A

AASOR Annual of American Schools of Oriental Research

AB Anchor Bible

ABR Australian Biblical Review

ADAJ Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan

AGJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristientum

AGSU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Spätjudentums und Urchristentums

AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature

AJT Asia Journal of Theology

ALGHJ Arbeitum zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistchen Judentums

AnBib Analecta Biblica

ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 3rd edn., James B. Pritchard, ed. Princeton, 1969.

ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt

ASNU Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis

ASOR American Schools of Oriental Research

ASTI Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute

ATANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie des alten und Neuen Testaments

ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch

ATR Anglican Theological Review

AusBibRev Australian Biblical Review

AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies

AUSSDS Andrews University Seminary Studies Dissertation Series

B

BA Biblical Archaeologist

BAR Biblical Archaeology Review

BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

BAT Botschaft des Alten Testaments

BBB Bonner biblische Beiträge

BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research

BETL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium

BETS Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society

BFCT Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie

BGBE Beitrãge zur Geschichre der biblischen Exegese

BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia

BI Biblical Interpretation

Bib Biblica

Bib Tod Bible Today

BiberOr Biblica et Orientalia. Rome: Biblical Institute Press.

BibRes Biblical Research

BibRev Bible Review

BibSac Bibliotheca Sacra

BibThBul Biblical Theology Bulletin

BibTod Bible Today

BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands Library

BJS Brown Judaic Studies

BKAT Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament

BL Bampton Lectures

BN Biblische Notizen

BR Biblical Research

BS Bibliotheca Sacra

BSac Bibliotheca Sacra

BSC Bible Student’s Commentary

BSNTS Bulletin of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas

BST Basel Studies in Theology

BST Bible Speaks Today

BTB Biblical Theological Bulletin

BWANT Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament

BU Biblische Untersuchungen

BZ Biblische Zeitschrift

BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

C

CAT Commentaire de l’ Ancien Testament

CBC Cambridge Bible Commentary

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series

CC Communicators Commentary

CEB Commentaire Evangélique de la Bible

CGSTJ China Graduate School of Theology Journal

CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum

CJT Canadian Journal of Theology

CPh Classical philology

CSR Christian Scholar’s Review

CTJ Calvin Theological Journal

CTM Concordia Theological Monthly

CTR Criswell Theological Review

CurTM Currents in Theology and Missions

D

DOTT Documents of Old Testament Times. D. Winton Thomas, ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1958.

DR Downside Review

DSB Daily Study Bible

E

EB Études Bibliques

EBib Études Bibliques

EBC Expositor’s Bible Commentary

EJ Evangelical Journal

EJT European Journal of Theology

EphTL Ephemerides Théologiques et Lovanienses

EQ Evangelical Quarterly

EstBib Estudios biblicos

ETL Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses

ETRel Études Théologiques et Religieuses

EvQ Evangelical Quarterly

EvT Evangelische Theologie

EvTh Evangelische Theologie

Exp The Expositor

ExpT Expository Times

ExpTim Expository Times

F

FCI Foundation of Evangelical Interpretation Series

FN Filologia Neotestamentaria

FOTL Forms of Old Testament Literature Series

FRLANT Forschurgen zur Religion und Literatur des und Neuen Testament

FTS Frankfurter theologische Studien

G

GraceTJ Grace Theological Journal

GTJ Grace Theological Journal

GRBS Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies

H

HAR Hebrew Annual Review

HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament

HBT Horizons in Biblical Theology

HebAnnRev Hebrew Annual Review

HeyJ Heythrop Journal

Herm Hermathena

HS Hebrew Studies

HSMS Harvard Semitic Monograph Series

HTR Harvard Theological Review

HTS Harvard Theological Studies

HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual

I

IB Interpreter’s Bible

IBS Irish Biblical Studies

ICC International Critical Commentary

ICS Illinois Classical Studies

IDB Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible

IDBS Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible Supplement series

IEJ Israel Exploration Journal

Int Interpretation

Interp. Interpretation

ISBE International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, revised

ITC International Theological Commentary

ITQ Irish Theological Quarterly

J

JAAR Journal of the American Academy of Religion

JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JBLDS Journal of Biblical Literature, Dissertation Series

JBLMS Journal of Biblical Literature, Monograph Series

JBR Journal of the Bible and Religion

JECS Journal of Early Christian Studies

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

JJS Journal of Jewish Studies

JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies

JNSL Journal of North West Semitic Languages

JNWSL Journal of North West Semitic Languages

JQR Jewish Quarterly Review

JPS Jewish Publication Society

JR Journal of Religion

Jrel Journal of Religion

JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism

JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament

JSNTSS Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series

JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

JSOTSS Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series

JSS Journal of Semitic Studies

JTC Journal for Theology and the Church

JTS Journal of Theological Studies

JTSA Journal of Theology for Southern Africa

K

KAT Kommentar zum Alten Testament

L

LD Lecta Divina

LouvStud Louvain Studies

LXX The Septuagint

M

MC Modern Churchman

MGWJ Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums

MT Masoretic Text

N

NCB New Century Bible

Neot Neotestamentica

NESTTR Near East School of Theology Theological Review

NGTT Nederduits Gereformeerde Teologiese Tydskrif

NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament

NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament

NIDOTT New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology

NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary

NovT Novum Testamentum

NovTSup Novum Testamentum Supplements

NT New Testament

NTS New Testament Studies

NTT Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift

O

Ost Ostkirchliche Studien

OT Old Testament

OTL Old Testament Library Commentary Series

OTM Old Testament Message Series

OTS Oudtestamentische Studiën

OTSWA Oud Testamentaise Werkgemeenschap in Suid-Afrika

P

PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly

PRS Perspectives on Religious Studies

PTR Princeton Theological Review

Q

Qad Qadmoniot

QC Qumran Chronicle

QD Quaestiones disputatae

QDAP Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine

QR Quarterly Review

Quasten Patrology, Quasten, J. 4 vols., Westminster, 1953-1986

R

RB Revue Biblique

RBen Revue Benedictine

RBPh Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire

RdQ Revue de Qumran

RefRev Reformed Review

RelSRev Religious Studies Review

ResQ Restoration Quarterly

RevExp Review and Expositor

RHPR Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses

RivBib Rivista Biblica

RSciRel Recherches de Science Religieuse

RSR Recherches de science religieuse

RTP Review of Theology and Philosophy

RTR Reformed Theological Review

RvExp Review and Expositor

S

SBLDS Society for Biblical Literature, Dissertation Series

SBLMS Society for Biblical Literature, Monograph Series

SBLSP Society for Biblical Literature, Seminar Papers

SBT Studies in Biblical Theology

SCO Studi classici e orientali

ScriptTheol Scripta Theologica

SE Studia Evangelica

SEÅ Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok

SecCen Second Century

SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity

SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament

SJT Scottish Journal of Theology

SN Studia Neotestamentica

SNTSMS Society of New Testament Studies, Monograph Series

SNTU Studien zum Neuen Testamen und seiner Umwelt

SR Studies in Religion

SSN Studia semitica Neerlandica

ST Studia Theologica

StudBT Studia Biblica et Theologica

StVTQ Saint Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly

SWJT Southwestern Journal of Theology

T

TA Tel Aviv

TB Tyndale Bulletin

TBC Torch Bible Commentaries

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament

Theol Theology

ThR Theologische Rundschau

TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung

TNTC Tyndale New Testament Commentaries

TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries

TRev Theological Review

TrinJ Trinity Journal

TS Theological Studies

TSK Theologische Studien und Kritiken

TU Texte und Untersuchungen

TynB. Tyndale Bulletin

TynBul Tyndale Bulletin

TZ Theologische Zeitschrift

U

USQR Union Seminary Quarterly Review

V

VC Vigiliae Christianae

VetChr Vetera Christianorum

VT Vetus Testamentum

VTSup Vetus Testamentum, Supplements

W

WBC Word Biblical Commentary

WEC Wycliffe Exegetical Commetary

WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament

WTJ Westminster Theological Journal

WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

Y

YNER Yale Near Eastern Researcher

Z

ZAC Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum - Journal of Ancient Christianity

ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morganländischen Gesellschaft

ZKG Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte

ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutesamentliche Wissenschaft

ZTK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

A Must-read Ebook for everyone interested in apologetics. Click on the picture to be taken to the download page. Once you download this ebook, explore around and you will find many more free downloads there.

A. ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE: According to Joseph Zias, an Israeli archeologist, within a two mile radius of this tomb in Talpiyot

• there are 70 graves/ossuaries with the name Jesus and 2 with the name Jesus son of Joseph;
• 48% of women at that time had the name Mary/Miriam;
• this was a middleclass family and the family of Jesus was poor;
• the family tomb would more than likely be in Nazareth.
• Where are the other family members, James, Simon and the sisters?

B. DNA EVIDENCE:

• The DNA evidence is not shared by “Jesus” and “Mary (Magdeloene?)” proving that they “must” be married. But this “Mary” could have been an adopted child or a close family friend.
• Is “Judah, son of Jesus” the offspring of the biblical Jesus? There is absolutely no other corroborating evidence and all the other purely speculative theories and legends, like the Da Vinci Code or those of the author Laurence Gardner, put the “son” far from Jerusalem, establishing the royal houses of Europe.
• It is most unlikely that the Magdelene should be buried in Jerusalem since her death in old age in southern France figures prominently in early European tradition. Indeed, I have seen the ossuary in which some of her bones are reputedly kept in Vezeley Cathedral near Auxerre in central France. This is where any DNA testing needs to be done.

C. THEOLOGICAL EXPLANATION FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL EVIDENCE: Into this spiritual and demographic “multicultural” void gallops militant Islam-armed with both faith and babies.

• If these are the remains of Jesus, then biblical Christianity falls, as the apostle Paul willingly grants in 1 Corinthians 15:14: “If Christ is not raised then our preaching is in vain…we are still in our sins (v.17).”
• The biblical account claims that Jesus only spent a part of three days in a tomb. You can get his body into another tomb only if you take the age old position, now adopted by James Tabor, a professor or religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte who said on national TV that while literal interpreters of the Bible say Jesus’ physical body rose from the dead, “One might affirm resurrection in a more spiritual way in which the husk of the body is left behind.”
• In the founding texts of the Christianity, the resurrection body is described not as a brand new, spiritual entity, but as the earthly body transformed, “the perishable, mortal body” putting on the imperishable, immortal form” with no husk left behind.
• Spiritual resurrection is the invention of the ancient Gnostics and modern liberals, both of whom have rejected the biblical Creator. Paul speaks of those who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already (spiritually) happened (2 Timothy 2:17-18). The body is not a husk, as Gnostics would say, not a mere prison house of the soul. (On the Gnostic Jesus, see my book, Stolen Identity: The Conspiracy to Re-Invent Jesus). The body is a good creation of the transcendent Creator.
• The first public sermon of the Christian movement, given a few weeks after the crucifixion and a mile from the tomb of Jesus (Acts 2:22-31), was all about tombs! …God raised Jesus, because it was not possible for him to be held by (death). Peter goes on to cite Psalm 16’s prediction that the Messiah’s flesh would not see corruption. He adds that David the psalmist was not talking about himself because the patriarch David… both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Peter implicitly invites his hearers to go check the tomb and the psalmist’s DNA! The whole argument depends upon the fact, in contradistinction from David, that the bones of Jesus were not in his tomb.

D. THE EMPTY TOMB: HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN IT HISTORICALLY: There were no bones in the tomb of Jesus because the tomb and even the grave clothes were empty (John 20:6-9). How is that explained historically?

If the Jewish or Roman authorities had taken the body, they could have reproduced it in order to silence this bothersome movement. They did not, so they could not; If the apostles had stolen the body, then they were guilty of an unconscionable fraud. The New Testament cites numerous witnesses (at least 500) all in on the hoax! Later many died excruciating deaths. Not one of them broke under torture. This defies belief.

The most historically satisfactory but unsettling answer is the one Paul gives: in fact, Christ has been raised from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:20). [Courtesy newscwipp@cwipp.org ]

Apologetics Courses | Theology Courses | Indus School

]]> http://integratedapologetics.com/archives/14/feed http://integratedapologetics.com/archives/13 http://integratedapologetics.com/archives/13#comments Mon, 19 Mar 2007 10:44:56 +0000 admin http://integratedapologetics.com/archives/13 Calvinism and Arminianism, One-sided Theology By CH Mackintosh: We have lately received a long letter, furnishing a very striking proof of the bewildering effect of one-sided theology. Our correspondent is evidently under the influence of what is styled the high school of doctrine. Hence, he cannot see the rightness of calling upon the unconverted to “come,” to “hear,” to “repent,” or to “believe.” It seems to him like telling a crab-tree to bear some apples in order that it may become an apple-tree.

Now, we thoroughly believe that faith is the gift of God, and that it is not according to man’s will or by human power. And further, we believe that not a single soul would ever come to Christ if not drawn, yea, compelled by divine grace so to do; and therefore all who are saved have to thank the free and sovereign grace of God for it; their song is, and ever shall be, “Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto Thy name give glory, for Thy mercy, and for Thy truth’s sake.”

And this we believe not as part of a certain system of doctrine, but as the revealed truth of God. But, on the other hand, we believe, just as fully, in the solemn truth of man’s moral responsibility, inasmuch as it is plainly taught in Scripture, though we do not find it amongst what are called “the five points of the faith of God’s elect.” We believe these five points, so far as they go; but they are very far indeed from containing the faith of God’s elect. There are wide fields of divine revelation which this stunted and one-sided system does not touch upon, or even hint at, in the most remote manner. Where do we find the heavenly calling? Where, the glorious truth of the Church as the body and bride of Christ? Where, the precious sanctifying hope of the coming of Christ to receive His people to Himself? Where have we the grand scope of prophecy opened to the vision of our souls, in that which is so pompously styled “the faith of God’s elect”? We look in vain for a single trace of them in the entire system to which our friend is attached.

Now, can we suppose for a moment that the blessed apostle Paul would accept as “the faith of God’s elect” a system which leaves out that glorious mystery of the Church of which he was specially made the minister? Suppose any one had shown Paul “the five points” of Calvinism, as a statement of the truth of God, what would he have said? What! “The whole truth of God;” “the faith of God’s elect;” “all that is essential to be believed;” and yet not a syllable about the real position of the Church — its calling, its standing, its hopes, its privileges! And not a word about Israel’s future! A complete ignoring, or at best a thorough alienation, of the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David! The whole body of prophetic teaching subjected to a system of spiritualizing, falsely so called, whereby Israel is robbed of its proper portion, and Christians dragged down to an earthly level — and this presented to us with the lofty pretension of “The faith of God’s elect!”

Thank God it is not so. He, blessed be His name, has not confined Himself within the narrow limits of any school of doctrine, high, low, or moderate. He has revealed Himself. He has told out the deep and precious secrets of His heart. He has unfolded His eternal counsels, as to the Church, as to Israel, the Gentiles, and the wide creation. Men might as well attempt to confine the ocean in buckets of their own formation as to confine the vast range of divine revelation within the feeble enclosures of human systems of doctrine. It cannot be done, and it ought not to be attempted. Better far to set aside the systems of theology and schools of divinity, and come like a little child to the eternal fountain of Holy Scripture, and there drink in the living teachings of God’s Spirit.

Nothing is more damaging to the truth of God, more withering to the soul, or more subversive of all spiritual growth and progress than mere theology, high or low — Calvinistic or Arminian. It is impossible for the soul to make progress beyond the boundaries of the system to which it is attached. If I am taught to regard “the five points” as “the faith of God’s elect,” I shall not think of looking beyond them; and then a most glorious field of heavenly truth is shut out from the vision of my soul. I am stunted, narrowed, one-sided; and I am in danger of getting into that hard, dry state of soul which results from being occupied with mere points of doctrine instead of with Christ. A disciple of the high school of doctrine will not hear of a world-wide gospel — of God’s love to the world — of glad tidings to every creature under Heaven. He has only gotten a gospel for the elect. On the other hand, a disciple of the low or Arminian school will not hear of the eternal security of God’s people. Their salvation depends partly upon Christ, and partly upon themselves. According to this system, the song of the redeemed should be changed. Instead of “Worthy is the Lamb,” we should have to add, “and worthy are we.” We may be saved today, and lost tomorrow. All this dishonours God, and robs the Christian of all true peace.

We do not write to offend the reader. Nothing is further from our thoughts. We are dealing not with persons, but with schools of doctrine and systems of divinity which we would, most earnestly, entreat our beloved readers to abandon, at once, and for ever. Not one of them contains the full, entire truth of God. There are certain elements of truth in all of them; but the truth is often neutralized by the error; and even if we could find a system which contains, so far is it goes, nothing but the truth, yet if it does not contain the whole truth, its effect upon the soul is most pernicious, because it leads a person to plume himself on having the truth of God when, in reality, he has only laid hold of a one-sided system of man.

Then again we rarely find a mere disciple of any school of doctrine who can face scripture as a whole. Favourite texts will be quoted, and continually reiterated; but a large body of scripture is left almost wholly unappropriated. For example; take such passages as the following, “But now God commandeth all men everywhere to repent.” (Acts 17: 30.) And again, “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Tim. 2.) So also, in 2 Peter, “The Lord …. is long-suffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3: 9.) And, in the very closing section of the volume, we read, “Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.”

Are these passages to be taken as they stand? or are we to introduce qualifying or modifying words to make them fit in with our system? The fact is, they set forth the largeness of the heart of God, the gracious activities of His nature, the wide aspect of His love, It is not according to the loving heart of God that any of His creatures should perish. There is no such thing set forth in scripture as any decree of God consigning a certain number of the human race to eternal damnation. Some may be judicially given over to blindness because of deliberate rejection of the light. (See Rom. 9: 17; Heb. 6: 4-6; 10: 26, 27; 2 Thess. 2: 11, 12; 1 Peter 2: 8.) All who perish will have only themselves to blame. All who reach heaven will have to thank God.

If we are to be taught by scripture we must believe that every man is responsible according to his light. The Gentile is responsible to listen to the voice of creation. The Jew is responsible on the ground of the law. Christendom is responsible on the ground of the full-orbed revelation contained in the whole word of God. If God commands all men, everywhere to repent, does He mean what He says, or merely all the elect? What right have we to add to, or alter, to pare down, or to accommodate the word of God? None whatever. Let us face scripture as it stands, and reject everything which will not stand the test. We may well call in question the soundness of a system which cannot meet the full force of the word of God as a whole. If passages of scripture seem to clash, it is only because of our ignorance. Let us humbly own this, and wait on God for further light. This, we may depend upon it, is safe moral ground to occupy. instead of endeavouring to reconcile apparent discrepancies, let us bow at the Master’s feet and justify Him in all His sayings Thus shall we reap a harvest of blessing and grow in the knowledge of God and His word as a whole.

A few days since, a friend put into our hands a sermon recently preached by an eminent clergyman belonging to the high school of doctrine. We have found in this sermon, quite as much as in the letter of our American correspondent, the effects of one-sided theology. For instance, in referring to that magnificent statement of the Baptist in John 1: 29, the preacher quotes it thus, “The Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the whole World of God’s chosen people.”

Reader, think of this. “The World of God’s chosen people!” There is not a word about people in the passage. It refers to the great propitiatory work of Christ, in virtue of which every trace of sin shall yet be obliterated from the wide creation of God. We shall only see the full application of that blessed scripture in the new heavens and the new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness. To confine it to the sin of God’s elect can only be viewed as the fruit of theological bias. There is no such expression in scripture as “Taking away the sin of God’s elect.” Whenever God’s people are referred to we have the bearing of sins — the propitiation for our sins — the forgiveness of sins. Scripture never confounds these things; and nothing can be more important for our souls than to be exclusively taught by scripture itself, and not by the warping, stunting, withering dogmas of one-sided theology.

We sometimes hear John 1: 29 quoted, or rather misquoted by disciples of the low school of doctrine in this way, “The Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world.” If this were so, no one could ever be lost. Such a statement would furnish a basis for the terrible heresy of universal salvation. The same may be said of the rendering of 1 John 2: 2, “The sins of the whole world.” This is not scripture but fatally false doctrine, which we doubt not our translators would have repudiated as strongly as any. Whenever the word “sins” occurs, it refers to persons. Christ is a propitiation for the whole world. He was the substitute for His people.

NOTE It is deeply interesting to mark the way in which scripture guards against the repulsive doctrine of reprobation. Look, for example, at Matthew 25: 34. Here, the King, in addressing those on His right hand, says, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” Contrast with this the address to those on his left hand: “Depart from me ye cursed [He does not say 'of my Father'] into everlasting fire, prepared [not for you, but] the devil and his angels.” So also, in Romans 9. In speaking of the “vessels of wrath,” He says “fitted to destruction” — fitted not by God surely, but by themselves. On the other hand, when He speaks of the “vessels of mercy,” he says, “which He had afore prepared unto glory.” The grand truth of election is fully established; the repulsive error of reprobation, sedulously avoided.

Apologetics Courses | Theology Courses

The Website: http://www.apologetics.org/

Contents: The home-page features Upcoming Events, Intelligent Design Update, Featured Tools, and Featured Articles.

Assessment: Though the website is in the name of CS Lewis, the content available in broader than the works of Lewis.

Stand: The website takes a strong stand for the biblical Christian faith and would greatly appeal to educated people, intellectuals, and also to inquirers.

Recommendation: We strongly recommend that visitors to the Integrated Apologetics website take time to visit the CS Lewis Society website. They will be highly profited by the time they spend there.

Apologetics Courses | Theology Courses

Two theological slogans became the watchwords of the Protestant Reformation: Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) and Sola Fide (faith alone). The Protestant Reformers wanted to cut through the non-Biblical traditions that had become such a part of the Western church’s faith and practice that they were set on a par with clearly Biblical teachings. These non-Biblical views and practices included popery, penance, and purgatory. The Council of Trent later solidified Rome’s conviction that unwritten traditions are no less authoritative than the Bible itself. This, of course, the Reformers (rightly) could never abide.1

The issue of the relationship between God’s grace and human works in salvation had been unclear in the post-apostolic church from almost the very first. It was clear that salvation was “by grace,” and it was equally clear that God expected good works of His people. What was not fully understood is how these two were to be precisely related. By the late medieval period, in both East and West, salvation was defined largely as a cooperative effort — God got the ball rolling, but man had his part in keeping it rolling. In the Roman Catholic Church, God was understood to infuse grace at baptism; but man later cooperated with this grace and performed good works, which elicited God’s favor. It was still held that salvation was of grace, since God demonstrated His grace in His willingness to save on the ground of Christ’s death; but man had his contribution to make, too.2

The Reformers were convinced (with the church father Augustine) that salvation is totally a work of God. They were confident, further, that faith played a more dominant role in appropriating salvation than the church had hitherto recognized. In fact, they believed that justification, defined as God’s judicial declaration of man’s righteousness on account of Christ’s life and death, was appropriated by faith alone. Their heirs have called it the “instrumental cause” of justification. Faith, in other words, is certainly not the source of salvation, nor is it the ground of salvation, but it is the only instrument or means of salvation — and justification in particular. Since they believed that faith itself is a gift of God, this totally excluded good works as the means of justification and preserved salvation as totally God’s work.

Like all great revivals in the history of the church, the Reformation left certain issues unaddressed.3 After all, no reformation is comprehensive, and no reformation could be expected to reform everything that needs reformed. The heirs of the Reformers, the Protestant scholastics, hardened the new insights of the Reformers into a dogmatic system, just as the medieval Schoolmen had created a dogmatic system of the earlier orthodox exegesis and Aristotle’s philosophy. Systemization is at the root of all scholasticism.

One vital fact that tended to be obscured by some Reformed scholasticism was Christ Himself, Whose redemptive work as such was not really an issue during the Reformation: both Rome and Reformed believed that Christ’s death on the Cross redeemed man from sin. Because this was not at issue, it was not a prominent matter of discussion. When we read the Bible itself, of course, we see quite differently. In fact, there we observe that the Bible is an infallible record of redemptive history centering in Jesus Christ. The great “redemptive complex” of His birth, life, death, resurrection, ascension, session, and future Second Coming form the heart of the Bible — and of Christianity.4 In fact, this redemptive complex and its implications are what Christianity is all about. If we are to look for the key to the Bible and the entire Christian Faith, the only possible answer we can come up with is sola Christus: Christ alone. This by no means detracts from the fullness of God — orthodox, Biblical Trinitarianism — it simply means that Jesus Christ is the central figure and Mediator of God’s dealings with man (Jn. 14:6; Ac. 4:12; 1 Tim. 2:5).5 Jesus Christ’s work in history is the intersecting point of what I call the four segments of the Christian quadrilateral: history, doctrine, experience, and community. You can’t take away one of these factors and still have Christianity, but more important than any of them is the One around whom the entire scheme revolves — our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. When we lose this Christocentric (Christ-centered) focus, we begin to lose the Faith itself. We then think, for example, that the Faith is mainly about abstract theological propositions; if we can just dot our theological t’s and cross our dogmatic i’s, we will be all right. Or, on the other hand, if we can just capture that “greater experience” — that feeling closeness to God, that filling of the Spirit, or what have you — we will have reached the Christian summit. Or, if we can just get into the right (perfect) church, with the right community of saints who love and care for God and for each other, we will have arrived. History, doctrine, experience, and community are essential to the Faith, but they are not the Faith. Jesus Christ Himself is the Faith. Intelligent people often get sucked into a dogmatically centered faith. Emotional people often get sucked into an experience-centered faith. Relational people often get sucked into a community-centered faith. Dogma, experience and community are good in their place, and that place is essential — there is can be no true Christianity without them.

But they are not the foundation of our Faith. Jesus Christ in His Person and Work is the foundation of our Faith (Eph. 2:20). This is why the New Testament apostles so relentlessly preached faith in the crucified and risen Lord as man’s only hope (1 Cor. 2:2; 15:1-4; 1 Jn. 5:12).

From this Christocentricity flows changed individuals, changed families, changed churches, changed societies, changed nations, and changed civilizations.6 The worldwide transformation predicted by the Old Testament prophets is the result of a worldwide Christ-centeredness (Phil. 2:5-11). The answer to the world’s evil and sin, therefore, is not more shrewd, glossy evangelistic or political strategies; or more precise, academic theology; or greater Christian emotion and experience. A changed world is a result of changing the focus of the entire world to the One by Whom it consists, or is held together (Col. 1:15-17).

For man made in the image of God, solus Christus (Christ alone) will — and must — suffice.

Notes

1. G. C. Berkouwer, Faith and Justification (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), ch. 3 and passim.

2. See Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification - The Beginnings to the Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).

3. Norman Shepherd, The Call of Grace (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P & R Publishing), 4-6.

4. Oscar Cullmann, Salvation in History (New York and Evanston: Harper & Row, 1967).

5. Idem., The Earliest Christian Confessions (London: Lutterworth Press, 1949), 39-41.

6. Christopher Dawson, The Historic Reality of Christian Culture (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd, 1960).

Courtesy: www.chalcedon.edu

But there is much the tourists do not know.

Klundert, tidy Dutch village in Noord Brabant, stands on blood. The blood of Anabaptists was shed here.

Anabaptists gathered at Klundert throughout the mid-sixteenth century. They came, sneaking out of nearby cities, to meet in secret on the fields. Sometimes they gathered in the homes of Elsken Deeken or Jan Peetersz, a servant of the Word. On August 5, 1571, about a hundred Anabaptists met at the Peetersz home in Klundert. Some came from Haarlem, some from Leyden, and many from towns not far away. During the meeting a young couple was going to get married, but they did not get that far.

Picture: Torture of Gelijn Cornelis for his faith in the Bible and Christ, while his interrogators take a break. Breda, 1572

The town magistrate and his assistant were sitting at Gerrit Vorster’s house, drinking. Someone told him about the Anabaptist gathering. He said: “We will root up that nest and get rid of them at once!” Twice he sent one of his men to listen at the Peetersz house. “Straight Peter” a tailor lived in the front part of the house. Jan Peetersz lived in the back where the people met. After nine o’clock the spies found the meeting in session. They heard someone preaching and saw the light of many candles in the room. Then the magistrate and his men, well armed with guns, halberds, swords, and other weapons broke in through all doors at once. They grabbed left and right. But most of the Anabaptists, ready for such an emergency, escaped up the stairs, through a hole in the roof, or back through a hall and out of openings in the wall.

When the raid was over, the magistrate’s men held six men and several women: Peter the tailor, Geleyn Cornelis of Middelharnis near Somerdijk, Arent Block of Zevenbergen, Cornelis de Gyselaar, and a sixteen- or seventeen-year-old boy who worked for Straight Peter the tailor. The captives were led to Gerrit Vorster’s house where the women escaped. They handcuffed the men and kept them under guard. The next morning Michael Gerrits, an uncle of Cornelis de Gyselaar, came to see him. Also an Anabaptist, Michael came to encourage Cornelis to stand for Christ, no matter what might take place. The magistrate seized Michael too.

They confiscated the property of the prisoners, so their wives fled from Klundert with nothing. Then they called on the school teacher to dispute with the prisoners. He wrote up a report in which he said: “They do not baptize infants. They cannot believe that Christ had his flesh and blood from Mary, and they regard themselves as the little flock and the elect of God. But their lives are better than the lives of many others. They bring up their children in better discipline and fear of God than many other people. Their children in school are better students and learn more readily than the rest.”

The magistrate kept the prisoners in Gerrit Vorster’s house until noon of Aug. 7, 1571. Then he took them to Breda to be tortured. Straight Peter, the tailor, gave up the faith, so they only beheaded him. The rest, including his teenage worker, remained steadfast. One had his hands tied behind his back to be suspended by them and whipped. Another was pulled to the utmost on the rack. While in this helpless condition they held his mouth open to urinate into it and over his body. But Geleyn Cornelis was treated worst of all. They stripped off his clothes and hung him up by his right thumb with a weight hanging from his left foot. Then they singed off his body hair, burning him in tender places with candles, and beat him. Finally the men, tired of torturing the prisoners, took to playing cards. They played for over an hour while Geleyn hung, by now unconscious, until the commissioner of the Duke of Alba said: “Seize him again. He must tell us something! A drowned calf is a small risk.”

At first they thought Geleyn was dead. They shook him until he revived, but he did not recant.

They burned Geleyn Cornelis, Jan Peetersz, and the young boy first. The wind came the wrong way and blew the fire away from Geleyn’s stake, so the executioner had to push and hold his body into the flames with a fork.

When they led Cornelis de Gyselaar and Arent Block to the stakes, Arent dropped a letter hoping that some Anabaptist in the crowd would notice it and snatch it up. But the Duke’s men saw it first and took the two men back to prison for another torturing session. They did not recant and they refused to betray any of their brothers in the faith. Shortly afterward, they burned Cornelis, his uncle Michael Gerrits, and Arent Block.

Since 1571 there have been no more Anabaptists at Klundert. Tourists come — with Bermuda shorts, sunglasses, paper cups of Coke, and with camera strings flapping in the fresh spring breeze. They like Noord Brabant. But there is much the tourists do not know.

http://www.gw.org/Sos/Sos01.htm

For Free Resources Visit: Free CDs | Free Courses | Free Apologetics
| Bible Archeology |Maximized Living | Indus School | Bible Survey |
| Biblical Expositor | Apologetics Courses |

This aversion is common to fallen men, whose desire it is to be their own god and to determine good and evil for themselves (Gen. 3:5). For us as Christians, because we are God’s creatures, we have a creaturely need for one another, and, supremely, we need the Lord. Man was not made to live alone (Gen. 2:18). Loneliness is a form of death, and solitary confinement is a severe form of punishment.

We are, moreover, commanded not only to love one another, but to be “members one of another” (Eph. 4:25). We have a duty to our family, our fellow believers, and to all men to live with them according to God’s law and, as far as possible, in peace and harmony.

This man can only do by faithful living in Christ. To be outside of Christ is to be at war with God and man, as well as oneself. Instead of peace, we then have a human situation that reflects man’s conflict with God and with himself. Marx’s outlook reflected the logic of his anti-Christian faith and life, and that hatred of mankind he manifested has worked only evil ever since.

It is ironic that Marx, who hated communion and community, called his concept of social warfare “communism.” What he had in mind, of course, was a communion of property, not a communion of peoples. We have today many like him; they talk of peace but breathe war; they speak of love and reveal hatred. All men outside of Christ will manifest this contradiction. Only by a total communion with God in Christ can we have community with one another.

California Farmer 265:8 (Nov. 15, 1986), p. 21.

Article Courtesy www.Chalcedon.edu

For Free Resources Visit: Free CDs | Free Courses | Free Apologetics
| Bible Archeology |Maximized Living | Indus School | Bible Survey |
| Biblical Expositor | Apologetics Courses |

At his death, Dr. Metzger was emeritus professor of New Testament language and literature at Princeton Theological Seminary, where he had taught for more than 40 years.

An ordained Presbyterian minister, Dr. Metzger was a world-renowned authority on translating the New Testament from the original Greek. He was best known to the general public for supervising the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, which uses contemporary English and does away with much of the exclusively masculine language of previous translations. Introduced in 1990, the New Revised Standard Version is used in several formats by many Protestants, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians.

As a scholar, Dr. Metzger was known in particular for his close textual studies of the New Testament and the Apocryphal literature, books that are not part of a recognized canon. He also wrote about the Bible as it was rendered by Eastern branches of the church — Greek, Slavonic, Georgian, Ethiopic, Syrian and Armenian — drawing on his command of ancient and modern languages. Besides Greek, Latin and Hebrew, Dr. Metzger knew Coptic, Syriac, Russian, German, Spanish, French and Dutch, among others.

Among his dozens of books are “The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations” (Clarendon, 1977); “Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Greek Palaeography” (Oxford University, 1981); “Breaking the Code: Understanding the Book of Revelation” (Abingdon, 1993); and “The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions” (Baker Academic, 2001). With Michael D. Coogan, Dr. Metzger edited The Oxford Companion to the Bible, published in 1993.

The New York Times

Books dealing with the Theory Of Evolution frequently state that “life” is a product of chance. They mean to say that life evolved on earth by the accidental combination of atoms in a “primordial soup”, (a collection of certain elements, in a liquid medium). But the story in its entirety is not a simple as they would seem you to believe.

The simple-looking statement that life has evolved by chance processes has many assumptions behind it, and each one of these assumptions must scientifically be true before the above statement can be accepted for consideration.

The following are a few of these assumptions:

1. Chance and randomness always favour order over disorder.
2. The ordered chemicals produced by randomness will be stable so that they can become the building-blocks for chemicals with higher order and arranged in more complex patterns.
3. If matter is left to itself and randomly acting forces, it increases the order and complexity by change.
4. Not all types of orders (say, chemical compounds) will help the evolution of life, and therefore randomness and chance will select those orders that are most suited to evolve life.

The First assumption: There are a large number of physical and chemical forces in this Universe, all acting randomly on the 92 elements found naturally. Whatever order comes out of this randomness, according to the first assumption, is the product of mere chance; they are forced
to assume this because the Theory Of Evolution does not accept either a plan or a planner behind the Universe.

If chance and randomness favour disorder over order, the accidentally produced orders (say, chemical compounds) will be destroyed faster than the speed with which they are produced. Thus no net order will result in case chance and randomness favour disorder. Since there is a good amount of order everywhere in the Universe, and since he thinks that all this is the result of chance the evolutionist assumes that chance and randomness necessarily favour order and not disorder.

We will examine this, and the other three assumptions too, very soon in relation to some well known laws of physics.

The Second Assumption: No structure can be built by unstable building-blocks. The more complex the structure, the higher must be the stability. This is why the second assumption says that the ordered systems produced by randomness and chance will be stable.

The Third assumption: The ordered systems (like chemical compounds) produced by chance will be very simple but a continuous increase in this order is necessary for the evolution of life.

According to the third assumption, therefore, randomness and mere chance must not only produce order, but also increase the complexity of the ordered systems that have been produced by them. Only chance must work to increase the degree of order, and the final product must be millions of times more ordered than the building-clocks. (e.g. a living cell is millions of times more ordered and complex compared to a water molecule).

The Fourth assumption: When randomly moving atoms combine to form ordered systems innumerable types of ordered systems will be produced. (e.g. Hydrogen and Oxygen can combine to form either water or hydrogen peroxide. Including carbon pushed this number to millions).
Negligibly few types of these orders (chemicals) will aid life while most of them will be detrimental to life. Therefore there comes the fourth assumption according to which chance and randomness will select those forms of orders which are most suited to evolve life.

Examination of The Assumptions

To examine these assumptions we must start by examining the general behaviour of matter under the influence of chance and randomly acting forces. Imagine a box filled with a large number of black and white balls. It is an excellent experimental device used to demonstrate the effect of chance and randomness over the order in the physical world. My physics professor Dr. K. G. Bansigir (not a Christian) used to explain the concepts of randomness, probability and entropy by using this model, and therefore I shall call it the Bansigir Box.

Originally we arrange all the black balls into lower layers and the white balls into upper layers. This produces a certain order inside the box. (Many types of such orders are possible in this system — say, black balls forming the left half and the white one the right half vertically). What would happen now if we give the box a slight jerk ? This jerk is a randomly acting force and it instantaneously destroys the order inside the Bansigir Box. This demonstrates that randomly acting forces produce disorder very fast.

Now let us keep the box shaking continually. The shaking is again a randomly acting force and therefore whatever happens inside the box is a result of chance. What happens if the box is continually shaken for an infinite period of time ? Do we obtain a stable order ?

According to the Mathematical Theory Of Probability, there will be one instant during a time span of millions of years when this order will return in the box; but since the shaking (randomly acting force) is continuing, this order is destroyed the next instant. After several millions of years this order will return once again, but it will be destroyed the next moment by the ongoing shaking. As long as the shaking (random force) continues this cyclic phenomenon will continue, but no permanent order will result.

In the light of these empirical (practical and experimental) observations of the Bansigir Box let us examine the four assumptions mentioned above.

The first assumption: The Bansigir Box shows that chance and randomly acting forces need millions of years to create order, but they destroy this order with in moments. Obviously, chance and randomly acting forces favour disorder and NOT order. Chance and randomly acting forces can produce a meaningful amount of order only if they favour order more than disorder. This is why evolutionists have to bring up the first assumption that “chance and randomly acting forces favour order more than disorder”.

But it is obvious to the students of physics and chemistry that the physical world behaves in its own rigidly fixed ways. Since the first assumption requires the physical world to violate its own fixed pattern of behaviour, and since the physical world does not violate these fixed laws, the first assumption above is absurd. No scientific logic can be based on absurdities, and so the objective thinker must reject the first assumption of the Theory Of Evolutions. Chance and randomness favour evolution of DISORDER not the evolution of order.

The Second Assumption: Once a ordered structure is formed, according to the Theory Of Evolution, it must grow in its complexity. For this to happen a stable order is needed. This is why the second assumption states that “order produced by chance and randomness will be stable”.
Stability will produce a higher probability for combining simple orders into more complex patterns of order.

But how does matter actually behave ? In the Bansigir Box we had noticed that orders will be formed if time-spans of millions of years is allowed but this order is not stable at all. Whatever order is obtained after waiting for millions of years is destroyed the next instant by the randomness itself.

There is however one possible method of producing a stable order. The instant the balls come to an ordered condition, an external observer must intervene and stop the shaking. But this is an intrusion in the affairs by an intelligent being who acts in a certain planned manner. Also, the stopping of shaking at the precise moment means that chance and randomness must stop acting on the order after they produce it.

Both of these conditions are contrary to the assumptions held by the evolutionists. According to them, whatever order is seen in the Universe is a product of mere chance and therefore there is no question of an intelligent being guiding the process. Also, according to the theory, chance and randomness are the builders of order and therefore the question of separating the builder (chance and randomness) does not arise at any state.

It is apparent that order will not be stable in the presence of randomness. But randomness cannot be done away with, and therefore the order produced by chance and randomness will not be stable. This is a basis property of the physical world. If even the simple orders will not be stable, more complex orders cannot evolve. If more complex orders cannot evolve then life will not evolve. But the evolutionists maintain that life has surely evolved the way they say. This means that the physical world has violated its unchangeable laws. This implies further that matter violated its rigidly fixed laws millions of times, and thus evolved life.

Sanity demands a reason and a proof for these untenable assumptions. If matter indeed violates its own laws, what are the examples or proofs for it ? If matter does not violate its own laws, why has it violated itself millions of times for the sake of the evolutionist ? It is incredible ! There is NO scientific basis for the assumption that “the order produced by the randomly acting forces will be stable”.

The Third Assumption: Even the simplest living cell is a highly ordered and complex arrangement of millions of molecules. Since the first ordered structures produced by randomness will be very simple, these must become millions of times more ordered and complex before life can evolve. Since randomness is the only builder here, the third assumption is that “randomly acting forces will produce an increase in the order”.

For an increase in order and complexity, simpler orders must be present in abundant quantities so that they may combine to form higher orders. Moreover, these simple orders must be highly stable so that they can be used to build complex patterns that will be stable. But we had seen earlier that even the most simple orders are not stable. They last for extremely short time-spans only after their formation. This means that the simple orders are destroyed so fast that they have no chance to combine and form more complex patterns. Hence there is no way in which matter can increase its complexity of arrangement when it is left to randomness.

The third assumption takes it for granted that a large number of suitable types of orders will be formed simultaneously and at the same place so that they can interact with each other to produce complex patterns. But it can be shown mathematically that the probability for such an event during the entire life-span of the earth (estimated by evolutionists to be 4.5 billion years) is nil.

It is clear once again that when matter is left to randomness, order and complexity do not increase. The orders are just not stable enough to produce any complex pattern. Thus if the matter does not violate its own laws then the third assumption of the evolutionists if false.
On the other hand if the evolutionists are true, than the matter does violate its own laws. This means that physics and chemistry (according to which the laws of matter cannot be violated) are false. Thus a person holding the evolutionary view either has very little appreciation for the laws of fundamental sciences, or he so much wants to defend the Theory Of Evolution that he has decided to be prejudiced.

Confesses Loren Eisley, a leading evolutionist: “With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own, namely, the assumption that what after long effort could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past”.

The Fourth Assumption: In all our discussions up to now we have referred to “order” only in general terms. We must now distinguish between various categories of order. When matter arranges itself into ordered patterns, many different types of orders are possible, not all of which will favour the evolution of life.

For example, Hydrogen and Oxygen can combine to form either water or hydrogen peroxide, but out of these hydrogen peroxide is lethal to life. Thus one out of the two possible products in this case is harmful to life and only water is a product favourable to life. Of Carbon is also considered along with Oxygen and Hydrogen, the number of product runs into hundreds of thousands, most of which are unfavourable to life.

In the same way, whenever ordered patterns are formed a large proportion of them will be detrimental to the evolution of life. If, therefore, the random forces should give rise to life, there should be some agency that will be able to discriminate between those orders which will favour the evolution of life and those which will be harmful to the evolution. (Let us call them `favourable orders’ and `harmful orders’). Not only should this agency have the ability of such discrimination, but it should also be able to select the favourable orders so that the evolutionary process may progress upwards.

Since evolutionists maintain that the evolution of life is the result of mere chance, and randomness they have brought up the fourth assumption that “it is the chance and randomness which discriminate between the orders and select the favourable ones”.

The first fact we must note is that both chance and randomness are measurable physical entities with no powers of such discrimination as is imagined by the evolutionists. Chance and randomness function only within certain definite limits defined by the physics and mathematics of probability. According to these laws, chance will never favour an event simply because that event leads to some well-defined purpose. Showing such a favour (or selection) is completely opposite to the nature of chance.
Also, according to the laws, randomness is just the opposite of order and therefore randomness can never favour order as is demanded by the evolutionists. No question arises then of randomness `selecting’ the best order to evolve higher orders.

If chance and randomness, according to the physical laws, do not have discriminating powers and if they cannot favour order then how can we expect them not only to discriminate between favourable and harmful orders but also to select the most suitable orders ? The fourth assumption is diametrically opposite to a fundamental law of physics — the second law of thermodynamics. According to this law, matter always progresses from ordered to a disordered (random) condition. It says that the most disordered condition is the most stable state. It is the basic property of matter to go to the most stable (i.e. the most disordered) condition.

The fundamental sciences like physics and Chemistry exist solely because matter does not violate its own laws. But according to the fourth assumption of the evolutionists matter does violate even its most basic laws. But scientists know that randomly left matter works in such a way that they destroy even the most stable state and progress to an unstable state. According to the Theory Of Evolution, just the opposite has taken place. Moreover, if the evolutionists are true, this violation of law’s has occurred not just once or twice, but Billions upon Billions of times so that life could at last evolve.

What, allow me to ask, is the sanity behind such assumptions ? Why do educated people gulp down a theory which is contrary to all human knowledge. Let the evolutionists themselves answer this question. According to Aldous Huxley, a great popularizer of evolution,

“I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently I assumed that is had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption…. For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation form a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to this morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom”.

Clearly, Huxley defended a hypothesis that was contrary to physical sciences with a definite motive: He did it not because it had proof in favour but rather to establish his conviction that the world is meaningless. He (and his contemporaries), in his own words, wanted to abolish morality so that they could get sexual freedom. Is this why a great thinker defended
evolutionism ? For promoting “sexual freedom” — which is often a euphemism for unbridled sexual activity. This is anything but science.

CONCLUSION: It is clear from foregoing discussions that order will not come out spontaneously out of disorder as demanded by the evolutionists. Their assumptions are antithetical to the second law of thermodynamics. Nature does not violate its own laws. Evolutionists still cling to their mythologies because they need some crutch to lean upon.

“Scientists who go about telling that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact”. (Dr. T.N. Tahisian, physiologist, Atomic Energy Commission, U.S.A.).

You Are Welcome To Use This Article For Any Purpose Whatsoever With The Following Credit: Used With Permission Of http://www.IntegratedApologetics.Com