Lewis went on to discuss how compelling the myth of evolution was. After all, to think that we humans evolved to where we are today from a mere bacterium is astounding to say the least. It’s a true underdog story! Unfortunately, there isn’t enough evidence for macro-evolution to fill a thimble.

Notice I said macro-evolution. Evolution that results in large and complex changes like the formation of new species. No theologian (or scientist for that matter) worth his salt will deny micro-evolution, which is the adaptation and selection of creatures that already exist – but to claim that the changes that occur in an already existing organism actually created the organism is quite absurd. There is no evidence for that.

Lewis said that many scientists even in his day were eager to give up on Darwinism, but that there were several key reasons why it hung on (despite insufficient evidence). First, there was the political effectiveness of the theory of evolution. This theory (when applied to politics) would give the false hope that we are just one elected official away from a utopian society. This keeps the people engaged in the political realm.

According to Lewis, one other reason for not giving up on evolutionary theory is one of economics. There is nothing better for a business than the theory of evolution. Think about it. Every year a better car, smartphone, computer, etc. comes out, and evolution demands that it is better than the one before! So, you should go out and buy that thing! The same holds true with fashion and style. Air Jordan’s anyone?

Technology. Automobiles. Politics. Fashion. Evolutionary theory benefits them all. No wonder it is so hard to get rid of! As Christians we must be on guard against all false religions – even when they come in the guise of science. We must educate our friends, family, and yes, our children about the false doctrines that permeate the culture. Then, we must patiently open their eyes to the greatest truth in the cosmos through the inerrant Word of God.

The post C.S. Lewis and Evolution appeared first on Jay Scott.

Some historians (usually those of the atheistic or agnostic persuasion) try to claim that the New Testament is not a reliable historical document. In today’s article I’d like to briefly cover the manuscript evidence for the New Testament compared to some other historical documents. While this is just one (of the many) pieces of evidence for the reliability of the Bible, I believe it to be an integral one.

The question we must answer is: is the New Testament reliable as a historical document based on manuscript evidence? Well, we need to consider that there are more copies of the New Testament documents (over 5,800 copies) than many of the other texts that historians have no problem accepting as authentic. Here are some examples:

Homer’s Iliad: Written about 700 B.C., the earliest manuscript of this work is unknown. There are 643 known copies of this manuscript.

Josephus’ Jewish Wars: Written about A.D. 70 and the earliest known manuscript is dated at 400 A.D. There are 9 known copies of this manuscript. *There are parts of Joshephus’ work that some believe to be embellished but that is another topic for another time.

Histories of Tacitus: Written about A.D. 100, the earliest known manuscript is from around 900 A.D. There are 2 known copies of this manuscript.

The New Testament: Written between 50-100 A.D. with the earliest manuscript (partial) dating back to 125 A.D. There are now over 5,800 known manuscripts of the New Testament.

It should be noted that historians seem to have no problem accepting all of the manuscripts above largely as historically reliable – except for the New Testament. It should also be noted that when it comes to overall historical reliability (based on manuscript evidence) the New Testament wins “hands down” against these “respected” historical documents.

The conclusion is that the New Testament is indeed a reliable document. We do have what was originally penned and whether or not you believe the content of the New Testament does not determine its reliability (based on manuscript evidence). This is just one more piece in the puzzle that should lead all reasonable men and women to a believe in the inspiration of the Bible.

The post Is the New Testament Reliable? appeared first on Jay Scott.

Still, education can be valuable as well. Brother Thomas B. Warren was a big proponent of education (even secular education) for preachers. He felt that the universities had had education to themselves for too long and that good Christians needed to become a part of the system. I agree, but I also wonder if things have now gone too far for that to (realistically) happen.

I will tell you a story to illustrate my point. I had a professor in undergrad who what blatantly misinterpreting scripture by “picking and choosing” verses and using “the argument from authority” fallacy. What I mean by this is he was taking another professor (who he obviously looked up to) and stating that because this professor said such and such that such and such was “fact”. I spoke up in class and refuted each point that the professor made with scripture. Things did not go well.

Before I get into the outcome of this contention I would like to state that I did nothing that any solid brother or sister in the church could not have done. In fact, I looked many of the verses needed to refute him on my iPad right there in class! So, I am not saying that I’m some kind of Biblical genius who refuted this well educated man. Still, I was able to refute every argument he offered and I did so.

He became VERY agitated and began to yell at me. He said, “Do not insult my intelligence! This man [the professor he was looking up and referring to] has a PhD and has been on the New York Times best seller list!” I basically replied that what the Bible says outweighs any man, as I believe it to be the Word of God. During this “confrontation” the other students in the class were looking at the floor uncomfortably. Still, I continued to refute each false premise (I felt it was my duty as a Christian for the benefit of the other students in the class), and he became even more angry.

After five or six refutations he was literally yelling so loudly that I was afraid other professors (in other classes) were going to intervene. He said many things, that I did not have the expertise to correct this famous professor, etc., and concluded by bellowing “That’s it! Class is over! I cannot be interrupted by someone with such a naive view of the Bible!”

After class I tried to give him a Bible reference card that tells you where to look up various subjects (Plan of Salvation, etc.) in the Bible. He refused to even look at me and told me he did not want my material and to take it with me and then followed me out of class yelling about the “insulting” of his intelligence and my “naive” view of the Bible. He went to the elevator and I took the stairs, I heard his yelling echoing down the hallway until the doorway to the stairs closed behind me.

I tell this story because the situation at public universities is (in my opinion) worsening. I know there are some places where this is likely less severe, but consider that I was at a university in the south! The ability to express views is being limited to that which is “culturally acceptable” and Christianity is becoming less and less acceptable in the university culture. Forget “equality”, we have a power shift (that has been happening for decades by the way) occurring in our public institutions – and I believe it is reaching an unprecedented level. Certain religious and political views are just not allowed to be put forth. This should not be the case.

Now, I understand that freedom of speech has its limitations (see my article here), but I also understand that if atheistic and evolutionary views are being presented in college (as well as views that assert that the Bible is just a book) – then the proper Biblical views should also be allowed to be put forth. This gives each student the ability to choose rationally between the two possibilities and make an educated decision about the future of their lives.

So, what is to be done about this dreadful situation? I think that we have to continue to fight for the equal presentation of both sides of the argument. I am not claiming that teachers should not put forth views, but they should put forth (to their students) all reasonable options. Since the Biblical option is by far the most reasonable option, it should be included in the curriculum of our educational institutions. Since that is not currently the case, I believe that we must educate our young people so that they can fight the good fight of faith in classrooms across the nation…even if professors and teachers claim they are “insulting their intelligence”.

The post Education and the church appeared first on Jay Scott.

Rom 3:10  as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;

Natural ethics is a form of Secular Ethics that is often put forth by evolutionists and even some “religious” leaders such as the current Dalai Lama. It asserts that we all are in inherently “good” and that is why we typically want to do good. Doing good has helped us to survive (evolutionarily) and in order to be “happy” we must follow basic principles based on our inherent “human” goodness (by the way, these “principles” are eerily similar to the principles that God puts forth in the Bible).

This, of course, is completely against the Bible. We are not good, only God is good. Our time should be spent striving to improve and do better, but even then only Jesus blood will allow us to make it to Heaven. 

How can we dispute this ethical theory? 

Well, first we should ask, who defines “good”? By what objective yardstick is “good” measured? It certainly cannot be measured by any man (except Jesus). That is what led the philosopher Plato towards his theory of “forms” (as ridiculous as it was), he needed to find some measuring stick for things like goodness and virtue, etc. This is because if we base our morality on man it is purely subjective – and “good” depends on which man you talk to. 

Here’s a Minder Bender…

What if something is “good” to a specific culture, but not deemed good by a second culture – and that second culture prides itself on being accepting of all other culture’s beliefs? Now, it is faced with a dilemma. Let’s say that it seems to the second culture that the first culture is being bigoted by believing what they do (maybe they hold a belief about women’s rights or some other controversial topic).

Therefore, they refuse to accept the first culture’s beliefs (on the basis of their declaring it to be bigoted). Does that make the second culture the arbiter of what is “good”? If so, what makes the second culture’s beliefs better than the first culture’s (if they are both based on manmade opinions)? Have they not now determined that they accept every culture and belief except the first culture’s? Isn’t that being bigoted against the first culture’s beliefs? Aren’t we back at square one? With no objective truth there is only subjective truth (man’s opinion).

What does that mean? Well, it means that nothing is objectively right or wrong. That mean’s that the Nazi’s just had a different opinion than the other people of the world about what was “good”. We, as humans, know this is a ridiculous statement and that what the Nazi’s did in killing 5 million Jews was objectively WRONG!

Some say that our ethics are based in survival, and that being “good” is what has allowed our species to thrive and survive. This also falls short of the mark, as much of what we see as objectively good is often evolutionarily counterproductive.

For example, the Nazi’s also had what was called the “useless eaters” program. This program mercilessly killed those with mental disabilities and those who had hereditary blindness, deafness, etc. According to evolution this might be a good idea, there would be more food for the healthy “workers” and the gene pool would grow stronger by removing those with disabilities – however we know that this is also ridiculous and objectively WRONG!

You would be hard pressed to find a supporter of “natural ethics” who would agree to the validity of the “useless eaters” program. As humans we instinctively know that every person has inherent value despite disabilities. This is true regardless of whether a specific action would be evolutionarily beneficial for the human species. I won’t go deeper here, but basing morality in mankind or in evolution has many pitfalls and is, in the end, contradictory.

I think these excerpts about situation ethics by Wayne Jackson are applicable here:

“Situation ethics claims there are no rules save the rule to love, yet by their own rules the situationists would define love. Second, God is removed from the throne as the moral Sovereign of the Universe, and man is enthroned in His place. Man, then, with his own subjective sense of “love,” makes all final moral judgments. Situationism thus ignores the biblical view that man is lacking in sufficient wisdom to guide his earthly activities (Jeremiah 10:23)”. -Wayne Jackson

“…situationism assumes that “love” is some sort of ambiguous, no-rule essence that is a cure-all for moral problems. That is like suggesting that two football teams play a game in which there will be no rules except the rule of “fairness.” Fairness according to whose judgment? Team A? Team B? The referees? The spectators? That is utter nonsense! …even when one suggests that “love” be the criterion for ethical decisions, he presupposes some standard for determining what love is. Situationists contradict themselves at every turn.” -Wayne Jackson

It seems that when one sets down particular rules that are “good” for humanity they simply cannot avoid contradicting themselves. If objective moral rules are based on the opinion of a man or a culture then there is no way to know what man or what culture is right. It all becomes opinion at that point.

Fortunately, we know that God is the arbiter of all truth and is the objective standard of morality. According to biblical doctrine, we can all know that truth. In fact, that truth is so obvious that the apostle Paul tells us there is no excuse for us not to see it. I pray that we all will see that objective truth (the truth of God) and ward off the influence of a twisted and debased culture.

Rom 1:19  For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

Rom 1:20  For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

The post Can Ethics be Based in Human Nature? appeared first on Jay Scott.

In this debate Brother Warren went against the leading atheist of the time period (this being circa 1976) – a philosophy professor from Oxford, England named Dr. Anthony Flew. Dr. Flew was a brilliant man and I’m sure he stepped into this debate (concerning the existence of God) without a second thought. After all, he was willing to pit his mind against the mind of any man, including Dr. Warren.

I believe Dr. Flew was correct in his assumption that he and Dr. Warren were of similar intellectual capacities. What he did not count on was that Dr. Warren had help from God. I don’t necessarily mean that brother Warren was helped providentially (though I’m sure he prayed and was indeed so helped). What I mean is that brother Warren had the Word of God to go by -God’s logic – while Dr. Flew did not.

Brother Warren, an expert in Propositional Logic, took Dr. Flew to task by cornering him with the objective truths of the Bible. Everywhere Dr. Flew turned he was cut off by his own contradictions which were brought to light through brother Warren’s powerful use of God’s Word.

Set points such as mathematics, physics, morality, and yes, logic are given to us by God. They are the unchangeable rules of the world we inhabit. Today I see a weakening of Logic and critical thinking within some congregations of the Lord’s church. I may write about this on this website sometime in the future (at this time I am still observing and gathering information).

Dr. Flew was one of the preeminent intellectuals of his time, but when he tried to push against God’s set point of logic he lost his debate with brother Warren. Let us (in the Lord’s church) not make the same mistake. Let us use logic and reason to rightly divide God’s Word. If we do so many of the “controversies” that have come to light recently will fade into the ether, being dissolved in the written essence of God.

The post Logic and the Lord’s church appeared first on Jay Scott.

In addition, the vast majority of the people the world puts forth as being “academic” hold to this ancient universe theory (as well as the theory of evolution). In fact, if one does not hold to these mainstream “theories” they are ostracized in academia, often to the point of being made fun of.

I feel that the church has a responsibility to reveal the truth to these young people. What is the truth? The truth is there is a vast amount of scientific evidence that points to a young earth. You won’t hear about that evidence at school (or even at many churches), but the truth is that young earth creationism is backed up by solid evidence.

The purpose of today’s article was not so much to enlighten folks on the age of the earth as it was to enlighten them about what their children and grandchildren are being taught in school. It is no wonder that we see so many kids falling away from the church. If the secular theories of ‘The Big Bang’ and evolution continue to seep into the subconscious of our youth it will do vast amounts of damage.

What damage will it do? Well, it will undermine scripture and push forward the idea that we are highly evolved apes – animals. And, if we are just highly evolved animals then there is no reason not to have promiscuous sex, curse, steal, murder – you name it. If we are merely animals then there is no objective truth, just mankind’s subjective opinion of what is right and wrong.

As it says in the Dostoevsky novel The Brothers Karamazov, “If there’s no God and no life beyond the grave, doesn’t that mean that men will be allowed to do whatever they want?” I think any sensible person would say yes, that if there is no God then morality is subjective (up to each individual), and following that to it’s logical conclusion we find that someone such as Ted Bundy simply had a “different opinion” than the majority on killing for pleasure. He was just living out his dream, “you do you”, “be yourself”, “follow your heart” and all that.

This is ludicrous. We know inherently that some things are right and some are wrong – and the Bible puts forth mankind’s morality in the most divine and perfect way imaginable. Yet the world is wrenching away the Bible’s authority over their morality. It scares me to think what will happen over the next few decades if we continue to rebel against the authority and perfect morality of the Bible.

Let us all teach our children that the Bible is THE source of knowledge and that the wisdom of men is often folly. Not only that, let us instill the power of the Bible and God’s Word into our youth and into ourselves. We cannot let the false wisdom of the world influence the church of Christ without fighting back:

1Co 1:18  For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1Co 1:19  For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

1Co 1:20  Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

I will end this article by leaving you with a few resources. These resources provide evidence to the contrary of the “wisdom of this world”. Be sure to check these out if you have time:

Assumptions and the Age of the Earth

Creation and the Age of the Earth

Atheist Blogger Leah Libresco Converted to Theism by Morality

The post Is the Bible’s Authority Being Wrenched Away? appeared first on Jay Scott.

Well naturalists, I hate to the be the bearer of bad news but this viewpoint is contradictory. If one believes in the “Big Bang” and thus believes in the spontaneous generation of the components of the universe (this means they believe it came from nothing) then one is forced to believe that something beyond observable nature has occurred.

The reason the spontaneous generation of matter is beyond the “natural” is because it has never been witnessed (scientifically or otherwise) to occur. That means that spontaneous generation out of nothing (such as an uninitiated Big Bang) is just a materialistic, man made replacement for God – one that requires these naturalists to have blind faith. Not only that, but they teach this in our schools and present it as scientific fact (which it most certainly is not).

As Christians our faith is not blind, it is backed up by scientific evidence. This scientific evidence is historical in nature, but it is sure and true evidence nonetheless. There are various (scientific and philosophical) arguments for God that have stood the test of time and the Bible itself is rich with prophecy and unerring historical detail (but I’ll save that for another article).

I believe that the main issue at play in academia today is failure to submit to God. Man has always been rebellious in nature and often seeks to “figure things out” in a more complete way than God – and that man-made path always ends in disaster. We can be sure that God is the true supernatural creator of the universe – all we have to do is humble ourselves and open our eyes to the evidence.

Rom 1:20  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

The post I Don’t Believe in the Supernatural! appeared first on Jay Scott.