Mark Stevens writes about how churches should treat their pastor’s children. A good, sensible post if I ever saw one.

Had there truly been omething substantial to say, I would have said it.

This is only a test.

There is another thing that must be said regarding Scripture and knowledge. This comes from the perspective that Scripture is the only document (or collection thereof) capable of providing for us a rational epistemology. Scripture gives us the only foundation of predication. Scripture gives us a consistent and coherent epistemology. That is one reason why we must believe the Scriptures.

Not only is God the ground and source of all knowledge, but it it the Triune God of the Bible who is the ground and source of knowledge.

Knowledge is multifaceted. So is God. If God were so totally one that there were not three persons in God, He would either be so distant from us that He would be unknowable, or He would be so much like us that He would be one with the universe. In the first case He would be a distant God who could never be know. In the second, He would be brought down to our level and would be equal to us. (Note: the second case is that which was held by the pantheist Spinoza, who is the father of modern biblical criticism.).

Scripture provides us with the only answer to the one and the many- the One God who is three persons.

There is no consistent, coherent epistemology without the Triune God of the Scripture.

“If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die. Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.” (1 Corinthians 15:32–33)

I’ve not written much in the last several months, as life has me very busy.

This, however, has been begging to be written.

Not because it is extremely deep. Neither is it because it is extremely profound and earthshaking (Though indeed it should be considered such.).

This has been pleading for release from my heart and mind because of the nature of the conflicts we face in the world.

Our world is shaken in many different ways. There are earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, and typhoons. There are scandals, both public and private. Our own world is often shaken by our own personal and private griefs.

As we face conflict, we also face moral conflict. The USA is in a moral turmoil in many different ways. In other places, the problems faced are different in degree; but they are not often different in nature.

Conservative Christians around the world bemoan the lack of moral character present even in their own people. We grieve the lack of morality in the world as well as in our nation here in the USA.

Sadly we are often holier-than-thou in our responses. We talk about the wickedness of others and are often extremely judgmental. One need only listen to the things people say after a horrible catastrophe to hear these judgmental statements.

I, being a Christian who benefits from the Reformed tradition and theology, am convinced that Scripture does indeed teach that man is depraved. There is no doubt in my mind of the source of this wickedness.

What I recently realized is that people are not only pursuing ungodliness for hedonistic reasons, but they are also doing so for another reason. That reason is that they think that today is all the have. The slogan is YOLO (You Only Live Once). If we only live once, why not pour ourselves into hedonistic pursuits? It only stands to reason. Paul said as much when he quoted the Greek poet in the text which heads this article.

As Christians we know that we do not only live once; but we are assured- we have hope- that we shall live again. It is this hope that has sustained millions through persecution and martyrdom. It is this hope that causes them to forgo sinful pleasures, understanding that there are greater pleasures to be obtained in the afterlife. It is this hope that keeps them going when they feel useless, unsuccessful, and think that their work is futile.

The world doesn’t have this hope. YOLO is not a message of hope, but a theology of despair.

We don’t cling to despair as Christians. Our theology is one of hope. The dead shall rise and be rewarded. The worldly theologians of despair have said,

“{Don’t worry, I won’t hurt you,I only want you to have some fun}
I was dreamin’ when I wrote this, forgive me if it goes astray

But when I woke up this mornin’, could’ve sworn it was judgment day

The sky was all purple, there were people runnin’ everywhere

Tryin’ to run from the destruction, you know I didn’t even care
Say say two thousand zero zero party over, oops, out of time

So tonite I’m gonna party like it’s nineteen ninety-nine
I was dreamin’ when I wrote this, so sue me if I go too fast

But life is just a party and parties weren’t meant to last

War is all around us, my mind says prepare to fight

So if I gotta die I’m gonna listen to my body tonite
Yeah hey, they say two thousand zero zero party over, oops, out of time

So tonite I’m gonna party like it’s nineteen ninety-nine.”1

This idea is still prevalent today.
Should we bewail the fact that people feel this way? Yes!

Should we be concerned that this message is having an impact on our children? Yes, indeed!

On the other hand, we need to not simply tell people to stop sinning. We need to give them a reason. We need to give them something to replace the despair.

We need to give them hope. Jesus is coming to redeem His people. What we do today counts forever. Eternal pleasures wait for us in the presence of God. We can pass some pleasures by today in faith that God offers us greater pleasure both now and especially forever.

The theology of despair leads to ungodliness and immorality. The theology of hope leads to purity and joy.

Let us offer hope in Christ; and let us show them holiness isn’t simply a bitter hypocrite’s way of living, but a response of hope.

1 Read more: PRINCE – 1999 LYRICS 

After all, we must always take folks at their word, regardless of their actions.

That, however, is quite naive.

You see, many are not what they proclaim to be. That is why Jesus called some hypocrites: they were acting, but were not what they portrayed themselves to be.

Paul also spoke of some whose works showed the lie of their words. ( Titus 1:16 )

We are all inconsistent in some ways. Of that there is no doubt. The reality is that we should also be aware of that so that we can correct it. Neither is it unkind to speak of this problem when it is detrimental to the faith of others.

Liberals are why we homeschool.

Because Liberalism stands in direct opposition of the freedoms that our founding fathers sought to protect for all men. Because Liberalism stands in direct opposition to the value of human life and the worth of the human child that God says we should have. Because Liberalism would take my child and exploit them, abort them, distort their minds and darken their souls.

{ Liberalism is the greatest threat to America. }

See this article.

First of all, definitions:

Microevolution:

Microevolution is evolution on a small scale—within a single population. That means narrowing our focus to one branch of the tree of life.

 

Macroevolution:

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.

Macroevolution refers to evolution of groups larger than an individual species. Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

 

Note that macroevolution refers to evolution above the species level  and tries to understand the origin of groups larger than species, while microevolution looks at change that is pretty much change within species.

Now Young Earth Creationists generally speak of created kinds instead of species, because kinds seems to include more than a single species. That does not mean that the change within kinds that YEC believe in necessitates their believing in macroevolution. The reason is that macroevolution looks far beyond speciation to the largest of all trends in evolution. Notice that the definition above shows that macroevolution looks at the origin of mammals and not simply change within mammalia. Thus there is a vast difference between the YEC view of change and the macroevolutionary view of change.

Furthermore, YEC are not the only folks who have issues with macroevolution. There are proponents of Intelligent Design who have problems with it.

Surprise! There’s no satisfactory mathematical model for macroevolution, at the present time

In 2006, Professor Allen Macneill acknowledged that macroevolution is not mathematically modelable in the way that microevolution is. He could have meant that macroevolution is not mathematically modelable at all; alternatively, he may have simply meant that macroevolutionary models are not as detailed as microevolutionary models. If he meant the latter, then I would ask: where’s the mathematics that explains macroevolution? Surprisingly, it turns out that there is currently no adequate mathematical model for Darwinian macroevolution. Professor James Tour’s remark that “The Emperor has no clothes” is spot-on.

Click here for the full article.

The argument that YEC’s belief in multitudes of changes within created kinds is a belief in some form of Darwinian macroevolution is simply a strawman fallacy.