lord’s hosts, no doubt Michael, the angelic prince of Israel (See Daniel 10:21 and 12:1).

The question was not whose side was the angel of God on, but whose side was Joshua on! Was he himself in harmony with God’s will?

What a lesson to learn! In the constant battle over truth and error there is a tendency for Christians to demand of other Christians: “Whose side are you on? Are you for us or for our adversaries?”

If this is as far as we have gotten in our service for the Lord we still have much to learn, for the great question is not: “Are you on my side?” but “Am I on God’s side?”

God’s truth will prevail. His purposes will be carried out, and even though we might be on the side of the most powerful and influential of men, we will surely be driven to defeat if we are not in harmony with God’s Word and will.

Should we not all fall on our faces with Joshua, then, and ask: “What saith my Lord unto His servant?”

 

Through the Door of Hope

May 22, 2015

There I will give her back her vineyards,
and will make the Valley of Achor a door of hope.
There she will respond as in the days of her youth,
as in the day she came up out of Egypt.
— Hosea 2:15

The Torah portion for this week is Bamidbar, which means “in the desert,” from Numbers 1:1–4:20, and the Haftorah is from Hosea 2:1–22.

Nobody likes going through difficult times. Yet, we all experience trouble in our lives. It can be trouble that we brought upon ourselves, or trouble brought upon us by circumstances beyond our control. No matter how we may have arrived at our place of distress, we can all resonate with the powerful plea of King David in Psalm 55:6, “Oh, that I had the wings of a dove! I would fly away and be at rest.”

It’s tempting to wish our troubles away or imagine that we could magically fly away from them. But this week’s Haftorah reading gives us a different perspective. It’s also the sentiment that David eventually arrived at in the conclusion of Psalm 55. In taking a closer look at the reading from Hosea 2, we learn that fleeing our situation isn’t the best solution to our problems. Rather, we are called on to transform our situation into something better than we might have ever imagined.

After describing a series of curses that would come upon the disloyal Israelites, our reading describes how God will bring them back and how He will always love the children of Israel. In this context we read, “There I will . . . make the Valley of Achor a door of hope.”

A valley often metaphorically represents a difficult time. There are times when we are high on our mountains. We can see the beautiful landscape and clarify our sense of direction. But other times we are deep down in the valley. Ahead of us lies a mountain, perhaps steep and difficult to climb.

Moreover, we cannot see beyond the mountain. We lack clarity and may feel stuck and troubled. In our verse, this particular valley is called “Achor.” This is more than just the name of the place; it is a description of it. In Hebrew, the word achor can mean “trouble” or “affliction.”

We have all been to the valley of trouble — and it’s not a fun place to be. But this verse teaches us that God will turn our valley of trouble into “a door of hope.” We shouldn’t run from our troubles, because it is in that very place that we can find our doorway out of our situation. It is in the darkest places that God will show us light. It is through our most difficult trials that we learn some of life’s greatest lessons. And often what seemed like the worst thing to happen to us turns out to be the best thing to happen to us.

This is the door of hope, and we can walk through it anytime by having faith that everything that happens to us, happens for our very best.

 

With prayers for shalom, peace,

Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein

 

God’s Promise vs. Man’s Efforts

by Pastor Cornelius R. Stam

 

“For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: Because the law worketh wrath…” (Romans 4:14,15).

This should be self-evident to us all. If blessing is gained by the works of the Law, it is earned. This is why Galatians 3:18 says: “If the inheritance be of the law it is no more of promise, but God gave it to Abraham by promise.”

The Apostle Paul, God’s great apostle of grace, declares in Romans 4:4,5:

“Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”

But let’s go back to that phrase: “the law worketh wrath.” Many people somehow do not see this. Even some clergymen tell us that the Law was given to help us to be good. But God Himself says, “the law worketh wrath.” Every criminal knows this, and every sinner should know it. God certainly places strong emphasis upon it:

“Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions” (Galatians 3:19), “that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be brought in guilty before God” (Romans 3:19). “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20).

If we come to God expecting eternal life because of our good works, are we not offering Him our terms, which He can never accept? He will never sell salvation at any price, and certainly not for a few paltry “good” works, when our lives are filled with failure and sin.

Our only hope? God has promised to give eternal life to those who trust in His Son (John 3:35,36; Acts 16:31; etc.).

“The gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:23).

 

 

 

Two Bethlehems?

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

 

One powerful proof of the supernatural origin of the Bible is the presence of predictive prophecy within its pages. Old Testament prophets predicted minute details of events that were fulfilled in the New Testament. The uninformed observer may take this claim with “a grain of salt,” thinking that anyone can write a book that makes predictions, and then report the fulfillment of those predictions in the same book. In other words, one might simply assume that the entire Bible was written by only one (or a few) writers who simply selected contemporaneous events at the time they were writing, and then couched their subject matter in an anticipatory format, creating the impression that they were predicting events yet future to their own day.

This methodology certainly has been followed by other books that claim to be from God. The Book of Mormon is characterized mostly by its reporting of the past. It purports to be the result of a single individual—Joseph Smith—who allegedly received gold plates from an angel, which then were translated with divine assistance (see Miller, 2003). Likewise, the Quran claims to be the result of revelations presented to a single individual—Muhammad—by the angel Gabriel. It, too, gives the appearance of being the result of a single person responding to his surroundings without the ability to predict the future.

In contrast, the canon of the Old Testament Scriptures, completed prior to the formation of the New Testament, stands as an indisputable fact of history. Although the higher textual critics have attempted to reassign late dates to many of the Old Testament books, even they have not dated them beyond the second century B.C., with canonization complete by 100 B.C. (see Archer, 1974, pp. 77-79). One reason for this concession is the fixed historical fact that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament was translated into Greek by seventy-two scholars in Alexandria in approximately 250 B.C. The existence of this translation, known as the Septuagint, is corroborated by several independent historical witnesses (see Harrison, 1969, pp. 228ff.; Koester, 1982, 1:252ff.; Tenney, 1976, 5:342-343). The existence of the Septuagint verifies that the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament were intact over 300 years before the first books of the New Testament were penned. Likewise, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has further demonstrated a pre-Christian presence of the Old Testament books (see Finegan, 1959, 2:271ff.; Thompson, 1962, p. 264; Free and Vos, 1992, pp. 175ff.; Pfeiffer, 1969, pp. 25ff.; Archer, 1974, pp. 38ff., 505-509).

One category of Old Testament predictive prophecy is Messianic prophecy, i.e., prophecy that pertains to the coming of the Messiah—Jesus Christ. Some 332 (Free and Vos, 1992, p. 241) minute, intricate predictions are scattered throughout the Old Testament that pinpoint details of events and circumstances that transpired while Jesus lived on Earth. Included among these moments in the life of Christ are: His descent from Abraham (Genesis 22:18; Luke 3:34), through the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10; Hebrews 7:14), through the family of David (2 Samuel 7:12; Luke 1:32), through the virgin Mary (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:22), during the Roman empire (Daniel 2:44; 9:26; Luke 2:1), while Judah still had a king (Genesis 49:10; Matthew 2:22), His escape to Egypt (Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:14-15), His Galilean ministry (Isaiah 9:1-2; Matthew 4:12-16), His priesthood comparable to Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 5:6; 6:20; 7:15-17), His rejection by the Jews (Isaiah 53:3; Psalm 2:2; Luke 15:25; 23:18; John 1:11; 5:43), His triumphal entry (Zechariah 9:9; Isaiah 62:11; Matthew 21:1-11; John 12:12-15), His betrayal by a friend (Psalm 41:9; John 13:18), for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12; Matthew 26:15), which would be returned for a potter’s field (Zechariah 11:13; Matthew 27:3-10), with His accuser replaced (Psalm 109:7-8; Acts 1:16-20), being spit upon and beaten (Isaiah 50:6; Matthew 27:30), His silence when accused (Isaiah 53:7; Matthew 26:62-63), by false witnesses (Psalm 27:12; 35:11; Matthew 26:60-61), mocked and insulted (Psalm 22:6-8; Matthew 27:39-40), given gall and vinegar (Psalm 69:21; John 19:29), His death with sinners (Isaiah 53:12; Matthew 27:38), with His hands and feet pierced (Psalm 22:16; Luke 24:39), but no bone broken (Psalm 34:20; John 19:33), while lots were cast for his clothing (Psalm 22:18; Mark 15:24), buried with the rich (Isaiah 53:9; Matthew 27:57-60), but in death his body would not decay (Psalm 16:10; Acts 2:22ff.), and His ascension (Psalm 68:18; Daniel 7:13-14; Luke 24:50-51; Acts 1:9).

One particularly striking prophecy was uttered by the prophet Micah, who lived and prophesied in the eighth century B.C. (Lewis, 1966, p. 32). He articulated a very specific reference to the place of Christ’s birth: “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting” (5:2). This prophecy is remarkable on at least two counts. First, the fact that anyone could predict the precise city where a “ruler” would be born centuries later is unsurpassed in ordinary human experience. A charlatan would be “leaving himself wide open” to being discredited. Psychics, palm readers, spiritualists, and faith healers of today are very careful to maintain ambiguity and to keep their words sufficiently vague as to allow for adjustment, evasion, and multiple explanations. Pinpointing a specific city is specificity that is incomparable in its own right.

Second, Micah “stuck his neck out” even farther when he identified the city as “Bethlehem Ephrathah.” Few people probably realize that Palestine contained two towns named Bethlehem. Similarly, in the United States, we have Paris, Texas, and Paris, Tennessee. There’s a Jackson, Mississippi, and a Jackson, Tennessee, as well as a Lexington, Tennessee, and a Lexington, Kentucky. The Bethlehem with which most people are familiar is Bethlehem of Judah, located five miles south of Jerusalem. This town, or its inhabitants, is mentioned frequently in the Old Testament (e.g., Genesis 35:19; 48:7; Judges 17:7-9; 19:1ff.; Ruth 1:19), and was the birthplace of King David (1 Samuel 16:4; 17:12,15; 2 Samuel 23:14,16). After the Babylonian exile, Bethlehemites reinhabited the town (Ezra 2:21; Nehemiah 7:26). This same Bethlehem served as the birthplace of the Messiah (Matthew 2:1,5; Luke 2:4,15). In fact, King Herod’s familiarity with biblical prophecy caused him to concentrate his massacre of innocent babies on the infant population of this particular Bethlehem.

The other Bethlehem was Bethlehem of Zebulun in northern Palestine. Though mentioned less frequently in the Old Testament (Joshua 19:15; Judges 12:8,10), archaeological excavations indicate that it was a place of some importance in earlier days (Masterman, 1956, 1:449-450).

How did Micah know that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem—let alone Bethlehem Ephrathah? The only rational explanation is that Micah was inspired in his writing—supernaturally guided to predict the precise location where the Messiah would be born. The Bible stands alone—in a class by itself—apart from all other books on the planet that claim to be of divine origin. It is, in fact, the Word of God. As such, it reserves the right to require conformity to its precepts by all accountable human beings.

REFERENCES

Archer, Gleason L. Jr. (1974), A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody), revised edition.

Finegan, Jack (1959), Light from the Ancient Past (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), second edition.

Free, Joseph P. and Howard F. Vos (1992), Archaeology and Bible History (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), revised edition.

Harrison, R.K. (1969), Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Koester, Helmut (1982), History, Culture, and Religion of the Hellenistic Age (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress).

Lewis, Jack (1966), The Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Masterman, E.W.G. (1956), “Bethlehem,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 1974 reprint.

Miller, Dave (2003), “Is the Book of Mormon from God?” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2243.

Pfeiffer, Charles (1969), The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Tenney, Merrill, ed. (1976), The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Thompson, J.A. (1962), The Bible and Archaeology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

 



Copyright © 2003 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the “Inspiration of the Bible” section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558(334) 272-8558

http://www.apologeticspress.org

 

A Good Job

by Pastor Cornelius R. Stam

 

As Loren stood with his father, gazing at a beautiful Minnesota lake, the little four-year-old asked: “Daddy, who made this lake?” “God made it,” replied his dad, “and God made those trees and all this beautiful scenery.”

There was a moment’s silence. Then, placing his hands on his hips, little Loren said: “He sure did a good job!”

Yes, He did, yet this scenery was nothing compared with the glory this earth will know when Christ returns to reign. If earth’s rivers and lakes, its mountains and valleys, its landscapes and seascapes can now be so breath-taking, so awe-inspiring, what will be its beauty when prophecy is fulfilled and the curse removed!

“The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them [God’s people, Israel] and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose.

“It shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice even with joy and singing: the glory of Lebanon shall be given unto it, the excellency of Carmel and Sharon, they shall see the glory of the Lord, and the excellency of our God.”

“…for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert.

“And the parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water…”

“And the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads: they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away” (Isaiah 35:1,2,6,7,10).

 

“The Laws of Thermodynamics Don’t Apply to the Universe!”

by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

 

Many in the atheistic community have realized various problems with their theories in light of what we know about the laws of thermodynamics. In order for atheism to be a plausible explanation for the origin of the Universe, matter must either be eternal or have the capability of creating itself (i.e., spontaneous generation). Yet the Second Law of Thermodynamics implies that the first option is impossible, and the First Law implies that the second option is impossible (see Miller, 2007 for a more in depth discussion of the laws of thermodynamics and their application to the origin of the Universe). Upon grudgingly coming to this conclusion, but being unwilling to yield to the obvious alternative (i.e., Someone outside of the Universe put matter here), some have tried to find loopholes in the laws that will allow for their flawed atheistic ideologies to survive.

A common assertion being raised today by some is that the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to the Universe as a whole, and therefore cannot be used to prove that God played a role in the origin of the Universe. More specifically, some question whether our Universe can be considered an “isolated system” (i.e., a system in which mass and energy are not allowed to cross the system boundary; Cengel and Boles, 2002, p. 9). In their well-known thermodynamics textbook, Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, Van Wylen and Sonntag note concerning the Second Law of Thermodynamics: “[W]e of course do not know if the universe can be considered as an isolated system” (1985, p. 233). Dr. Robert Alberty, author of Thermodynamics of Biochemical Reactions, is quoted as saying, “I do not agree that the universe is an isolated system in the thermodynamic sense” (as quoted in Holloway, 2010).

What if the Universe is not an isolated system? How would that fact impact the creation/evolution controversy? First of all, the creationist has always argued that the Universe is not an isolated system, or at least has not always been one. According to the creationist, in the beginning, God created the Universe’s system barrier, then crossed it and placed energy and matter within the system—thus making the Universe non-isolated. So, recognizing that the Universe is, in fact, not an isolated system would really mean that some evolutionists are starting to move in the right direction in their understanding of the Universe! Acquiescence of this truth by atheists in no way disproves the existence of God. In fact, quite the contrary is true. Admission that the Universe is not isolated does not help the case for atheism, but rather tacitly acknowledges a creator of sorts. [More on this point later.]

What this admission would do, however, is make some of the creationists’ arguments against atheism less applicable to the discussion about the existence of God—specifically some of the uses of the laws of thermodynamics and their application to the Universe as a whole. For instance, if the Universe is not an isolated system, it means that something or someone outside of the Universe can open the proverbial box that encloses the Universe and put matter and energy into it. Therefore, the Universe could be eternal, as long as something/someone is putting more usable energy into the box to compensate for the energy loss and counter entropy. Thus, the argument against the eternality of matter by way of the Second Law of Thermodynamics could potentially be null and void. Also, with a non-isolated system, it could be argued that the original, imaginary pre-Big Bang ball (which never actually existed—since the Big Bang is flawed [see May, et al., 2003) was not eternal in its existence. Further, it could be contended that it did not have to spontaneously generate in order to explain its existence. Rather, energy and matter could have been put here from a source outside of this Universe other than God.

From a purely scientific perspective, one of the problems with claiming that the Universe is not isolated is that such an assertion presupposes the existence of physical sources outside of this Universe (e.g., multiple universes outside of our own). And yet, how can such a claim be made scientifically, since there is no verifiable evidence to support such a contention? Stephen Hawking has advanced such an idea, but he, himself, recognizes the idea to be merely theoretical (Shukman, 2010). Speculation, conjecture, assertion—not evidence. As Gregory Benford wrote: “This ‘multiverse’ view represents the failure of our grand agenda and seems to me contrary to the prescribed simplicity of Occam’s Razor, solving our lack of understanding by multiplying unseen entities into infinity” (Benford, 2006, p. 226). Belief in the multiverse model is like proclaiming the existence of fairies just because you can imagine one. But such speculation is hardly scientific evidence—and that is the problem.

What does the scientific evidence actually convey today? We live in the only known Universe, and it had to come from somewhere. That is a fact. If the Big Bang occurred, and all matter and energy in the Universe—everything that exists—was initially in that little imaginary sphere the size of the period at the end of this sentence (or much smaller, depending on which “expert” cosmologist you ask), by implication, the evolutionist admits that the Universe is of a finite size. That is a fact. A finite Universe is an isolated system. Since the Universe as a whole is the only true isolated system, the laws of thermodynamics apply perfectly. That is why some reputable scientists examine the evidence, draw reasonable conclusions, and articulate statements in reputable textbooks like the following:

  • “Isolated system: It is the system which exchange [sic] neither matter nor energy with the surroundings. For such a system, the matter and energy remain constant. There is no such perfectly isolated system, but our universe can be considered as an isolated system since by definition it does not have any surroundings” (Senapati, 2006, p. 64, emp. added).
  • A spontaneous process in an isolated system increases the system’s entropy. Because the universe—our entire surroundings—is in contact with no other system, we say that irreversible processes increase the entropy of the universe” (Fishbane, et.al., 1996, p. 551, italics in original).

The truth is, if one is unwilling to accept the existence of God, yet desires to accept the laws of science, one must conjure up other options for how the Universal box could have been legally opened and its contents altered. Envision several atheists sitting around a table speculating options, no matter how wild, in order to avoid conceding the existence of God, and you will have a clear picture of how many in the scientific community operate today. “Okay, people. How did we get here? Think!” “Other universes?” “Maybe.” “Nothing put us here?” “Not bad.” “Aliens?” “Why not?” “The God of the Bible?” “Shut your mouth. You are unscientific. Leave the room.” How can evolutionists like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking safely postulate the existence of alien creators without being laughed out of the spotlight, while creationists get expelled from the scientific community for recognizing the reasonable answer to the matter of origins (Stein and Miller, 2008; BBC News, 2010)?

Ironically, when the atheistic community asserts alleged creative agents outside the Universe, they tacitly acknowledge a creator of some sort. What is the difference between these concessions and the true Creator? Why not accept the God of the Bible? The answer is obvious. Their brand of designer comes packaged without the demands and expectations that come with belief in God. Very convenient—but sad and most certainly unscientific.

Note also that accepting the possibility of alternative creative causes leaves atheists with the same problem with which they started. They claim to use the laws of physics to arrive at the multiverse conclusion (Shukman, 2010). But if the laws of physics apply to their conclusion about multiple universes, why would the laws of physics not apply to those universes? If the laws of science apply to those hypothetical universes (and it would be reasonable to conclude that they would since, according to atheists, the universes interact), then the matter of origins has merely shifted to those other universes. How did they come into being? There are still only three options—they always existed (in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics); they created themselves (in violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics); or they were created. The laws of thermodynamics still echo the truth from the remotest parts of the created order: “You cannot explain it all without God in the equation!”

The truth is, the scientific evidence leads unbiased truth-seekers to the conclusion that there simply must be a Creator. How do we know that the laws of thermodynamics are true on Earth? No one has ever been able to document an exception to them (except when divine miracles have occurred). They always hold true. Why does the same principle not hold when observing the rest of the Universe? As Borgnakke and Sonntag articulate in Fundamentals of Thermodynamics concerning the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics:

The basis of every law of nature is experimental evidence, and this is true also of the first law of thermodynamics. Many different experiments have been conducted on the first law, and every one thus far has verified it either directly or indirectly. The first law has never been disproved…. [W]e can say that the second law of thermodynamics (like every other law of nature) rests on experimental evidence. Every relevant experiment that has been conducted, either directly or indirectly, verifies the second law, and no experiment has ever been conducted that contradicts the second law. The basis of the second law is therefore experimental evidence (2009, p. 116-220, emp. added).

There has been no verifiable evidence that the laws of thermodynamics have been violated throughout the Universe. Sure, there has been speculation, conjecture, and theory that it “could” happen. Yet, through it all, the laws still stand unscathed. Granted, atheists may cloud the air when they blow forth their unreasonable, unproven, jargon-filled, imaginary fairy-dust theories, but when the fairy-dust settles, the laws of thermodynamics still declare the truth to all who will listen (Psalm 19:1). The scientific evidence shows that there is unmistakable order and design in the Universe. Design implies a Designer. The God of the Bible. Now that’s scientific.

REFERENCES

BBC News (2010), “Hawking Warns Over Alien Beings,” April 25, http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/8642558.stm.

Benford, Gregory (2006), What We Believe But Cannot Prove, ed. John Brockman (New York: Harper Perennial).

Borgnakke, Claus and Richard E. Sonntag (2009), Fundamentals of Thermodynamics (Asia: John Wiley and Sons), seventh edition.

Cengel, Yunus A. and Michael A. Boles (2002), Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach (New York: McGraw-Hill), fourth edition.

Fishbane, Paul M., Stephen Gasiorowicz, and Stephen T. Thornton (1996), Physics for Scientists and Engineers (New Jersey: Prentice Hall), second edition.

Holloway, Robert (2010), “Experts on Thermodynamics Refute Creationist Claims,” http://www.ntanet.net/Thermo-Internet.htm.

May, Branyon, et al. (2003), “The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique,” Reason & Revelation, 23[5]:32-34,36-47, May, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2635.

Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,” Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, April, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.

Senapati, M.R. (2006), Advanced Engineering Chemistry (New Delhi: Laxmi Publications), second edition.

Shukman, David (2010), “Professor Stephen Hawking Says No God Created Universe,” BBC News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11172158.

Stein, Ben and Kevin Miller (2008), Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Premise Media).

Van Wylen, Gordon J. and Richard Sonntag (1985), Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics (New York: John Wiley and Sons), third edition.

 



Copyright © 2010 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the “Creation Vs. Evolution” section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558(334) 272-8558

http://www.apologeticspress.org

 

 

A Stone Of Stumbling

by Pastor Cornelius R. Stam

 

Some thirty years after the death and resurrection of Christ, the Apostle Peter wrote to the believers of the Jewish dispersion:

“Unto you therefore which believe He is precious; but unto them which be disobedient, the Stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

“And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient…” (I Peter 2:7,8).

It is true that Israel’s builders, 1900 years ago, “disallowed” Christ as the cornerstone for their building, and that when He became the “Head of the corner,” according to Psalm 118:22, it was for them an occasion for stumbling and embarrassment.

But Christ is a “stone of stumbling” to all who reject Him. In Romans 9:33 Apostle Paul quotes from several Old Testament passages:

“As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence; and whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed.”

In Peter’s day and in Paul’s, those who looked upon Christ as their Cornerstone were never given cause to be ashamed. It was those who disallowed and refused Him who kept stumbling over Him and were constantly embarrassed by Him.

So today, those who put their trust in the crucified, risen Christ are eternally secure and will never be put to shame for having done so. But those who reject Christ keep forever stumbling over Him. They hear Him preached over the radio, they see Him offered as the One who died for their sins, they are constantly confronted with His claims and they are embarrassed. They keep forever stumbling over Him.

 

What Really Matters

by Pastor Cornelius R. Stam

 

Who would ever have thought that a mouse could force a modern airline to transfer 42 passengers from one big jet airliner to another and give the pilot and crew a sixteen-hour vacation?

Well, it happened in London recently. One of the “between flight” cleaners spotted a mouse on the New York-bound jet and reported it to his superiors, with the result that the 42 passengers were transferred to a plane leaving some hours later.

The British Overseas Airways Corporation said that they were doing this to de-infest and fumigate the plane. But — all this: de-infest and fumigate the giant plane because of one little mouse? or even a few little mice?

Well, maybe, but do you know what I think? I think they foresaw panic aboard if some of the passengers should see that little mouse while they were in flight. Women don’t exactly like mice and it wouldn’t be good to have them standing up on seats or rushing for exits at 30,000 feet altitude!

Isn’t it odd! They say a little mouse can scare a big elephant, and it isn’t too different with the human race. Comparatively little things tend to frighten us, while too often we hardly notice great dangers.

The fact that “it is appointed unto men once to die,” and that this can happen when least expected; the fact that after this life there will be no further opportunity to prepare for eternity; the fact that a just and holy God must judge sin (Hebrews 9:27): these are the really important matters that so many people overlook in their mad scramble to enjoy life.

Let’s get down to earth and be sensible and face the question our Lord asked in Matthew 16:26: “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” Let’s stop living for this life as if it were never to end and for the next as if it were never to begin.

The Lord Jesus Christ died on Calvary to pay the penalty for our sins (I Corinthians 15:3) so that we might be saved and sure of heaven. Why not trust in Him and receive “redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of His grace” (Ephesians 1:7).

Biblelight