I don’t often share links in this space, but I’ve got three that I shared on social media today that are definitely worth passing on here too:
January/February 2020 Reformed Perspective
If you’re not familiar with it, this is a great Reformed magazine and it’s available as a free download.
Church Should Be Your Excuse for Missing Everything Else
Regular habitual church attendance is essential for spiritual health. As the author says:
…the reality is that I have never known a casual attendee to thrive in any meaningful capacity. I have yet to meet another pastor/elder that can testify to the exemplary faith of the professing Christian who abdicates regular church attendance. I have witnessed seasons of growth from them, yet I have simultaneously witnessed a stunted growth because invariably, they are sporadically absent from the ordinary means God has given them for their maturity, encouragement, and perseverance in the Christian faith. More often than this stunted growth though is no growth at all, or worse, a “back-sliding” of sorts.
Jesus Devastates an Old-Earth
When it comes to the age of the earth and similar issues, why don’t we just listen to our Lord Jesus? After all, he was there “at the beginning.” He knows what he’s talking about.
“Several years ago the respected evangelical leader Francis Schaeffer used the example of a watershed in the Swiss Alps to illustrate what happens when some Christians begin to abandon the complete truthfulness of the Bible in places where it speaks to matters of history and science. When spring comes, two bits of snow that are only an inch apart in the high mountains of Switzerland will melt on two sides of a ridge in the rock, and the drop of water from one side of the watershed will eventually flow into the Rhine River and then into the cold waters of the North Sea, while the drop of water on the other side of the watershed will eventually flow into the Rhone River and finally into the Mediterranean Sea. In the same way, Christians who seem so close together on many issues, if they differ on the watershed issue of biblical inerrancy, will in the next generation or two train up disciples who will be a thousand miles apart from each other on many of the most central matters taught in the Bible.”
~ Wayne Grudem, “Theistic Evolution Undermines Twelve Creation Events and Several Crucial Christian Doctrines,” in Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique (ed. by Moreland, Meyer, Shaw, Gauger, Grudem), p.822.
Some time ago an English magazine published in the Netherlands included an article by Dr. J. Van Bruggen entitled, “The Blind Man Sat Down by the Road and Cried…” The magazine, Lux Mundi, is an official publication of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, specifically from their Committee for Contact with Foreign Churches (BBK). In this article, Dr. Van Bruggen discussed the conflict between what some scientists are concluding and what Scripture says. Dr. John Byl has penned a helpful response which you can find here.
As most readers know, I’m also involved in another blog, a cooperative venture entitled Creation Without Compromise. That blog was the brainchild of Dr. Ted Van Raalte — together with Rev. Jim Witteveen and Jon Dykstra, we seek to “promote a biblical understanding of origins.” Since its inception, Creation Without Compromise has published several significant pieces addressing the challenges we face in upholding the biblical doctrine of creation. Some of the best ones, in my view, are collected on this page. Last week, Dr. Van Raalte began a series that has long been in the works, one that likely contains the most important material we’ve published so far. A number of years ago, Tim Keller wrote his “White Paper” for BioLogos. In case you’re not familiar with it, BioLogos is one of the foremost promoters of a synthesis between creation and evolution. Keller’s paper has been influential and is therefore worthy of a closer look. Does it stand up to biblical scrutiny? Does Keller present a good model for reconciling Scripture with the conclusions of so many scientists regarding origins?
Part One of Dr. Van Raalte’s critique can be found here.
Part Two is found by clicking here.