Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Divine Judgment?
I would like to refer back to the news article on Pat Robertson (11/14 blog post). I do not think that it is biblical for anyone today to foretell divine judgment on a city (which is basically what he did, except he did not say that it was certain, it was just something he thought MIGHT happen). I suppose He may get this concept from the Old Testament of the Bible. For example, Jonah had to go to the city of Ninevah to foretell them of the wrath of God which would come upon the city because of the people’s “evil way”. When the city of Ninevah sincerely humbled themselves, prayed to God, and changed their wicked ways, God did have mercy on them and did not destroy them.
However, we must see the contrast of Jonah and the situation at hand. Jonah was told specifically by God to go and give this warning to the city of Ninevah. God does not speak audibly today, telling people to do this sort of thing. Without a direct command such as Jonah received, no one can say who God will punish (on earth) for rejecting Him. We do not fully understand His ways. Many people have rejected God in many different ways, yet have had earthly success. Sometimes God will bring people to nothing on earth because they act against Him, but other times, justice is not done until after we die. Eternal Judgment is the only punishment we CAN be certain of and be warned of, because it is clearly spoken of in the Bible. Matthew 25:46 speaks of “eternal punishment.” The Bible tells us why we will receive this punishment: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” and “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 3:23, 6:23). We all deserve Divine punishment because we have all disobeyed God. But the very next part of Romans 6:23 says, “but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Only those who accept God’s gift of righteousness in Christ alone will avoid their deserved punishment. In agreement with one’s belief, both in God and in Christ’s sacrifice which covers over their rejection of God, one who has accepted Him will likewise believe all that God has said in the Bible, and begin to obey Him. It follows that such a person should believe the history of the earth that God has put forth in the Bible.
The previous few statements probably show why Robertson thinks that the opponents of ID have rejected God. Evolution cannot truly be matched up with the Bible, so believing evolution rather than the Bible is to say that God’s Word is faulty. This is not to say that supporters of ID are all accepting God. An Associated Press article from September 30, 2005 (on MSNBC website) said that “Intelligent-design supporters argue that life on Earth was the product of an unidentified intelligent force.” Clearly, not all ID supporters believe in the Christian God and accept Christ as their Savior. Belief in ID does not equal salvation. ID is a scientific theory which also fits the Bible’s account of Creation. That is why Christians should support ID, and why rejecting ID does oppose God.
Regarding God showing Himself in nature, the Bible says:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 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. For although they know God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. (Romans 1:18-25)
This passage, though written nearly 2000 years ago, still sheds light on what we see today. All of us have been caught up in such disobedience to God, but thankfully we have the chance to be forgiven in Jesus Christ.
However, we must see the contrast of Jonah and the situation at hand. Jonah was told specifically by God to go and give this warning to the city of Ninevah. God does not speak audibly today, telling people to do this sort of thing. Without a direct command such as Jonah received, no one can say who God will punish (on earth) for rejecting Him. We do not fully understand His ways. Many people have rejected God in many different ways, yet have had earthly success. Sometimes God will bring people to nothing on earth because they act against Him, but other times, justice is not done until after we die. Eternal Judgment is the only punishment we CAN be certain of and be warned of, because it is clearly spoken of in the Bible. Matthew 25:46 speaks of “eternal punishment.” The Bible tells us why we will receive this punishment: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” and “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 3:23, 6:23). We all deserve Divine punishment because we have all disobeyed God. But the very next part of Romans 6:23 says, “but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Only those who accept God’s gift of righteousness in Christ alone will avoid their deserved punishment. In agreement with one’s belief, both in God and in Christ’s sacrifice which covers over their rejection of God, one who has accepted Him will likewise believe all that God has said in the Bible, and begin to obey Him. It follows that such a person should believe the history of the earth that God has put forth in the Bible.
The previous few statements probably show why Robertson thinks that the opponents of ID have rejected God. Evolution cannot truly be matched up with the Bible, so believing evolution rather than the Bible is to say that God’s Word is faulty. This is not to say that supporters of ID are all accepting God. An Associated Press article from September 30, 2005 (on MSNBC website) said that “Intelligent-design supporters argue that life on Earth was the product of an unidentified intelligent force.” Clearly, not all ID supporters believe in the Christian God and accept Christ as their Savior. Belief in ID does not equal salvation. ID is a scientific theory which also fits the Bible’s account of Creation. That is why Christians should support ID, and why rejecting ID does oppose God.
Regarding God showing Himself in nature, the Bible says:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 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. For although they know God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. (Romans 1:18-25)
This passage, though written nearly 2000 years ago, still sheds light on what we see today. All of us have been caught up in such disobedience to God, but thankfully we have the chance to be forgiven in Jesus Christ.
The Consideration of ID as a Scientific Possibility
Thank you for directing us to the articles on Pat Robertson and Rick Sternberg (11/14). They are very interesting and I think that both issues should have been covered by the media. However, the one about Sternberg should have been reported even more than the one on Robinson (which was highly covered). The one about Sternberg seems more novel (as you implied) and more secretive – something that the public would probably not be aware of or even guess. However, the Robertson article was also important, allowing the public to consider that his statement might be true.
It is horrible that the Smithsonian could do all of the things stated in the article to such an editor as Sternberg. Sternberg wasn’t saying that the Smithsonian’s scientific viewpoint is wrong – all he did was publish a credible article espousing another fully possible scientific theory, which he himself does not even agree with. Intelligent Design is possible from a physical standpoint because we see all of the intricate creatures of this world and their equally intricate relationships, which are hard to imagine having “worked out” all on their own. Additional support for the idea that Intelligent Design is a true scientific possibility is the fact that (as far as I can remember) Dr. Michael Behe, one of the main scientists backing up ID theory, is not religiously affiliated. Therefore he does not have religious beliefs as a motive for espousing ID. Scientists should consider all possibilities, because the purpose of science should be to seek the truth about the physical world, whether or not it is what we expect or desire to find.
Intelligent Design and evolution are both possible systems of creation, as far as science is concerned. Neither has been scientifically proven, so I strongly believe that schools should teach both theories. This would not go against any religious or non-religious teaching that parents want to give at home. Parents can tell their children which view they believe is correct, but children should be taught about both because as far as scientific proof goes, either theory could be the truth. On the contrary, teaching that evolution is a fact, even though it is not proven, does oppose freedom of religion. Someone who learns evolution as a “belief” may more easily come to believe that their religion is not true because it does not support evolution. Therefore, when kids come home to parents with religious beliefs contrary to evolution, who wish to teach their children what they believe, the parents have no ground to stand on – even though the “ground” does exist. We must know all that scientists have observed, because the true “religion” does match what is observed - there is only one truth. I believe that God, the “Intelligent Designer,” has created everything in complexity so that we can observe His Majesty.
It is horrible that the Smithsonian could do all of the things stated in the article to such an editor as Sternberg. Sternberg wasn’t saying that the Smithsonian’s scientific viewpoint is wrong – all he did was publish a credible article espousing another fully possible scientific theory, which he himself does not even agree with. Intelligent Design is possible from a physical standpoint because we see all of the intricate creatures of this world and their equally intricate relationships, which are hard to imagine having “worked out” all on their own. Additional support for the idea that Intelligent Design is a true scientific possibility is the fact that (as far as I can remember) Dr. Michael Behe, one of the main scientists backing up ID theory, is not religiously affiliated. Therefore he does not have religious beliefs as a motive for espousing ID. Scientists should consider all possibilities, because the purpose of science should be to seek the truth about the physical world, whether or not it is what we expect or desire to find.
Intelligent Design and evolution are both possible systems of creation, as far as science is concerned. Neither has been scientifically proven, so I strongly believe that schools should teach both theories. This would not go against any religious or non-religious teaching that parents want to give at home. Parents can tell their children which view they believe is correct, but children should be taught about both because as far as scientific proof goes, either theory could be the truth. On the contrary, teaching that evolution is a fact, even though it is not proven, does oppose freedom of religion. Someone who learns evolution as a “belief” may more easily come to believe that their religion is not true because it does not support evolution. Therefore, when kids come home to parents with religious beliefs contrary to evolution, who wish to teach their children what they believe, the parents have no ground to stand on – even though the “ground” does exist. We must know all that scientists have observed, because the true “religion” does match what is observed - there is only one truth. I believe that God, the “Intelligent Designer,” has created everything in complexity so that we can observe His Majesty.
