Daily Suffering: The Practical Difference Between Calvinism and Arminianism

There is no mystery in the universe as profound and troubling as the problem of evil.  Many who are atheists will cite this very problem as the primary reason for not believing in God.

On an intellectual level, an Arminian can live in a quiet truce with other Christians over this issue because on an intellectual level, both sides generally accept that much of the problem is indeed a mystery.  But on an emotional level, the question goes too deep.

On an emotional level, I fear the Calvinist and the Arminian are in completely different universes when it comes to dealing with pain, suffering and evil in the midst of human experience.  (More)

Shadow of Oz - Pay no Attention to That Scientist/Theologian Behind the Curtain

Wayne Rossiter followed an interesting path, from Christianity to Darwinism to a vocal atheism, to crisis and back to Christianity.   While he remains a practicing scientist, he found himself troubled by the path chosen by many Christian intellectuals in attempting to maintain a purely Darwinian view of origins while claiming to hold to Christian beliefs.   He begins the book with the troubling tale of a young college student who was so devastated by the destruction of his faith through Darwinism that he committed suicide.   While extreme, this brief story sets the stage for the discussion of the uneasy marriage of two contradictory worldviews.   (More)

The Baltimore Catechism On Origins

One of the many false canards used by Theistic Evolutionists to dismiss Young Earth Creationism and is the idea that belief in a literal Adam is something of a novelty.  We are told, over and over, that Ancient Near Eastern thought doesn't really care about science or history the way we moderns think about those things.  All that really matters is the narrative and the theological ideas behind the stories.

We are told Augustine's "Literal Meaning of Genesis" cautions against pitting the Bible against science, for if we are wrong about the science it will discredit faith.   We are told many of the church fathers allegorized the early chapters of Genesis.

Ultimately, the whole science/faith divide boils down to a few misguided fundamentalists creating a false dichotomy between science and faith.  (more)

A Step Beyond Orthodoxy at Jesus Creed

At Jesus Creed, the continued Evangelizing in the name of Christian Darwinism continues with a post by the prolific guest blogger RJS.  The post is titled “Evolution, Belief, and the Virgin Birth” and features a discussion of a book by Robert Asher, “ Evolution and Belief: Confessions of a Religious Paleontologist.”

While I think I should be fair and say that I believe both RJS and Scott McKnight would profess to affirm tenets of the faith called into question by the author of the book, the rather uncritical discussion of the views and the ho-hum tone of the comments indicate a great deal of comfort with one who questions central doctrines of the historical Christian faith.

RJS has been a steadfast champion of Evolutionary Creationism, what used to be called Theistic Evolution.  In the views presented in her posts, the primary constant is that science requires a commitment to seeking understanding of nature through natural processes alone.  Though she is a theist and an adherent to Christianity, she sees natural law as vital to the scientific enterprise.   Adding the possibility of interference from somewhere “outside of nature” is anathema to the science academy, which means no miracles are permitted, particularly in the discussion of origins.  That raises a bit of a contradiction when EC’s deal with New Testament miracles such as the resurrection and virgin birth of Christ, as we shall see.  (Read More)

What Color is Your Heresy?

In postmodern approaches to theology, context determines everything.  Since interpretations of reality are social constructs, and the subjective context from which one does theology determines the meaning of just about everything, postmodern theologies can be exceedingly relativistic, destructively creative, and aggressively subversive.

This Jesus Creed post from November 5, 2015 is titled "White Heresy, Black Heresy" was written by Austin Fischer, author of "Young Restless and no Longer Reformed" who blogs at Purple Theology.  The question Fischer frames is one of orthodoxy vs. orthopraxy as relates to race and justice, but the “context” of American race struggles takes the whole premise in a dangerous direction.   In short, it implicitly celebrates “contextualization” with a vengeance while hiding a great deal from unsuspecting readers about the source material.  More

The Information Enigma

The Discovery Institute has put out this video:  The Information Enigma.

It does explain the basic idea that the Darwinian model doesn't work and a brief description of the design inference.

The video focuses on a combination lock as an illustration of the problem.   A bike lock with four
10-character possibilities would have 10,000 possible combinations, making it unlikely that a thief would have or take the time to randomly try to guess the combination.   Proteins are vastly more complex and the possibility of randomness producing new functions is essentially nil.

But what isn't discussed is that someone had to first design the lock and set it to open with a correct combination.   What lies behind the physical representation of the "design" or "information" is even more beyond the realm of random mechanistic processes.

I support ID even though it avoids the theological questions.

I just want to push a little further.  

Things I Don't Believe

Creeds, declarations, manifestos have been written about many, many things and are usually a positive affirmation of what someone believes.   I think about beliefs when politicians are asked gotcha questions about hot button topics and no question gets more ridicule than suggesting one rejects Darwinism.  

I think it would be wise, when asked about origins, if politicians turned the question around and stated things in a negative way.  

So, if you will, the anti-creed - a statement of things I DO NOT believe.