Remnant Bible Fellowship Blog: March 2018

Friday, March 23, 2018

Resurrection of Believers: Part 1

In this episode Brother Jonathan talks about the importance of context, change's in man's relationship with God, man's spirit, soul, and body, the natural man and the spiritual man, the different types of life and death in the Bible, what does the Bible say about "sleep", what does the Bible say about Hell, and where we go when we die.

Resurrection of Believers: Part 1

S2EP6

Remnant Bible Fellowship

Introduction
1. I’m getting quite a backed-up list of episodes to do. It’s alright though, because if someone asks me something then I want to make it a priority over something that I just want to do. I received an email this past week from George in Colorado, and he had some questions about some things. It dovetailed nicely with what I was going to do originally: the resurrection. He had a lot of questions, and some are pretty deep questions. So I’m not going to be able to go over all of them today, but hopefully I can help shed some light on some things. I talked to him on the phone also twice this past week. We had some edifying conversation. It’s nice to talk to believers who really want to plead for truth and not compromise. But guys, like I’ve said before, if you have any questions feel free to email me.
2. Now, I have to clarify something in case anyone was confused. I am going to be doing an episode on the historicity of the resurrection of Christ here in a few weeks. What we’ll be preparing for this week, and continuing next time, is the resurrection in general. That is, the resurrection that is the hope of believers.
3. In talking about some of the topics that we’re going to briefly look at, you have to understand that these are things that you’ll spend the rest of your life better understanding from the scriptures. Some things just don’t fit into neat little categories like what we would like. There are also some things that God just doesn’t explain or tell us about. We’re not going to know everything now. But, what we can know we can talk about from the scriptures.
4. As some of you might know from having listened to the podcast for a while: I don’t like speculating. If I do speculate, then I try to say so. We can’t be dogmatic on things that God does not specifically state though. There are some things that are okay to differ on in understanding.
5. I don’t know how well this episode is going to fit together. We have to discuss a lot of definitions of words. In everything that you study from the scriptures, you have to begin by making sure your definitions of the words are right. You have to get a sense of the semantic range of the words. Hopefully, something edifying will come out of this week’s episode though. Next episode is when we’ll really get into the resurrection specifically, but all the things that we go over this episode are important to know going into that one.
Changes in Man’s Relationship to God
1. Context is very important when you look at anything in scripture. If you set aside context, then you can teach whatever you want from the Bible. There are also some people who use the claim of “context” to interpret verses any way that they want. You know, if you zoom out enough, then you make the context of a passage to be anything you want. It’s kind of the opposite of those people who read so much into a passage, or between the lines of a passage, that they can even find what’s not even there! You can go to either extreme when studying.
2. When considering anything about man, life after death, etc., you need to remember two important things when you’re interpreting scripture:
  1. The Fall
  2. Christ’s Resurrection
3. Man was made a certain way in the beginning, but that changed. Man’s relationship to God was drastically altered after Adam and Eve sinned. We discussed some of the things about this in our series on the Atonement. Likewise, after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ man’s relationship with God changed. Before the fall, man was perfect, and in complete unhindered fellowship with God. After the fall, he is separated from God and subject to mortality and death. He continued in this state—not wanting to go into the effect that the giving of the Law had right now at this point—until the coming of the Messiah. After Christ accomplished the atonement, man could now be reconciled to God: fellowship can be reinstituted.
4. Even after this though you have to remember that the full end of salvation has not yet been finished. Christ’s work of atoning is done, but death is not yet finished yet. Remember that death is the punishment for sin. Until sin is done, there will be death, and until death is done, the redemption plan is not yet finished. This is why the scripture says:
  1. Hosea prophesied, saying, “I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.” (Hosea 13:14)
  2. Paul revealed what was intended by this prophecy when he said, “Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1Corinthians 15:51-57)
5. We’re talking about the resurrection. It’s the true hope of the gospel. The Apostles knew this, and spoke about it:
  1. “And as they spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them, Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead.” (Acts 4:1-2)
  2. “But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.” (Acts 23:6)

“But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.” (Acts 24:14-15)

“Except it be for this one voice, that I cried standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day.” (Acts 24:21)

The Apostles preached through Jesus the resurrection of the dead. The hope of the believer is not to sit in heaven for all eternity. Our Lord Himself said that the meek with inherit the earth in Matthew 5:5. I did a brief episode on this topic sometime last year called “What does the Bible say about Heaven?” It was well understood by the Old Testament prophets that men would live on the Earth after the coming of the Messiah and the setting up of His Kingdom. Consider this passage from the book of Isaiah:
1. “For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.” (Isaiah 65:17)
Does that verse sound familiar?
1. “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.” (Rev. 21:1)
Isaiah is prophesying of the same things that John saw in Revelation. A few verses after that, in Isaiah 65, Isaiah describes some of the conditions of that time:
1. “There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them. They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them. And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear. The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.” (Isaiah 65:20-25)
If you noticed, Isaiah mentions that they shall build houses and plant vineyards. This is describing the Kingdom of Christ set up on earth, and those events happen after the first resurrection. We’ll be talking about that more next episode, but you see that it’s not until after the resurrection that man is completely restored to a pre-fall state. So anytime that you are looking at a passage of scripture that is describing man’s relationship with God, then you need to ask yourself the context of it. Is it describing after the fall, but before the Atonement of Christ? Is it describing after the Atonement, but before the resurrection? Here’s one: is it after the resurrection, but before eternity? Not many people think of that one. If you confuse any of them, then you might misunderstand that passage and apply it wrong.

Spirit, Soul, and Body
1. Man is a tri-partite being. That means that he is made up of three parts: body, soul, and spirit. We see this in the beginning when God made Adam:
  1. “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Gen. 2:7)
2. Man’s body was formed out of the dust of the ground, God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (spirit), and man became a living soul.
3. We’re going to look at all three of these briefly.
4. Body
  1. The body is usually associated with dust.
    1. “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” (Gen. 3:19)
    2. “And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes:” (Gen. 18:27)
    3. “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.” (Ecc. 12:7)
  2. It’s usually referred to as a container.
    1. House of clay, Job 4:19
    2. Earthen vessel, 2 Corinthians 4:7
    3. Earthly house/tabernacle, 2 Corinthians 5:7
    4. Temple, 1 Corinthians 6:19
    5. Vessels of honor/dishonor, 2 Timothy 2:20-21
    6. Tabernacle, 2 Peter 1:13-14

It contains the other two parts
1. “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.” (1Cor. 2:11)
2. “But his flesh upon him shall have pain, and his soul within him shall mourn.” (Job 14:22)

When it comes to the Judgment, we’re specifically told that we are going to be judged by those things which we have done in our bodies. (2 Corinthians 5:10)
Myer Pearlman noted that in Daniel 7:15 the word for “body” is the Chaldee word for “sheath”—Which sets up the interesting analogy of death being like a sword being drawn from its sheath.
The body is not supposed to be used for our purposes, but for God’s. We read:
1. “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” (Rom. 12:1)
2. “Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body…For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.” (1Cor. 6:13, 20)

It’s interesting to know that you can be cast bodily into Hell.
1. “And it came to pass, as he had made an end of speaking all these words, that the ground clave asunder that was under them: And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods. They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation. And all Israel that were round about them fled at the cry of them: for they said, Lest the earth swallow us up also.” (Num. 16:31-34)
2. “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Mat. 10:28)
3. “And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.” (Mat. 5:29-30)
4. We know that God will do this at least once in the future to the false prophet and the Beast, “And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.” (Rev. 19:20) And in case you were wondering, God mentions it again later, a thousand years later to be accurate, “And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” (Rev. 20:10) The Lake of fire is eternal torment guys. It’s literally eternal torment. The same Greek word used to describe the eternality of God Himself, “aionios”, in Romans 16:26, is used to describe the length of time that people are punished in the Lake of Fire in Matthew 25:46. God takes sin and rebellion very seriously.
The deeds of the body needed to be mortified, or put to death, by the believer through the Spirit of God. (Romans 8:13)

Paul the Apostle indicated that our mortal bodies need to be brought under subjection if we want to please God. (1 Corinthians 9:27)
Finally, the body that we currently have, our natural one, is not the same kind of body that we will have after the resurrection. (1 Corinthians 15:35-38)

Soul
1. The soul is usually indicated in the Old Testament by the Hebrew word “nephesh”, and in the New Testament by the Greek word “psuche”. It’s important to understand that these words have a range of meaning. Every time they appear in the text of scripture it does not necessarily mean that it WILL be talking about the soul. A large majority of the time in the OT the word soul is used to mean a person in general. You have to watch. Just as how in English the word “plane” can mean either a geometric plane or an airplane. Context is what indicates the difference. Genesis 2:7 is a good example of “nephesh” meaning soul in the sense of our subject matter. In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the word “psuche” is used there for “soul” as well.
2. Every animal in God’s creation has a soul. Man and all the animals have souls. Some have defined the basic meaning of a “soul” as the “life principle” in a person or animal. That may be too simplistic though. It’s been said to be the part of man that is self-conscious. C.S. Lewis stated famously, “You are not a body that has a soul: you are a soul that has a body.” [paraphrased] The emphasis being that YOU are your soul. The body, as we’ve seen from scripture, is continuously described as a vessel, or container of some kind, that has your soul and spirit in it.

One thing that we do know from the scriptures, and can be sure about, is that when the soul leaves the body the person physically dies. This is shown by several scriptures:
1. When Rachel, the wife of Isaac, died after childbirth, this is what was said, “And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin.” (Gen. 35:18) It’s specifically stated that her soul was departing from her body because she was dying.
2. When Christ is relating about the rich man who valued his earthly life and not God, this is what He said, “But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?” (Luke 12:20) God refers to the man’s physical death as when his soul is required by God. God has said that all souls belong to Him in Ezekiel 18:4. Where they go, and when they go, is entirely up to Him.
3. When God is said to punish a hypocrite with death, we’re told, “For what is the hope of the hypocrite, though he hath gained, when God taketh away his soul?” (Job 27:8) This corresponds to what Christ taught, saying, “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Mark 8:36-37)
4. In Psalm 86:13 we read, “For great is thy mercy toward me: and thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell.” The soul cannot be delivered from Hell if there is no risk in it presently going there. We know that this passage is not talking about some future possibility because the writer is speaking of it as having already happened.
5. When prophesying of Christ we read in Psalms, “For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.” (Psa. 16:10) This passage is quoted by Peter on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:27-28. Peter went on to say, “He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.” (Acts 2:31-33) During the days that Christ was physically dead He was not still in the tomb unconscious. He had descended into the heart of the earth. He was in Hell. Now, that may bother some people, but only because people have certain ideas about Hell that are incorrect. Or maybe, incomplete would be a better way to say it. We’ll go over that in a few minutes though. But it is plain from the scriptures that Christ’s soul went to Hell during the time of His physical death. It was from here that His soul ascended back into His body for His resurrection.
6. Finally, we can’t ignore Christ’s own teachings on this matter. Luke 16 is called by some a “parable” when it is obviously not. Christ never named anyone in a parable…ever. Here, the poor man has a name: Lazarus. Also, the description that He gives of things fits the rest of the scriptures description of reality. We can reasonably infer that this passage is referring to the rich man’s soul being in Hell because we know from the previous passage about Christ that it was His soul that descended to Hell. We read, “And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.” (Luke 16:22-23) The rich man’s body was buried, and his soul immediately is seen to be in Hell. We’ll talk more specifically about Hell itself in a little bit.

Another passage to point out in conjunction with that one is 2 Samuel 12:22-23, where we read, “And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.” (2Samuel 12:22-23) This is after David had committed his sin with Bathsheba. Bathsheba became pregnant, and to punish David for bringing such a reproach upon Israel—being the King—God was taking the child’s life. David emphasizes very clearly that the child physically dies. He states very confidently though, “I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.” David knew that he would see this son after his own death, but the child would not return to the land of the living again. This shows that in physical death, people’s souls are not unconsciously lingering in the body. This is the idea that is conveyed throughout scripture. The dead are conscious where they are after death, and it’s not in their bodies.
We’re told in scripture that it is God who makes the soul:
1. “For I will not contend for ever, neither will I be always wroth: for the spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have made.” (Isaiah 57:16)
We’re also told that it is the soul that sins, “Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.” (Ezekiel 18:4) And in Micah 6:7, “…shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” This is why we’re told that blood is needed to atone for the sins of the soul in Leviticus 17:11. Also, this is why we’re told in Hebrews 10:39 that we believe to the saving of the soul.

Spirit
1. There is a difficulty in drawing a really clear line between a person’s “spirit” and a person’s “soul”. Sometimes the word “spirit” is used almost interchangeably with the word “soul”. There is a distinction to be made though. This can at least be seen in Hebrews 4:12:
  1. “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” (Heb. 4:12)
2. At some point there is a division between the two. Though, it’s kind of hard to be very clear about what that dividing line is. That makes sense though when you think about it. We are not like God who is Omnipresent. The Son can act independently (in a sense) from the Father while never being actually separate from Him. We are not a triune being in the same sense as God is. Our souls and spirits, so far as I can tell from scripture, are not separable from one another in the same way. My spirit cannot go to somewhere and do one thing while my soul is going somewhere else doing another thing entirely. Again, so far as I have seen scripturally. I’ll try to point out the similarities that I have seen, and the differences that I have seen.

The body dies when the spirit leaves the body just like the soul. This can also be seen when Christ on the cross, or Stephen at his martyrdom, commend their “spirits” to God.
1. “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” (Jas 2:26)

But we’re also told that the spirit can come back again. This is another instance showing that in physical death the soul/spirit leaves the body.
1. “And all wept, and bewailed her: but he said, Weep not; she is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn, knowing that she was dead. And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise. And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her meat.” (Luke 8:52-55)
2. Now in Luke’s gospel we are told that her spirit “came again”. The Greek word underlying that makes clear that it is actually coming back and not just “waking up” as it were. I mention it because it’s very important. Neither Mark nor Matthew mentions that her spirit had to return to its body for her to come alive again. This is a good example that just because a passage does not mention something, it doesn’t mean that it’s not there. For instance, the same language is used to describe Tabitha being raised from the dead by Peter in Acts 9:39-40 as in Mark and Matthew about the girl. The implication being that Tabitha’s spirit had to return to her body also, but it simply was not mentioned. There are enough clear scriptures to indicate that such would have to be the case.
Now, the underlying word for “spirit” is primarily the Greek word “pneuma” in the New Testament. It can also be translated things such as, “breath, wind, inner life, etc.”. You have to pay attention to context to see which meaning is being used. It’s the same thing that I said about the word “soul”. You have to watch.
Every man has a spirit whether he is saved or lost.
1. “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.” (1Cor. 2:11)
2. “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:” (Rom. 8:16)

“Spirit” is immaterial, like the soul. It is not made of matter. This is actually very interesting to me, because what occurs to me when I consider it is that unclean spirit (devils/demons) are continuously looking for a human body to use. This is indicated by Christ in Luke 11:24. Perhaps this is because they have no physical body of their own as Christ indicates.
1. “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” (Luke 24:39)
God is a Spirit, because of this it is with our spirits that we must worship him. It is our spirit that is the basis for our relationship with Him.
1. “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:24)
2. “Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?” (Heb. 12:9)

When you go through the scriptures you see that it is by our spirits that we are connected with God. We’re told that when we’re converted we are “born of the Spirit” in John 3:5, and that we are joined to the Lord we are “one spirit” with Him in 1 Corinthians 6:17. This is why our bodies become “temples” of the Holy Spirit after we are converted, cf. 2 Corinthians 6:16. This shows one of the big differences between soul and spirit. The spirit is entirely connected with our relationship with God. Spiritual gifts are said to be done by the Holy Spirit through our spirits being connected to Him. We’re told that when David prophesied that it was his spirit speaking in Matthew 22:43. When a person prayed in tongues, it was their spirit that prayed in 1 Corinthians 14:14. It also shows that it really is THEIR spirit doing the things in conjunction with the Spirit of God because we’re told that the spirit of prophets are subject to them in 1 Corinthians 14:32.
Jesus perceived things “in his spirit” we’re told in Mark 2:8.
Just as how a Christian’s spirit is united with God’s Spirit, in Mark 1:23-26 we see that a lost person can be indwelt by an unclean spirit. I find this very telling. We’re told in Romans 8:14 that believers are led by the Spirit of God by their union with Him. It seems that in the same sense unbelievers are lead about by the influence of unclean spirits sometimes. Also, we’re told that it can even be Satan himself sometimes:
1. “Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:” (Eph. 2:2)

The New Testament is referred to as the “ministration of the spirit” in 2 Corinthians 3:8. It’s because the lost are considered “spiritually dead” by God as we’ll see in a few minutes.
A word of warning for us is that just as believers have received the spirit of God we can also be deceived into receiving a spirit that is not God’s.
1. “For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.” (2Cor. 11:4)
We have been warned that in the latter days there would come “seducing spirits” and “doctrines of devils”.
1. “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;” (1Tim. 4:1)

Now, you may have understood by now that the influence that unclean spirits and devils can have on a person is because they are spirits, just like the angels.
1. “But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?” (Heb. 1:13-14)
2. “And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.” (Heb. 1:7)

We’ll talk more about the relationship of man’s spirit, God’s Spirit, and the resurrection next episode.

Natural or Spiritual
1. I’d like to talk briefly about the two categories of which all men fall: Natural or Spiritual. We read about these two most clearly in 1 Corinthians:
  1. “But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.” (1Cor. 2:9-16)
2. Some people try to include the word underlying “carnal” in 1 Corinthians 3:4, but I disagree. The longer that I look at it the more I believe that being “carnal”, or “sarkikos”, is just another way of describing the natural man. I say that because all men fall into two categories: saved or lost. Those are the two that Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 2. All men can find themselves in one or the other: spiritual or natural. The two underlying words for them are “psuchikos” and “pneumatikos”. They are formed for the same words underlying the words for soul and spirit. The word underlying “carnal” is the word that is normally translated “fleshly”. While it is sometimes used to just simply refer to our physical bodies, the Greek word “soma” is normally used for that. I don’t consider “carnal” to be a third type of individual as much as it is a description of someone who is natural, or acting like a natural man—like how Paul means it in 1 Corinthians 3:4.
  1. “For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?” (1Cor. 3:4)
  2. Paul is rebuking the believers at Corinth for acting just like the lost do.
3. The reason that I make that distinction I think is more clear when you consider what a natural man would be if he wasn’t carnal. Wouldn’t he be spiritual? If the natural man wasn’t spiritual, wouldn’t he have to be carnal? You see, there is no middle ground between spiritual and natural. It would be like saying that there is a middle ground between saved and lost.
4. Natural
  1. Some people have criticized the use of the word “natural” for “psuchikos”. I understand their contention, but I do disagree. The word “psuchikos” if you transliterated it would be something like “psychic”. That English word has a completely different meaning. Psychics are people involved with deeply demonic and occultic things, hardly natural. Indeed it would be considered a spiritual state—albeit in an ungodly manner.
  2. This word is also used elsewhere in the NT:
    1. “This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.” (Jas 3:15)
    2. “But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.” (Jude 1:17-19)

In both of these passages, the word “sensual” is used to describe a man of this state. The basic meaning of a person in this state is one—as Jude says—who does not have the Spirit of God. He is earthly, devilish, as James says.

Adam Clarke had this to say about this natural man:
1. “But the natural man - The apostle appears to give this - as a reason why he explained those deep spiritual things to spiritual men; because the animal man - the man who is in a state of nature, without the regenerating grace of the Spirit of God, receiveth not the things of the Spirit - neither apprehends nor comprehends them: he has no relish for them; he considers it the highest wisdom to live for this world. Therefore these spiritual things are foolishness to him; for while he is in his animal state he cannot see their excellency, because they are spiritually discerned, and he has no spiritual mind.” (Adam Clarke’s commentary, comment on 1 Corinthians 2:14)
He is a man who lives for the present world. He is led about by the desires of his own will and heart apart from God. He is self-willed and vain.
It is important to note that this is the same word that is used to describe the natural body that is changed at the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:44-46. We’ll talk more about that next episode though.

The natural/sensual man is one who is led about by the passions and desires of his own will and body. He is self-willed, and not someone who says, “My will is to do thy will Father.” It’s an animal-like mentality because one of the marks of being made in the image of God—as only humans are—is that we are meant to be spiritual beings in a relationship with the Father of spirits, God. This person rejects that. They are led by the lower desires of the body as opposed to the higher inclinations of the mind and spirit. This is a man of no understanding.

Spiritual
1. Spiritual is set in contrast to natural by Paul. The underlying word is “pneumatikos”. It’s very important to understand that this is not someone who is led about by his own spirit: it’s someone who is led about by God’s Spirit:
  1. “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” (1Cor. 2:11-13)
2. Remember that Jude said that the natural/sensual man is one who does not have the Spirit of God. In Romans 8:14 we read that all believers are led by the Spirit of God, and in v.16 we’re told that He bears witness with our spirit. So a spiritual man is one who is a Christian. He is taught by the Spirit of God we’re told in 1 Corinthians 2:12-13. He is discerning we’re told in v.15 of that same chapter.

Just like the word natural is used in 1 Corinthians 15:44-46 to describe the natural body that is changed at the resurrection, even so the word for spiritual is what is used there to describe the kind of body that the natural body is changed into at the resurrection.

The spiritual man is one who has given the primary place to his spirit being connected to God’s Spirit. He has been “born of the spirit” (John 3:5) and he is “spiritually minded” (Romans 8:5-6). This is the man that has put on the “new man” and is renewed in knowledge. (Col. 3:10)

Life and Death
1. In talking about life and death, we have to define things biblically. Some people get confused because different meanings of the words are sometimes used in the same sentence, and usually they’re used without a different Greek word underlying it. Context is everything here. But basically the scriptures tell us of three different kinds of life and death each:
  1. Physical
  2. Spiritual

Eternal

So we have physical death and physical life, spiritual death and spiritual life, and eternal death and eternal life. Each of these is spoken about in the New Testament at one time or another. One thing to consider though is that we’re kind of talking about states here. You are either physically alive or you are not. You are spiritually alive or you are not; and you can change states. You can change from physically alive to physically dead, and you can change from being spiritually alive from spiritually dead. One thing that you cannot do though is to go from eternal life to eternal death. That will be clear when we get there. Most people define eternal life incorrectly.
Physical
1. This one is the most clear, and is defined with the most common sense. This is when we’re talking about the person in their physical body or not in their physical body. When the body has the spirit/soul it is physically alive.
  1. “And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her meat.” (Luke 8:55)
2. When the spirit and soul depart from the body the person is considered physically dead.
  1. “And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin.” (Gen. 35:18)
  2. “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” (Jas 2:26)
3. Spiritual
  1. Spiritual life and death is what we’re referring to as the difference between a natural man and a spiritual man. Those that have the Spirit of God are called spiritually alive.
    1. “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.” (Rom. 8:9-10)
    2. “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” (Rom. 8:2)
    3. “But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.” (John 4:14)
    4. “In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)” (John 7:37-39)
    5. “Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” (2Cor. 3:6)
  2. An unregenerate men, a lost man, does not have the Spirit of God, and is considered spiritually dead. This is why Christ referred to them as “dead”.
    1. “Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)” (Eph. 2:5)
    2. “Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:” (Eph. 4:18)
    3. “For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:” (2Cor. 5:14)
    4. “But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.” (1Tim. 5:6)
    5. “We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.” (1Jn. 3:14)
    6. “And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.” (Rev. 3:1)
    7. “For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry… It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.” (Luke 15:24, 32)
  3. Eternal
    1. Most people define “eternal life” incorrectly. They believe that it’s just some box or something that God gives you when you’re converted that stays with you forever because it’s eternal, right? Wrong. Eternal life is eternal because it’s God’s life, and He is eternal. I’ve talked about this a lot on this podcast so I won’t belabor the point again here. I would recommend that if you have any questions about “eternal life” that you should listen to the 2 part series on “Discussing Eternal Security”. It’s just a discussion of Biblical salvation actually.
    2. But let’s consider both eternal life and eternal death, and look at some scriptures.

Life
1. “And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.” (Mark 10:29-30)
  1. In this verse you see that it is in the world to come that we actually receive eternal life. We are partakers of eternal life now through our faith in Jesus Christ, but we do not actually “receive” it so that it becomes ours until after the resurrection.
2. “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” (John 6:54)
  1. It’s important to note that both “eateth” and “drinketh” in this verse are present active participles. That means that they describe a continuous action. It is not describing a “one and done” thing, but Christ is describing the person as continuously eating and drinking that means that they have eternal life. The life that is in Jesus Himself, cf. 1 John 5:11. We are partakers of it through Christ presently.
3. “And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.” (1Jn. 2:25) Here it is shown again that eternal life is something that is promised to us in the future.
4. In general, eternal life is when believers are to live forever in their spiritual bodies after the resurrection. This is what the prophet Daniel was speaking of: “But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.” (Dan. 7:18)
5. We’ll be talking more specifically about the resurrection next episode.

Death
1. In contrast to eternal life, which is when believers receive their resurrected bodies never to die again, you could sum up eternal death as when the lost are resurrected never to live again—albeit, not in the sense of life that you think. Eternal death is that eternal state of the lost after the judgment. It is also called, “the second death.”
  1. “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.” (Rev. 20:6)
    1. Here we see that anyone who is partaker of the first resurrection will not be affected by the second death, eternal death. This is because they are partakers of eternal life.
  2. “And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.” (Rev. 20:14-15)
    1. Here we see that being cast into the Lake of Fire is more specifically identified as the second death, eternal death.
  3. “But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.” (Rev. 21:8)
    1. In addition to this list you can include the list in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, because those that are not part of the kingdom of God are not saved.
  4. “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.” (Rev. 2:11)
    1. We’re specifically told what the condition for not being a partaker of eternal death is: overcome. We’re told elsewhere that it is our faith in Jesus Christ that overcomes the world. (1 John 5:4-5)
  5. Sleeping
    1. Whenever I looked for references to “sleep”, in all its variations, I found 101 verses that mentioned some form of it 114 times. Out of the 114 mentions of “sleep” in some way, the vast majority of them were clearly referencing physical, normal, sleeping. Only about 30 references seemed to make clear that that was not what was being talked about. So let’s look at it really quickly.
    2. In the Gospels is a very good example of what this other idea of “sleep” means biblically.
      1. “And when Jesus came into the ruler's house, and saw the minstrels and the people making a noise, He said unto them, Give place: for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn. But when the people were put forth, he went in, and took her by the hand, and the maid arose.” (Matt. 9:23-25)

So Jesus says that this young girl is sleeping. Earlier in the account the girl is called dead (v.18). Mark records the same event.
1. “And he cometh to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, and seeth the tumult, and them that wept and wailed greatly. And when he was come in, he saith unto them, Why make ye this ado, and weep? the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn. But when he had put them all out, he taketh the father and the mother of the damsel, and them that were with him, and entereth in where the damsel was lying. And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise. And straightway the damsel arose, and walked; for she was of the age of twelve years. And they were astonished with a great astonishment.” (Mark 5:38-42)

Again, earlier it was said that the girl was physically dead in v.35. Luke records the same event, but he adds one detail.
1. “While he yet spake, there cometh one from the ruler of the synagogue's house, saying to him, Thy daughter is dead; trouble not the Master. But when Jesus heard it, he answered him, saying, Fear not: believe only, and she shall be made whole. And when he came into the house, he suffered no man to go in, save Peter, and James, and John, and the father and the mother of the maiden. And all wept, and bewailed her: but he said, Weep not; she is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn, knowing that she was dead. And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise. And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her meat.” (Luke 8:49-55)
We see that earlier in the passage the girl is said to be dead again, but Christ refers to her as sleeping. In v.55 though, it is stated very clearly that her spirit came again to her body. Luke’s account sheds some light on this issue for us:
1. When men referred to her as being dead, Jesus, and therefore God, said she was sleeping. So God refers to physical death as men “sleeping”.
2. Luke’s account verifies for us what James said: the body without the spirit is dead. (James 2:26) When the girl’s spirit came again to her body, at the commandment of Jesus, her body revived and she was physically alive again.
3. Luke’s account shows us also that every place where a spirit is not explicitly mentioned as having returned to the body, such as in Matthew’s and Mark’s account of the same event, should be interpreted that way. We have two clear passages that tell us that the body without the spirit is physically dead, and we should interpret the rest of scripture this way.
Let’s consider the martyrdom of Stephen and see if this is the same idea that we get.
1. “And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.” (Acts 7:59-60)
2. Stephen knew he was going to die—that’s the point of stoning someone. So Stephen is fully expecting his spirit to go to be with God. Immediately after he prays that we’re told that he “fell asleep.” This passage fits the description of the New Testament that the body without the spirit is dead, and the person is who is physically dead, their body being without their spirit, is called “sleeping”.

Let’s consider another New Testament passage:
1. “But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.” (1The. 4:13-15)
2. We have the word “asleep” used in v.13 and v.15, and the phrase “sleep in Jesus” used interchangeably with them in v.14. So those believers who are said to be sleeping are said to be sleeping “in Jesus”. That’s very important to note. Also, the passage goes on to say that they are “dead in Christ” in v.16. Now if we consider what the other NT passages tell us about people “sleeping” then we know that they are physically dead, and that their spirits are somewhere else outside of their bodies. We see in the passage in 1 Thessalonians that it says that at the return of Christ God will bring them “with him”. This implies that those believers’ spirits whose bodies are physically dead are presently with God.
3. A counter-argument that may come up is that the passage says that they are raised up first in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17. The contention could be that they are physically raised up first and that’s why the passage says that they are with him. The problem with that is that it denies the definition of physical death given in the rest of the NT. The body without the spirit is dead (James 2:26), and when the spirit returns to the body is physically alive again (Luke 8:55). The more clear and consistent interpretation is that God brings back the spirits of the believers, just like the angels come with Christ at the second coming—because angels are spirits themselves, cf. Heb.1:14—as seen in Revelation 19:14 and 2 Thessalonians 1:7. As the Lord descends from heaven with a shout the bodies of believers are resurrected, and the spirits of the believers who were dead in Christ are reunited with their new bodies. Then, all believers are caught up together to be with the Lord. All having been changed, and all together with God at the same time. This is the interpretation that fits the passage and the rest of the NT.
By these things we can better understand the rest of the Bible’s references for sleep:
1. In Deuteronomy 31:16, 2 Samuel 7:12, and 1 Kings 11:21, the phrase “sleep with thy fathers” is just a reference to physical death. The spirit of the person going to be where the spirits of dead loved ones have already gone.
2. Job 7:21, and Daniel 12:2, which use the phrase “sleep in the dust” and “sleep in the dust of the earth”, respectively, is just referencing the fact that the body stays in the ground where it is buried while the person is dead. We’ll talk more about Daniel 12:2 next episode when we more specifically talk about the resurrection itself. But Job well understood that when he died it was his body which remained in the ground, and he even showed an understanding that he would be resurrected some day by the Lord:
  1. “For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.” (Job 19:25-27)
  2. Job also understood that man’s spirit was in him: “But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.” (Job 32:8)
  3. Yet Job spoke of the fact that God could take man’s spirit from him, and then his body would decay back to dust. “If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath; All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust.” (Job 34:14-15) All of these passages show that Job had a New Testament understanding of the matter.
3. Job’s clear understanding of this is shown also in another place which could be misconstrued to teach an idea of soul-sleep:
  1. “So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.” (Job 14:12)
  2. The context shows that this is not the case though, in v.10 of the same passage, just two verses prior Job says, “But man dieth, and wasteth away: yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he?” (Job 14:10)
  3. Job understood that men die and their spirits/ghosts leave the body. His question, “and where is he?” shows that he understood that the spirit goes to another place. All of this fits the pattern that I’ve shown the NT to teach.
  4. Also, v. 13 goes on to say, “O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me!” (Job 14:13) The underlying word for “grave” here is “sheol”. It is not meaning a literal grave, or a hole in the ground. “Sheol” is the Hebrew word for the “land of the dead”. Job is here referencing that he knows men don’t stay in the physical grave in the ground. We’re going to talk more about this in a few minutes.
4. Likewise in Psalm 13:3 we read about “sleep the sleep of death”, and that can be interpreted the same way as elsewhere.
5. In Jeremiah 51:39 and 57 we read about people who “sleep a perpetual sleep”. The context shows that it is referring to physical death.
6. In the NT you have references to believers who “sleep” (1 Cor. 11:30), who are “fallen asleep” (1 Cor. 15:6, 18), and also who “fell asleep” (2 Pet. 3:4). All of these fit the pattern of what we’ve already talked about.

I believe that’s every reference in the Bible that uses some variation of the word “sleep” that could be confusing. All of the rest of them, because I looked at all 101 verses, are clearly speaking about normal physical sleeping. It is possible that I missed one, but I don’t believe that I have. I will be going over the verses that talk about resurrection next episode when that’s what we’re focusing on.

Hell
1. There are few misconceptions about the word “hell” as it is used scripturally. As I said at the beginning, you have to keep things in context. The underlying word in the Old Testament is “sheol”, which means “a subterranean place” (The English and Hebrew Bible student’s Concordance, p.193) Strong’s concordance defines it as, “the world of the dead (as if in a subterranean retreat), including its accessories and inmates”. It’s variously translated as “hell”, “grave”, or “pit” in the OT. It’s clear when “sheol” is used that it is not meaning a literal grave in the ground. The Greek equivalent of this word in the NT is “hades” which means “…the nether world, Hades as the place of the dead,…” (BDAG). Strong’s concordance defines it as “properly unseen, i.e. “hades” or the place (state) of departed souls.” It is variously translated in the NT as either “grave” or “hell”. Again, it is clear when it is used that it is note referencing a literal grave in the ground.
2. Some other words are “gehenna” which is a Hebrew word that is transported over into the NT. It is referencing the Valley of the Son of Hinnom which Christ used as an illustration of the Lake of Fire. It is translated as “hell”. Then there is the word “tartaros”. It has the specific sense of incarceration, or the deepest abyss of hades. This is only used a couple of times in the NT. It is translated as “cast down to hell.”
3. There are only 3 instances in the OT when the word “sheol” is translated as “pit”. These instances are when Korah and his companions are swallowed up alive and go down to the “pit”. It is referencing “sheol” and not a literal pit. They went to hell. The other time is in Job 17:16 where the “bars of the pit” are referenced.
4. It is translated as “grave” 31 times, and “hell” the rest of the time. I’ll give you a couple of examples:
  1. “The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up.” (1Sam. 2:6) Here the word is “sheol” and is not referencing a literal grave. It is meaning the place of the departed dead.
  2. “It shall come to pass, when he seeth that the lad is not with us, that he will die: and thy servants shall bring down the gray hairs of thy servant our father with sorrow to the grave.” (Gen. 44:31) Here we see the sons of Jacob referencing the “grave”, or “sheol”.

In Job “sheol” is translated as grave also. “As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away: so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more.” (Job 7:9) There are actually several references of “sheol” being translated as “grave” in Job: 14:13; 17:13; 21:13; 24:19. In none of these places is a literal grave meant. The same is meant for some other OT places where “sheol” is translated as “grave”: Psalm 6:5; Psalm 30:3 (where the soul is said to have been in the “sheol”, this shows that the soul is not with the body in death also); Psalm 31:17; 49:14-15; 88:3; 89:48; 141:7; Proverbs 1:12; 30:16; Ecclesiastes 9:10; Isaiah 14:11; 38:10, 18; Ezekiel 31:15; Hosea 13:14. In none of those places is a literal grave meant. Hell is meant.

The rest of the time in the OT “hell” is how “sheol” is translated. It’s clear when you look at them all that you see where “hell” is located: “shall burn to the lowest hell” (Deu. 32:22), “deeper than hell” (Job 11:8), “let them go down quick into hell” (Psa. 55:15), “thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell” (Psa. 86:13), this one again shows that the soul went to Hell in death and did not remain with the body, “that he may depart from hell beneath” (Pro. 15:24). There are other references obviously, and I would encourage you to look them all up in a concordance to see what all is said. But the sense that you get is clear: it’s beneath.
What’s also apparent is that it is regularly coupled with death, in places such as Pro. 5:5; 7:27; 9:18; Isaiah 28:15, 18; Ezekiel 32:21. Again you can look them all up and see that hell is coupled with death regularly. It is where the dead go in the OT we’re told. In Ezekiel 32:27 it says that you go “down to hell” and it is set in contrast to the “land of the living”; and in Proverbs 15:24 we’re told that Hell is “beneath” and that “life” is “above”.
In the NT the greek word “hades” is translated as grave once in 1 Cor. 15:55.
The word “hades” is used throughout the NT to mean the place of the dead equivalent to the OT sheol. The difference that most people don’t realize is that the word “gehenna” is the underlying word when it is specifically identifying it as a place of everlasting torment.
The references to Hell in the sermon on the mount in Matthew 5:22, 29, and 30, are all referencing “gehenna”. Christ is emphasizing that you are risking eternal torment. In fact most places in the Gospels use the word “gehenna”. None of the references to Hell in the NT can mean a literal grave.
Only one place is translated from the word “tartaros”.
1. “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;” (2Pet. 2:4)
At the end of the present age Hell itself is actually emptied for the Judgment we’re told.
1. “And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.” (Rev. 20:13)
But after the Judgment we’re told that Hell, and all of its contents, are thrown into the Lake of Fire.
1. “And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.” (Rev. 20:14)
So Hell itself will have an end, but there will still be eternal death, the second death, for all those who are part of the second resurrection—which we’ll talk about next episode.
In Luke 16 we read Christ’s words about life after death as it then was. There is nothing in this passage to indicate it as a parable. It does not carry any of the traits of being a parable. Indeed, it is so much in alignment with what the rest of the Bible teaches about life after death prior to Christ’s resurrection that even if it was it would not alter the Biblical view at all. We learn several things in this passage, but it is important to note that the Jews had already devised the same ideas from the Old Testament before Christ gave this teaching. They actually had already named the place of comfort in the land of the dead as “Abraham’s Bosom”. Christ acknowledged this teaching to be true by appropriating it Himself. But in Luke 16 we see:
1. That, at least before Christ’s resurrection, all the dead went to Hell. Remember, Hell is just a generic word for meaning “the place of the dead”. The word itself is not a direct tie to torment. Context usually indicates that.
2. There were at least two places in Hell: one is a place of comfort (Luke 16:22, 25) called by the Jews “Abraham’s Bosom”; and the second is just referred to as Hell, and is mentioned as a place of torment in Luke 16:23-24. This second place is where we get the everyday use of the word “hell”.

Between the two was a “great gulf” it says in Luke 16:25. There was a dividing between the two places. The underlying Greek word for “gulf” is where we get the term “chasm” from. Abraham specifically mentions that a person cannot pass from one side to the other. Jesus, mentioning this, puts His approval on it.

After that, the basic idea of Hell is Biblical. Remember though that Hell itself is a temporary place until the second resurrection, and the Judgment. Then Hell itself will be cast into the Lake of Fire.

Where do we go when we die?
1. The question that can be asked now is where do we go when we die? So let’s put together some of the things that we’ve seen.
2. Physical death occurs when the soul/spirit leaves the body. (Jas. 2:26; Luke 12:20; 8:52-55)
3. Hell is the land of the dead. It is continuously described as being beneath, or in the depths. This is clearly seen in passages such as Proverbs 15:24, and the ones we listed earlier.
4. The soul is described in the OT as having gone to Hell in places such as Psalms 86:13.
5. Up till the time of Christ’s own death, souls were said to go to Hell. This is seen when prophetically it is said that Christ Himself departed unto Hell. We read this when Peter acknowledged it on the day of Pentecost when quoting Psalm 16:
  1. “Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.” (Acts 2:24-33)
6. In this Peter acknowledges that Christ’s soul went to Hell the three days that He was dead. After Christ was raised from the dead, He ascended to God the Father. He Himself said that He would after His resurrection:
  1. “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” (John 20:17)
7. We know that He did ascend to the Father before appearing to others because He allowed them to handle His body afterwards. Christ is the first man to physical die, be raised from the dead never to die again. He is the firstbegotten from the dead. He changed the pattern forever. Continuously in the NT we are told that He is our pattern, and that we are to follow His steps. We’re even told in Philippians 3:21 that our resurrection body will be patterned after His resurrected body.
8. The question that must be asked is did something change after Christ rose from the dead? I believe something did change. The barrier between man and God had been done away. This seen that when Christ died the temple veil was torn in half. In Hebrews we read:
  1. “But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:” (Heb. 9:7-8)
9. The veil between the holy of holies and the outer sanctuary pictured that the way into God’s presence was not yet made manifest. When Jesus accomplished the atonement, God Himself tore that veil in half to let everyone know that know the way in had been made manifest. This is why we’re continuously told in the NT that we have access to God the Father through Jesus.
10. Also, when Christ was on the cross He said that He would go to paradise. :
  1. “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:43)
11. This is also acknowledged in Ephesians 4:8-10 where Psalm 68:18 is quoted.
12. Peter acknowledged that Christ went to Hell in the passage from Acts 2 that we read. That’s because at the time there was that division in Hell that Christ Himself mentioned in Luke 16. Paradise was the place of comfort that the Jews referred to as Abraham’s Bosom. What is interesting is that that is the place where the OT saints were waiting. Those who had truly lived faithfully to God, but the atonement had not yet been accomplished to remove their sins. The way into the holiest of all had not yet been made manifest.
13. Now what I find telling is what else happened at the time of Christ’s resurrection: He wasn’t the only one who raised from the dead. He brought some people with Him we’re told.
  1. “Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.” (Matt. 27:50-53)
14. How these OT saints were raised, and with what body they came, is not the question. It is the fact that they were raised when Christ was raised. It’s as though Christ raided Abraham’s bosom, or Paradise, when He was resurrected. Now what is interesting is that from this point on in the scriptures believers are never even alluded to as descending to Hell. Paul does reference Paradise though:
  1. “How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.” (2Cor. 12:4)
15. Now though Paul references Paradise as being in Heaven. When Christ was on the cross Paradise was in the lower parts of the earth. We know that Christ had to descend there first, and that He did not ascend to the Father until after His resurrection. That means that when Christ told the thief on the cross that TODAY He would be with Him in Paradise that it had to be synonymous with Abraham’s Bosom in hades, the heart of the earth. If it was not so, then Christ lied. We can therefore directly know that Paradise moved after Christ’s resurrection. After Christ’s resurrection Paradise is now in the third Heaven, the very abode of God. Paul says so in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4.
16. Paradise is also mentioned in Revelation:
  1. “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.” (Rev. 2:7)
17. Here, Christ says that the tree of life is in the paradise of God. Later on in Revelation the tree of life is said to be in the heavenly city. (Revelation 21:10-22:2) This means that Paradise, where the saved dead go, is in Heaven. Other scriptures in the NT seem to indicate this as well.
  1. “For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,” (Eph. 3:14-15)
    1. From this we see that the family of God is currently in Heaven.
  2. “For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.” (1The. 4:14)
    1. Because we know that “sleep” refers to those that are physically dead, their souls/spirits departing from their bodies, we see that at the second coming God brings the righteous dead with Him.
  3. I honestly believe that after all that we’ve talked about there is only one Biblical view that is consistent with the scriptures: the normal one.

Closing
1. Next episode we’re going to be focusing on the resurrection itself.

Here's our new episode:

Wednesday, March 7, 2018

One Good Reason to Believe

In this episode, Brother Jonathan gives one good reason to believe.

One Good Reason to Believe

S2EP5

Remnant Bible Fellowship

Intro
1. There is nothing new about what I’m going to talk about. This has been something that secular philosophers and scientists have discussed for centuries. I don’t take credit for anything in this episode. If there is anything good in it, then it’s because other men’s labors in their respective fields of logic, philosophy, and one of them is an astrophysicist. I’ll give you their names at the end if you want to look them up. There are several good debates on Youtube by them that you can watch for free.
2. I know that there are places on the internet where the apologetic that I use in this episode is supposedly refuted. I read atheist forums and blogs sometimes too. I find it ironic that these guys think they’ve answered anything, because their answers show that they didn’t even understand it. In addition to why I believe what I’m going to talk about is correct, if you understand it then you’ll see why these bloggers don’t have a leg to stand on.
3. Before I begin though I will acknowledge that I don’t believe that the presuppositional apologetic is the most effective way to get all the way from the idea of origins to a belief in the Gospel. There are several steps from point A to point C; but from everything that I’ve seen so far, I believe that it is unanswered to this day regarding the issue of origins. But for some people it doesn’t close the circle, and I do see some merit to that. So what I decided to do was to stretch out the issue over three episodes to try and present a good argument for what I believe to be the necessary steps. I believe those three necessary steps are:
  1. From origins to God. By “origins” I mean the discussion of how we got here, and by “God” I simply mean a general understanding of a god concept. I will argue this point in this episode mainly using logical and philosophical arguments.
  2. From deism to the God of the Bible. In this I mean to argue that it is the God of the Bible who distinguishes Himself apart from all other god concepts in the world in a way that makes belief in the God of the Bible justifiable. I will plan to argue this point in a couple of weeks in another episode using logical and evidential arguments.
  3. From the God of the Bible to belief in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, i.e. “the Gospel”. In this episode I will argue for the resurrection of Jesus Christ as a historical event, and therefore making it justifiable to believe it. I will plan to argue this point after the second point in another episode using the minimal facts. That is, I will mainly use the data/evidence that is accepted by critical scholars. By scholars I mean those that have degrees in the appropriate field to speak about the subject matter. Using the minimal facts method I will take the evidence that is accepted by atheistic and agnostic scholars and show that even with the limited evidence the resurrection of Jesus Christ should be considered a historical event.
4. Now that’s the plan. Obviously, pending some unforeseen event, it is subject to change. Lord willing, that is what I’m planning.
Presuppositions and the Nature of Evidence
1. Everyone believes certain things. The things that you hold to most strongly, but normally take for granted, are called “presuppositions”. Presuppositions are beliefs that are assumed at the outset before any investigation of evidence; these are pre-supposed and control our interpretation of evidence. Things such as the laws of logic. You bring that to the table without even thinking about it. We naturally think and reason with such laws of logic as the law of non-contradiction. When you walk out of your house in the morning and see your car in the driveway you don’t automatically think, “I see my car in the driveway, but I wonder if it is also somewhere else?” Or, you have a tendency to not think, “I know the laws of physics and chemistry made my car start yesterday morning, but what if today they turn my car into a mushroom when I turn the ignition?” It sounds silly, but I’m using obvious examples. If you see your car in the driveway then you know that it cannot at the same time, in the same sense, be simultaneously somewhere else. This assumes the logical law of non-contradiction, and it also assumes the basic reliability of your sense of sight. The reason that you have confidence that the same physics and chemistry that were in operation yesterday to start your vehicle will operate today in the same fashion is because you assume the uniformity of nature, or what’s called the principle of induction. You believe the universe operates in a general law-like fashion. You don’t expect that today water is not flammable and tomorrow it might be like napalm. These are examples of presuppositions that are the basis for how we look at things. Indeed, without the uniformity of nature, the inductive principle, could the scientific method operate? Hypothesize, observe, test, and repeat. If there was no uniformity of nature to guarantee that the universe operates in a law-like fashion, then you would have no rational basis for believing that given the same conditions things would operate the same way. If that were true, we couldn’t even study the weather. We’ll talk more about that later.
2. But in all that you do you bring certain basic beliefs to the table, and these basic beliefs govern how you look at and think about things. Things such as your belief that your senses are basically reliable. It’s rare that you immediately question something about your sense of taste, sight, touch, smell, or hearing. You believe them to be basically reliable. You didn’t study and come to the conclusion that your senses are basically reliable. Think about it. Could you study without using your senses to examine them? You would have to use your senses to do so. How about logic? Could you think about things and reasonably investigate whether or not logic is true without using logic in your thinking? Could you frame an argument for or against something without first presupposing that propositional statements ordered in a certain manner may lead you to a rational conclusion?
3. This is part of the problem with the discussion of origins. Some people think that we can look at evidence neutrally. They think that we should put aside our biases and examine things objectively. That’s impossible though. The nature of evidence is such that it is interpreted. There is no such thing as an observed evidence that is uninterpreted by a presuppositional bias. For instance, both secular scientists and creation scientists examine the same evidences. People think that there are two separate piles of evidence that scientists are sorting out to say, “Well, this one is mine, and that one is yours.” No, both sides in the origins debate see everything as supporting their view. There is a reason for this: they have different presuppositions. They have a different standard by which they determine truth. An evolutionist who believes in billions of years looks at the Grand Canyon and says, “Wow, what a monumental evidence for millions of years!” The creationist looks at the Grand Canyon and says, “Wow, what a monumental evidence for the worldwide flood of Noah!” Why is that? It is because they are interpreting the evidence based on their presuppositions. The evolutionist believes that the earth is millions of years old and interprets all evidence in light of his belief. The creationist believes that the earth was created in 6 literal 24 hour days, and interprets the evidence in light of that belief.
4. To say that “the evidence speaks for itself” is not only untrue, it’s also a fallacy. It’s called the fallacy of reification. “Evidence” is a word which describes things which cannot speak “for themselves”. People examine evidence, and make conclusions based upon how they interpret the evidence in light of their already assumed presuppositions. To deny this is to already lose the battle, because you are basing your viewpoint on an error in reasoning.
5. People who think people should, or can for that matter, set aside their presuppositions have not understood this principle. Think about it: can you set aside your basic belief in the reliability of your senses when applying the scientific method when it includes the word “observe”? Can you set aside your basic belief in the laws of logic while applying the scientific method which requires you to form a hypothesis?
6. All people have presuppositions. The question is: who has the correct ones, and how do we examine them?

Worldviews
1. Everyone has a worldview. Even if you have never put thought into it…you have a worldview. Your worldview is a network of our most basic beliefs about reality in light of which observations are interpreted. All of your presuppositions put together make up your worldview. You can’t escape having a worldview, because in order for you to not have a worldview you can’t believe anything at all. Literally, anything. You can’t believe in math. You can’t even believe in the reliability of your own memory. You have to understand that worldviews have consequences. Whatever you choose as your worldview leads you to other beliefs, which lead to other beliefs, which eventually lead to what you do. Hitler did what he did because his worldview justified it. You can’t read Mein Kampf without seeing that as true. It’s the same thing for the rest of us. The reason that people come together to try to dialogue and end up feeling like they’re banging their head on a wall is because you’re talking to someone who has a different worldview. This is nothing new.
2. We acknowledge this all the time when it comes to things like politics, but when it comes to science, religion, and philosophy we think we can ignore it. A good example of how different worldviews result in different conclusions of evidence is DNA. An evolutionist looks at DNA and concludes that because different animals are alike in their DNA to a certain percentage that they must be descended from the same parent. A Creationist looks at the same information and believes that it bears witness to a common designer. It makes sense to a Creationist that their DNA would match to a certain extent because we all live on the same planet made by the same Creator. Both look at the evidence in light of different standards of determining truth. This is why in order for us to get to the bottom of the debate we have to examine our presuppositions that determine our interpretation.
3. By the way, when evolutionists say that humans are descended from apes because we share a certain amount of DNA likeness, they fail to mention that we also share fifty percent of our DNA with a banana: and I don’t see a half-man half-banana person anywhere.

Chain of Reasoning
1. All your beliefs are based on a belief that you have in something else. Think about how a child continues to ask the question “why” over and over again. Eventually, if you keep asking “why” you believe a particular thing, you will reach a wall where there is something that you take for granted. Inevitably it comes down to a certain belief that is at the base of it all. If you want to illustrate this principle, think of a ladder. Each rung on the ladder leads to the next rung, but the ladder itself has to rest on something solid that upholds the entire thing. If it’s not resting on something solid, then you aren’t going to use it. Imagine trying to use a ladder by setting it on water. Unless there is something to uphold the ladder it won’t be used. The same thing goes for your worldview and presuppositions. Each belief that you hold is predicated upon another, and another, and another, until you have to hit something that is known. I must emphasize that. You have to, at the very basis of your worldview, be resting on something that is known and not just believed. This is what we’ll call your “ultimate standard”.
The Ultimate Standard
1. If you didn’t have an ultimate standard, a reference point for determining truth that is known and not just believed, then you could never KNOW anything. That’s what we’re talking about here. We’re not talking about beliefs, we’re talking about knowledge. I don’t like arguing for probability. I don’t think it benefits very much. I’m not talking about what’s probably true, I’m arguing about what is necessarily true. If you don’t know that your ultimate standard, upon which all of your beliefs rely, is true, then you cannot be certain of any of your beliefs at all. You are then arguing an irrational belief, and not anything true. You’re arguing a philosophy, not science.
2. Since all of your beliefs go back to one single proposition—remember the ladder—if you don’t KNOW that ultimate standard is true then you can’t know anything is true at all. A ladder doesn’t rest on nothing. It is anchored to something that holds the thing up. And we’re not just talking about philosophy or religion here. You can’t know anything if you do not have that ultimate standard that you know is true, because everything else rests upon it and is reliant upon its validity. If it’s not true, then you have no basis to assert anything at all. You couldn’t say, “I know mathematics is true.” Or, “I know that cyanide is poisonous.” You can’t assert anything if you don’t have an ultimate standard that is known as true. You have to realize that if you don’t have a reason to believe something, then you don’t know it’s true.
3. Some would say that they have a reason for what they believe, but the problem is they’re not getting what I’m saying. You can’t use logic, for instance, unless you can justify its existence by your worldview. You can’t use mathematics unless you can justify its existence by your worldview. We’ll be illustrating this in a few minutes.
Examine by what standards?
1. The question that may be on your mind is how we can examine our worldview and presuppositions as correct or not? By what standards can we examine these things? We’ll settle on three things by which we can examine worldviews and their presuppositions:
  1. Whatever a person chooses as his or her ultimate standard will lead to other beliefs, which will lead to other beliefs, etc. The beliefs that we are led to by our ultimate standard must not contradict each other. A true worldview must be logically consistent within itself. It cannot have internal contradictions. If a worldview did have contradictions then it cannot be entirely true. Imagine if your car could be in your driveway and not in your driveway at the same time in the same sense. That’s impossible in our universe because it is a contradiction. So consistency is one of our criterions.
  2. Even if a worldview is internally consistent that doesn’t mean necessarily that it’s true. A worldview must be able to provide what are called the “preconditions of intelligibility”, or the “preconditions of knowledge”. These are things that must be true in order to know anything. I’ve named a few of them already:
    1. The basic reliability of your memory. If your memory is unreliable then you could never learn anything by observation, because you would never be able to trust what you remember happened in the past in order to conjecture about the future. This is something that is necessary for human knowledge.
    2. The basic reliability of your senses. Without reliable senses sensory observation would never be possible. Science would be impossible and humans could never even begin to learn.
    3. The laws of logic. The strongest evidence to show that the laws of logic are necessary for human knowledge is when you consider that you can’t even argue against them without using them. Can make an argument that they aren’t needful without using them to make an argument? It’s like trying to argue against the existence of air while all the while you are breathing it.
    4. The uniformity of nature. This is a big one, but it is the hardest to understand. We’re so used to taking it for granted that tomorrow will generally continue as today regarding how the universe operates. Basically this is the knowledge that the universe works in a law-like fashion. It enables us to predict the exact minute of a sunrise 100 years in the future. This is one of the things that a worldview, and origins theory, must account for.
  3. Finally, it cannot be arbitrary. This is especially important when considering origins and the existence of God. If I was to say something like, “I believe in God, and it’s not important that I don’t have a reason to believe so.” Atheists would rightly not have any reason to believe in God. Even so, if anyone says, “It’s not important that we have a justifiable reason to believe a worldview,” they are being just as irrational. If a person cannot provide good reasons to believe something then no one has any reason to consider it as genuine knowledge. Genuine knowledge consists of things that are true. Just because something is believed does not make it true. Things such as mere opinion or prejudicial conjectures fall under the category of being arbitrary. If a worldview is true, it cannot be arbitrary.
2. You really have to grasp this: your worldview is supposed to be in agreement with reality. If it is true, then it will conform to reality and make sense of it. Origins, whatever the answer is, should account for everything in existence that is a result of “the beginning”. If it is our origin, then it would have to explain everything. If a theory, or worldview, cannot account for these things then it is necessarily false. That’s why we’re choosing these things. They are necessary for human knowledge, science, and they bear witness to human experience. Only the worldview that is correct can pass all these tests. The true worldview is the one that is non-arbitrary, internally consistent, and provides the preconditions of intelligibility.

The Uniformity of Nature
1. At this point I want to expand on something further: The uniformity of nature. So many people have a problem understanding why this is important that I want to elaborate on it more. This principle is also called “induction”. You see, in order to do science we take for granted that the universe is understandable—that it can be quantified in a way the mind can comprehend. We assume order, and that’s why we try to figure it out. This order and predictability is what enables scientists to make predictions about the future. Here is the definition of the principle of induction from a college textbook on logic:
  1. “Induction, Principle of: The principle, underlying all inductive argument, that nature is sufficiently regular to permit the discovery of causal laws having general application.” (Copi and Cohen, Introduction to Logic, 14th edition (Pearson Education Limited), p.624)
2. Don’t underestimate the importance of this precondition of knowledge. The same logic textbook had this to say of the principle of induction in its chapter on logical fallacies:
  1. “It would be wrong to suppose that only silly authors make this mistake. Even powerful minds are on occasion snared by this fallacy, as is illustrated by a highly controversial issue in the history of philosophy. Logicians have long sought to establish the reliability of inductive procedures by establishing the truth of what is called the principle of induction. This is the principle that the laws of nature will operate tomorrow as they operate today, that in basic ways nature is essentially uniform, and that therefore we may rely on past experience to guide our conduct in the future. “That the future will be essentially like the past” is the claim at issue, but this claim, never doubted in ordinary life, turns out to be very difficult to prove. Some thinkers have claimed that they could prove it by showing that, when we have in the past relied on the inductive principle, we have always found that this method has helped us to achieve our objectives. They ask, “Why conclude that the future will be like the past?” and answer, “Because it always has been like the past.”
  2. As David Hume pointed out, however, this common argument is a petitio—it begs the question. The point at issue is whether nature will continue to behave regularly. That it has done so in the past cannot serve as proof that it will do so in the future, unless one assumes the very principle that is here in question: that the future will be like the past. Hence Hume, granting that in the past the future has been like the past, asked the telling question with which philosophers still tussle: How can we know that future futures will be like past futures? They may be so, of course, but we cannot assume that they will be for the sake of proving that they will.” (Copi and Cohen, Introduction to Logic, 14th edition, (Pearson Education Limited), p.141)
3. Both David Hume and Bertrand Russell stated the problem of this principle. Without the uniformity of nature science and knowledge are impossible though. In essence, most worldviews cannot meet even this precondition of intelligibility. They cannot give a reason for why the laws of nature will continue to behave regularly. To assume that it will, simply because they always have, is to use circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is when you arbitrarily assume the very thing that is to be proved for the sake of proving it. “Why will the future resemble the past? Because it always has.” That argument can be restated this way: “There will be uniformity of nature in the future, because there is uniformity of nature.” The question though is not whether or not we have uniformity of nature, all agree on that, the question is WHY we have uniformity in nature. A worldview must explain why we have it. We’ll see this better illustrated when we begin internally critiquing worldviews. Remember though, if something cannot provide a good reason to believe it, then it cannot be considered genuine knowledge. Something must be known for it to be considered true.
How we’ll critique worldviews
1. The procedure that we’ll go through in examining these worldviews for validity will be as follows:
  1. I’ll begin constructively to show that the Christian faith accounts for all preconditions of intelligibility while being non-arbitrary and internally consistent. I will be spending the next episode in this series more specifically on what sets Christianity apart as the one true standard for determining truth above all other religions and god-concepts in the world. Since I already believe it, and it is my worldview, I will argue from that perspective.
  2. Next I’ll proceed to do an internal critique of the leading opposing worldviews: Relativism, Empiricism, and Naturalism.
2. As we’re going through this you have to remember that we’re not just throwing around evidence right now. We’re examining the presuppositions and worldviews by which we interpret evidence. So as I’m presenting the biblical creationist worldview you need to come over and stand on my presuppositions with me for argument’s sake. You have to understand the presuppositions and follow it to see how the evidence is interpreted differently, and see whether or not it meets those conditions by which all worldviews can be weighed for validity. Then, I’ll do the same thing with the opposing worldviews. I’ll come over and stand on your presuppositions and do an internal critique of them by the same standards. The goal being to show you your own worldview and its consequences. Most people have never truly thought through their beliefs and worldview. Most people have no idea that they have a worldview, even though it is constantly guiding their decisions and actions every day.
3. It’s also important to note that just because a worldview is not believed by others it does not mean that they do not live in accordance with it. Consider it this way, if atheism is true and nature is all that there is, then I would only be able to live in agreement with it—regardless of whether or not I believe it—because it would be true. I may believe something completely contrary to it, but if it were true I could not escape living by those presuppositions. I might not live by its morals, but I would have to live in agreement with its presuppositions because they would be true. They would describe reality as it is, if it were true. Likewise, it’s true for atheists regarding biblical creation. If it’s true, then you will be living by those presuppositions regardless of what you believe. You might not live by its morals, but you will live by its presuppositions. Belief in a worldview does not make it true or false. Keep that in mind because it is the most common objection to the presuppositional apologetic—even though it is a strawman fallacy. I’m not saying that people have to believe the Bible or believe in God for them to be living on the biblical worldview’s presuppositions. I’m saying that it has to be true. You might believe the contrary, but it has to be true. I hope I’m being clear.

The Biblical Creationist Worldview
1. I believe that there is one God (Deu. 6:4; Isa. 44:6, 8) who created all things (Gen. 1:1; John 1:3). I believe the mind of God controls and determines the entire universe (Isa. 46:9-10; Psa. 135:6). He has told me that He is unchanging (Mal. 3:6), that it is against His nature to lie (Num. 23:19; Tit. 1:2), that He is omnipresent (Jer. 23:24; Psalm 139:7-8), and that He is beyond time (2 Pet. 3:8). He has told us that He is immaterial (John 4:24; Luke 24:39), and that He is eternal (1 Tim. 1:17) He is the reference point for all truth as it is determined by His own mind (Col. 2:3; John 14:6; 17:17), and He will not contradict Himself (2 Tim. 2:13). He is the absolute that everything rests on.
2. Regarding origins, the first verse of the Bible answers a few questions:
  1. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” (Gen. 1:1)
3. This explains the creation of space (“the heaven”), of time (“in the beginning”), and of matter (“the earth”). Not as though only the earth was made, or that it consists of all matter, but simply at this time God made matter and the account is focused on the Earth.
4. This verifies the law of causality, that no effect can be greater than its cause. That’s basic in all scientific investigation and human experience. As Dr. Henry Morris said, “A universe comprising an array of intelligible and complex effects, including living systems and conscious personalities, is itself proof of an intelligent, complex, living, conscious Person as its Cause.” (Morris, The Henry Morris Study Bible, comments on Genesis 1:1)
5. The Bible tells me the earth hangs on nothing, “He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.” (Job 26:7)
6. I am told that God made man fully formed out of the dust of the ground (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:7). Since he is made in the image of God, I would expect him to be an intelligent moral being.
7. So let’s start considering our criterion:
  1. Consistency. Though many argue that there are, “many contradictions in the Bible,” I’ve been reading my Bible for years, I’ve studied the original languages some, manuscript evidence, historical context, and I’ve never found a single genuine contradiction in all these years. It may contradict what other people SAY, but it is not internally contradictory at all. Actually, throughout history the sciences have continually vindicated the Bible’s account of things over and over again. It is usually when people are ignorant of the Bible, its claims, or its history, that people make the false claim of there being contradictions in it. It’s much like handing someone a children’s book that says Sally has red hair in chapter 1, and in chapter 4 she has blonde hair. The person who is looking for a contradiction, and a reason to liberate themselves from the book, throws it out claiming that there are contradictions in it. When, if they had read chapter 3 they would have seen that she dyed her hair. Such are the examples given by skeptics of the Bible. If they had done any serious inquiry, honestly considering its validity, they would’ve seen the answer. But, as it’s been said, “If you’re not looking for truth, be sure that you will never find it.” It is demonstrable that the Bible has no internal contradictions. It may contradict the claims of other worldviews, and their interpretation of things, but that’s why we’re having this discussion.
  2. The Preconditions of Intelligibility. Does the Bible provide for the things necessary for science and human knowledge? Yes, it does. We’ll go through the ones we mentioned:
    1. The basic reliability of our memory. Man is made in the image of God. He was made a rational intelligent being. It’s because we were designed and made that we can have confidence in the reliability of our memory. Based on the Christian worldview it makes sense that our memory would be reliable, because we were made by an intelligent being. A Christian has a justifiable reason for this belief, but apart from the Biblical worldview it’s very hard to prove that your memory is reliable without begging the question. If my memory is simply the result of a mindless process that came about accidently to give humans some survival value in the past, how can I justify a belief that my memory is reliable? Only the Biblical worldview can justify this claim.
    2. The basic reliability of our senses. This is much the same as the last. Why should I expect my senses to reliably inform my mind, if both are simply the results of mutations that conveyed some sort of survival value in the past? If I am a creature that was designed by an intelligent and powerful Creator though, it would make sense that my senses are basically reliable. The Bible’s account of creation gives me justification for this belief by stating that I was made to interact with the universe.
    3. The Laws of Logic. Again, the Bible gives justification for the belief in the laws of logic. The laws of logic are immaterial, they are not natural in that sense. They are conceptual. God has told me that it is His mind that controls and determines the entire universe (Isa. 46:9-10; Psa. 135:6). He has told me that He is unchanging (Mal. 3:6), that it is against His nature to lie (Num. 23:19; Tit. 1:2), that He is omnipresent (Jer. 23:24; Psalm 139:7-8), and that He is beyond time (2 Pet. 3:8). He has told us that He is immaterial (John 4:24; Luke 24:39), and that He is eternal (1 Tim. 1:17) He is the reference point for all truth as it is determined by His own mind (Col. 2:3; John 14:6; 17:17), and He will not contradict Himself (2 Tim. 2:13). This means that His thoughts, which do not contradict, are universal in governing the operation of the universe. This explains the laws of logic being immaterial and universal. Man is made in the image of God, and is designed to follow this pattern—though man chooses to ignore this most of the time in rebellion against God. He “suppresses the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom. 1:18) because he doesn’t like where logic leads him. He doesn’t want to acknowledge God as an authority over him. All truth exists in the mind of God I’m told (Col. 2:3), and therefore I can expect no exceptions. As a Christian, I have a justifiable reason to believe in the immaterial, universal, laws of logic without exception. Remember, we’re not trying to explain the laws of logic. A worldview must account justifiably, non-arbitrarily, WHY they exist. The Bible provides for this. Therefore, in the Biblical worldview reason, science, and rationality make sense.
    4. The uniformity of nature. Does the Bible give me plain statements that justify my belief that things will continue in a law-like fashion? Absolutely. God Himself has told me that He would do so:
      1. “While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.” (Gen. 8:22)
    5. God has specifically stated that He has made all things (Gen. 1:1; John 1:3) and that all things are upheld by His power (Heb. 1:3). The so-called “laws of nature” are nothing more than man’s description of how God consistently upholds the universe. They are immaterial concepts, and God being the one upholding all things explains why they are binding and universal. God is omnipresent (Psalm 139:7-8), beyond time (2Pet. 3:8), and is consistent (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29). God has explicitly promised me that He will uphold things in a generally consistent manner (Gen. 8:22; Jer. 33:20-21). It is for this reason that I am justified in believing that things will operate tomorrow similar to today and the past.
      1. This also explains miracles. God is not “violating” some law in the universe when He does something out of the ordinary. Since these “laws” are merely descriptions of human understanding of how God does things, God is not breaking one of them when He decides to do something other than what we would consider to be ordinary. The Bible describes the universe as an open system when God is continually at work.
    6. We could continue with other preconditions of intelligibility with such things as absolute morality and mathematics. Both of these are immaterial concepts that only the Biblical worldview can give a good reason to believe in. Most people wouldn’t think of absolute morality as fitting in this category, but the imperative that we “ought” to be rational is a moral argument. If we “ought” to do anything, then you are appealing to absolute morality.
  3. Arbitrariness. One of the most common objections to the Biblical worldview is the idea that all we need is a god-concept to suit our needs in explaining all these things. This argument itself is arbitrary. If we simply came up with a god-concept to suit our needs then we are merely giving opinion. Opinions are not synonymous with truth or knowledge. Remember, why can we justify that these true things exist? In the Biblical worldview it is because God has given special revelation to man that is objective and open to examination. It does not rest on human opinion or on subjective experience. Those that claim Christianity does that show their ignorance of Biblical content. This subject is the one that we’ll develop more fully in our next episode on this topic. Suffice it to say that it is because we have the revelation of God’s Word that it is not arbitrary. It is not a person’s opinionated conjecture saying, “well I believe this or that.” Such a thing cannot be considered knowledge until there is a reason to believe it. The one thing that many opponents to Christianity consistently fail to do is examine the Bible’s claims for validity. Many opponents have gone down that road only to end up professing Christianity: C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowell, Simon Greanleaf, etc. Simon Greenleaf was a principal founder of the Harvard Law School and put the claims for the Resurrection of Jesus to the test by plain secular judicial standards. In the end, he became a Christian. There are countless testimonies of surgeons, lawyers, and detectives, putting the claims to the test, who end up becoming Christians because of the overwhelming evidence. I illustrate the issue this way. If you don’t believe in my grandmother it doesn’t matter to me because I know her. I can easily show you her existence if you would “consider the evidence”. I could show you a birth certificate, driver’s license, etc. You might make up excuses though, “those are doctored or manufactured.” If I tell you to come and meet her then, and you say no, who is the one who is being irrational and unscientific then? Most atheists and skeptics do nothing more than watch the history channel, scour atheist forums and blog posts with endless question begging epithets and no facts, and they think that they have done research with an open mind. It’s the definition of arbitrariness on their part, not Christianity’s.
8. So it is the Biblical worldview that can pass all these tests. That’s why people have continuously become believers throughout the last 2,000 years. Without the Biblical worldview, science and knowledge would be impossible. It is the only worldview that can give a justifiable reason to believe in the uniformity of nature, the basic reliability of our memory and senses, the laws of logic, morality, mathematics, and the list goes on. It is the only worldview that can account for itself and make sense of everything in the universe. It makes genuine knowledge possible.
Relativism
1. Relativism is the belief that truth is “relative”—that it varies from person to person. It includes the proposition that there are no absolutes. Every man does that which is right in his own eyes. While this isn’t so much an explanation of origins, so many people try to apply it to that philosophically sometimes. It is a worldview though that is very common so we’ll briefly look at it.
2. Relativism is the definition of inconsistent and self-contradictory. To even say, “there are no absolutes,” is to establish an absolute. In this way, if relativism is true, then it is necessarily false. If it is true that “there are no absolutes” then it is false that “there are no absolutes.” The result is that if it is absolutely true, it cannot be true. Therefore, it is false. This is a philosophy that bears no resemblance to reality.
  1. Another thing to consider is that relativism is impossible to live by. This is called behavioral inconsistency. Moral relativism is a part of relativism. It’s the belief that morality is relative to the person. If it is relative to the person, then you can never tell others that they are right or wrong. This means that you could not even lock your doors at night to protect yourself from other people’s morality. If they believe it’s justifiable to break into your house and murder you, then that is their morality, and who are you to stop them if it’s all relative? Some respond by saying, “Well, we shouldn’t hurt other people or encroach upon them.” Well, you can’t do that in relativism. To do that is to establish an absolute that it is wrong to hurt others or encroach on them. Relativism, especially moral relativism, is a standard that is impossible to live by, and it doesn’t bear witness to reality. If a person believed relativism, in respect to the universe, then they would probably die young. I’m not meaning that to make light of someone’s death, but as one philosopher very well stated, “Even in India we look both ways before crossing the street, because we know that it is either the bus or me: it is not both/and.” If you refuse to believe in gravity’s pull, and you jump off a cliff, the universe is not going to bend to your will. Relativism is the definition of inconsistent, therefore it is untrue.
3. The Preconditions of Intelligibility. Since relativism is inconsistent on every level, it cannot provide those things necessary for knowledge. This is most easily seen when it comes to the laws of logic. Relativism is a flat denial of the law of non-contradiction. It maintains that you can have b and non-b in the same relationship, at the same time, in the same sense. This obviously does not bear witness to reality. All logical reasoning presupposes that there are absolutes and fixed standards of determining truth. For any assertion that a relativist makes I could very easily say, “Is that true,” and he would have to concede that he is uncertain. If he was certain, then he would deny his own worldview. I’ve given the illustration before on this podcast that if someone says they’re a relativist, and they say their name is Joe, then I’ll just start calling them Sally or something. If they correct me, then they have shown that they really don’t live by their professed worldview. Corrections have no place in a relativistic worldview. Truth, by its very nature is exclusive. By saying that something is “true” you necessarily exclude the contradictory. One main problem that makes this view continue is that people confuse the idea of “truth” with the idea of a “belief”; but just because something is believed that does not make it true. There is nothing in any form of relativism that allows for the preconditions of intelligibility, especially the uniformity of nature. Therefore, relativism is untrue.
4. Relativism is arbitrary. We have no justifiable reason to believe that it is true. It provides no genuine knowledge, and actually hinders it. To assert that relativism is true is to be arbitrary since there are no good reasons to believe it as true. It is mere opinion, a prejudicial conjecture to protect someone from accountability to absolutes. It is unlivable, unscientific, unjustifiable, and untrue.
Empiricism
1. Empiricism is the belief that all knowledge comes through observation. While the Biblical worldview agrees that some knowledge comes through observation, it disagrees that all knowledge comes through observation. Empiricism is the belief that ALL knowledge is gained through observation.
2. The question to ask an empiricist is how they KNOW that all knowledge is gained through observation? Did they observe all things to determine that all knowledge is gained through observation? They did not. Empiricism, as a claim, must be believed without observation. This means that all knowledge does not come from observation. It is self-defeating.
3. Some empiricists have argued that if they are allowed that one exception of their claim then they can explain everything. This is inconsistency. A worldview, or an ultimate standard for determining truth, must be able to account for itself and everything else. It must, in that sense, be circular; because if it relies on something else then it cannot be an ultimate standard. It is because the ultimate standard of empiricism cannot be proved by its own standards that it destroys the possibility of an empiricist to be certain of anything. It is a ladder that rests on nothing. It doesn’t meet the standards necessary to be considered consistent. There can be no exceptions in a worldview of its own claims. It is internally inconsistent; therefore, it cannot be true.
4. Preconditions of Intelligibility. Empiricism, because it claims that all knowledge is gained by observation, cannot account for a single precondition of intelligibility. It cannot account for the reliability of the memory or senses, because it has not observed all things to verify that they are consistently reliable. It cannot account for the laws of logic, because these are immaterial and cannot be observed at all. It cannot account for the uniformity of nature, or the principle of induction, because the best it can do is conjecture based upon the past—the best it can do is argue that because nature has been uniform in the past it will be so in the future. As we talked about earlier, this begs the question and proves nothing. In essence it says, “Because of the uniformity of nature there will be uniformity of nature.” This is circular reasoning, and it does not provide a good reason to believe that there will be uniformity of nature in the future. At the best, it is conjecture, and conjecture is not genuine knowledge. It provides no certainty in the uniformity of nature, which is the basis for science and reasoning. It does not provide any other precondition either: morality, mathematics, etc. Empiricism cannot provide a good reason to believe any of these; therefore, it cannot be true.
5. Empiricism, as a claim, is arbitrary. Skeptics and atheists constantly affirm that they want empirical proof of creation, and yet they cannot provide justifiable proof that empiricism (that all knowledge comes by observation) is true. This is an arbitrary double standard, and it is the fallacy of special pleading. They cannot apply different standards to other worldviews that they do not apply to themselves. This is especially true when the Biblical worldview can pass all these tests and their worldviews cannot. To even claim empiricism is true is to be arbitrary, because it cannot provide a justifiable reason why ALL knowledge comes through observation; therefore, it is untrue.

Naturalism
1. Naturalism is the belief that nature is all that there is and that all things can be explained by natural processes. This worldview suffers the same fate as empiricism. The claim that “nature is all that there is” cannot be proven. It must be accepted before any argumentation.
2. Naturalism leads to many inconsistent beliefs. It teaches that nature is all that there is, and yet they will use laws of logic which are immaterial concepts and not natural things. Naturalists will consistently act and practice on the uniformity of nature, though their worldview does not account for it. If the universe is the result of time plus matter plus chance: how can there be consistency or the uniformity of nature? To assume these things when your own worldview does not account for them is internal contradiction. The same thing can be said for morality. Naturalism does not allow for any objective morality. Why should I not kill people, steal other people’s things, or lie to other people? Especially if it increases my survival value? That would be consistent with naturalism. It is a shame that schools and colleges teach their students subjective moral relativism, naturalism, and that all people are is a walking chemical accident that has no value, and then these students go out into the world and live by those ideas, and then the world punishes them for it as though they were being inconsistent with what they were taught.
  1. It is funny that in Dawin’s Origin of the Species that the one thing that he did not answer was their origin. If nature is all that there is, then where did it come from? If it began as nothing, then how could it explode in a big bang? What caused the supposed big bang? What exploded? To say that nothing exploded and created everything is inconsistent. A “nothing” cannot explode. Which came first, matter or the laws that govern them? Particles, or the physics that govern them? If matter came before the laws, then where did it come from, and why did the laws come about? If particles came first, then where did they come from, and where did physics come from? Naturalism is bankrupt when it comes to accounting for origins. The Biblical worldview can cogently account for all of these things: God created all things ex nihilo, “out of nothing.” He caused it, and He put it in order, as He presently sustains them. Naturalists want an uncreated creation, and they want an uncaused first cause. Naturalism is internally inconsistent; therefore, it is not true.
3. Preconditions of Intelligibility. Naturalism cannot account for a single precondition of knowledge. Are our senses and memory basically reliable? “We don’t know. We believe so, but we cannot give a good reason to say so. We’re all just a chemical accident: time plus chance plus matter.” According to naturalism, how can I know that the chemicals and nerves in my body are correctly interpreting the world around me? According to naturalism, I can’t. It is assumed unjustifiably. If I base it on past experience, then I’m trusting in my memory—which is the thing that’s supposed to be tested. Naturalism cannot account for the laws of logic. The laws of logic are immaterial and not natural. A law of logic is not something that you can pick up and touch. It’s not a part of nature. They are a concept, an abstraction. Why then are they in existence?
  1. Some may argue, “I know many people that use logic that don’t believe the bible.”
    1. That’s the fallacy of the irrelevant thesis. I’m not saying that they must believe the Bible to use the laws of logic; but the biblical worldview must be true for them to be able to use them. Laws of logic are not explainable by atheistic worldviews; therefore, it is inconsistent for them to use the laws of logic.
  2. “Laws of logic are just something we’ve developed because they are useful.”
    1. That makes things reduce to relativism. If you can just cast them off willy-nilly then you must begin to accept contradictions. You could never tell people that they are wrong, and you could never argue for anything—like trying to argue that the laws of logic are not binding. The laws of logic are something that has been discovered by man, not created. They bear witness to reality. If they were just a pragmatic thing, then we would be able to cast them off, not use them, and reality would still make sense. We can’t; therefore, you’re wrong.
  3. “Laws of logic are just chemical reactions of the brain.”
    1. If the laws of logic were just some form of chemical reaction in the brain, then why is it that everyone bears witness to the same ideas? Whose to guarantee that some other person’s brain would develop the same laws as you? How then would rational communication and argumentation be possible between people? This also reduces to relativism; therefore, it’s untrue.
  4. Naturalism cannot provide for the preconditions of intelligibility; therefore, it is untrue.
4. Much the same as empiricism, naturalism is something that is believed arbitrarily. It is assumed a priori. The claim, “nature is all that there is,” cannot be proven. Indeed, it’s easily disproven by all of the immaterial things that the universe bears witness to (absolute morality, laws of logic, principle of induction, etc.). To hold to naturalism therefore, without rational justification, is arbitrary. All things that are believed arbitrarily cannot be considered as providing genuine knowledge, since the foundational belief of that system is in question. This is another ladder that rests on nothing. It is assumed. It is a presupposed philosophy of interpretation that cannot account for itself or everything else that follows. It is untrue.
5. Gary Habermas said this regarding naturalism:
  1. “The "warm little pond" scenario was invented ad hoc to serve as a materialistic reductionist explanation of the origin of life. It is unsupported by any other evidence and it will remain ad hoc until such evidence is found. . . . One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.”
  2. “Some naturalists hold that since life exists, naturalistic evolution must have occurred, in spite of the improbabilities. Others contend that some as yet unknown laws must have allowed life to begin without the action of any supernatural Being, again in spite of the improbabilities. These solutions beg the question. It is circular to assume naturalistic evolution to be the case in spite of the evidence against such nontheistic solutions.”
  3. (Gary R. Habermas, "Paradigm Shift: a Challenge to Naturalism," Bibliotheca Sacra 146:584 Oct-Dec (1989): [pp. 442-443].

Thoughts
1. Most atheists will not accept what I’ve said in this episode, though they will argue using logic which their worldview cannot account for. “You’re presenting a false either/or scenario that it must be either evolution or God.” How can you use logic when your worldview cannot account for it? Can you tell me that you KNOW the laws of logic are binding, and on what basis can you justifiably make that argument? Even evolutionary scholars have said that it must be spontaneous generation (particles-to-people evolution) or special creation. It’s not a false either/or, it’s a legitimate one.
2. I hear people who hold to subjective moral relativism make arguments all the time that are moral in their basis. “How can you believe in and follow such a “fill in the blank” God who “fill in the blank”?” Well, things are not true or not based on whether or not you believe them. In that argument is an assumed premise that “all things you don’t like are untrue,” and no rational person believes that premise. In addition to that, the only way to charge God in any way shape or form with any immorality is to hold to absolute morals to which all beings are accountable. You cannot be a subjective moral relativist and tell others that they have done something wrong. It is to be inconsistent with your own worldview, and it denies your own worldview. All of these arguments I’ve heard before, but no one sticks around for the answers to them. That shows that they really don’t care what’s true. They pick a worldview that allows them to live how they want.
3. So, if anyone wants to argue you’re free to do so. Here’s what I want you to do first, and I won’t respond to any email that does not at least try this first: I want you to tell me how your alternative worldview can account for the preconditions of knowledge, while being internally consistent, and not being arbitrary. If you don’t at least try to figure out your own worldview, then you have no basis to criticize mine; especially when mine passes those tests.
4. What you have to remember is that you can’t ignore these questions. Your view of origins MUST answer these questions, or it is not even possible. If a theory of origins is true, then it must account for everything that followed “the beginning”. These things are necessary for life and science; therefore, if you can’t cogently and justifiably account for them, then your view is wrong.
Food for thought
1. Here’s a brief list of some interesting quotations:
  1. “Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation.” (Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, (1981), p.19 [a leading astronomer]) *not known to be a creationist
  2. “The evolutionary establishment fears creation science because evolution itself crumbles when challenged by evidence. In the 1970s and 1980s, hundreds of public debates were arranged between evolutionary scientists and creation scientists. The latter scored resounding victories, with the result that, today, few evolutionists will debate. Isaac Asimov, Stephen Jay Gould, and the late Carl Sagan, while highly critical of creationism, all declined to debate.” (James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard, (1999), p.241)
  3. “Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to bend their observations to fit in with it.” (H. Lipson, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138) *not known to be a creationist
  4. “The first, and main, problem is the very existence of the big bang. One may wonder, what came before? If space-time did not exist then, how could everything appear from nothing? What arose first? The universe of the laws determining its evolution? Explaining this initial singularity—where and when it all began—still remains the most intractable problem of modern cosmology.” (Andrei Linde, “The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe,” Scientific American, vol. 271, November 1994, p. 54)
  5. “No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and certainly not the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is true for living material.”
  6. The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it…It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.” (Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984), p. 148)
2. There are thousands of quotations like this from secular scientists, who don’t believe in Creation, and nobody ever hears them. Scientists who are honest admit that they are baffled. Perhaps I’ll give a longer list of quotations in the next episode in this series.

The Gospel
1. Of course, this being a Christian based podcast, I’m not going to end without presenting the Gospel. I challenge you to take time to listen to it as it only takes a minute. Most people think that they know what they Gospel is, or what it is about, and most people are completely wrong. It’s not about church, it’s not about a decision, it’s not about a prayer someone said sometime somewhere, it’s not about “asking Jesus into your heart.” Jesus Christ said:
“And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.” (John 3:19-20)
1. Those that care about the truth, and that want the truth, are looking for it. That’s why they examine things to see if there is validity to them. The only people that don’t look for the truth are the people who don’t want it. Most people never honestly investigate Christianity because they want no accountability. However, if it’s true—and it is—then willful ignorance will not protect you in the Day of Judgment. The least thing that you can do for yourself is to investigate it. There is nothing in this world that you get to take with you when you die. There will be no U-haul following the hearse to the graveyard.
2. God is a King. You are under His jurisdiction as the Creator of the universe and all things in it. As a King and Judge, He has a moral law. You have sinned against the righteous law of the King, and you are a criminal in His sight. This is what the Bible refers to as sin (or the breaking of God’s law), and being a sinner (a violator of God’s law). God says, “thou shalt not lie.” You’ve lied, and are a liar. God says, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” But He magnified this to include the very thoughts of your heart also (Matt.5:28). You’ve done this at least once, and so you’re an adulterer. This isn’t including the greatest commandment which is to love the Lord your God with all of you heart, soul, mind, and strength. There are others also. The penalty for violating God’s law is death. You have earned it by willfully breaking God’s commandments. There is coming a day of judgment when all of your crimes are laid out before you and you are sentenced to your death. In eternity, this state is called the second death. It is eternal death. But the King and Judge is merciful and says that He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but He wants the criminal to turn from His wickedness to serve Him faithfully. He has Himself made a way for you to be pardoned. This is called the Gospel, it means “good news”. You are in a hopeless situation on your own, but God offers you good news. He Himself has made an offering to pay for your sins if you would acknowledge your crimes to Him (your sins), and embrace your Savior, the one who has made a way for you to be reconciled to the King—Jesus Christ. God became a man to live a righteous life, die a terrible death that He didn’t deserve, be buried in a tomb, and God raised Him from the dead as a testimony to you. He says that He is not only able to forgive you but that He is willing. Your part is to acknowledge your sins to Him, repent of them (turn from them), and embrace your only hope of salvation: the holy and righteous Judge and King, Jesus Christ.

Nothing New
1. I said in the beginning that there was nothing new, and there was nothing really original about anything I said in this episode. I didn’t come up with this stuff myself. I read some of these things in Dr. Jason Lisle’s book The Ultimate Proof of Creation. I looked at some articles and lectures that he gave on the subject. He referenced Dr. Greg Bahnsen and a certain series of lectures that he did on the subject. Dr. Greg Bahnsen himself got it from Dr. Cornelius Van Til. You can reference a lot of good stuff on Youtube like debates. I would recommend the debates that Dr. Greg Bahnsen did with Gorden Stein and another with George Smith.
2. I myself and not reformed in my theology, but I appreciate the philosophical and apologetic insight that these men have given to others. I would recommend their works on apologetics, but I can’t endorse all of their doctrinal viewpoints. So, if you were intrigued by anything in this podcast, it wasn’t because of me it was because of these other men’s labors.
Closing
1. Like I said, I’ll be going over what sets apart the God of the Bible from every other God concept in the next episode in this series. Lord willing, that will be in a couple of weeks. I have another episode that I told someone that I would do, and they have already had to wait too long. So, after I do that episode we’ll continue this series.
2. In closing, I’ll sum up my one good reason for believing for you: If the Biblical worldview wasn’t true, then science would be impossible.

Here's our new episode: