theTrents.org

Young-Earth creationism has been long hounded by what's known as the "Starlight Problem".

Anti-Christian apologists are fond of pointing out the perceived inconsistency in Genesis 1 regarding the creation of light before the light sources.

Has anyone else noticed these two criticisms seem to resolve each other, at least theologically?

Genesis 1:3-5 states:

And God said, Let there be light, and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. (ESV)

Genesis 1:14-19 says:

And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth. And it was so. And God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day. (ESV)

At first the order does seem reversed. How can you have light and day/night deliniation without the soon/moon/stars? We're in the context of the miraculous in the first place, though. Could not Almighty God, in the process of creating the universe and its physical laws in the first place, enact sourceless, cyclic light? And with prescience of future scientific debate, could He not have made this light versus source dichotomy as an intentional clue?
...CONTINUED...

My comment on Astronomers see the Big Bang in action (as posted on a Geek news site):

So basically we still don't understand the impetus, composition, or exact characteristics of this supposed event, BUT we claim to have delved yet deeper into the never ending minutiae of theories upon theories which attempt to explain, in ever-increasing complexity and unverifiable speculation, an occurance that is contradictory to the very belief system which created it. And yet all of this is still taken as Gospel truth (pardon the pun) by "enlightened" people everywhere, who pat themselves on the back for coming up with, or at least adhering to, such clever ideas, even though absolutely nothing has been or can ever be proven in such a matter.

In the end this stuff is so improbable, so outlandish and unprovable, that timeframes have to be continually increased or decreased (whichever is most convenient), mass and energy constantly adjusted, and theories heaped up ad infinitum so as to create an ever-moving target. In this manner even this most absurd of ideas is strung along and its proponents, adhering by faith to that which they cannot prove or even fathom, have become what they set out to avoid in the first place: religious. Sure, they may have scientists instead of prophets, and knowledge and human achievement rather than gods, but it still takes nothing short of a generous helping of religious-style faith to believe a Big Bang genesis.

At least we "fundies" are up front about our faith...

Introduction

Following a recent conversation with my sister-in-law regarding what is most commonly known as "speaking in tongues", I endeavored to determine exactly what scripture has to say about the practice. I wanted to solidify my somewhat wobbly stance, having made study of it in times past but never coming to any firm conclusions.

I am hesitant to cement a position into my personal beliefs unless I am sufficiently well-studied and unreservedly confident on the matter; and on this subject of tongues have several portions of scripture consistently given me pause. I also try to consider the implications and import of doctrines before drawing a "line in the sand" over them: Is it a salvation issue? Does it misrepresent or malign the character of God? Is it likely to lead Christians into grievous error or unduly repel or mislead non-Christians? Does it make light of sin? This line of questioning is important, as discernment is called for when deciding how hard and fast to hold a position. Some things are worth dividing over, some are not, and others are somewhere in between.

And so a definitive answer on tongues was relegated to the "uncertain or unimportant (or both)" category of my theology, where other non-essentials, such as much of eschatology, largely reside. Basically, if I haven't studied it enough to make a thoroughly-educated decision, if it doesn't have a significant impact on life (see the questions above), and if it's not against the plain witness of the Word or conscience, I try to keep an open mind. After all, there are good Christians on both sides of many of these debates. In fact, I have many dear Christian friends of the charismatic persuasion, whose sincerity and faith are without question.

But after some rather intense study and meditation, I have now arrived at an interpretation that I feel reflects the perspicuous meaning of the text, and represents the only truly harmonious solution. I hope it is not pretentious to relate that I feel a real insight into the intent and mindset of the author (in relation to the passage in 1 Corinthians). In fact, after puzzling over a particular few verses (for years, really), I experienced what I could only describe as a Spirit-led epiphany. But that is, of course, subjective, and although I found the whole thing quite edifying personally, what I really want to do is "reason from the scriptures"(Acts 17:2) on this subject of tongues.
...CONTINUED...

The American Episcopal church has been in the news lately for a controversy currently raging within its ranks over homosexual clergy. Although I wish it could be said that this was an isolated occurrence or an unheardof and quickly-quashed anomaly, it has rather become a firmly established and ever creeping menace to "Christian" churches in our time. Currently among protestant/evangelical Christendom, whether in whole or part, have Anglican/Episcopalian, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, and probably others, instated or become engaged in debate over teachings legitimizing homosexuality. There is apparently a growing contingent of so-called Christians who have no problem reconciling homosexual practice with Christian doctrine.

The New Testament both warns and assures of apostasy:

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. (2 Tim 4:3-4)

You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness, (2 Pet 3:17)

And we know the end will not come without a falling away:

But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, (1 Tim 4:1-2)

Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, (2 Thes 2:3)
...CONTINUED...

The Book of Mormon is promoted as "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" -- a sort of "companion guide" to the Bible. The LDS church strives to be viewed and treated as another "denomination" of orthodox Christianity, and Mormons are offended and dismayed when Christians don't accept them as fellow Believers, the latter even going so far as to classify their religion as a cult! After all, they "believe" in Jesus, the Bible, faith, and so on, right? Why can't we all just learn to get along and accept one another?

Here's why.

For a second let's forget the fact that genetic science, archaeology, linguistics, and the like have decisively disproved the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Disregard the indisputable differences and conflict between Latter-day Saints' doctrine and the clear witness of real Scripture. Never mind the inaccurate and unfulfilled prophecies, the immorality and deceit of the leadership and teachings, the historical revisionism, the mind control, the occult practices, and the shattered lives. That has all been hashed and re-hashed ad nauseam in many different forums and media.

Instead, I propose a simple Biblical test. ...CONTINUED...

Well I'm not usually a big Kent Hovind fan, since he is a bit "wacko" on some things and I don't generally appreciate his somewhat cocky approach, but I thought this was interesting since I've often thought along these lines myself.

His offer: $250,000 to anyone who can prove evolution beyond the point where it no longer requires religious-style faith to believe. Creationism is oft-maligned as a "psuedoscience" because of its basis in faith. However, honest evolutionists have to admit their theory is every bit as "faith-based".

Don't believe me? Then answer this simple question: where did the universe come from? If your answer is "the big bang" or the like, my answer will be "and where did the matter/energy for that come from?", and regardless of how much quantum physics technobabble you proceed to bury me with, I continue to respond "and where did that come from?", and so-on, ad naseaum. Bottom line: you don't get something from nothing (science says so: see Laws of Conservation of Mass/Energy and Laws of Thermodynamics).

And so ultimately adherants to Creation and evolution both excercise faith. Neither view could exist without it. So the question remains: how can publically-funded education teach the religion of evolution, if Creationism has been disqualified simply because of its percieved status as such? Whether you agree or disagree on individual points, there is plenty of "science" to go around on BOTH sides. Teach both or neither, and let the kids decide. However, you can't honestly disqualify one as a faith-based premise, wh ...CONTINUED...

The Council of Trent, in Canon 1 of the Eucharist section, states:

"If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA"

The Catholic doctrine of the "Real Presence" is central to their worship and liturgy, and indeed their religion as a whole, so much so that they proclaim in an immutable conciliar canon damnation (anathema) on anyone who disagrees. I would like to explore this dogma in the light of scripture and reason.
...CONTINUED...

The pope died. They had a funeral for him. The ecclesiastical leaders of the Roman church got all dressed up to attend. It was hailed as the biggest funeral in history. And what colors were choosen for the Catholic event of the century? Here are some pictures (full-size links at bottom of article). You'll notice two colors clearly stand out among the officially-dressed Cardinals and Archbishops: purple and scarlet! In fact, besides black and white, those are basically the only colors represented. Read on for why this is significant.
...CONTINUED...

Question: How can all these denominations claim to follow the bible yet all come to different conclusions? How can I possibly know which one of those above teach the truth when they can't even agree on what the Bible says? Protestants believe a variety of doctrines and all claim to take their doctrines from the Bible. That doesn't really sound like perspicuity to me. 'Bible alone' has created so much havoc in this world.

Answer: You rashly attribute the differences of opinions among Christians to 'Sola Sciptura' - namely, the Protestant belief that the Holy Scripture is the only infallible rule of Christian doctrine.

The fault is not in the Scripture but in the human heart. We need to distinguish between two basic facts. Firstly, the Bible is perspicuous (clear, understandable) - it is not some mysterious book that cannot be understood by common ordinary Christians. Otherwise why would the apostles address their epistles to them rather than the magisterium? Secondly, the human nature is such that people can misunderstand even the simplest of matters. This is true of Christians -- even the apostles were hard to understand! -- and it is even more so in the case of unregenerate people whose hearts are darkened.

So, it is unfair to say that since Christians have disagreements between themselves, and since they study the same Bible, the Bible is not clear. The problem is not with the Bible but with us.

The apparent unity of the Roman Catholic Church is illusory, as any informed Catholic would know. The unity is structural and organizational, but there are serious divisions at all levels, especially between the more liberal and conservative Catholics. Take the charismatic movement for an example. In Protestant circles, Charismatics form separate denominations (and so the distinction from other denominations is obvious). Whereas in the Catholic church, the charismatic groups remain under the Roman umbrella. Their differences from non-charismatic Catholics are hidden though they are just as real as in Protestant churches.

...CONTINUED...

Just a thought/question for Catholics:

The Bible, in Psalms 16 (a Messianic Psalm), states that Jesus' body will not see decay:
10 ... Nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.
Peter and Paul both quote that verse again in Acts (2:31, and 13:35, respectively), in direct reference to Christ.

If this be true (and it is, 'cause the Bible says it!), what would happen to some consecrated Host that was left sitting around for a few months? Seems like that would be an easy way to solve the centuries-old question of transubstantiation...

Interestingly enough, Anne Askew, a Christian martyred by the Catholic Church, died uttering that very challenge:
...CONTINUED...

Catholicism claims Jesus' sacrifice is "re-presented" (CCC #1366) in an "unbloody" manner (CCC #1367 & #1369) through the Mass. These words "re-presented" and "unbloody" are key to understanding the Catholic view of the Eucharist, as they are an attempt to skirt the clear Biblical teaching of Jesus' "once for all" sacrifice.

The Bible says The Cross was a one-time event and is complete and sufficient for all time (John 19:30, Hebrews 10, Hebrews 7:22,27, Hebrews 9:11-15, Hebrews 9:24-26, 1 Peter 3:18). Conversely, the Roman Church says Jesus' sacrifice was not enough to completely forgive sins. Instead, they claim the Mass as a necessary and ongoing propitiation. In order to get around the "problem" of the Bible's "once for all" teaching, the concept of "re-presenting" is employed. Note the dash -- they do not say the Mass merely "represents" The Cross, rather, in a real sense it IS the sacrifice, and is "RE-presented" to God as payment for (some) sin. ...CONTINUED...

From what I understand, the Catholic dogma of the "Immaculate Conception" of Mary is deduced by the fact that Jesus is perfect and therefore His mother must have been as well, since, logically, imperfection does not beget perfection. This is not supported in scripture, of course, and I don't believe there is any claim as such. Rather, it's one of the many things that have arisen from "church tradition", which to the RCC, is Gospel truth.

The Christian response to this idea is that God is big enough to cause His Son to be born of an imperfect human being, and yet still be perfect. This IS supported by scripture, since we are told both that ALL have sinned (Ps 14:2-3, Ecc 7:20, Isa 53:6, Isa 64:6, Rom 3:10-12, Rom 3:23, Rom 5:12, Gal 3:22), except Jesus (1Pet 2:22, Heb 4:15), AND that He was born of a human woman (Mat 1:22, et al).
...CONTINUED...

Catholicism obtains its doctrine of the papacy almost entirely from a select few verses in Matthew 16:

13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; others, Elijah; still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15 "But you," He asked them, "who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God!" 17 And Jesus responded, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the forces of Hades will not overpower it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven."

After thorough research, here are my thoughts:

1. This same exchange is recorded not just in Matthew 16, but in Mark 8 and Luke 9 also. Neither Mark nor Luke bother to record what Matthew does in v.17-19. Their versions of the event reads almost identically, but without the contents of v.17-19. Surely something as important as establishing the foundation/head of the Church is not to be skipped over! The entire basis of the Catholic church rests on this doctrine. If we are to believe the Catholic interpretation of this passage, then Mark & Luke (and the Holy Spirit) are gravely remiss for not including that vital information in their gospels as well!
2. In v.18 the name "Peter" from the Greek text is "petros", which denotes a piece of rock, or perhaps a small stone. However the word "rock" in v.18 in the Greek is "petra" which indicates a mass of rock, such as in Matt. 7:24, where the wise man builds his house on the rock. You cannot build anything on a petros, but you can on a petra. So Peter is a stone (see 1Peter 2:4-5), but the rock on which the Church is built is a massive foundation (see 1Peter 2:6-7). Peter is both compared, but most importantly, contrasted, with the Church's foundation, which of course, is Christ and the confession thereof (which leads us into #3...).
   ...CONTINUED...

We went to the annual Handel's Messiah Sing-Along at the Seventh Day Adventist Church in Adna (or is that still Chehalis?). It was neat; Jenny and her dad sang in the choir and the music was pretty good. See our photo gallery here for pictures (it's a beautiful building).

Anyway, there is a large stained-glass mural in the front, behind the pipe organ pipes (there's a picture in the gallery). And as I was leaving the sanctuary, I noticed a display on the back wall with info about the architecture of room. One block talked about the stained-glass and said it depicted Jesus' second coming through a hole in the Orion Nebula! (I don't remember learning _that_ in Sunday School!)
...CONTINUED...