Metaphysics on the Mountainside

I wrote the following in 1994, after a trip to Hong Kong my senior year of college. Rereading this so many years later, I see many things that I would have written differently.  But generally, I believe the main ideas are valid and true.  Regardless, it was an important experience in my life.  The pictures are from my trips to Hong Kong, China, and Taiwan and are unrelated to the story.

Some people can look up into the heavens and so easily assume that God made all things. Others struggle with this. They are not convinced that a personal God exists and would like more evidence presented to them. Why do these people have such a hard time believing in the Christian God? Why do others so easily accept the fact that he exists? Perhaps the following testimony can help us understand that the difference lies in men's hearts and not in their intellects.

While visiting Hong Kong in January of 1994, I stayed for a few nights in a hostel at the top of Mount Davis on the west side of the island. The hike up the long-ago paved road to the hostel at the mountain's summit was about two kilometers long. Every now and again the trees and foliage that lined the road would thin and allow grand views of a well-lit city far below. At a curve in the road about half-way up, the vegetation opened into a large flat clearing. On the edge of the clearing, a huge cement bunker stood vigil over Hong Kong Island. One of several that punctured the hillside, it was round, about thirty feet in diameter, and at one time had housed a huge British gun that could shoot into the bay below.  Apparently this mountain had been a British fortress during the World War II.

I remember walking across the clearing to that bunker. As I rounded its edge to the opposite side, I saw a view that had been hidden from the road. My breath was taken away as I stared across the water at a glowing city that stretched for miles on the far shore of Discovery Bay. I wish I had the talent to capture on paper the impression that it made on me as I took it all in. The city was a magnificent monument of lights nestled into a far mountain beside the South China Sea. The lights stopped abruptly at the edge of the water where they left off into blackness. Smaller lights bobbed gently in that blackness from there to the foot of the mountain on which I stood—vessels anchored for the night in the harbor. I sat down on the edge of the bunker and just marveled in silence. The wind came up from the waters below and sailed softly through the little clearing in which I sat. My heart swelled in praise to God for the wonder of the work of his hands. Everything that lay before me was the creation of God and given to man. The mountains, the sea, and the wind were all his. And to the capstone of His creation—mankind—God gave the intelligence and ability to build and govern the microcosm that sat before me. As I beheld it all, I worshiped God, the Creator of the Universe.

The rest of the road was very dark, and the vegetation along its sides at times seemed deceptively alive. Feral dogs roamed the area and jumped every now and again from the undergrowth, barking at passers-by. Soon I heard a noise in the darkness ahead. It sounded like a voice singing softly. "Probably someone trying to keep himself company," I thought to myself. As I peered through the darkness I, was able to distinguish the form of an old man walking alone along the path. I was cautious at first, but since we were both traveling the same path, I decided to see if he wanted a walking companion.

 I called out to him, and he stopped singing. Turning a quarter, he glanced behind without saying anything. I caught up with him, and we started up the hill again. He was a British man, about sixty years of age, with a ruggedness that compensated for his bent frame. His clothing was old and dirty. His hair, long and white, was pulled into a ponytail down the center of his back. A long, bushy, white beard gave him an ancient, wizened appearance.

As we began talking, I learned that he had once worked as a psychiatrist in England. After a divorce shattered his life, he began searching for the meaning of life. He had tested philosophies of all types and eventually made his way to the Orient to study Buddhism. Now he lived as a hermit on Mount Davis. Exploring his own mind day after day, he was still trying to find the meaning of life. Being a Christian and believing that Christ was the answer he was searching for, I gladly began to share my faith with him.

God giving me grace, my commitment to the Christian world-view will never be shaken. Truth is truth, and "there are not because there cannot be other than God-interpreted facts (Van Til)." However, as I talked with this man, I slowly realized that the truth that I possessed was going to do him little good. He had too many intellectual objections to my beliefs. He had studied philosophy, and it seemed as though he knew a little about everything of that nature. He knew how to respond to my assertions and easily brush them aside. He knew how to reject truth and remain happily inconsistent. He had read the Bible, and it had been an interesting book, but Buddhism attracted him more at the present time. He refused to accept any of my arguments for the existence of the Christian God and the truth of Christianity.

I always marvel at the man who can live in the world that God created and not accept it as such. It is as though he were blind to the origins of the great expanses of the heavens that swirl above his head. Sure, he knows they are there, acknowledges their complexity, makes studies of them, and even postulates theories of origin. For the most part though, in all of his thinking, he refuses to allow for the possibility of creation by a personal God. He tries to embrace any or every alternative to accepting the Christian world-view. It is almost as though he were bent against God from the very start of his considerations. He says that he does not believe that the Christian God exists and then interprets all evidence on the basis of that belief. For him, God does not exist because he does want Him to.

The Bible gives a fascinating explanation for this phenomenon. Romans 1:19-25 says that “what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” The Scripture says that "although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.” The Scriptures assert here and in other places that man has all the proof that he needs for the existence of God. However, he has not accepted that proof because of the sinfulness of his heart. As Scripture says, he "suppresses the truth" because of his wicked nature. Instead of acknowledging God, he has "exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator." Man is bent against the idea of God from the very beginning of his considerations.

Let me here issue a warning to the reader.  As intellectual creatures, we are often tempted to let personal intellect be the measure of Truth. If you, like the man on the mountain, remain unconvinced by arguments presented to you, that does not automatically mean that your beliefs are correct. It merely means that the arguments were unable to convince you. Just because I may not be able to formulate the most persuasive arguments for the Christian world-view does not mean that the Christian world-view is not true. There will always be someone more gifted of expression than I am who will be better able to explain the truth and overcome the obstacles of your intellect. Men should beware being satisfied that "I have not yet found someone to refute me, therefore I am right." To do so is to claim one's personal intellect as the standard of Truth. One should always remember that there are many other people who will probably disagree with any one world-view. It is, therefore, a great audacity to allow one's limited intelligence to convince him of the meaning of life when he has not exhaustively considered all other possibilities, especially when he may be wrong. These possibilities seem to be as many and as diverse as the minds that care to think about them. Can a single human being evaluate the great variety of world-views that represent all the individuals that have ever lived? Who of all these individuals has the right one?

Since this man on the mountainside had not and could not consider all possible meanings of life, we may say that he has had to accept his present beliefs primarily on a faith commitment. In other words, is not certain of his beliefs beyond the level of faith. He cannot prove his theories. He merely has to accept them. The question he should then face is this—On whose authority does he accept the world-view he has embraced? On his own, or that of someone other than himself? If it is only himself or another human, I ask, "How do you know for certain that you or those you trust are the measure of all knowledge? Have you considered all that exists and are you then able to decide what is truth?" Likely not. No human is capable of this. Only one who is able to examine and evaluate everything that exists has the right to state truth dogmatically. He must be omniscient. The Christian, of course, believes this omniscient being to be God. Thus, only God's perspective is the right perspective. Only His perspective has the authority upon which man may base his faith-commitments. This perspective is revealed in the Bible.

The Christian will not claim to know everything. He will not be daring enough to say that his mind is greater than the unbeliever's mind. He merely places his faith in the one who knows all things, and he believes that there can be no certainty about anything apart from God’s revelation through his Word.

Well, I wish I had thought to explain all this to my friend on the mountainside that evening, but alas, I am not so quick on my feet. I have a feeling that he would not have listened anyway. The Bible gives an explanation for this—“The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2: 14).”

You see, only the Spirit of God can take away the “ suppressor of Truth” that is within the heart of every man. "The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God (2 Corinthians 4:4).” Knowing that only God could convince my new friend of the truth, I left him with words that I hope he has thought much about. I decided to appeal to what the Scripture says that every man knows, no matter how much he may deny it--that the Christian God does indeed exist (Romans 1:21).

As we walked along the road, he suddenly stopped. We were in a curve, and, right at its apex, I could barely see a stone walk that led to steps in the hillside. I followed the steps with my eyes up to a crumbling, shadowy wall. We had apparently reached his home. The conversation had stopped, so he turned down the walk toward the steps.

"Sir," I began. "I just want to remind you of something."

He climbed about five of the steps until he stopped to lean against the ivy-covered building that was his home. "And what might that be?"

I took a deep breath and mustered all the conviction of heart that I could. "Deep down in your heart of hearts, you know that my God is the true God."

"Or Tao or whatever you want to call it," he responded.

"No sir. I am speaking of the God of the Bible. And your knowledge of Him will forever haunt you until the day that you embrace both him and the salvation that comes through Jesus Christ."

He just looked at me. It seemed as though the seriousness of my tone had arrested him for a moment.

Presently he said only, "Maybe so." And, turning up the stairs, he disappeared around the corner of the building into the darkness.

The Scriptures make the difference between believers and unbelievers clear. The believer has a heart that can believe; the unbeliever does not. Until the unbeliever's heart is changed, he will never be able to believe the fullness of God's revelation to him. He may learn to accept some of the facts that testify to the truth and rationality of the Christian world-view, but he will never experience the Christian's certainty of life until he comes to faith in Christ. It is only the heart that has been changed by Jesus Christ that has the right to certainty of beliefs in this life.

Perhaps you are not a Christian and are dissatisfied with the uncertainty of your beliefs. Perhaps you are now willing to consider a possibility that you had previously rejected--that God does indeed exist and that what His Word says is true. Perhaps you are an honest inquirer and really desire to know the truth once and for all. Continue your search for truth. Pray, asking God to give you the heart of a believer. If you are sincerely seeking, He will give you that heart. Remember that "without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him (Hebrews1 1:6).”

The Koran-Burning Idiot and the Slobbering Beast

Internet friend and Pastor Bob Bixby has a fascinating post at this link that gives some thoughts that many apparently have not considered.   I echo his assertion that the Koran-Burning Idiot (KBI) is an idiot for the same reasons that he provides.  I would add that the KBI's actions are militant in a worldly sense. The Church has no call to worldly militancy.  We do not fight with swords or spears, but with the Word of God in the power of the Holy Spirit.  The Gospel is our most powerful weapon, and it is to be given in love to all those who need it.  There is no Gospel in the actions of the KBI.  The man is not a wise man and he defames the Glory of God.

I find it all ironic, however, on two counts:  First, this man is doing something very unwise, but due to religious freedom and rights to free speech, this lack of wisdom is protected by our Constitution.  However, the world has been nearly united in condemning him, and many have called for forceful action to prevent him from exercising his foolishness.

The irony comes from the simple fact that another recent incident has also involved people doing something very unwise, but lawful,  in the name of religion.  What makes it ironic is that the most vocal opponents of the KBI have been very supportive of the unwise people in this other incident.  I speak of those who support those who desire to build a mosque near Ground Zero.   If the argument in favor of the mosque at Ground Zero goes like this, "I do not think it is wise for them to do this thing, but this is America, so they have the right,"  then the fact that the same standard is not applied to both situations reveals a telling inconsistency that is characteristic of the unbelieving mind.

However, I am personally far more outraged against the KBI than the Ground Zero Muslims, but not because his actions are an affront to another "legitimate" religion that so many are desperate to appease. I am outraged because the man is doing something in the name of our God that he has not commissioned us to do.  In my mind, he is violating the command of the One True God. But make no mistake, he is not violating Islam's Allah.  That Allah is a figment of the Muslim imagination and a false god.  Allah does not exist, therefore he cannot be violated.

2)  The second irony is pointed out in Bob's post, that this Koran burning incident, as unwise as it may be, reveals something that is being ignored by most of its critics--The Muslim religion is inherently a violent religion.  James White has called it "the Religion of Perpetual Outrage."   It has been outraged and violent from its inception 1500 years ago.  They have sought conversions by the power of the sword, according to the command of their imaginary god, throughout their history.  They have enforced his laws by the power of the sword.   Granted that the Christian religion has also been violent from time to time throughout history, but the difference is that violent Christians have disobeyed God's revealed will.  On the other hand, violent Muslims are simply obeying the revealed will of their god.  The Bible condemns both violent Christians and violent Muslims. Obedient Christians are not violent, but obedient Muslims are authorized to be murderers.   What then do we make of those Muslims who preach peace?  They simply disregard the revealed will of their god.  Those who spew threats and violence are more respectful of the Koran's teaching than those who preach peace.  There is nothing more noble and respectable about those who preach peace; both are prophets of a false religion.

The reaction of Muslims throughout the world has once again revealed the slobbering beast to those who have eyes to see.  They have revealed the true nature of their religion.  And yet, the world comes to their defense, even as Muslims who are true to their religion threaten violence in response.  Look up, Oh World!  Look up from your irrational outrage and religious denial and see the slobbering beast that is hiding in plain sight!

BTW, I am aware that the KBI has backed off at least temporarily because of a supposed deal between him and the Ground Zero Muslims (dubious).   He has attempted to draw attention to the Muslim world's reaction as a sort of justification for his foolishness.   Some might eventually suggest (perhaps even he himself) that this was the substance of his plan all along--to reveal the slobbering beast.  However, I don't believe he is wise enough to have planned this revelation. He is simply a fool.

Truth in a Cup

An Illustration Designed to Awaken Awareness of Epistemological Uncertainty

You and I are sitting at a restaurant table. As a Christian, I am faced with the task of demonstrating to you the truth of my religion. Perhaps you need to be persuaded because you do not believe that we can know which religion is correct. Or perhaps you believe in a different religion. At the least, you certainly reject the idea that Christianity is the only true religion. And even more, you are offended that Christians so audaciously claim that they alone have the truth.

Let’s put Truth in a cup. Pretend that the empty cup on the table beside us contains the essence of reality— unadulterated Truth. Whatever Truth may be is in that cup. Now we seal the cup, so that neither of us can see it, and we begin to guess the answer to the question "What is Truth?" Our task, then, is to guess what is in that cup.

Here is how we will go about it: We will each explain what we believe to be the Truth. We will take those beliefs about Truth and will each place them in our own separate cups. When we finish filling our cups with our beliefs, we will open the Truth Cup to see which, if either, matches the Truth.

So we fill our cups. My beliefs are traditional Christian beliefs, and I place them in my cup. Perhaps your beliefs are somewhat agnostic, but you do believe that it is everyone’s responsibility to be moral and treat others with respect. Or maybe you don’t. Regardless, your beliefs, whatever they may be, go into your cup.

Before opening the Truth cup and making our comparison to see who is correct, there are several important things to note about the nature of what is in our cups:

1. We cannot change what is in the Truth cup. The truth is not influenced by what we believe. We can grunt and moan and believe with all the faith we can muster and not alter religious reality one iota. That indeed is assumed in the very definition of reality. Reality is what is, and is not merely what we think it is or what we want it to be. So what we have placed in our cups cannot in any way change what is in the Truth cup.

2. It is impossible for both of us to be right. How do I know that? Because when I compare what is in my cup with what is in your cup, I see that my cup contains the belief that Christianity is the only true religion and that all others are false religions. Your cup on the other hand contains a belief that says that I am wrong and have no right to be so close-minded. So we see from the start, without even opening the Truth cup, that both of them cannot be correct. They are both mutually exclusive.

3. Both of us could be wrong. Of course, it is possible that neither of our cups matches what is in the Truth cup. In that case, we should both commit to changing what we believe to match the truth when it is revealed to us. Only a fool would hold onto old beliefs that he or she knows don’t match what is in the truth cup.

4. One of us might be correct, and the other wrong. Once again, only a fool would hold onto old beliefs that he or she knows don’t match what is in the truth cup. The loser must either ignore the Truth or accept it by bringing his or her beliefs into alignment with the Truth.

It is possible that you do not agree with these four assertions. If that is the case, the we will place your disagreement in your cup, and I will place these beliefs in mine. We will then compare them to the Truth in the cup beside us.

Now at this point, we should both come back to the reality of the situation and acknowledge a very real problem with our method. After all, we are just pretending. We are sitting at a table in a restaurant and are staring into some cups imagining that we have life’s ultimate answers mixed up in our soda. Finding out who is correct is not so simple as taking the lid off the cup on the table beside us. In reality, the only way we can know the Truth is if somehow it is revealed to us. Revelation is essential. Our choice is to either have it revealed, or live our lives with no confidence whatsoever that we possess the Truth.

The next question for both of us is, "To whom or what will we go for this revelation?" That’s a hard question, isn't it? It must be someone or something that demonstrably, certainly, and absolutely knows what is in the Truth cup and is capable of and willing to reveal it. Either that, or we are left to play the Truth Cup game with that person or thing as well and ultimately must move on to a greater source. Or perhaps we are left to just make stuff up and then place our faith in it as if we knew it were true.

To whom or what will you go to for this revelation? Does this source demonstrably, certainly, and absolutely know what is in the Truth cup? Is this source capable of revealing it? Is this source willing to reveal it? Do you know that you can you trust your source? Or are you placing your faith in made-up stuff? You may not believe that I should trust my source. However, on what grounds do you assert the certainty of your knowledge?

The Christian Religion: All or Nothing

“There is a sense in which spiritual truth is independent of real truth in the Bible for me personally. I can benefit from the spiritual truths of the Bible even if I don’t believe the stories are true. Take Jonah for instance. I admit that I have a difficult time believing that Jonah was swallowed down the gullet of a large fish. But that doesn’t prevent me from valuing the spiritual lessons of the story.”

A friend said these words at a small private gathering one evening a year or so ago. He is a really great guy. Wonderful husband and father, best I can tell. A professor. Very gifted. Intelligent, and keenly aware and respectful of his history in the Reformed Christian tradition. He was baptized into a Presbyterian church as a child, and his father is a well-respected elder at a church and a professor at a local university.

He has said similar things before, revealing a rather loose allegiance to biblical authority for his religion. On another occasion he said, “When we took our vows to join the Presbyterian church, we affirmed that we believe in Jesus for salvation. I don’t think we mean that we necessarily believe everything about the literal Jesus in the Bible, but rather, we believe in ‘spiritual Jesus.’ You know, his teachings about love.”

On both occasions, it was not appropriate for me to challenge him. Religion is a touchy subject among that group of people, and long ago, we agreed to put the subject off limits. But what would I have said to him if it had been appropriate?

I imagine I would have said something like this: “So, that is an interesting perspective. May I ask a question? I have heard you say similar things about the life of Christ. I wonder, are there any miracles that Christ ever did that you might find remotely credible?”

I don’t know for certain, but I think he respects the Christian tradition enough to at least affirm that Christ might have done something miraculous during his lifetime. Perhaps something small. Small and loving. He might, for instance, say something like, “I think Christ must have done something amazing at some point or another. I like the idea of his healing people. He obviously cared for people. I mean, that is the whole point of his life.”

For some reason, people have an easier time accepting that Christ did a few altruistic miracles, or even that he rose from the dead, than some of the more extravagant stories of the Bible. I mean, from the average person’s perspective, Christians would have to admit that there are some pretty unbelievable things in the Bible. Things like a massive flood, the sun moving backward or stopping in the sky, giant fish, Moses and the Red Sea, talking snakes. But a Christianity without an amazing Christ is not a Christianity at all, so I guess that my friend might affirm that Christ did some amazing things, though he probably would question whether the biblical record is entirely accurate in the details. If he would not, “Then at least,” I might think to myself, “he is consistent.”

But if he was willing to affirm anything miraculous about the life of Christ, even the smallest miracle, he would open himself up to a few more questions. Suppose there was a healing. A supernatural fix for someone’s problem by the hand of Christ. Maybe a healed leg or some restored vision. It wouldn’t have to be too amazing. Just a little bit miraculous.

The question that immediately comes to mind is, “what is the difference, to God at least, between a big miracle, and a little one?” If there is a God who some way or another was involved in the making of the universe, he would have to be pretty powerful. The whole “bringing the world into existence” thing is amazing, regardless of whether you accept the details of the biblical account. Why would we believe in a God who could author reality, and if he wanted to, could do a small miracle or two through Jesus Christ, but who could not do something in the mid-range? What is the difference to God in degrees of the miraculous?

What exactly is the nature of the miraculous in the work of Christ? To a powerful Creator, is it any more or less difficult to do a small thing than a big thing? Isn’t the miracle that God reached through the fibers of our reality, into time and space, and meddled in any way, great or small, with the physics of our world? If that is where the miracle truly lies, who is to say that a small miracle is any more believable than a big one? Tinker with a little thing, or slap the globe sideways. What is the difference to God? Why are we more likely to believe the one, but, “No, that whole man-in-a-fish thing, that’s just silly.”

I guess my point is that, if any one thing in the Bible is incredible in the sense of “not believable,” then it all is. Why do some people play the game then? The Bible really is an all-or-nothing book. We have no ground to believe any of it, if we don’t believe all of it. If we believe in God, then why do we doubt anything in the Word of God? And if we doubt anything in the Word of God, why do we even believe in God? If Jonah was not swallowed by a whale, then Christ was just a simple man who lived and died and never did anything worthy of a world religion, least of all, rise from the dead.

I suppose today’s relativists would answer that they like his teaching and his example. A simple “love one another” religion is very attractive. But why do we need Jesus for that? Isn’t it a lot of hassle to work up a whole way of life (or at least go to a weekly church service) around a man that you can’t really trust? You can’t even know that he taught what people say he taught. I think it would just be simpler to let the whole religion thing slide, and just be nice to people. Nevertheless, people will continue with their religion anyway. It may be based upon a work of fiction, something that was made up. But that doesn’t matter . . . does it?

Content of a Personal Letter from Gordon H. Clark

While perusing a book that once belonged to a seminary student of Dr. Gordon H. Clark (1902-1985), I found lodged within its pages two folded letters--one from the student to Clark, and Clark's handwritten three page reply on unlined typing paper. Given Clark's prominent influence in twentieth century Reformed theology, I have reproduced the content of the letter here.

10/28/82

Dear [Redacted],

Your questions remain on the same subject, but they or some of them appear confused. Did you read my exegesis of Eph. 3:9-10 in What Do Presbyterians Believe? Because I am not clear as to the precise point that troubles you—and there are many points in the complicated subject—I shall begin with a very prevalent confusion, but one that seems to me very easy to answer. You ask, Does God condemn man before he decrees the fall? The word before here causes trouble, for it introduces an element of time in a non-temporal situation. Several theologians it is true insist that the problem is logical and not temporal, but then they either follow a temporal order, or as often fail to say what they mean by logical order. Once a person grasps the order, i.e. what the word order means, the problem is easily solved. This I have done in WDPB above.

The importance of logic as distinct from time is found also in the doctrine of the Trinity. Even Gregory of Nyssa, who wrote more on the Trinity than any else ever did, either confused them (sometimes) or thought that everybody else confused them and so [returned ?] again and again instead of completing the doctrine as a whole.

You are right when you say “In the supra’s view, to discriminate comes before the decree to permit the fall.” That is, you are correct except for the word permit. Calvin made it quite clear that there is no such this as permission with God. One who tries to use this idea is sure to be confused, for when it is logically followed, the result is Arminianism or worse.

Rejecting temporal distinctions in God one cannot agree with your wording—which may really express your own position—that “God only looks at one thing at a time and then moves on . . .”

I do not quite see the relevance of your next paragraph on creation. The best I can say is that Genesis seems to say there were three acts of creation, with developments in between.

With respect to the last paragraph on p. 1, I would say that Eph. Is not the only passage that helps this discussion along, though it is, I believe, the clearest expression of God’s motive in creating. But there all sorts [sic] of hints and inferences that must be woven into one complete doctrine.

The lump of clay is of course only an illustration. A potter can make something good or something bad out of it. So also God can make a good man or a bad man, though the literal clay illustration fits a man’s body only. The point of the comparison is that the question of justice cannot be raised against a potter by a lump of clay.

The outline of Romans may help you on your p. 2. Rom 1-3 states the main doctrine of justification and continues with Abraham as an illustration in Rom 4, with comparison between Adam/Christ in Rom. 5. Then comes a major break. No longer expounding the doctrine, Paul takes up two objections (1) antinomianism in chapters 6, 7, 8. (2) his doctrine is inconsistent with the OT, answered in chapters 9, 10, 11. Esau was condemned, not because he had voluntarily committed some sin, but because he was guilty of Adam’s original sin. Jacob was saved, not of course because of any good he did, but because God imputed Christ’s righteousness to him.

Finally you refer to II Peter 5:9. Keep in mind (1) that Peter sent his letters to Christians. He is talking to them and about them (2) In this very sentence he says, “God is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any (of us) should perish.” The verse has nothing whatever to do with universalism.

Now I hope this is of some help, and of you have further questions, send me your next chess moves soon.

Cordially,

G.H. Clark

What Evolutionists Fear Most

Evolution is an intimidating theory. It predominates among scientists all over the world, who marshal swarms of weighty facts and powerful assertions in its support. It has filtered down into common acceptance by laymen through classroom instruction, books, documentaries, TV shows, and casual conversations. It is ubiquitous and unchallenged by all but those who believe in creation.

However, the massive heft of evolutionary theory depends upon one simple presupposition: the God-option must be excluded from the discussion at all costs. For evolution to be true, the God-option must be shoved off the table.

The God-option is excluded by a deceptively simple tactic—limit the discussion to the exclusive realm of science. Science has defined itself as distinct from religion. The God-option is inherently religious, so its proponents do not have a seat at the science table. Intelligent God-option arguments are irrelevant and will never change the course of the discussion, because the God-option does not belong in the discussion. As experts huddle themselves around the table to decide the origin of all things, they come to a haughty consensus by tightening the huddle. No matter how loudly we object, we will be ignored. The God-option is not, under any circumstances, a legitimate option.

If the God-option is excluded, what can the evolutionists conclude? They must propose that life originated through natural processes. They have no choice. They have limited themselves through the arrogance of their own self-definition. They must therefore marshal their arguments as powerfully as their limitations allow. The full weight of their expertise, education, experience, and intellect is thrust behind the only conclusion they can possibly derive.

As long as Christians fail to recognize this simple fact, evolution will continue to be intimidating and will claim the faith of those who give in to its weight. If God created everything, there is no fact of science that is outside the scope of his domain. If He created everything, no aspect of evolutionary theory is truly intimidating. As Van Til said, “there are not because there cannot be other than God-interpreted facts.” God’s creation cannot undermine itself. God has not proved Himself wrong by means of science. Scientists have instead left God out of the picture, limited themselves to their wild imaginations, and must desperately cling to their conclusions as a result. If they do not, they must fearfully face what they do not dare—the God who made them.