David Demick, a forensic scientist, wrote a column published on the Answers In Genesis website about an unusual murder case that he had investigated. The case had to do with a man who had been shot twice; once in the leg and then the fatal wound being in the chest.
Most would think that based upon the observed evidence at hand, that the man was shot in the chest first and then the leg because the bullet wound in the leg did not bleed. Generally, postmortem wounds do not bleed which led Demick to first conclude that the man was shot in the leg after he had been killed.
But he went to explain how his conclusion was then later challenged by eyewitness testimony which stated that the man had been shot in the leg before he was killed. I do not know how someone can suffer a bullet wound that does not bleed. Demick does not explain that but anyone with experience and familiarity in the forensic sciences who happens to read this post is more than welcome to enlighten me.
But the entire point of the column is that science has limits. It cannot explain or prove everything. It was never intended to. But many have been led to believe that if it cannot be scientifically proven, then it must not be so, yet there are a lot of things that we accept as truth and fact that we do not necessarily rely on a scientific analysis to trust in.
Science was only intended for the study of the present workings of the natural world. It was never really intended to give us a history of past events as many in the scientific and academic establishments would have us believe and that is where the battle between evolution and Young Earth Creationism (YEC) rages. The contention is not centered around that which is presently observed, tested, and repeatable, but the contention is around the issue of origins which is so vitally important because what view one holds concerning how we originate ultimately affects the course our lives take because what we believe in affects what our priorities are, how we make our choices and decisions, what principles we live by, and what our eternal fate will be.
Both evolutionists and Young Earth Creationists (YECs) contend that there is scientific evidence supporting their respective side, but how do we know which side science really favors or if science really favors either side?
The only way to possibly answer this question is to objectively compare and measure the observable evidence against both belief systems but in order to do that, we need to understand what both systems of thought teach about the origins of life.
Evolution teaches that all things came about by random processes over time, that life evolved from non-life and that through a random natural selection process, all presently existing life forms descended from other life forms; in other words, one life form gave rise to another.
The Bible teaches that all things were created but they were not created over a long period of time, but were created in six literal days. Life did not evolve from non-life and all living things were created to reproduce after their own kind.
Evolution requires the death of one species to give rise to another.
The Bible does not, but teaches that all things, both extinct and presently living, existed together at some point in history.
Evolution teaches that death has always been a part of the natural process.
The Bible teaches that death did not use to be a part of the natural process but instead is a consequence for man’s disobedience towards his Creator (Rom. 6:23) and that when man disobeyed God (Gen. 2:16-17, chapter 3) things had changed from what they had once been.
The world had changed from a place where there was no death or decay to a place of death of decay and from a place of peace and harmony to a place of continuous struggle and violence and from a place void of grief, pain, sorrow, and suffering, to a place plagued with suffering of every sort.
Where the two views also vastly differ is the order of events:
Evolution places the stars and even the sun before the earth.
It also places land before water, aquatic life before land plants, and land dwelling animals before flying creatures.
But according to the book of Genesis, the earth was created before the sun, moon, and stars. Water was before land and plants. Aquatic life and flying creatures were created on the same day, and came before all land dwelling creatures.
One thing that evolutionism and the Bible can agree on is that the earth has not always remained the same, but has been a different place in the past than it presently is, but disagree on what those changes were that have taken place.
Many within the body of Christ have attempted to reconcile these opposing viewpoints with various theories of their own, but the reality of the matter is, is that they cannot both be true. Only one of them can be and which side we take has serious ramifications for the course of our lives.
Evolution assumes that the laws of nature and physics, as we know them today, were somehow already in place when life came into existence and that life arose within the parameters of these natural laws. There was no supernatural involvement at all, but for those who happen to adhere to Theistic Evolution or Progressive Creationism, both of which adhere to evolutionary tenets, there was supernatural involvement in the creative process, but on a limited scale, both believing that the present laws of physics were already in place to a certain extent during the creative process.
But Young Earth Creationism assumes that the present laws of nature and physics were not set in motion until after everything was created because the creation period was completely governed by an act of the supernatural.
No one has ever seen a single-celled organism give rise to man and no one has ever been able to test and repeat this alleged process yet there are those who strongly believe and insist that this has been the case. No one has ever witnessed God create the universe in six days and no one has been able to repeat this process and yet there are those who strongly believe and insist that this has been the case.
The evolutionist has only a theory and what he relies on as a defense of that theory is are present observations and studies he claims to be proof of his theory but he lacks any eyewitness testimony of one life form changing into another.
The Young Earth Creationist, in defense of his case will also point to present observations that he believes supports his belief system, but even more than that, he is able to point to figures in history, or at least what he has accepted as history, who come as close as they can come to being an eyewitness to the creation process, but he cannot claim them as primary eyewitnesses but only secondary witnesses who received knowledge of that creative process by way of divine revelation.
History can tell us about things that happened at a certain place and at a certain time that scientific analysis cannot. History can tell us things about people that lived at a certain place and in a certain time that science cannot. Science can only document the things of the present, but history is a documentation of that which happened in the past and it is because things were written down and recorded that the knowledge of the past is passed down to us.
Going back to the murder case that David Demick was investigating, Demick made an important point as it pertained to forensic science:
…forensic science is extremely hampered by our inability to reproduce the past. Acknowledging our limits as scientists helps the cause of truth and avoids miscarriages of justice. The testimony of truthful witnesses can be invaluable. When done carefully and accurately, such testimony takes precedence over any lab work and independent analysis. [1]
But such admonition is rarely applied to science in general as historical science, which is an attempt through scientific analysis to reconstruct the past is made out to be the same as operational science which is the science that brings forth innovations from which we have all benefited and if anyone dares reject historical science, then they are accused of rejecting science altogether.
In reality, historical science cannot really reconstruct the past because it cannot repeat the past. It is only theory and conjecture which have to be tested in order to determine if the theories and conjecture can ever be declared fact. And because historical science cannot really repeat the past, it should probably be dismissed as a misnomer.
For example, if you find some fossils belonging to an animal that you had never seen upon the face of the earth before, you know, upon examining them, that they belonged to a creature that lived, died, and was buried at some point in time. You may even have some idea of what the animal might have looked like depending on how complete and intact the skeleton is. It might have features determining whether it might have been carnivorous or vegetarian. But you will never know what its mating habits might have been, whether it mated on a seasonal basis, throughout the year, or for life. You will never be able to know whether or not it lived in a group or was solitary, and unless there is fossil evidence indicating such, you will never be know to tell if the creature might have given birth to its young or laid eggs. There will also be no telling what its behavior and temperament might have been like, whether it could have been domesticated and made into an agreeable pet, how intelligent it might have been, whether it lived in a specific locale year around or was migratory or whether it was adaptable to various kinds of environments or could only survive in a specific environment. You know nothing about its life; when it was born, when it died and was buried, or whether it lived long enough to produce offspring and if it did have any offspring, how many it had.
All you know about the creature is based on what you presently see. The rest of is just a guessing game and the work of an imagination unless historical documentation written by someone who saw, observed, and studied the animal in the flesh is discovered revealing all these unknowns about the creature.
Attempting to reconstruct the past by scientific analysis is by and large going to be immensely more of a failure than a success because chances are, you are going to be anywhere between 50 and 90 percent wrong about what you thought might have happened.
I’ll admit, I may distain the evolutionary propaganda of the Jurassic Park series, but when I watched the first film, there was some notable points that were made and which I will never forget. And one of those points was that we know almost nothing about extinct animals that we have never seen alive in vivid historical memory. That point was made by, if any of you reading this post remember, by the Dilophosaurus. Now some of you, I am sure, have probably seen a depiction of this animal in a science text book or any book pertaining to dinosaurs, but for those of you who have seen Jurassic Park, if any of you recall, this Dilophosaurus had a frill around its neck and it spit paralyzing venom. Understandably, you might have thought this to be ridiculous. I did too at first, but I later realized that there was probably a point being made through the Jurassic Park depiction of this animal and the point is:
We know almost nothing about an animal that we have only discovered in the fossil record. At least a great many of the theories we have about this animal are going to be wrong if a living specimen were to be discovered and this animal might very well have capabilities that we never would have thought it might have.
The real science is the science founded upon the study of that which can be presently observed, studied, tested and repeated. Historical science, in my opinion, is overrated and too much trust has been placed in it by a populace who blindly and unquestioningly accepts it as truth and to present it as fact is an intellectual dishonesty that is being systematically committed by academia, the media, and affirmed by the entertainment industry. Even many in the Church have fallen for the systematic lies and are in turn endorsing them and as a result, the faith of many, especially that of the younger generations, is being overthrown because while they know that the attempt to reconcile two opposing ideas is a failure, they have not been equipped with the knowledge and answers needed to give the best reasoned answers possible to those intellectual and philosophical challenges to our faith.
And that is something that desperately needs to change if we ever hope to succeed in being the light to the world that Christ commanded us to be. Evolution and Christianity cannot both be true. And it has already been demonstrated and can easily be demonstrated that the two can never be in agreement no matter how hard anyone tries to harmonize them.
If evolution is true, then Christianity is a lie and we have lost an illusion and will be forced to reassess everything we know, and re-examine all the facts to find out where they actually lead. But if Christianity is true, then eternity is at stake and we need to make sure we have made our peace with our Maker. Either way, there are serious ramifications for the course our lives take but more importantly, there are ramifications for what happens to us after death because this life is only temporary. Eternity is forever.
But if evolution is true, shouldn’t we expect to find scientific evidence pointing to such? Yes, we should.
And if the Bible is true, shouldn’t we expect to find scientific evidence pointing to such? Yes we should and not only that, we should also find archeological and historical evidence pointing to such as well.
If there is a God in Heaven who created us and to whom we must give an account, then surely He has left evidence of His handiwork. If He has given special revelation to anyone, there should be nothing in science, history, or archeology that should contradict His revelation, but we should expect that anything revealed to us by our Maker will be validated in our own personal lives, and not only that, nature will serve as a witness to His glory and history will be His vindicator.
It would be impossible to cover all arguments made for both evolution and Young Earth Creationism in one post; in fact, it would take an immense number of posts and books that would just be impossible for this author alone to create. I would need a dedicated team to work alongside me for any hope of making that possible.
So instead, I will just briefly go over just a few in a summarized fashion:
1. Gas Or Water:
According to evolutionary thought, the universe was formed from a myriad of gases.
The book of Genesis teaches that everything was created from water. (Gen. 1:2)
There is no doubt that there are gases, gas clouds and what we call “gas planets” present throughout the universe, but what is also present is a vital component to formation of water. In order water to form, hydrogen and oxygen molecules have to merge and it is these elements that have earned water the title of H2O.
So, whenever you hear the term H2O, you know that they are referring to water. Granted, that oxygen is not necessarily present throughout space, there is however an element associated with water that is widespread throughout the universe and that is hydrogen. Some planetary and lunar atmospheres are said to contain hydrogen within them. Some planets are claimed by astronomers to possess water. There is no doubt that there are planets upon which ice is present.
The evolutionist may say that the gases came before water, but the Young Earth Creationist will say that water came before anything else. According the book of Genesis, on the second day of creation, God commanded for there to be a “firmament” to “separate the waters from the waters.” (Gen. 1:6) That firmament, which is also called an expanse, is what we would understand today as being the sky or atmosphere over the earth and the vast space above the earth.
And the widespread presence of hydrogen and liquid of any kind could, from the YEC perspective, easily attest to the Genesis account of the watery beginnings of this universe. Now a scientific analysis can attest that both gases and hydrogen are present throughout our universe, but science cannot tell us whether water or gas came first. Unless there is an eyewitness account to tell us what came first, we are left to the mercy of our best guesses, but for those who accept the Genesis account of creation as actual history, we then accept that water was present before all else because we believe the Genesis account of creation to have been given by divine revelation which makes it an authoritative source because what we are reading are the words of the Maker Himself written down by men who did so under the direction of the Holy Spirit.
For if there be a God to whom we owe our existence and before whom we must give an answer for how we have lived our lives, and who interjects Himself into the affairs of men when necessary to fulfill a purpose, then we should not think it unreasonable that He would have revealed how mankind and all of creation originated at some point in our history.
2. The Design Argument:
One of the most powerful and persuasive arguments ever used by adherents of Intelligent Design or Young Earth Creationism in defense of the existence of a God who created all life is the intelligent design argument.
Intelligent Design argues that time, chance, and randomness could not possibly bring about the most simple of life forms which are in their own right far more complex than any invention or machine devised by man. Its challenge to Darwinian adherents is how could any kind of life evolve all of the functions needed to survive in such a way so as to ensure that all essential functions are placed in the right order and the right arrangement needed for survival and reproduction?
That all things are placed together in the proper order, right time, and in the right arrangement could mean the difference between life and death for any life form and whether or not they are able to reproduce. It can also mean the difference between good and bad health and whether or not one is beset by a crippling disability and the longevity of the life forms involved.
There is no denying that this poses a challenge to evolutionary thinking and the challenge with which they are posed with is how can random processes and time, which are unthinking and cannot plan, possibly know what to create, how to create, and what needs to be in place and how in order for life to be possible?
There seems to be no viable answer outside of a creative act. Only a creator could possibly know what would need to be in place in order for everything to function properly in the manner intended and all that is needed for life to be sustained. Only a creator is able to create the universe with such a diverse sort of stars, planets, moons, elements, plants, and animals. How can time and chance do that?
There is no doubt that everything is created with a design. Everything was made to serve some sort of a purpose. There is an undeniable order to things that needs to be maintained in order for life to be sustained.
The Bible states that even nature reveals evidence of our Creator (Rom. 1:19-20) and declares His glory (Ps. 19:1-6) and though the irreligious would have us believe otherwise, science and faith need not conflict and to admit that there is a creator does not necessarily make anyone less of a scientists, but in truth, actually makes them a better scientist. They also know that science was never meant to explain a supernatural act and that just because there is no scientific explanation to something, that does not mean that it isn’t so. For more information on how scientists are led to believe in a creator by their own independent studies and research, I would recommend visiting sites like A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism and The Discovery Institute but that does not necessarily mean that all the scientists testifying about why they are skeptical of Darwinism or how they came to believe in a creator are necessarily Christian or YECs as they do come from a variety of different backgrounds but their testimonies nevertheless do give some valuable insight.
3. Reproducing After Their Own Kind:
The Bible says that God created plants and animals to reproduce after their own kind (Gen. 1:11-12, 20-25) Evolution teaches that one kind of life eventually gives rise to another. But what does the observable evidence show us? Presently speaking, everything appears to be reproducing after their own kind. People produce people. Dogs produce dogs. Cats produce cats, and so forth. The Young Earth Creationist can easily point to this observation as proof the Genesis account of creation is true and therefore, so is the rest of the Bible, but the evolutionist may challenge this observation by citing the various different species or variations within each kind. They may cite examples such as the peppered moths or the various different dog breeds, and Darwin’s finches in defense of their case.
They contend that the small observable variations that we see will eventually lead to changes significant enough to give rise to new life forms. That is certainly what Darwin believed. YECs do not deny the existence of variation within each kind, but will still contend that while different variations and even mutations may arise, they still cannot produce creatures distinctly different from themselves citing genetic limitation. Traits can only be passed down for which there is genetic potential. If there is no genetic potential for a trait, then it will never manifest itself.
From the evolutionist perspective if CAT produces CCAATT, it constitutes as evolution in action but from the YEC perspective, it takes more than just gene duplication for one kind of life form to eventually give rise to a different life form. If genes from a cat or a dog are duplicated, they will still be dog and cat genes. They will never be anything in between or anything different which is why the YEC will argue that in order for evolution to actually take place, CAT would have to give rise to that which it did not have the genetic potential to give rise to. In other words, CAT would have be able to produce DOG in order for one life form to give rise to one different from itself. No such thing has ever happened and certainly not by nature. Such manifestations might only be made possible by way of arcane experiments.
A common misconception about YECs is that they believe in what is called a “fixity” of species. What that means is that they believe that Jack rabbits can only produce Jack rabbits or that Bighorn Sheep can only produce Bighorn sheep and are not capable of producing any different kind of sheep and while that might have been true of YECs in previous centuries, that philosophy has been partially abandoned by the YEC community. They might believe that hares and rabbits may be descended from a single rabbit or hare pair, but they do not believe that rabbits will ever be able to produce anything distinctly different from themselves.
It is also important to understand what the Bible means by kind as the scriptures may not necessarily render “kind” in the same way we may render it today. The scientific community renders “kind” as distinct separate species but it is not just applied to things completely different from one another such as cows and pigs or potatoes and apples, but also to variations within each species such as dogs and wolves or cats and bobcats, or yellow potatoes and red potatoes.
But how does the scripture apply “kind?” According to the Strong’s concordance, the Hebrew word for “kind” is “miyin” [2] which simply means “sort” and this can be used to distinguish between species within a “kind” or different forms of life altogether.
For example, there were different kinds of sheep and goats that Jacob had acquired for his flocks when he was working for his uncle Laban (Gen. 30:29-43, 31:8-12) There were those of solid color. Others were spotted, streaked, and speckled. They were still sheep and goats regardless of what shade of color or color pattern they might have been and produced nothing but. That is one notable example of scripture citing variation and if you will, even speciation within a “kind.”
Another notable example of the usage of “kind” to differentiate between different kinds of animals is found in the eleventh chapter of Leviticus in which the dietary laws for the Jewish people were laid out.
Among the unclean animals there are listed animals diverse from one another, but in some cases, we find animals similar to one another yet still distinguished from one another.
“the eagle…and the gier eagle.
the owl…the little owl…and the great owl
the locust…and the bald locust…” (Lev. 11:13-18, 22)
A clear scriptural example of what we might call speciation within different kinds of animals and this case, identical to how scientists tend to classify different species within basic kinds in some cases. But in other cases, many scientists have classified what scripture has declared as different kinds as the same kind but as a different species:
“the chameleon and the lizard…” (Lev. 11:30)
Mainstream scientists have labeled chameleons as being a species of lizard, but according to the Bible, lizards and chameleons are completely different from one another. That being the case, it is possible that an assortment of different kinds of lizards might have boarded Noah’s Ark before the flood and therefore it is conceivable that Noah might have taken on board with him geckoes, iguanas, chameleons, monitor lizards (including Komodo Dragons), frilled lizards, horned lizards, skinks, flying lizards, basilisks, etc. They are all too diverse from one another to have possibly descended from just two lizards.
The same could also be said for frogs, snakes, salamanders, and other animal classes within which there are members too diverse from one another to be as related to one another as they may appear.
Both YECs and evolutionists have done genetic and breeding experiments to gage just how much genetic potential each kind of animal has; YECs for the purpose of testing the limits of potential genetic diversity within each kind of animal and possibly to determine what common respective ancestor each kind of life form descended from, and evolutionists, in hopes of eventually bringing about one life form from another; replicating a cell to man scenario.
Creationists, for a number of years have been engaging in a biological discipline of science for a number of years and which is unique to the YEC community. That field of science is called “Baraminology.” The coined term was inspired by two Hebrew words: Bara, meaning “created” and “Miyin” which means, as mentioned before, “kind.” It is a term found and written about on a number of different YEC sites.
It was created in hopes of determining what the respective ancestors were of all the different animals were; what sort of cats all the different kinds of cats in the world descended from, what sort of canines all the different canines descended from, what sort of deer all the different kinds of deer descended from and so forth. Evolutions have a single diagram in the form of tree depicting all life descending from a single-celled organism. YECs have several different trees depicting all the different kinds of life forms descending from their respective ancestors that were first created by God.
But no matter how many breeding and genetic experiments YECs might do, they will never be able to reconstruct the respective ancestors from which all existing animals descended. They will never be able to recreate the first canines, bovines, felines, and so forth to determine how the different species and variations with each kind arose. The genetic potential for that, in all probability, has been lost. All they can do is formulate a theory about what the respective ancestors of each living thing may be.
Evolutionists, likewise, will never be able to repeat the molecules to man scenario to which they hold no matter how hard they might try. The genetic potential just is not there. In order to repeat such a scenario, they would have be able to produce from the available genetic information within that cell, information that was not there before and different from what is already there.
But is it possible that all the different kinds of cats descended from single pair of cats? Unlikely from a genetic standpoint, but possible. The more likely scenario is that large cats and small cats were both created on the same day. It may be possible that sheep and goats both descended from a similar animal, or they could have been created together at the same time. We really don’t know and we may never know on this side of Heaven.
All we can know is that God created all life to reproduce after its own kind. There have been numerous breeding and genetic experiments to determine whether or not viable hybrids can be produced by the interbreeding of two different animals such as a sheep and a goat or a lion and a tiger. But in most cases---not in every case mind you---the creation of viable hybrids have been unsuccessful even from animals that are perceived to be similar to one another.
But personally, because breeding and genetic experiments are not necessarily reflective of what takes place in nature and, like any experiment, can be manipulated to produce a desired result, experimental results should not always viewed as a basis for coming up with a foregone conclusion; at least not in every case and the field of genetics is just one such case. They may be useful in formulating a theory, but that is as far as it goes. The real test of that theory is when it is measured up with an act of nature.
Of all life on earth, man is the only one seeking to defy nature which should be no surprise because he is by nature rebellious. He resents boundaries being set by any governance or authority and has been so from day one. If he will not by nature submit to the authority of the God who made him, why then should he submit to the natural laws that have been set in place?
His inherent wickedness has reached to such an extent that God had seen it fit to issue a law forbidding the breeding of one kind of animal with another different from itself. (Lev. 19:19)
If sheep and goats will not mate with one another when left to themselves and their natural instincts to guide them, it is probably because God might have created them as separate from one another in the beginning and did not intend for them to interbreed with one another. We are the ones who have imposed that upon them through genetic and breeding experiments.
If lions, tigers, and leopards do not mate with one another in the wild, is it possible God might have intended them to be separate species in the beginning? Something to think about. But if man can find a way to overcome any genetic barriers that would normally prevent a hybrid like a Liger or a Leopon from being produced, there is no doubt that he will attempt to produce a human-primate hybrid in order to prove that man evolved from the ape and that man and apes are related to one another and share the same common ancestor, but if they ever succeed in doing that, then no doubt they will succeed at producing a hybrid out of any combination of different animals.
And if the Lord should tarry, I have reason to believe that one day they will succeed in breaking down the natural genetic barriers that our Creator had originally put in place and produce actual for-real laboratory monsters. And that will be the day that we will never look at science fiction the same way again.
When we begin dabbling in the realm of the hybridization that tears down those natural genetic barriers that God put in place or subject His creations to those things that He did not create them to do, it is then that we are in danger of crossing that line from the beneficial and educational science of Isaac Newton Louise Pasteur, John Faraday, Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, etc. to the mad and arcane science of Dr. Frankenstein and Dr. Moreau.
Breeding porpoises and dolphins to create wolphins, creating goat/sheep hybrids, or Ligers and Leopons and so forth: What are we getting out of that? How does that help or benefit anyone? Next thing you know they will move on to reinventing the Minotaur or creating a wolf/sheep hybrid or some other form of insanity in the name of science and just to prove a point, to test the limits of what can be done, and ultimately, in defiance of the God before whom we will all have to give an account someday. What darkening times we are living in and in a world under the control of a spirit who seeks to pervert, desecrate, twist, mar, and make a mockery of all that God has created.
I don’t know how many of you out there have seen Jurassic Park, the first Jurassic Park film in the series by the way, but if any you out there remember, and I sure do, there is a profound and unforgettable statement and admonition made by one of the characters in the film and I know that I am probably paraphrasing it but he says something along the lines about how we all talk about we can do, we never stop to think about whether or not we should. And how true of a statement it is.
We are so focused and concerned about whether or not we can or cannot do something that we never stop to think about whether or not we should. And the question and discussion that is missing from the subject of what we are capable or not capable of doing is whether or not we should do that thing which we may or may not be able to do. Not every action or endeavor has a good or beneficial end. Beliefs, ideas, decisions, and actions have consequences that are further reaching than we know and not just for this life but for the next as well.
There is a reason why everyone chooses to follow and apply to their lives any given belief system and it does not necessarily always have to do with evidence even though evidence perceived to be in favor of that particular belief system chosen can play an important factor in the decision making process. The final decider is the attitude of the heart.
For some, it does not take much more than simple faith to embrace a particular set of beliefs.
For others more skeptical, it may take some evidence in favor or appearing to be in favor of that belief system that might convince them to embrace it.
And when it comes to the Gospel, God is a rewarder of those who embrace it upon faith, but He is also accommodating for those more skeptical and has provided and still provides irrefutable evidences of His truth.
But there are also those who, no matter how persuasive the evidence or arguments are in favor of a certain doctrine, philosophy, creed, or religion, will refuse to surrender to it for reasons that have nothing to do with rationality or evidence; reasons that have to do with the attitude of the heart and spirit and Christianity is no exception to that when it comes to the reasons for why so many reject it even though its message and way is more simple than that of any other religion or way of life. So simple of a message and yet so hard to receive.
If all the evidence for one side or another is placed before you and you were to examine all the evidence before you, what would you do? Would you simply go where you thought the evidence was leading or is there something more that is guiding and shaping your choices and the attitude of your heart? The course your life takes and your eternity depend upon the choices you make now and what your attitude toward your Maker is.
We, since Adam who was the first man God created, and from whom we are all descended, have been a fallen race. Ever since his disobedience in doing the one thing that God had forbidden him to do, which was eating fruit from a certain tree that he was told not to, (Gen. 2:16-17, chapter 3) sin became inherent in all of mankind (Rom. 5:12) and as a result, just as Adam eventually died, we all die because of sin (Rom. 6:23) but before sin, death was not. There was only life and peace, but with sin came death and with death came decay and all manner of suffering, hardship, and grief that has come with it.
But God, in His love for mankind and in a desire to demonstrate His mercy and offer forgiveness sent Christ Jesus to die on our behalf so that we in placing our trust in Him for salvation, may be forgiven of our sins, reconciled to our Maker, and be made members of His Kingdom. Upon the cross was the penalty for sin paid and redemption made.
God, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance, (2 Pet. 3:9) is hard at work persuading as many as can be persuaded of His truth with many infallible proofs and evidences and if you feel the call of the Spirit on you and if He has presented evidences and arguments that you know to be in favor of His Gospel, I urge you to not harden your heart, but let your heart be softened and open to receiving Christ as your Savior and to turn away from your sins, whatever they may be, in order that you might be saved.
If you are not sure what to say, here is an example of a prayer you can pray:
"Lord Jesus I need you.
I realize that I am a sinner
who has fallen short of the glory of God
and that my goodness falls short
of His standard of Moral perfection.
Please forgive me of all of my sins.
Come into my heart and into my life
to be the Savior and Lord of my life.
Make me into the servant and follower
that you want me to be.
In your name Lord Jesus, I pray.
Amen."
The Lord is not concerned with the words that you use as but only with the attitude and sincerity within your heart and if you have, with all sincerity, have asked Him to forgive you of your sins and to be your Savior and Lord, you are already saved and will one day spend eternity with Him forever.
End Notes:
1. David Demick, “The Case of the Bloodless Bullet Wound,” Answers In Genesis, December 29, 2019
https://answersingenesis.org/science/case-bloodless-bullet-wound/
2. “The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance Of The Bible,” Hebrew 4327, Attributed to James Strong, LL.D., S.T.D., 1990, Thomas Nelson Publishers; Nashville Tennessee
Scripture references:
1. Genesis 1:2
2. Genesis 1:6
3. Genesis 2:16-17
4. Genesis 3
5. Romans 1:19-20
6. Psalms 19:1-6
7. Genesis 1:11-12, 20-25
8. Genesis 30:29-43, 31:8-12
9. Leviticus 11:13-18, 22
10. Leviticus 11:30
11. Leviticus 19:19
12. Romans 5:12
13. Romans 6:23
14. 2 Peter 3:9
No comments:
Post a Comment