Arminian Texts

There are certain texts in Scripture that are very popular among those who oppose Reformed theology. They like to trot these out as "proof" that the Doctrines of Grace are wrong. Here are some examples that even sound quite compelling:

Unconditional Election
The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance (2 Peter 3:9).

Limited Atonement
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction (2 Peter 2:1).

Irresistible Grace
"And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself" (John 12:32)

Perseverance of the Saints
For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt (Heb 6:4-6).

It seems to me, though, that trotting some of these passages (and more like them) will lead you to conclusions that you never intended to achieve. Is it safe to use these as arguments against what they are perceived to argue against?

That 2 Peter 3 verse is really popular. It "proves" that it is God's will that every human being come to repentance. There! It's clear! God doesn't simply will to save some. He wills to save all! There is a problem, though. If this verse is saying that God wills to save all ... why are not all saved? What in God's will cannot be accomplished? And if He cannot or will not accomplish His own will, well, we're in serious trouble. He's not Sovereign! Look, clearly, if Man's will overrides God's will in this case, then it is unavoidable that Man is the Sovereign in this case. And that is a problem. Are you sure you want to read it that way?

The 2 Peter 2 passage is just a lone example of a bigger set of passages against "Limited Atonement." These passages say such things as "all" and "the world." There are verses like 1 John 4:14 that say things like "the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world." First Timothy 4:10 says that "we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe." (Note: Doesn't it bother you that, if this is intended to say that Christ is the one who saves all people, it says "especially of those who believe"? I mean, if "all people" are saved, what is special about "those who believe"? That should be a hint.) There are lots of these passages. So, clearly, Christ's atonement is for all people! And, Houston, we have a problem. You see, if the atonement is for all people (as in "applied to all people"), then it is necessary that all people are actually saved. If Romans 5:18 ("Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.") actually means that Christ provided justification and life to all men, then all men are already justified. The only possible conclusion is that the Universalists are right and everyone is saved. Hallelujah! Of course, that causes other problems ... like the multitude of passages that say it isn't so. "No, no," they counter, "that doesn't mean that all sin is paid for and all people are justified. It simply means that they can be." Okay, that avoids one problem, but steps into another couple of difficulties. First, if you are reading those like they appear to read, then you must void the obvious meaning of "already accomplished justification" to change to a meaning of "potential justification." But if you can change their "plain meaning," haven't you voided your own argument? The other problem, of course, is that if you argue that it is potential justification rather than actual justification, you have just lapsed back into limits on the Atonement. If not all are atoned for, then the Atonement is limited. If all are atoned for, then no one can justly be damned. Hmmm, that is a problem. Are you sure you want to read it that way?

I've started you on the problems that occur with these passages. They argue more than you intend. The John 12 verse, for instance, is specifically cited to argue against the John 6:44 passage where Jesus says, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him." "There, see? Jesus says He'll draw everyone." Umm, okay, so why does He fail? If His actual intent is to actually draw "all men" meaning "each and every" and He fails, we have another problem.

The Hebrews 6 passage is really fascinating. It is "proof" that you can lose your salvation. It's right there in black and white! If you have [been saved] (to summarize the first part) and "then have fallen away", it's clear that you lose your salvation! How is there any question? Now, remember, I'm not making arguments here for the Reformed view. I'm pointing out the problems that occur with these passages. So don't try to offer "Well, it's not really talking about saved people" or some such. I'm taking the argument from the Arminian side. If that says that saved people who fall away lose their salvation, then it also affirms something else: "It is impossible ... to restore them again to repentance." If you are going to use this passage to argue that salvation can be lost, then you must necessarily argue that, once lost, it cannot be regained. Anyone who loses their salvation is permanently and irrevocably damned. (And remember, if you try to change the "plain meaning" of the passage at this point, you're simply indulging in that which you accuse those who already disagree with your understanding of the passage.)

There are lots of passages that anti-Calvinists like to trot out to prove that Reformed theology is false and their view is right. I only wish to caution here that you might find yourself proving things you don't actually hold yourself. Beware of the arguments you make in your defense; they may end up shooting you in the foot ... or worse.

In Trouble

I got myself in trouble the other day at the market. As I was doing some necessary shopping, I observed a woman who had figured out a brilliant system. She would move her cart to the end of an aisle and then send her son down the aisle to get what she wanted on that row. It was a breeze! She didn't have to maneuver through carts and kids. The stuff she wanted came to her!

I went over to her and commented, "Looks like you have this whole thing figured out. You just stand at the end and let your boy go do the work. Pretty smart!"

My error? I didn't take into account that it was a black woman to whom I was speaking. Had it been a white woman or a Hispanic woman or an Asian woman, I would have said, "Looks like you have this whole thing figured out. You just stand at the end and let your boy go do the work. Pretty smart!" I made the mistake of being totally color-blind.

She, of course, didn't appreciate it. I was insulting her. I was being a racist. I was inconsiderate and intolerant and very likely a clansman. "Don't be calling my son a 'boy'! Get away from me before I call the manager!"

"Ma'am," I replied quietly, "I'm sorry for failing to take into account that you are black. I thought of you as a person, and I didn't even think about you being black." I should have stopped there, but, after a pause, I had to finish my thought. "But it sure makes me wonder who is more racist."

She called the manager.

Where Wrath and Mercy Met

We sang a song in church a week or so ago. I can't tell you the title. There was a line in the song that spoke about the Cross as the place where "love and mercy" met.

I thought about that. It's true. Love and mercy met there. But I think of love and mercy as related already, so "met" doesn't seem as remarkable or appropriate to me. I mean, if you love someone, you will tend to show them mercy anyway. Love and mercy are already acquainted. To me, there were other things that "met" at the Cross, things more mysterious.

At the Cross, wrath and mercy met. That's a contrast. At the Cross, Christ received the wrath of God on my behalf, the wrath I deserved, so that I could be shown mercy. Wrath and mercy seem contradictory, but at the Crucifixion, they were introduced to each other (so to speak).

At the Cross, justice and grace met -- again, a contrast rather than a parallel. And it was so necessary. God had a "dilemma" to solve. In Him we find attributes such as love, mercy, and grace, but we also find things like justice and wrath. God intended to show us His mercy, but He also intended to show His wrath. He intended to show us grace, but He couldn't disregard His justice. So what was He to do? In Christ at the Cross we find the divine solution. Pour out on His sinless Son the judgment that I deserve and show me mercy and grace.

Sure, love and mercy were at the Cross. I am more amazed at the crossing of wrath and mercy, the junction of grace and justice. And I am so glad that He did it.

The American Experiment

Don't get me wrong. I love my country. I think, in fact, that it is likely the best country in the world. That doesn't require, however, that I cannot find fault or that I must think that the country is perfect. I think, in fact, that there are some problems that our country has caused rather than solved. (Now, keep in mind here that I am speaking to American Christians, since we have a particular standard of "right and wrong" both in terms of morality as well as worldview. If you don't value the Christian worldview, this won't pertain to you.)

The American Experiment has some valuable assets, to be sure, but I contend that there are inherent errors that started at the beginning. Take, for instance, the Declaration of Independence. While we all find it to be a noble document, it must be considered by Christians to be ... well ... wrong. There is a list of things that the drafters of the document referred to as "self-evident." One of them was "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Nice thought, and Americans generally take it as true ... but the Bible disagrees. "There is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God" (Rom. 13:1).

That, in fact, is basis of a key American problem. Those who live under other types of governments don't typically have the problem we have with authority. Henry James (1843-1916) provided a list of things that America had none of. At the top of the list was "No sovereign." The echo from the decade of the '60's was "Question authority!" The key to the American perspective has been individuality. Independence and equality are the primary "good" to America.

You can only imagine, then, the dilemma that occurs in the mind of the American Christian when we read, "Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?" (Rom 6:16). Given the American ideal that no authority has rights over people, you can certainly see that a God who judges would be an unacceptable notion to Americans. In a society that values the individual above all else, you can easily see that dying to self would be not only unwise, but unwanted, even idiotic. "Me? Submit? No way!"

I love my country. I think it's likely the best country on the planet. Still, it isn't perfect. And some of the things that we value most, as it turns out, seem to be in direct opposition to God. How, then, do we make the "Gospel" a message that Americans would like? Be careful how you answer. If it removes Sovereignty or Lordship, it's the wrong direction.

Are We There Yet?

You'd think that if they can put a man on the moon, they could give me a device that would block politics from my home.

We here in Arizona have this really cool option of "vote by mail." In my case that means that I've already voted. Play your games. Throw your parties. Cast your aspersions. It doesn't matter. I've already voted. Except ... I still have to sit through all this interruption to life. I get phone calls from folks trying to convince me to vote their way. My TV shows get interrupted or canceled so they can bring to me, live, a debate between people about whom I've already made my choices. My mailbox is stuffed with junk mail from candidates and anti-candidates. I have voted and none of that matters anymore. You'd think that if they can put a man on the moon, they could give me a device that would block politics from my home.

Here's what I would like. I'd like a device that, when activated by early voting (or maybe apathy), my TV wouldn't show the debates between candidates. Instead, I'd get normal programming. Commercials for candidates and issues would be replaced with normal commercials or, better yet, no commercial at all! My phone would be fitted with a similar device that would simply reject phone calls regarding the political stuff. The mailman would get a notice not to put all that political stuff in my mailbox. Life would be ... smooth.

I'm already tired of the stuff. It sounds like two children bickering on the playground. "I voted for tax breaks." "Oh, yeah, well I voted for more tax breaks." "Uh-uh! Liar, liar, pants on fire! You voted for more taxes!" "Don't make me come over there and slap your momma." "Don't be talking about my momma. Families shouldn't be part of this." "Oh, yeah, then how come your momma wears combat boots she got in Iraq?" "Now you're going too far! Besides, you're not qualified to talk about my momma in Iraq." I want to put my hands over my ears. "Kids! Cut it out or I'm going to throw you both out of this car!" But, like a family on a car trip, I don't get the option of throwing these bickering children out of my car. They're occupying the airwaves and my answering machine and my mailbox and I don't care because I've already voted.

You'd think that if they can put a man on the moon, they could give me a device that would block politics from my home.

FOCA

Alright, I'm probably a late-comer to this issue, but I recently became aware of FOCA, the Freedom of Choice Act. It is an Act introduced by Barbara Boxer (along with Senators Corzine, Murray, Lautenberg, Clinton, Cantwell, Jeffords, Lieberman, Feinstein, Sarbanes, and Mikulski) in 2004. It is a somewhat rambling piece (okay, "rambling" in my view) that comes down to a very simple point:

STATEMENT OF POLICY — It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

Other provisions in this "little" Act would include the requirement that this law would override "every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act." So ... if you want (like South Dakota did in 2006) to pass a law regarding limitations to this choice, you would be denied. If you wanted to make it a rule, for instance, that minors obtain parental permission, it would be denied. The will of the people is irrelevant. If a doctor has a personal belief that abortion is wrong, he or she would be operating against the law to refuse to do it. The will of the individual is irrelevant.

Another stunning thing about this Act is the length it goes to give permission. It first goes by "fetal viability." Now, fetal viability isn't a preset value. Medical science today sees 24 weeks as "fetal viability," the point at which a fetus can survive outside of the womb. However, there have been cases of babies surviving outside the womb as early as 20 weeks (and, of course, those that don't survive outside of the womb as late as, say, 36 weeks). So ... where is the line? And if medical science improves, does it move? Nonetheless, this Act goes beyond "fetal viability." It says that abortion is allowed "after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman." Now, try to define "the life or health of the woman." Is it the emotional health? Mental health? Is the woman's "life" endangered if it would be an extreme financial hardship? Who determines if something is a danger to a woman's life or health? What would prevent the abortion of a "viable fetus" -- a baby -- based purely on a woman's "right to choose"? (Don't be deceived. There are those that make that argument. "Carrying a fetus is a medical procedure. No one is obligated to undergo a medical procedure.")

There is, of course, the serious concern from the political arena today:

Throughout my career, I've been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America. ... I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president. -- Senator Obama

Is it any surprise that Robert George would say "Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States"?

Good for What Ails You

The New Deal

The New Deal was a product of the Great Depression. President Franklin D. Roosevelt enacted most of the components in his years in office. When the Great Depression hit, President Hoover struggled to fend off disaster. The economic crisis spurred a replacement of the Republican presidency and the Republican Congress. The New Deal, then, was an attempt to counter the Great Depression. The New Deal brought a series of short-term and long-lasting conditions that didn't exist previously. In the New Deal the government eliminated the gold standard. Gold reserves no longer backed the currency. The CCC, the Civilian Conservation Corps, was created to give jobs to unskilled workers. The Social Security Act started deducting money from employers and employees to pay for financial assistance to the elderly and handicapped. The FDIC was created to prevent further collapse of banks. The Fair Labor Standards Act created a minimum wage, set the maximum standard work week at 40 hours, and eliminated child labor. The Tennessee Valley Authority was instituted in 1933 to build dams to generate electricity. The National Labor Relations Act (later modified by the Taft-Hartley Act) assured workers the right to form unions. While the New Deal did focus on fiscal conservatism, its fundamental basis was largely Keynesian economics which holds that a government can encourage economic growth in the private sector primarily by spending and taxation. And while historians are basically unanimous in their opinion that the New Deal brought an end to the Great Depression, economists aren't so clear.

The Great Society

The Great Society was brought about by President Lyndon B. Johnson. He carried out measures that President Kennedy had tried to put in place but was stopped by a Congress that wasn't Democratically controlled. After Kennedy's death, a landslide for the Democrats in 1964 gave Johnson the power he needed to enact this plan. The two primary targets in this process were to eliminate poverty and racial injustice. The measures he enacted included things like the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 which created the "Office of Economic Opportunity." The OEO was put in place to oversee community-based anti-poverty programs. Programs like VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America), Food Stamps, and Project Head Start were created. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 allowed the federal government to put money into schools with a special emphasis on low-income and special-needs education and the Higher Education Act of 1965 allowed the government to make scholarship money available for lower-income students. Medicare/Medicaid were initiated to give medical coverage to seniors. To fight racial inequality, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. This prohibited hiring practices based on race. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 assured minorities the right to vote. Other things like the NEA, PBS, and NPR (along with other three-letter acronymns) were established in the Great Society. And there was a whole set of Acts passed that dealt with the environment ... all this amid the unpopular and expensive Vietnam War. History hasn't resolved the question of the effectiveness of the Great Society. Poverty still exists. The cost of these initiatives has been staggering. Medicare and Medicaid costs have increased and drained funds from Social Security to the point of nearly bankrupting both programs. But racism has radically declined and no one would argue that race should play a part in hiring practices or that race should be a factor in voting rights.

So ... who cares? Well, the last two times that we had a Democratic president with a Democrat-controlled Congress, we got the New Deal and the Great Society. Both offered solutions to your problems. Both operated on the belief that government was the answer. Both believed that it was best to take money from the people for their own good. Both tended toward a more socialist approach to life. And while both appeared to solve some problems, the long-term negative effects haven't stopped. So you decide. You can expect the same given a Democratic president and a Democrat-controlled Congress. In fact, we've been promised several similar things. So, are these wonderful solutions or at some point is the cure worse than the illness?

Abortion and Public Opinion

I was doing some research and came across a set of data from the Wall Street Journal that, frankly surprised me. It was an article about a Harris poll taken in 2006. The questions were about Americans' opinion about abortion -- specifically, Roe v Wade. Now, if I were to ask you before telling you the results what you thought they would be, what would you say? Based on the yelling and screaming offered in most media outlets today, I would have assumed off the bat that a majority of Americans were in favor of legalized abortion. Oh, maybe not a large majority, but at least a majority. Apparently I would be wrong.

The poll had some really fascinating results. In 2006 (the latest version of this poll), for instance, general support for Roe v Wade was at 49%, with 47% opposed. Now, 49% is less than a majority. It was, in fact, an all-time low. Back in the late 70's and again in the early 90's, support was up in the 60% range. No longer.

The poll results got even stranger when I dug into them. Harris asked whether people favored laws that made it more difficult to get an abortion. Some 40% favored "no change", but another 40% favored more restrictions. When they asked, "In general, do you favor permitting a woman who wants one to have an abortion in all circumstances, some circumstances or no circumstances?", I was surprised at the results. In almost a flatline response over the years, 26% to 30% favored "all circumstances." For "no circumstances" the figure ranged from 14% to 21%. The largest number, of course, was "some circumstances", ranging from 53% to 58%.

Why do these numbers surprise me? Well, I'm led to believe from all the public outcry that Americans are strongly in favor of abortion on demand. They want it legal. They want it available. And they want little restrictions. Oh, perhaps in the last trimester it wouldn't be okay, but they want it! Apparently the point has been missed. It appears instead that 1) overall support of abortion rights is slipping, and 2) what people really want is that abortion not be outlawed, but that it certainly be regulated. To put it another way, they don't want an unrestricted "woman's right to choose", but neither do they want no option for abortion.

I frankly don't know where most people stand on abortion. I believe that most who are opposed to killing babies in the womb see an exception in the case of a mother's life at risk. (Note: It is not abortions to which they are opposed; it is killing babies.) It appears that most who favor giving women the choice do not favor unconditional abortions. And the decline in the overall numbers who favor Roe v Wade is telling in itself. Maybe, just maybe, what we're being fed in the media isn't exactly accurate.

As Long As It's Not Me

I recently enjoyed a discussion with a visitor to this blog about God and evil. This post is not about God and evil. One thing he said (Funny ... I assume it's a "he." Could be a "she.") regarding God and judgment went like this: "‘Course it is never about them being killed—they have their spot assured in heaven. Easy to grandly wipe out 'the other guy.'" The suggestion was that we're perfectly happy to have others judged as long as it's not us.

The other day I saw a political ad. "Who is on our side?" they asked. The approach was this: Take money from the rich people and not from those with lower income. The arbitrary line that was drawn was $250,000 a year. This is appealing to most Americans. In 2006, the top 1% of American taxpayers made $388,806 or more per year. The top 5% made over $153,542 per year. So, there you have it. Something less than 5% but more than 1% of Americans would find themselves bearing the brunt of the heavy increase in government spending that will be required to meet the goals of universal health care and other programs we "need."

This is a selling point to Americans, apparently. As long as I get a tax break and new, better government programs giving me stuff I haven't earned but believe to be my right, what do I care about those who pay more? As long as I have my spot assured, it's easy to grandly wipe out the other guy, especially if he has been characterized as "evil" by the "have nots."

But God

"But God" ... what a fascinating phrase. The phrase occurs in a variety of places under a variety of conditions for a variety of reasons in the Bible. Their purpose is obvious -- to contrast God with that with which the phrase is associated.

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today (Gen 50:20).

The contrast here is simple. There is what they intended, and there is what God intended. They intended evil; God intended good. That's a contrast. It's also a point of relief, of comfort. Man plans evil and God plans good. God, in fact, uses the evil that Man plans to produce the good that God plans. What a relief! "But God ..."

My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever (Psa 73:26).

This verse contrasts the flesh with the spirit, the temporal with the eternal, the human with God. We are finite; He is infinite. And He gives life eternal. What a glorious contrast!

There are many more, but two of my favorites provide a similar, wonderful contrast:

For one will scarcely die for a righteous person -- though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die -- but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Rom 5:7-8).

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience -- among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ -- by grace you have been saved -- and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus (Eph 2:1-7).

"But God ..." Contrasted here is Man's lostness and God's incredible mercy. It contrasts "sinners" with God's love and Christ's death. It contrasts "dead in sin" with God's mercy and love.

One of our most common errors as sinful humans is to try to correlate God and Man. We make God lower than He is and make Man higher than he is. It's the only means, for instance, by which we can ever think of ourselves as "deserving heaven." It was the classic mistake of Israel: "Being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness" (Rom 10:3). Bring God down to our level, and raise ourselves to His. This phrase, "but God," serves to keep us in place, to keep all things right. It contrasts God with us. It's a good contrast.

We Demand

Frankly, I'm getting tired of it. "It" is a full-on daily assault from WE, Al Gore's We can solve the climate crisis campaign. "To Our Leaders: Free us," the ad demands with images and music behind it. "Free us from our addiction to oil. Save us from $4.99 per gallon gas. Save our economy. Save us from this climate crisis. Give us truly clean energy. Use the wind. Use the sun. We demand that we use them. We demand that we repower America. There is a solution. There is no time to waste. We want a better future. We demand a better future. We the American people are no longer asking. Give us 100% clean electricity within 10 years." It ends with a "link" to the website.

What is it of which I'm tired? I'm tired of being told that there is a climate crisis when science still isn't quite sure of it. I'm tired of being spoken for. I wasn't aware that I was making this demand. Apparently every American is demanding this "100% clean electricity within 10 years." No one asked me. I'm tired of this entire concept of "we demand" without any reference in the slightest to how. Oh, sure, wind and sun, that's all it will take. Sign me up. Except I know that this is, first off, a lie and secondly it is incredibly expensive. Current technology does not exist to power America by these clean forms. The technology that does exist is phenomenally expensive. Did you know, for instance, that using current technology to harness the sun to power my house (and only my house) would cost $40,000 to install? One house ... $40,000. That's without transmission lines. And that's in the very small section of the United States that can actually use solar power. Extrapolate that out to include every house and every business and the vast system of transmission that would be required and we're not talking "cheap" or even "affordable" in our current economic climate. (And remember, the "demand" is not simply for "fossil-fuel" free energy, but "clean" energy, which eliminates nuclear, gas, coal, wood, solid waste, or any other "dirty" sources.)

Take a look for a moment at the cost of changing our power generating structure in America. According to the Energy Information Administration, we currently have a capacity for 1,075,677 megawatts of power. Of that, 977,711 megawatts are "unclean". (It may be more, since "other" includes some clean and some not so clean.) So how much would it cost to replace that power with clean, renewable power? Well, APS here in Arizona is building one of the world's largest solar-thermal plants here in the area of Gila Bend. They are spending $1 billion to produce 280 megawatts of power, enough for 70,000 homes. Now, let's see ... if we do the math, all we would need is about 3500 of these plants to replace the "bad" generation. And at $1 billion, well, that math is easy ... that would be ... oh, wait, that's a really big number. We're talking $3.5 trillion. The other cost to consider is space. The plant will cover 1900 acres. without accounting for transmission lines or boosters or the like, to generate sufficient power to replace existing sources, we would need to occupy 6,650,000 acres or roughly 10,390 square miles. No small area to consume.

Okay, so maybe that's not entirely viable. We can surely go to wind power as well, right? T. Boone Pickens is planning to build a 4,000 megawatt wind generator system. His expected cost is between $10 and $12 billion. Now, to use wind to replace the existing "bad" energy sources, we would need another 245 of these systems. (By "systems" I simply mean a field of wind generators.) That would cost somewhere between $2.45 to $3 trillion. (I can't find any figures on land use.)

There is, of course, one other option. Geothermal power uses the planet's internal heat to create electricity. Now, all we really need to do is take over Yellowstone National Park with its many geysers ... no, wait, that's not going to work. Okay, so surely we can just drill some deep holes and get there that way, right? Well, it's not quite that easy. Geothermal energy production has its environmental concerns. The fluids are often corrosive, and the process can make land areas unstable. Still, currently we are getting something like 8,000 megawatts of power worldwide from geothermal sources with the United states leading the way by producing some 1,935 megawatts. The DOE has calculated an average cost of $1.68 million for a geothermal plant built in America. Of course, experts estimate that, with enhanced technology, we could possibly produce 138,100 megawatts of power worldwide. Since America would need around 980,000 megawatts, that isn't going to help at all. Besides, estimates put the building of a 1,000 megawatt geothermal plant at $3 billion. Even if we could figure out how to do it, that would require nearly $3 trillion to replace the existing sources.

One thing about that commercial ... you know, the one that bugs me so much ... is that it includes a demand to "Save us from $4.99 per gallon gas." In the commercial, right there between our oil addiction and our economy, the commercial shows a counter with a rising price of gasoline for our cars. Now, what, in all this plan, will help with our cars? How will that help lower fuel costs? The truth is that we don't use a whole lot of petroleum to power our generators. Natural gas is by far the biggest source. So how will it help the rising cost of driving our cars if we were to manage to switch to other sources of electricity? But I guess I'm not supposed to ask questions like that.

"Give us solar power and give us wind power and give us geothermal power -- clean energy." That's the demand. Farther than that, "we want it in 10 years!" And don't get me wrong. I like clean energy and renewable energy and cheap energy. That's all good. But, the technology to do that is limited and the space it will take is much more than is currently used and the cost to accomplish it is massive. Still, we demand it and we demand it now! Listen, while you're at it, why not ask for some other useful impossibilities? You know, "a million dollars in every wallet" or "peace on earth" would be nice ... as long as no one asks "So ... how are we going to do that exactly?" or "Who's going to pay for that?" or other practical considerations.

Prop 102

I am not a real political pundit. No one really looks to me for political advice and I rarely make any political predictions. I'm no expert. So it was somewhat of a surprise to me when I realized I did make a prediction a couple of years ago and it has actually come true. Back in 2006, we here in Arizona voted on a proposition (Prop 107) that would have banned homosexual marriage and would eliminate "domestic partnership" rules. It failed by a margin of 48.5% to 51.5%.

Back then I wrote, "I suspect it will come back later to bite us. Polls suggested that a proposition to ban homosexual marriage would have been approved by 75% of the voters. Arizonans didn't shoot down Prop 107 because they want to legalize homosexual marriage. None of the 'No on Prop 107' arguments were predicated on 'legalize homosexual marriage' or the like. No! The push against Prop 107 came from the second line in the proposition that said, in essence, 'We do not have to recognize as married anyone who is not married.'" I knew then that if we wanted to take another stab at defining marriage to be between one man and one woman, the opponents would throw this back in our faces. "We already voted on this!" Not true, of course. We denied the call for eliminating domestic partnerships.

So now we're looking at Prop 102. I have never seen a clearer, more easily understandable proposition. Right or wrong, it is certainly unambiguous, certainly free of "legaleze."

Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.

Twenty words ... that's all there are. If passed, it will modify our state constitution. The polls have it leading slightly.

You know what the opposition is saying. "It's an anti-gay measure." No, it isn't. It doesn't address homosexuals at all. It simply defines one English word -- marriage -- using what the California Supreme Court recognized as "the longstanding and traditional definition." It doesn't say anything about domestic partnerships or any such thing. "We already voted on this!" No, we didn't. That never was the issue in that vote.

The law requires truth in advertising, but never let it be said that we should have truth in politics.

And to Governor Napolitano (and those like her) who are asking, "What's the point?" (there is already a law on the books that defines marriage as between a man and a woman), I do have an answer. The point is "Look at California! They had a law on the books. It was thrown out."

I was pretty sure in 2006 that this would be the approach by opponents. I was right. Sometimes I hate it when I'm right.

Fixing the Economy

There are so many "fixes" being thrown out for us in the economic world. "Lower taxes!" That hasn't helped. "Lower interest rates!" Neither has that. "Infuse more cash!" That didn't help. "Buy out bad debt!" That's not working. And no one seems to have a real good handle on what to do about it. McCain assured us "the fundamentals of our economic system are sound" which, of course, Obama pounced on. I don't know why. If "the fundamentals of our economic system" are that people need to buy stuff so companies need to provide stuff that people need to buy so companies need to employ people to provide that stuff ... you know, Capitalism ... then it would seem that this is still the case. So I don't know what McCain meant or what Obama meant. But even "experts," market folk who know this stuff, can't agree on either the cause or the fix for this economic problem.

I think I do know the cause. It isn't Big Business. It isn't Big Government. It isn't Corporate Greed. It is people. There is a word used quite often in the New Testament. It is translated in older English as "covetous" or, in the newer translations, as "greedy." It is listed with the common sins, the common failings of Man, the typical reasons that humans do not get to heaven (Eph 4:17-19; 1 Cor 6:9-10). The word means, essentially, "not enough." It means "desiring more." It is a standard sin, one, in fact, that the Roman Catholics classify as one of the seven deadly sins.

Americans have changed. Where there used to be a community that banded together to help each other we've shifted to a dog-eat-dog world where "what I want is what I need and you had better not get in my way." We shifted from a pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstrap view of the world to a "health care is a right" world. Imagine that! "Health care is a right." Where did it come from? Who gave it? Who imposed it? We've eliminated the possibility of "unalienable rights endowed by our Creator," so who or what endowed this right? Who or what maintains this right? Who or what will respond if this right isn't met? I want answers!

"So," you say, "you're saying it's not Big Business or Big Government or Corporate Greed? What about ..." and you'll give me your favorite argument or example. Don't misunderstand me. These entities are populated with ... people. These people are infected with the new American mentality. The new American mentality requires things like, for instance, equal pay for equal work. (Did you know that Jesus disagreed with that mentality (Matt 20:1-15)?) This mentality has long ago pushed past "privileges" and gone beyond "rights," pushing all the way to "entitlements." And those "entitlements" are broad. The new American mentality is hedonistic. "If it feels good, do it" is our national mantra. The new American mentality is "not responsible." "I am not responsible for anything that happens." If something goes wrong, it's the product's fault or the big company's fault or the government's fault. If there's something wrong with me it's the fault of hormones or chemical imbalance or a syndrome (named or unnamed). If I buy a house with money I don't have and will never have and then lose that house, it's not my fault. And if I have a problem, someone else had better fix it ... now! The old American mentality was a "free market" mentality. A laborer is worthy of his hire. In the original "Puritan work ethic" the idea was "I will do what I can to support my community." If a community needed shoes and I could make shoes, I'd be a shoemaker. That shifted to "I will do what there is a market to do." If I can get people to buy my widget, I'll make widgets. That has shifted even farther today. "There must be no poverty (and we get to define 'poverty') and I deserve more."

It's a funny thing about people. It seems that the more they have the more they want. Have you ever, for instance, met people who came out of the Great Depression? That was a different generation. They tended to avoid "more" because they didn't have it to begin with. The same is true in third world countries. While we "need" new window coverings every year, they are happy with a hole in the wall (literally) that serves as a window. While this lousy, three-year-old couch "needs" to be replaced soon, they're content with a dirt floor and a mat on which to sleep.

How did we get in this mess today? "Desiring more." It was wrong of lenders to limit their lending to "rich" people who could afford to borrow money. They had to loosen their standards to allow "poor" people to borrow money. Why? Because they "desired more." A place to live wasn't sufficient. Ownership was required. It wasn't merely desirable; it was needed. Oh, it wasn't solely there that the problem occurred. That was simply the symptom. "More" from Enron meant that they could manipulate the energy market in California. "More" to Wall Street meant that they could drive up oil prices by speculating on oil futures. "More" tells illegal aliens that they have the right to break the law to get what they want. And somehow "enough" never seems to rear its ugly head.

The original "free market" idea of Capitalism was based on the original mentality that took into account other people and encompassed an underlying morality. This underlying morality has eroded. It isn't the fault of George Bush. It isn't the fault of Bill Clinton. It isn't the fault of the Democrats or the Republicans or even Wall Street or a greedy banking industry. It is an erosion that has been occurring for a lot longer than that, and it is finally down to the bare rocks of "greed" and "me first." A "free market" seems, to me, to be a market that is free to succeed ... or fail. The voices from government and its leading wanna-be's seem to be that "accountability" and "oversight" are the key to fixing the problem. Charge the American people with the bill and let the government fix our problems. By no means should we allow big companies to fail. Frankly, a "bail out" is a band aid on a cancer patient. The problem is not with Big Business or Big Government or Corporate Greed. The problem is with the sinful humans that inhabit those entities. And the fix is not to shore up their failing economics. The fix is a spiritual revival.

As for you and I, Christians, remember:

Now there is great gain in godliness with contentment, for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world. But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction (1 Tim 6:6-9).

Humor for Lexophiles

A friend sent this to me and it was worth it to pass it on to you. If you don't laugh, at least you'll have new insight into my character.

1. I wondered why the baseball was getting bigger. Then it hit me.
2. Police were called to a daycare where a three-year-old was resisting a rest.
3. Did you hear about the guy whose whole left side was cut off? He's all right now.
4. To write with a broken pencil is pointless.
5. The short fortune teller who escaped from prison was a small medium at large.
6. A thief who stole a calendar got twelve months.
7. When the smog lifts in Los Angeles, U.C.L.A.
8. The math professor went crazy with the blackboard. He did a number on it!
9. The professor discovered that her theory of earthquakes was on shaky ground.
10. The dead batteries were given out, free of charge.
11. A dentist and a manicurist fought tooth and nail.
12. A bicycle can't stand alone; it is just two-tired.
13. A will is a dead giveaway.
14. A backward poet writes inverse.
15. A chicken crossing the road: poultry in motion.
16. With her marriage she got a new name and a dress.
17. A grenade fell onto a kitchen floor in France, resulting in linoleum blownapart.
18. He broke into song because he couldn't find the key.
19. A calendar's days are numbered.
20. A boiled egg is hard to beat.
21. If you jump off a Paris bridge, you are in Seine.
22. When she saw her first strands of gray hair, she thought she'd dye.
23. Bakers trade bread recipes on a knead to know basis.
24. Acupuncture: a jab well done.

Changing Sins

Isn't it interesting how "sins" change? In the '40's, it was a "sin" for able-bodied men not to join the military. As a nation we believed it was right, noble, good to fight to defend our country and other countries, even if it cost us lives and comfort. Today it's a "bad thing", reserved for losers shortchanged by the system. In the '60's it was racism. We needed to treat all people equally. That changed in the '70's to treating certain groups with favoritism ... you know ... to make up for previous conditions. In the first half of the 20th century it was a "sin" to engage in sex outside of marriage and a "sin" to get a divorce. These, of course, have shifted from "sin" to "norm." "Sins" change, at least in the national view.

Here in the 21st century things continue to change. It's a "sin" to be boring. It's acceptable to have religious beliefs, but a "sin" to have them in public or even to allow them to shape your worldview. Well, if it's Christianity, I suppose. Some religions seem to get a pass from most people. And when did it become a sin to make money? It seems a universal belief (well, almost universal) that "rich people are evil" and it is mandatory that they be stripped of what they have. They must be penalized! Take what they have and give it to the rest! People used to aspire to be rich. Now we have politicians promising to take as much as they can from rich corporations (you know ... the ones that employ a lot of people) and rich folks (you know ... the ones that have worked hard to get where they are at) and give it to the rest of us ... the ones who work for the corporations and haven't managed to get rich on our own. That is offered as a selling point for a campaign, a promise without apology, a "good" thing.

Sometimes I don't think I'm following things at all ...

Ligonier Conference - Pg 3

In the comic strip, Fox Trot, Jason is a brainy little troublemaker who likes to aggravate his older brother and sister and likes to do math homework. In one strip, we see Jason outside with one of his friend (Marcus, I believe) getting ready to play football. "Go deep!" he tells Marcus. Marcus says, "Okay ... how do you correlate predestination with free will?" "Too deep," Jason replies.

It has long been the philosophical problem -- If God is sovereign, how can Man be free? R.C. Sproul tackled that problem on Friday night. He used the passage in Genesis 50:15-21 as his text. You may recall this story. Joseph had come out the far end of his rather lengthy trials as prime minister, so to speak, of Egypt. Because he was there, his family was saved when they encountered a 7-year drought. Then his father died. In Genesis 50, then, his brothers were afraid that, lacking the protection of their father, Joseph might retaliate. So they devised an apology. "Dad asked you to please forgive us." Yeah, fine. Joseph makes the classic, "Romans 8:28 of the Old Testament" response: "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20). In this passage, then, we see a parallel. On one hand you have the intentionality of the brothers -- evil. At the same time you have the intentionality of God -- good. "Will" -- volition -- is defined as "the ability for intentionality", and both are present in this sentence from Joseph.

The problem is this: If God is sovereign, then Man cannot be free. If Man is free, then God cannot be sovereign. That's where it seems to stand. However, the problem starts in its semantics. If you define "free" as "autonomy", then the problem remains. If the phrase "Man is free" means that Man is self-ruled, self-determining, responsible only to himself, then it would be a logical contradiction to argue that God is sovereign.

Now, lots of Christians try to weasel out of this dilemma. "God's sovereignty," they may say, "is limited by Man's freedom." Well, okay ... the contradiction is gone, but not the dilemma. A God "limited" is not sovereign, and we're back to a problem. Or how many times have you heard this in some form or another? "God saves as many as He can. He wants to save everyone, but He relies on Man to choose Him." Again, if God has limited His sovereignty, then God cannot be said to be sovereign no matter how we choose to couch the term. "Limited sovereignty" is not "sovereignty". The truth is, if God is sovereign, then Man cannot be autonomous. If Man is autonomous, then God is not sovereign.

The answer, of course, is not to minimize God. The answer is to put Man back in his proper place. It is true that autonomy for Man eliminates sovereignty for God. But what if Man is not autonomous? What if free will exists, but is limited? Ah, you see, now we have eliminated the contradiction. But do we still have "free will"?

If you define "free will" as "choosing according to your strongest inclination" and you allow for the possibility that God may (as sovereign) intervene in your inclinations, then we don't have a problem, do we? That is, if "free will" is "choosing without coercion" and God doesn't coerce, where is the problem? As an example, no one argues when they come to an intersection, "I don't have free will" because they cannot choose to, say, go "up". So if God should limit choices and still allow choices, is there not "free will"?

The question is too big for a lot of people, skeptics and Christians alike. Some choose to go the irrational path of limiting God. I choose to go the path of limiting Man. I don't see limited free will as "no free will." Do you see "limited sovereignty" as actual sovereignty?

Ligonier Conference - Pg 2

John MacArthur tackled one of the toughest questions Christians are asked today. You know the one. I probably don't have to say it. "If God is good, why does He allow such suffering and evil?" It has a name: theodicy - the justice of God versus evil. Lots of people struggle with this concept. Skeptics often see it as the "proof" that there can be no God.

Part of the problem is that so many Christians are ill-equipped to answer it. They try a variety of illegitimate responses. "Oh," they assure us, "it isn't God's fault. It's Adam's fault. He brought sin into this world." Okay ... so why did God allow Adam to do that? (By the way, most don't realize it, but God certainly did create creatures with the ability to make choices without the ability to sin. We call them "animals" and they make choices every day ... except they never violate God's law. He obviously could have done it with Adam.) "No, no," another group argues, "it wasn't Adam's fault. It was Satan! He's the one." So how does that help? Didn't God know that Satan would fall? Couldn't He have prevented that? And the problem is back in God's lap. Others have tried other methods of keeping God's hands clean, so to speak. One attempt is what is known as "process theology". In this one, God is "in process." The more He does, the better He gets at being God, but He hasn't arrived yet. He's getting better and better and some day, well, He'll be awesome! Or there is "openness theology" that argues that God cannot know the future because, well, it hasn't happened yet. So what happens in the future isn't God's fault. These, of course, simply strip off the basic nature of God and we're still left with the problem.

The answer, actually, is quite simple ... even if it's unpleasant to some. It's a simple, logical process:

1. Evil is. (Evil, in fact, is dominant.)
2. God is.
3. Therefore, evil is because God intended it.

In other words, to the question, "If God is good, why does He allow such suffering and evil?", the answer is "because He wants to."

"Oh, yeah, that's better," those others argue. "You've just placed all this in God's lap." Well, yeah, but it's not because I'm willing to do so; it's because God is willing to do so. While we're busy down here trying to save God's good name, He's busy writing down stuff that denies our efforts.

Thine, O LORD, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, indeed everything that is in the heavens and the earth; Thine is the dominion, O LORD, and Thou dost exalt Thyself as head over all (1 Chron 29:11).

See now that I, I am He, and there is no god besides Me. It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded, and it is I who heal; and there is no one who can deliver from My hand (Deut 32:39).

And the LORD said to him, "Who has made man's mouth? Or who makes him dumb or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the LORD" (Exo 4:11)?

Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both good and ill go forth (Lam 3:38)?

I am the LORD, and there is no other, the One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these (Isa 45:6-7).

"Woe to the one who quarrels with his Maker — an earthenware vessel among the vessels of earth!
Will the clay say to the potter, 'What are you doing?' or the thing you are making say, 'He has no hands'" (Isa 45:9)?

Who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use, and another for common use (Rom 9:20-21)?

And, oh, there is so much more like this.

I suppose if we were God's lawyers, we'd be shushing Him. "Don't say a word!" we'd advise Him. "This kind of stuff is too incriminating." It appears that God has no interest in worming out of the question. Instead, it appears that He is agreeing. "I am God ... and I allow evil." In fact, the last several chapters of the book of Job are God speaking in response to Job who has, in essence, asked, "If God is good, why does He allow such suffering and evil?" His reply, essentially, is, "What makes you think I have to answer to you?" And Job's reply, when it is all done, is "I know that Thou canst do all things, and that no purpose of Thine can be thwarted ... Therefore I retract, and I repent in dust and ashes" (Job 42:2,6).

In Scripture, God takes the responsibility for allowing evil to exist. It is for His reasons. We can know this because He says so. We can also know this by the circumstances in the Bible. For instance, the single, supreme evil committed by human beings was the crucifixion of God's Son. That, my friends, was God's plan. They meant it for evil; He meant it for good. And there are explanations as to what His reasons are or might be. Romans 3:5, for instance, points out that our unrighteousness demonstrates God's righteousness. Romans 9:22 says that He intended to show His power and wrath.

So the problem, you see, is not with God. Our "American experiment" of personal independence is good, but it hasn't served us well when it comes to thinking of a sovereign God. And our sin nature has elevated us to the "most high" when we needed to remember we are "creatures." God doesn't have a problem with His responsibilities. It looks like the problem is on our end.

This Cup

³⁶ Then Jesus came with them to a place called Gethsemane, and said to His disciples, "Sit here while I go over there and pray." ³⁷ And He took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be grieved and distressed. ³⁸ Then He said to them, "My soul is deeply grieved, to the point of death; remain here and keep watch with Me." ³⁹ And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as Thou wilt" (Matt 26:36-39).

There have always been questions about this. What was Jesus praying about? What are the ramifications to "prayer" when Jesus asks for something that He doesn't get? What "cup" was He concerned about?

Of course, most of the questions are not as big as they seem. For instance, Jesus got exactly what He prayed for: "Not as I will, but as Thou wilt." Still, what was it that had Jesus so worked up? What was that "cup"?

Here's what I think. Jesus was about to go to the Cross. Certainly He was fully aware of the pain that would entail. "Come on," some might urge, "take it like a man!" Yeah, yeah, but I don't think the physical and emotional torment was in view here. I think Jesus had a specific cup in mind. In Scripture the term "cup" is used often in terms of life's situations. It is also used quite often in terms of judgment. In Psa. 116:13 it refers to "the cup of my salvation." Elsewhere:

God is the Judge; He puts down one, and exalts another. For a cup is in the hand of the LORD, and the wine foams; it is well mixed, and He pours out of this; surely all the wicked of the earth must drain and drink down its dregs (Psa 75:7-8).

That concept is in many places. Isa. 51:17 talks about "the cup of His anger." Jer. 25:15 speaks of "this cup of the wine of wrath" from God. In Rev 14:10 we read of "the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger." (You know ... the origin of the lyric "He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored.")

When Jesus went to the Cross, God Incarnate, the Holy One, took on Himself the infinite offense of human sin. The Infinite God bore the infinite wrath of God. Jesus's final cry was the "cup" that He dreaded but took anyway: "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" It was the wrath of God He bore that was the cup He dreaded, the cup He drank, and the payment He made on our behalf.

Now that's something about which to worship.

Mind and Emotion

Have you ever experienced that uncomfortable condition where your feelings and your thinking don't match?

The bailout stuff serves as one of those for me. The Democrats, for instance, are adamant that there be compensation limits for company leadership that gets bailed out. For me, this creates the dichotomy of which I speak. On one hand, I feel the problem. You have corporate leadership who fly their "plane" into the side of a mountain. As they close on the certain collision, they are handed a "golden parachute", a hearty "thank you" for their good work and a large sum of money so that, even though everyone else goes down, at least they can land safely. No! It feels wrong! My mind, on the other hand, is back-pedaling. "Are you sure you want your government deciding who gets paid what?"

I get this in lots of places. I can feel the outrage over oil companies making big bucks because of market forces while we're all struggling to pay for their gasoline, knowing at the same time that I don't want the government to nationalize or penalize companies because they make money. I can feel the difficulties that people face with low income and no spouse and mouths to feed while struggling myself with the realization that simply handing them cash isn't the best way to help them. I can see in my mind the grand majesty of God's sovereignty and the comfort that provides, knowing that a parent who lost a child isn't immediately going to feel that "grand" because of God's sovereignty.

Someone once said, "If you're not a liberal by the time you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 40, you have no brains." I understand that. Feelings and thought are often in conflict. The question becomes, "Which one will rule your decisions?"

Ligonier Conference - Pg 1

I went to the Ligonier Conference in Scottsdale, AZ, this last weekend. Ligonier has people that blogged it far better than I could, so I won't bother. I will, however, share some of what I saw over the next several of days.

The conference was from Sept. 26-27 and was titled, "Tough Questions Christians Face." We enjoyed three speakers: Ligon Duncan, John MacArthur, and R.C. Sproul. Oh, and the conference and the overflow were sold out weeks before the event, so it was full. I won't bore you with the details. Ligonier's bloggers offer a blow-by-blow account of each speaker and do it well. The link above is just to the summary and from there you can see detailed entries for each speaker and each question asked and answered. But I was interested in some things that I hadn't spent much time thinking about before (and some I had).

Ligon Duncan addressed the conflict between science and Christianity. Some argue today that science has eliminated our need for God. There are a few difficulties with this position. I see three most obvious areas.

First, science, by its nature, is always up for revision. That means that "the ultimate answers" will always be one step away. Even today, for instance, science is questioning the certainties of Newtonian physics. We were sure ... now we're not. So how does science actually answer life's ultimate questions? Well, by saying, "We're working on it" and never actually arriving. That's not a problem -- it is the nature of science -- but neither is it an answer.

Science is also quite sure that miracles cannot exist, an obvious conflict with Christianity. The problem here is that miracles have nothing to do with science. They are, by definition, outside of the natural. An illustration was used that I thought was perfect. At Christmastime, C.S. Lewis was in his office one day. Outside were carolers. A fellow professor stepped in to visit. The professor asked, "Aren't you glad to know that we're not as foolish as those carolers to think that someone can be born of a virgin?" Lewis asked, "Did you think that they didn't know that?" You see, miracles are not intended to be "scientific" and not intended to even be easily believable. Miracles and science don't mix -- by definition.

The third area that is so very obvious today is Evolution versus Creation. "Evolution," science tells us, "has disproved Creation." There are several problems with this idea. First -- and I hear this from as many Evolutionists as I do from Creationists -- Evolution has nothing to say about origins. Evolution is about how things got from "there to here," but it cannot answer how "there" got started. It doesn't even try. Science can't measure it. It's a matter of philosophy, not science. Second, try as it might, Evolution cannot account for things like personality or creativity. The vast gap between humans and the animal kingdom in matters of music, art, and so on doesn't correlate very well with "evolution". Finally, there is a faulty argument in there somewhere. The idea is that "if we can figure it out, it could not have happened by God's hand." In other words, rationality eliminates religion. What? The truth is that modern science owes its origins to ... religion. When the Reformation took hold, Christian intellectuals thought, "If God is rational, then His creation is rational and we should be able to study it." Indeed, if the universe is not designed, it would necessarily be "irrational" to some extent and science would expect to study chaos, not order.

The bottom line here is not that science and Christianity are at odds, however. The bottom line is that they are different. Science studies natural phenomenon. God is supernatural. The notion, for instance, of "Creation Science" is nonsense. A belief in Creation is a belief that "God created." Science cannot study that. Those who argue for "Creation Science" are fighting a losing battle. Think about it in terms we understand easily. A microphone does not pick up the light in the room and amplify it, does it? No, because a microphone is for sound. Your eyes do not see sound, do they? Of course not, because eyes see light. In the same way, science cannot say anything about God because science deals with the natural and God is outside the natural. Here's what Ligon Duncan said: "The nature of the object determines how it can be known." Or, as Christ said, "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth."

Science has not eliminated God. It doesn't have the capacity.