Now Available in Summary form “THE CREATION HYPOTHESIS” Editor J.P. Moreland


In  The Creation Hypothesis_  J.P. Moreland and others  argue for the possibility of an intelligent designer as an alternative to Darwinian evolution concerning the question of origins.

The apologetic value of the book, other than the extensive bibliographies at the end of each chapter, is the scientific evidence that argues strongly on behalf of an intelligent designer and as such, it seems to be a useful tool for dialogue with naturalistic skeptics.

Moreover, it’s also a much needed tool to educate the church who have unwittingly swallowed a naturalistic worldview, and as such, have crippled many in their respective vocations (be it biology, education, law, philosophy, etc.) to letting their light shine for Christ


Reflections From 1 Corinthians Chapter 5: HOW IS ADULTERY AN EXPRESSION OF ARROGANCE RATHER THAN LOVE? (Vvs.1-5)



When it comes to any subject today, we either ground it ultimately on the creature or the Creator.  That is, someone’s “world-view” finally influences the way what is true, beautiful, and good is determined.  Today, the “same-sex marriage” is a case in point.  Two contradictory views are affirmed with this idea.  It boldly denies design on the one hand (i.e., marriage is what I the creature say it is a-la-moral relativism) but simultaneously invokes an immaterial “ought” of live and let live with those that disagree with said position.  This is problematic so I’ll try to explain.

First, “same-sex marriage” affirms that there’s no ultimate design to marriage, thus we make of it what the creature says and by implication affirm naturalism/materialsim which holds that human beings are nothing more than a body, not a mind/soul.  If humans are merely physical entities, than we have no meaning in life, since meaning is not physical, but immaterial.

Second, if one opposes the “same-sex marriage” position, they are labeled as haters, bigots, non-progressive idiots, etc.  The situation now slides into the world of “ought” of right and wrong, the immaterial world from where meaning comes.  Here in is the dilemma, on the one hand naturalism (i.e., physicalism) is affirmed which opposes any notion of mind, spirit, etcetera and simultaneously there’s the affirmation of an immaterial reality, which affirms humans are both mind and body (i.e., dualism, or substance dualism).  Whenever a contradiction arises, as in this case, we know there’s a falsehood and the “buyer” should beware.

In this world of ideas precious human beings are entangled, this is the field where life is lived and rules have far reaching consequences.  For example, naturalism affirms that there’s no God or gods, no design, and our existence is accidental and thus purposeless.  It’s the worldview that supports Darwinian evolutionary thought and the perch on which atheism rests.  If this is true why all the fuss over whether or not there’s any agreement over someone’s sexual orientation?

Again, there’s Monism which affirms among other things that everything is one, mind is core, distinctions are eradicated, and life is essentially illusory or “maya”.  This is the worldview under which Buddhism and much of Hinduism exists.  If this existence is illusory, then our experiences are essentially meaningless.  If this is true why all the fuss over whether or not there’s any agreement over someone’s sexual orientation?

Then there’s monotheism and specifically Christian Trinitarian theism that affirms a designer “God” the creator, sustainer, and author of life who grounds the meaning of what is good, beautiful and true.  This worldview affirms the physical and immaterial, it understands that we are body and soul, and it also affirms the world of “ought” of what is right and wrong, all of which are based on the Creator, not the creature.   If this is true, then all the fuss over whether or not there’s any agreement over someone’s sexual orientation is warranted.

I say these things because from the biblical standpoint, love is grounded in the Creator, never the creature.  Thus, the designer determines what real love is, not a culture that is seriously broken because of its arrogance.

In Paul’s day, he had to deal with a similar issue of making the creature the measure of all things and by default the Creator is pushed aside, slighted, minimized, scorned and belittled by the creature’s “arrogance” “pride”.  This human trait sets itself up against God, becomes his judge, and shamelessly spits on the brow of He who gives us life.  Consider what the apostle says:

“It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst. For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.”

Like Israel, the Corinthian church had crossed a line of sexual immorality that even the pagans (i.e., Gentiles) in their day would not, that is, a son had sexual relations with his fathers’ wife.  This could be a step-mother or actual, the text does not say.  The moral compass here is shattered as God’s design of sexuality is ignored and shamefully the church did nothing.

The church failed to discipline the perpetrators and thus allowed the situation to continue.  Paul says this is a lamentable occasion fueled by the Corinthians apathy caused by their pride.  This is a recurring theme in the first letter where false knowledge actually produces death in the practitioners, not life.  And this false knowledge (i.e., which is contra Christ, the gospel, and held to be true), is fueled by human pride.

Church discipline while painful to receive and weighty to administer is absolutely necessary for the health of the church, the individuals involved in the transgression, and mostly God’s honor and glory.  Several thoughts to consider:

First, the text does not say whether or not the father is alive when this act occurred, but for Paul (i.e., God’s authoritative spokesman) it seems to not matter because he passed judgment on the action and ordered the man to be removed from the assembly.  This stroke of discipline illustrates the urgency needed to act on behalf of the transgressor, for the sin reveals the grave rift that obtains between he and God.

Second, not only is the man to be removed from the local church, his body is to be “delivered over to Satan” for the destruction of his flesh (v.5), this is severe, yet the purpose has final salvation in view, not momentary grief.  The “flesh” is what needs to be destroyed so that his spirit may be saved.

Does he mean by “flesh” his sinful nature as in other places in Paul’s writings, or his physical body, or perhaps both his body and sinful nature?  It seems that it’s his body which is what Satan is to work on destroying so that he won’t be lost.  Perhaps this may be akin to the pummeling Job received from Satan.  The difference though is that Job was a humble upright and righteous man, whereas this man is immoral revealed by his arrogance and wickedness.  What we today take so lightly and as a right of self-expression Paul’s attitude is that it will damn the perpetrator, sexual immorality is lethal to the soul.

Third, Paul says that he has “decided to deliver” this man to Satan, but how is that accomplished?  Is this something only the apostle has the authority to do or for the church as well?  Contextually, I would say the latter not the former.  Could it be that ex-communicating someone from the church actually makes them vulnerable to Satanic attack and destruction?  Sometimes it seems to be the case.

This hearkens back to Romans chapter 1 where God gave over rebellious mankind to their lusts and passions because they exchanged the truth of God’s glory as Creator for a lie and worshipped the creature instead.  This state of affairs came from humanity’s futile speculations which darkened their hearts evidenced in this church goers adultery with his mother.  It’s not according to God’s design, but a perversion of His good gifts.

Fourth, note that this discipline is to be done in Paul’s absence and in the power and name of the Lord Jesus Christ.  This is a sobering solemn act, not one where song and rejoicing is expressed.  It is Jesus who is brought to center attention since it’s His church which He has purchased with his blood and is continuously building.

We have here a model for church discipline done by the church, the Body of Christ Jesus, so that the Head of the Body (Christ Jesus) may be honored through His people’s holiness, rather than ravaged by its wickedness.

It’s not loving to commit adultery but arrogant because its contra God’s design and plan for human flourishing.  What we believe is either grounded on what the Creator has revealed or what the creature says.  Thus, if God has spoken, how then shall we live?


WHAT’S THE BIG IDEA? “Why Black Lives Can’t Matter…If…” PART 1


We humans share many things in common; we desire to be loved and accepted for who we are not what we can do; we long for happiness and fulfillment; we don’t like it when people mistreat us; we dislike it when people lie to us; we all try to make sense out of reality as we know it.  These dearly held notions are mainly communicated through words.

The “Black Lives Matter” notion is a case in point.  The desire to communicate that “we matter” can be put “our lives have meaning” and we should thus be treated a certain way.  But whether or not that’s actually true depends on the worldview held.

For example, if naturalism is true (a la Atheism), and humans are merely material entities without an immaterial soul, an accident of macro-evolution where there’s no design, purpose or meaning, then “Black Lives” actually don’t matter.  This is true for at least two reasons; first, “meaning” is not something physical—it can’t be tasted, seen, smelled, heard, or touched, but its’ effects (which are immaterial) are constantly seen in the physical world.  Secondly, the basis of naturalism is that there is no “mind”, no “design”, no “better”, no “progress” but “eternal matter that just is”.

According to the this worldview, humans are simply born, live out their meaningless lives, and then die, never to be remembered, cherished or loved again.  It’s a cold reality.  Thus if this position is true, “Black lives can’t matter”.

Another example comes from nihilism (naturalism’s child) which reduces all of life to chance plus matter plus time.  This means that human decisions are matter in motion and are thus determined.  This means that human choices are not significant, but a mere illusion.  The reason is because what seems to be “our decisions” is actually, impersonal, mechanistic matter in motion.  According to this worldview, those in favor of or against “Black lives matter” have no choice in the matter, but are simply determined to one “view” or another.  Thus if this position is true, then really “Black lives can’t matter”.

Still another example is pantheistic monism (a la Buddhism and certain branches of Hinduism), which among other things teaches that the individual is part of the oneness of the universe, that life is illusory and thus “individuality” is not real, but a fantasy.  Trying to get meaning from this position is an exercise in futility.  Ironically, many Westerners have looked to the East for its wisdom and insight on reality, except that at its core, there’s a denial of reality.  According to this worldview, there’s no real “Black lives that matter” because that whole notion too is an illusion.  Thus, if this position is true, “Black lives can’t matter”.

Yet another example is moral relativism (a la the University), which among other things is the self-refuting position that there’s no such thing as absolute truth (i.e. correspondence view of truth) and “we know this to be absolutely true”.  That is, the basis for reality is not any higher power, God, etc., but the individual who creates what is true and right for herself/himself.

If this worldview is true, then “Black Lives can’t matter” for it means that we can’t tell anyone that they are wrong because the individual decides; we can’t complain about the problem of evil because the individual decides; we can’t blame or praise anyone for deeds they’ve performed because the individual decides; we can’t object to injustice because the individual decides; we can’t improve on our morality because the individual decides; we can’t have meaningful moral discussions nor demand tolerance from the opposition because the individual decides.

The “Black Lives Matter” position under this worldview is incoherent at best and diabolical at worst.  Under this self-refuting worldview, “Black lives can’t matter”.

In contradistinction to the aforesaid, theism (a la Judaism or Christianity) holds that the universe—contra naturalism—is not a closed system but one that is open.  This means that both divine and human decisions significantly shape the present and the future.  Moreover, in a theistic world human beings are not chance accidents or illusory entities—contra nihilism and pantheistic monism—but created in God’s image and likeness with the purpose to reflect the wonder of the Creator unlike any other creature.  And in opposition to moral relativism, theism grounds all truth and morality in the Creator not the fading whims of the creature.

Only in a theistic worldview can one coherently and rationally argue that “Black lives matter”.  For if the God of Scripture (I.e., The Law, Prophets, & Writings, and the New Testament) actually exists, not only do Black lives matter, but every life matters.  The reason is because human meaning under this worldview comes from the Self-existent, Eternal, All-wise, All-powerful, All-knowing God who came near to us in the person of His Son, Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

And I would further say that only from this theistic worldview can emotions rightly and compassionately be expressed, because they are rationally based on the God who is there, the One to whom all humanity will give account for their lives—which indeed matter.


Summary of Chapter 4: THE SILENCE OF FINITE SPACE—NATURALISM (Pgs.52-73)


            According to Sire, Deism is the isthmus between theism and naturalism.  Naturalism affirms that matter is eternal, God does not exist, and the cosmos is in a closed system (I.e., no outside forces can interfere with nature like a “miracle”).  Humans are thus nothing more than complex machines in a “monistic” framework of matter and when death beckons, human identity is forever extinguished.  This position also removes meaning from history (really all of life) and many turn to nihilism (I.e., life is meaningless) as a result.

What ends up happening, is that people become the architects of what meaning in life is; not some extrinsic being.  When this occurs, human beings are the measure of all things, thus ethics and truth become relativized and living out the implications of said state of affairs creates many inconsistencies and practical contradictions such that what is, ought to be.

As architects of what determines meaning, naturalism’s child “secular humanism” affirms human value from a physicalist worldview, but the problem is that one does not get values from the physical world; it comes from an immaterial reality.  Sadly, this problem of contradiction is ignored.

There’s also Marxism, which Sire affirms comes in varied forms be it a democratic or a totalitarian packaged worldview.  Marxism considers the meaning of life from an economic locus where people are mere subjects of their environment (Influenced by philosophers Hegel and Feuerbach).  Marxism’s goal for history is utopian, its’ atheism is reductionist, it loathes capitalism, it fails to factor in human sin, and considers the redistribution of wealth as a virtue.

The fact is humanity is much more than a brain and the desire for meaning and purpose is a relentless issue in life that always pricks the human soul.  Despite its many metaphysical, epistemological and ethical problems, naturalism holds sway for many because it’s viewed as objective and without bias, for it’s always looking for the truth with no “axe to grind”.