|
"Incredible" Beginning
Andy Diestelkamp
The beginnings of things always intrigue us. We often mark them with
great ceremony at the time if we anticipate their importance
(weddings, ribbon-cutting, grand openings, signings, etc.). We
frequently research beginnings if only later we realize someone’s or
something’s importance (the work of historians). It is therefore of
no surprise that thinking men and women have often pondered the
beginning of the physical universe.
While many are content to not give it any consideration and perhaps
assume that because it is here it has always been here, most observe
and realize that all physical things have measurable deterioration
and, therefore, cannot be eternal but must have had a beginning
point.
Essentially, there are two possibilities for how the physical began:
1) It happened by accident, or 2) It happened on purpose. Expressed
another way: 1) It happened by random chance, or 2) It happened by
design. Stated yet another way: 1) It began spontaneously from
ignorant nothingness, or 2) It began intentionally from
intelligence.
In modern parlance it is the debate between “Big Bang” and
“Intelligent Design” or “evolution vs. creation.” While some have
attempted to harmonize the general theory of evolution and creation
theory, at its core such an attempt is futile.
To borrow from the apostle Paul, “what fellowship has purpose with
accident, what communion has design with chance, what accord has
intelligence with ignorance, what agreement has creation with
evolution,” (adapted from 2 Corinthians 6:14-16). The answer is
none.
When anyone is challenged to give a historical explanation for the
existence of something physical, spontaneous generation from nothing
is never considered sound reasoning. Yet this is what modern science
teaches is the best explanation for the beginning of all things.
However, the ancient book of books, the Holy Scriptures, offers
another explanation. Many find its explanation incredible, but it is
far more credible than the spontaneous generation of something from
nothing suggested by atheists and agnostics. “In the beginning God
created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). Indeed, mankind is
without excuse for not drawing the basic conclusion that a powerful
supernatural intelligence (God) is the cause of this physical
existence (Romans 1:20).
Scripture reveals that God simply spoke things into existence. "Then
God said...and it was so," is an oft repeated phrase in Genesis 1.
To be able to speak material things into existence demands a power
that is beyond nature and beyond our comprehension. It is
super-natural!
Therefore, it is understandable that atheists assume that this
creation account (along with the
rest of the first eleven chapters of Genesis) is mythical, legendary
or, at best, allegorical, but
certainly not literal. Yet, even some believers in God attempt to
explain the creation using the
naturalistic assumptions of unbelievers.
Forgetting that with God all things are possible (Matthew 19:26),
many find these accounts incredible and unbelievable. However, again
borrowing from the sayings of Paul, “why should it be thought
incredible by you that” God spoke things into existence in six days?
Of course, Paul was addressing Agrippa with regard to Jesus’
resurrection (Acts 26:8). But beware! If you find a six-day creation
incredible, you might have the same problem with the resurrection
from the dead. Most people do. Whenever we doubt the power of God’s
spoken word, we have no foundation for faith in any aspect of His
word.
As disciples of Christ, we would do well to follow His lead
concerning the authority of the Genesis account. In responding to
His adversaries about a point of great controversy regarding
divorce, Jesus refers to the Genesis account of the beginning
(Matthew 19:3-8). Jesus' authoritative use of Moses’ account of
creation affirms that He believed it to be accurate. Indeed, we
cannot claim Christ as our Lord and reject the accuracy of Moses’
words (John 5:46,47). To adapt Jesus’ words to the Sadducees and
apply them to the present controversy over creation/evolution, “You
are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God”
(Matthew 22:29).
Beware, rejection of these beginning truths undermines the whole
foundation of the rest of Scripture and, therefore, our faith in
God's power to do anything.
~via The Beacon; Bowling Green, Kentucky
|
|
 On
the Inspiration of the Scriptures
by
J.W. McGarvey
(Editor’s Note: This is a
transcript of a sermon delivered by J.W. McGarvey before the YMCA of
University of Missouri, May 28, 1892. It is too long to be presented
in full in one issue, but will be continued in the next issue and
possibly beyond.)
There can be no Christian Association that is not founded on the
Bible. Everything that is properly styled Christian owes its
existence to the belief in the divine origin and authority of that
book; for although there were Christians and a Christian church
before the completion of the book, since it was completed all
Christian faith depends upon it. No one is entitled to membership in
such an association who does not espouse this belief; yet in a Young
Men's Christian Association of our day it is scarcely possible that
questioning in regard to the origin and authority of the Bible do
not frequently arise. You who are members of the Association which I
now have the honor of addressing, have doubtless heard it said that
the earlier books of the Old Testament, instead of being such as our
fathers have taught us to believe them, were written by J., and E.,
and D., and P., and R., of whom this is about all that we know. They
were written so long after the events which they record, and by men
with sources of information so unreliable, that we can depend upon
the truth of very little that they say. Indeed, it is more than
hinted that they did not hesitate to perpetrate pious frauds--a kind
of fraud never perpetrated by a pious man--when these were necessary
to any special purpose which they had in view. As to the historical
books of the New Testament, they also were written, you have been
told, by men who lived at too late a day to be well informed, so
that their writings must be carefully sifted before we can determine
what in them is true and what is to be referred to misinformation,
to myth, and to legend.
In opposition to all this you and I have been taught to regard the
writer of every book entitled to a place in this sacred collection
as having been controlled in the selection of his matter and guided
in the composition of it by God's Holy Spirit. We have learned, in
other words, to believe Paul when he says: "Things which eye saw
not, and ear heard not, and which entered not into the heart of man,
whatsoever things God hath prepared for them that love him. But unto
us God revealed them through the Spirit. * * * Which things also we
speak, not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the
Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual." (I Cor.
2:9-13).
These statements present the main issue between belief and unbelief
as regards the books which we style, collectively, the word of God.
From among the many lines of argumentation along which the
discussion of this issue has taken its course, I have selected a
single one for the subject of this address; and as the question is
of vital importance to the existence of your Association, I am sure
that I shall have your undivided attention while I attempt to
discuss it.
Again and again, almost from time immemorial, it has been argued
that if the Spirit of God had guided the sacred penmen after the
manner affirmed by Paul, all the books would have been written in
one style instead of being marked as they are by all the varieties
of style and diction which naturally distinguished their respective
writers. To this it has been as often answered, that the infinite
Spirit of God could as easily guide a number of writers along the
course of their own respective styles and within the limits of their
own previously acquired knowledge of words, as in any other way.
This seems to be a satisfactory answer. But still it must be
conceded that if the Spirit of God exercised any direction over the
selection by these men of their words, their modes of expression, or
the matter of their narrations, it is but natural to suppose that we
may find traces of the fact in characteristics which the writings
would not otherwise possess--characteristics by which they may be
distinguished as inspired writings. I believe that such
characteristics can be pointed out, and that, when properly
considered, they furnish conclusive proof of the inspiration in
question. I shall confine myself, for the sake of brevity and
concentration, to the historical writings of the New Testament, and
to their matter rather than their style.
We invite your attention, first of all, to a peculiarity of the
historical writers of the New Testament, which has often elicited
wondering comment, the unexampled impartiality with which they set
forth the sins and follies of friends and foes alike. There is no
attempt at concealment of their own sins; there is no toning down,
no apology. They are described without hesitation, and with the same
fullness of detail, as are the worst deeds of their enemies. The
proposal of James and John to call down fire from heaven on an
offending village, is as bluntly recorded as the murder of the
innocents of Bethlehem by Herod; the dispute among the apostles as
to who should be greatest, is as plainly set forth as the
dissensions among the Pharisees concerning Jesus; and although, when
the Gospels were written, Peter was the most prominent and the most
honored man in the whole church, they every one describe his
cowardly denial of his Lord with as much fullness of detail as they
do the dastardly betrayal by Judas. They offer no apologies for
Peter; and they have no word of reproach for Judas. What writers
since the world began, describing events in which their deepest
feelings and their dearest interests were involved, have approached
these writers in this particular? If they were guided by the
impartial Spirit of God, this accounts for it; but who shall account
for it on any other hypothesis? (to be continued) ~
|