Sorry if this doesn't go with a bang

1.  What is wrong with the theory of evolution from a scientific basis of view? 

Well let's see the validity of this.

Nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 natural elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order.

Yep, perfectly scientific, can't see any problem with that, clearly. 

 Does 'theistic evolution' mitigate any of these difficulties?

No it is a fudge at best. It rejects sound reading of scripture, and follows bad science. There are no winners with it. 

2.  What are some of the 'evil fruits' that the theory of evolution has produced? 

To be brief, it denies the scientific basis of a young earth,also it eliminates the veracity of Genesis 1-11, which in turn destroys Romans 5.12-14. Let alone the six days of the  creation, the basis of the sabbath. The rank decline of morality if you take natural selection to its logical extent. (If it benefits me, then boo to you, I can take it, wreck it, defile it etc)

3.  What potential does the theory of evolution have to affect: 

a. one's view of self?

If I am an animal then why not treat everyone as one. I am not in the image of God. I can kill the unborn without remorse. And if life 'goes wrong' why continue living, if I am a chance event by random processes.

b. a person's world view?

Loyalty is not important, either to my spouse, as I am to keep my genes going, or society, as might is right and I must force my agenda, and if you resist me that's your problem not mine.

4.  Where is the theory of evolution (including 'theistic evolution') in clear contradiction to Scripture?

That we are not 'wonderfully and fearfully made', nor 'knit together in my mother's womb'. As before with Genesis 1.1-11, and Romans 5. As far as theistic evolution, what a impotent God we have, as He is contingent on a process like evolution.

5.  We hear it said that 'theistic evolution' is 'bad theology'.  What does this mean, and is it true? What might motivate a 'Christian' to make this compromise?

Creation is today's brief

Again they want us to be brief, can it be done with a topic that takes up whole websites, and own degree courses. But here goes, with this week's questions:

1.  What is wrong with the theory of evolution from a scientific by of view?  Does 'theistic evolution' mitigate any of these difficulties?

2.  What are some of the 'evil fruits' that the theory of evolution has produced? 

3.  What potential does the theory of evolution have to affect: 

a. one's view of self?

b. a person's world view?

4.  Where is the theory of evolution (including 'theistic evolution') in clear contradiction to Scripture?

5.  We hear it said that 'theistic evolution' is 'bad theology'.  What does this mean, and is it true? What might motivate a 'Christian' to make this compromise?

Briefly, at first

1.  from Jonathan:   I've heard many people say after something has not happened: "It wasn't meant to be". Is this really true? Was it not meant to be? Or on the flip too, when people say; "It was obviously meant to be".  I'm not sure how to answer people who ask me about fate and destiny.

First off, fatalism, the stance that our lives are beforehand set in stone, is not set in stone, or God repenting of the destruction of Nineveh in the book of Jonah, based on the contrition of the Ninevehites would not have happened. 

If what we do has no effect then that raises the questions of why pray, why preach if people will or will not believe is already determined. 

There is destiny, and that is the consequences of our actions, whether for good or for ill.

2.  from David: Could a congregation Biblically justify setting parameters by which "membership" is determined?  For example, someone decides one Sunday to worship with a particular congregation. After a few weeks, the elders of the church speak to this person and it is determined that they have already obeyed the gospel as God has commanded. The person expresses their intentions to worship with that congregation for the foreseeable future.  When should that person be considered a member? Immediately? Should there be specific parameters set other than obedience to the gospel? Should the elders meet to decide to let this person claim membership? 

Well according to Acts 2:41 the 3,000 saved there were added to their number, and that was immediate. With that they did what was laid out in the remains of the chapter. So if they are able to worship there, by that I'm assuming taking part in the Lord's Supper, then are they not a part of the church there. If they have 'devoted themselves' to that assembly then what is restricting them from being 'members'. Now parameters for being able to partake of the Lord's Supper is another question.

3.  from Steve: 

a. Is it sinful for women to cut their hair (based upon 1 Corinthians 11)

It is according to that scripture a disgrace, certainly, but sin? Well according to James, if someone knows what us good and does it not, to them it is sin. So is long hair a good thing, it was in that culture a sign of subordination. So I think it would be fair to say having the right view of biblical authority is what this is about. Right headship is key, and if that is lived out then length of hair is less so. But short hair may be a sign to check your attitude, if the woman is above the man, could that be the sin. 

b. Is it sinful to have Bible classes

Is it wrong to discuss the Bible in people's homes, as long as what is being taught is in line with sound doctrine, surely not. But the elders should be informed so they can refute if anything is taught in error. On a side point, if a bible class sinful, then is discussing it on a online bible study unsinful.

4.  from Bob: What should be used to define "worship"?  Could some, or all, of the '5 acts of worship' be omitted and the even still be called worship?  Does worship only happen on Sunday, or can it be other times?  Some use the Wednesday night Bible study as an example of worship that incorporates on some of the '5 acts'.

Worship: Homage rendered to God which it is sinful (idolatry) to render to any created being (Ex. 34:14; Isa. 2:8). Such worship was refused by Peter (Acts 10:25, 26) and by an angel (Rev. 22:8, 9). (Easton's Bible Dictionary)

Technically yes you can worship without all five, are you really going to say it is not a worship meeting if the collection bag is not passed round, for example. But can you imagine a worship meeting without one of them. I guess it's like baking a cake can be done without sugar, but don't ask me to eat it.

As to Sunday, I'll let you debate the meaning of Romans 14:5-6.

5.  from Deborah: In Acts 22:4 Paul says he persecuted "this way".  Is this where "The Way" church came from?  At what point did the word 'way' change from a direction (adverb) to a proper noun?

ὁδός the Greek word for way here, is road, or means of travel. So wasn't and can't be a verb. As a noun is a big jump to make it a proper noun. As to 'The Way' church, I have never heard of them. The name of who they meet to is what matters not the name of your church. 

A mixed pot of questions

Tonight is a various listener's question episode, so there will be a variety on discussion. So any thoughts about these questions feel free to leave in the comments. We have been asked to make our responses brief, so later I will do two posts, one as I will send, then one with much fuller answers. 

So here are the questions:

1.  from Jonathan:   I've heard many people say after something has not happened: "It wasn't meant to be". Is this really true? Was it not meant to be? Or on the flip too, when people say; "It was obviously meant to be".  I'm not sure how to answer people who ask me about fate and destiny.

2.  from David: Could a congregation Biblically justify setting parameters by which "membership" is determined?  For example, someone decides one Sunday to worship with a particular congregation. After a few weeks, the elders of the church speak to this person and it is determined that they have already obeyed the gospel as God has commanded. The person expresses their intentions to worship with that congregation for the foreseeable future.  When should that person be considered a member? Immediately? Should there be specific parameters set other than obedience to the gospel? Should the elders meet to decide to let this person claim membership? 

3.  from Steve: 

a. Is it sinful for women to cut their hair (based upon 1 Corinthians 11)

b. Is it sinful to have Bible classes

4.  from Bob: What should be used to define "worship"?  Could some, or all, of the '5 acts of worship' be omitted and the even still be called worship?  Does worship only happen on Sunday, or can it be other times?  Some use the Wednesday night Bible study as an example of worship that incorporates on some of the '5 acts'.

5.  from Deborah: In Acts 22:4 Paul says he persecuted "this way".  Is this where "The Way" church came from?  At what point did the word 'way' change from a direction (adverb) to a proper noun?

Know a story and the truth of it.

This may well at time descend into me ranting as I walked out on this film, and knowing that you, members of the Church of Christ refrain from watching 'r' rated films and it is '12' here the lowest of the limited certificates but limited all the same, so I don't know how informed this debate will be.  

1.  What misrepresentations of the Biblical account does the movie make?

Well when the filmmaker calls it 'the least biblical 'biblical film' ever', should we be surprised that a 'jew' obsessed with kabbalism, (his film 'Pi' was crammed full of it), and a cast who at best has someone who is 'spiritual but not religious' (Emma Watson), what did we expect other than a complete rehashing of the narrative.

So where did it go wrong, in the bible God only speaks, whereas the film, who only refers to Him as 'Creator' for woe betide it to use the 'G' word, He never speaks but has Noah do a load of talking when he is silent in the narrative, (I guess Russell has to earn his money eh!)

What is with the fallen angel rock monsters helping to build the Ark, or that only one wife got on board, oh and she's barren, and a relative of Cain getting on, living off the animals as he goes. 

There is this wierd talisman thing they do with snakeskin which is wrapped around the arm, admittedly according to tradition used during the Exodus, but this is years, if not centuries before. It surely can't mean that the serpent was the good guy in the garden.

Oh how true is Isaiah 5:20. 

Worse of all is the huge implication that God used the 'Big Bang' and evolution, and that nature is supreme, much more worthy than human life. Both the exact opposite of the biblical position. 

I'm sure there are more but I left the film without seeing anymore. To say it was off and missed the target, would be the same as me hitting the corner flag from the penalty spot and saying oops I missed that a bit. (Sorry for the soccer analogy)

2.  What should be the Christian's response to a movie like this?

Depends on your view of blasphemy, but I would say it's blasphemous. By that I am defining it as saying 'This is what God says' when He says nothing of the sort and even the opposite at times. And this can happen from pulpits to, as scriptures are ripped from their context and given any meaning they like, and saying it's from God. 

We are to deal with truth, we are to know it, and study it to show ourselves as men who not need to be ashamed. 

Should Christians view the movie?  

Alas I regret giving the film makers my tenner, that will encourage them to make more of these travesties. Along with 'The Bible' miniseries, and the subsequent 'Son of God' movie. Both completely abhorrent in their 'use' of Scripture, it alarms me with those just happy that their story is being put on the Big Screen, unaware that it is confusing people, not informing people as to the real story. So we need to know the real to point out the flaws of the fake out there. 

Is it wrong for a Christian to view the movie?

Yes, but how can you critique something you have no knowledge of. That is the problem we have. Of course if it so ungodly it can go without viewing. I know without seeing it that The Exorcist is not going to have any biblical truth in it without watching it, but with Bruce Almighty for example there is untruth but without the absolute bombardment on my conscience from all sides. 

Pray before you go, and eat the meat but spit the bones, alas Noah was a virtually just bones, though the Ark is accurate but little else is. 

3.  What potential harm does the movie cause?

As pointed out before it is misguiding people from the real story. 

Make them think that God is not as strong and needs 'nature's' help. Or is cruel enough to want little children killed. 

Or that who cares what the Bible says aren't we after a good story with maybe a life enhancing moral attached. (And so onto the next question.)

4.  Is the Biblical account to be trusted, or, is it simply a "big story" that has been told for years?  If it is to be trusted, how do you know?

Yes there are over 500 Flood 'legends' from all over the world, many having similarities with the Genesis account. The ark and its dimensions I discussed in the Nye debate answers, which I am glad to repeat again if needed but suffice to say if comfortably would house all the animals, would be able to hold up to the task it was built for. 

If it is not true and we evolved millions of years ago. Surely population increase being as it is how are there only 8billion people now. 

The fossil record, the occurrence of sedimentary rock on every continent, which is formed in water is proof to its world wide nature.

But going back to the other tales, like the film, some say it is to wipe out the troublesome humans disturbing the sleep of the gods, rather than the righteous judgment of God for sin, and the saving of a family but His grace. 

No ah! Controversy.

So its time to put our boot in to the film that has already took quite a good kicking already, Noah. Or judging by the poster Gladiator in the Rain. 

So here are the questions, and I hope they get on to the last as soon as they can.

1.  What misrepresentations of the Biblical account does the movie make?

2.  What should be the Christian's response to a movie like this?  Should Christians view the movie?  Is it wrong for a Christian to view the movie?

3.  What potential harm does the movie cause?

4.  Is the Biblical account to be trusted, or, is it simply a "big story" that has been told for years?  If it is to be trusted, how do you know?

Feel free to leave your responses and thoughts about them in the comments section

Take 2, this should do I hope.

How a) do you explain, and b) what modern application might you make concerning: 

1. The parable of the unjust steward (Luke 16:1-9)

A) The steward's shrewdness was commended here not his dishonesty, he knew he couldn't change his past so looked to change his future. He wasn't classed as good as he was still called one of the children of the world. But the children of the light are to learn from this

B) Just as the world will use opportunities to their best interest, we should use opportunities for His best interest. Lets not let any word fall to the ground, when we could have witnessed for Him. Or walked by when we could have helped a fellow believer in distress. Rushed by without committing the situation to prayer. Chose to read the paper, or watched the tube when we could have hid His Word in our heart. 

2. The case of the 'unidentified exorcist' (Mark 9:38-40)

A) The disciples were not the only ones who could do God's work. 

B) Yes you may well have the truth amongst you, but don't be so dogmatic to say that no-one in this group can possibly be of Christ, maybe they haven't got the strength to leave them yet, maybe God is able to act in ways that are mysterious to you. He knows who are His, and those who aren't will be told to depart from him, that is His judgment call to do not yours. 

3. The reference to David and the showbread (Matthew 12:1-8)

A) Jesus' point here was that the Sabbath law was for our benefit, not to be a burden. It's a day for rest and joy, not fear and restriction. 

B) He later quotes Hosea 6:6 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice'. Show love to people not get your clipboard out to see where, on your list, they've gone wrong. By all means, present them with God's word, not your tradition, to convict them of their wrong practice but then point them to the cross, where all offence is dealt with justly. He is the judge not you, let Him do His work. 

4. The time when He 'could there do no might work' (Mark 6:1-5)

A) Remember He had been there a year before and was rejected, even evicted from the synagogue after reading Isaiah, so He was being gracious in allowing them another opportunity to hear His words. 

Do not ignore that he 'lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them.' Jesus has all power, but he does teach later in .11 if a place refuses to listen to you shake the dust off and move on elsewhere. 

B) Christ will not work in the hearts of those who will, that's will, not believe. To continue to strive you could well be casting your pearls before swine. Pray for them, but then move on to people who are open. 

5. His instruction to 'eat His flesh, and drink His blood' (John 6:53-56)

A) We are in order to obtain eternal life, we must receive Christ through faith, faith in the life lived pictured by the bread, and the forgiveness of sin purchased at His death pictured in the water of life shown before in the Woman at the Well story, (possibly alluding to baptism if you take that view). Also He compared the words He spoke in .63 to that of spirit and life. 

B) Just we can't live without bread, we can't expect to live eternally without faith in Him or the forgiveness he provided. And we can't live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. 

6. The requirement to hate one's family (Luke 14;26)

A) It is a statement of comparison even hyperbole, our love of them is deemed as hatred when compared to the love we have for God, also note that in the parallel passage in John (12:25) it is your life that you are to hate, and clearly we don't hate that or else the statement to 'love your neighbour as yourself', would make no sense for if we do hate our life we are to hate the neighbour to, which is ridiculous.  

B) We are to have a right view of our life, that the one we live for Him is what matters, the Godly eternal life is incomparably more important than this earthly temporal one, as is the relationships we have too. 

7. His teaching about 'foot washing' (John 13:4-15)

A) He was illustrating His teaching, by acting as a servant, in this case washing their feet. A task assigned only to a slave, or sometimes done out of love, such as in a wife doing it for her husband or a child doing so for their parent. 

B) We should back up what we teach/believe/confess with action, in this case, as in Phil. 2:3 'we should esteem each other better than ourselves' and so looking for how we can minister to each other. Also He washed us with the work of the cross, and we can wash each other by the application of His Word into each others lives. (Eph 5:26)

8. His preaching to 'spirits in prison' (1 Peter 3:18-20)

A) To preach used here, is to announce as a herald or proclaim, not the preaching of the gospel as used in 1.12 or 4.6. We are not told what was told to these 'imprisoned spirits' but it was not a message or redemption, it was I offer a declaration of victory that He had over satan and death. Much like Colossians 2:15 'And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

B) So to steal words from a hymn, 'Forbid it Lord that I should boast, save in the cross of Christ my God, all the vain things that charm me most, I sacrifice them to His cross'. We only have this life to witness for Him, after they are gone it is too late, so let them know the hope that is within us, before it is too late. Eternity is too long a time to leave people with the wrong answer. 

More about troublesome Jesus quotes

This weeks discussion continues on about what critics or skeptics say are troublesome things that are in the gospel narratives. So here are the questions. 

How do you explain, and what modern application might you make concerning:

1. The parable of the unjust steward (Luke 16:1-9)

2. The case of the 'unidentified exorcist' (Mark 9:38-40)

3. The reference to David and the showbread (Matthew 12:1-8)

4. The time when He 'could there do no might work' (Mark 6:1-5)

5. His instruction to 'eat His flesh, and drink His blood' (John 6:53-56)

6. The requirement to hate one's family (Luke 14;26)

7. His teaching about 'foot washing' (John 13:4-15)

8. His preaching to 'spirits in prison' (1 Peter 3:18-20)