Soteriology

Soteriology is the study of salvation. It is "salvation theory" or the doctrine of salvation. It can be a sore spot of division, but there are some clear Biblical teachings which everyone should be able to agree on.

The first question is "Why is salvation needed?" or "What are we saved from?". This is an important question. It defines what our problem is, and influences what we need to do to solve it.

First off, we are not saved from illness and poverty. There's an excellent quote they play on the Way of the Master radio: "Anyone who says, 'Get saved and live a better life' - has never read the New Testament." (Unfortunately, I cannot identify the speaker). The Bible is clear, get saved and receive tribulation and persecution (John 16:33, the parable of the sower, Acts 14:22, Romans 5:3, Mark 10:30).

We are saved from Hell. But why are we in danger of Hell? For the average person, this seems unreasonable. Ask any 10 people on the street, and probably at least half of the them will say they are good people who deserve Heaven, not Hell.

But the Bible makes it clear: "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). God is perfect, and so must we be perfect. How many murders make you a murderer? How many lies a liar?

"murderers, ... and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone" (Revelation 21:8)

Paul uses the analogy of a courtroom (how many laws do you have to break to end up in court? Is the judge impressed that you usually do not break laws? That you believe he is good? That you won't do it again?).

We are the defendants, and we are guilty.

There must be a price paid (more like our civil court than criminal). That price can only be paid by the blood of Jesus.

When we realize that we are sinners, in need of salvation, and that Jesus has paid our price in full, turn from our sins, and trust in God - we are saved. Our "criminal" record is applied to Jesus, and His perfect life is applied to us.

Another analogy used is that of a slave auction. As sinners, we are owned by sin. Jesus' blood "purchases" us. We receive the seal of the Holy Spirit as evidence of this "down payment" against an inheritance of eternal life with Him.

Book Review

"The Rebirth of Orthodoxy" (Thomas C. Oden) - I liked this book, but it was very slow to read. It doesn't read like a novel, and I think it could be reorganized. That said, it makes a lot of interesting statements and has a lot of insight.

Oden believes the "postmodern" movement is actually the death throes of "modernism". Oden classifies the modern age as 1789 to 1989 (Bastille to Berlin). Modern thought started with a great deal of optimism. It was believed rational thought and logic could eliminate all of mankind's problems. The whole history of modernism can be seen in science fiction (which barely existed before the twentieth century). Starting very optimistic, even utopian, then proceeding to more pessimistic and directionless forms. That is postmodernism. The idea that everyone can believe anything they want, and everyone is right. This idea is attractive to many, but is leading a lot of people to look for more.

Oden differentiates Orthodoxy (capital O, like the Eastern Orthodox Church) from orthodoxy (small o), which is what is being reborn. This is seen in churches returning to Biblical foundations, and increasing willingness for churches to take a stand on fundamental differences (for example the Pope reaffirming that the RCC is the only true church).

There is a fair amount here, that I will probably return to later.

Baptism

Today is my Baptism. A little googling will reveal I have been posting on Christian topics for three or four years now. And as my testimony says, I got saved just under two years ago. There's a long story to all that, and to why it's taken so long for me to get baptized. I'll probably get to it eventually, among other topics.

But today, I'd like to post some of my testimony:

"Growing up, I figured everything was right between me and God. I didn't steal, curse, smoke, or drink. I went to (a Catholic) church, and when I met my wife, I went to her church, were I was told I needed to get right with God, and I 'asked Jesus into my heart'.

I was told I was born again, but my life didn't change. It was while I was trying to live up to my supposed new life, that I finally came to understand I am not a good person in the eyes of God.

I realized that I was really blaspheming God when I called myself a Christian, but was no different than people in the world. That my evil thoughts and intentions made me just as guilty before God as people who carry out these thoughts. I didn't act out my sin, but it was very real inside me.

I struggled with God for some time. My pride kept me from really trusting Him. But, almost two years ago, I finally got down on my face and put my trust in God. I turned from my sin, and put on Jesus as my savior."

On Abortion

Interesting confluence of events. I was thinking about the upcoming presidential election, and about abortion in America. And wondering how the numbers compare with other countries around the world. Then I read an article on CNN. Where there are just under one million abortions in America (it had been about 1.2, and is now about 800k); there were an estimated 42 million abortions worldwide in 2003 (down from a trend of 46 million per year). I found statistics back to 1995 showing 46 million per year. Estimates range from 527 to 836 million (just 1995-2007 at 40 million per year is 480 million).

Then Joe Carter (from the Evangelical Outpost) had an interesting article concerning the Republicans and abortion.


I don't know what point I'm trying to make. But it does back a lot of info in one spot...

The Motives of the Evolutionist (part 2)

The last post ended up being on the motives of some creationists and most of the ID crowd. Sonder spends surprisingly little time pondering the motives of evolutionists, but there are some juicy quotes (page 12-13):

"In fact, Darwin himself stated that his main goal in writing On the Origin of the Species was 'to overthrow the dogma of separate creations.'"

And the top of page 12:

"It would take a few generations before scientists could offer any proof for some aspects of Darwin's theories."

Darwin certainly accomplished his goal. The question is, did his goal affect his process? What happened to collecting data and fitting theories to it? This topic is actually covered some in the book The Creationists heavily cited by Sonder.

The Motives of the Evolutionist

Continuing my review of the book "Evolutionism and Creationism":

Sonder spends a lot of print on the Intelligent Design movement (starting around page 78 through the top of page 95). I haven't followed the ID movement much, except from what shows up on the He Lives blog (David Heddle). From what I've seen there, it seems they haven't done a lot to benefit the spreading of the Gospel...

I agree with Heddle, that ID proponents should just come out and admit they are in favor of teaching creationism by God. It would be most honest. If the politics cannot be made to happen, so be it. The Gospel is more powerful than any evolution curriculum, and there are Christians able to reconcile evolutionary theory with an inerrant Bible (Heddle being an excellent example).

It is because of this, I am hesitant to join in with those who pin all the world's problems on evolution.

As I mentioned earlier, the problem is sin.

That said, evolution does serve to sear the conscience of atheists (who need to have this theory in order to reconcile facts from the world).

Sonder examines the motive of the creationist, through one Judge William Overton (pages 88-90), in the case McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982):

"creationist organizations that supported the bill 'consider the introduction of creation science into the public schools part of their ministry'."

I feel the judge's stance on this subject is biased. I wish I could say it is clearly wrong. But there is some sense that some people feel teaching creation will spread Christianity. But that is simply not Biblical (and thus not true).

It is the parents' responsibility to teach the Law of God to children (Deuteronomy 32:46, among others). Do you want a teacher who is not a Christian (are we going to require all teachers be Christian?) to teach your children creation by God?

It is not creationism that spreads Christianity. It is "Law to the proud, grace to the humble." And most people today are proud. The Law of God is a mirror which reveals to us our true imperfect state before a perfect God.

Every lie we tell defames God as a liar. Every sexual thought and action defames God as an adulterer. Our devotion to ourselves as gods, and to imaginings of our mind as god attempts to remove God from His rightful throne.

Atheism Demands Evolution

Thinking about young earth and old earth, creationism and evolutionism.

              Young Earth           Old Earth
Evolution        Nobody        Atheists and Theists
Creation         Theists              Theists

Modern atheism demands evolution, and evolution demands an old earth. Most forms of ancient atheism relied on the notion of creation always existing. Physicists have tried pretty hard to make that work, but have (mostly) abandoned it, because there is just no way to make it work (please don't start me up on string theory).

Ben Sonder's book ("Evolutionism and Creationism") mentions on page 40:
"If he [George McCready Price - author of Outlines of Modern Christianity and Modern Science] could prove that [sic] modern assumptions about geology wrong, then evolutionary theory would collapse."

This sentence is flagged as "Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists, New York 1992, page 76". [This book is in the central library near me, so I will check it out.]

Is this not true? Sonder does not offer his opinion. He mentions that mainstream scientists ignore the work of creationists (when not deriding it in public statements...). If the assumptions of uniformitarians are incorrect, if the world is not billions of years old, can evolution be possible?

Are there young earth evolutionists?