Take a look:


Out Of the Treasure of His Heart Tyson Fury Speaks

What do you care about? What drives you? What are you hungry for?

It’s easy to discover your heart, get very drunk. Drunks who I have met thus far over the festive season have exposed insecurity, frustrations and a self destructive nature.

Oh, you don’t want to get drunk! That’s an encouraging sign. You’ll have to adopt a different test. Where do you go to first to stimulate your senses? Is it current affairs, luxuries, social media? What motivated where you invested your time treasure and talent today?

Was it to repay a debt you furnished yourself with for the convenience of a decent car? Was it to accrue the funds to take a holiday where you can indulge your desire for sun, or maybe one of those annual gatherings of nominal Christian like New Wine? Maybe you’re are concerned for your dotage?

Tyson Fury seems to have invested his considerable time treasure and talent to the service of the Lord. Seeing as Jesus Christ, as the author of life itself, provides him the talents to box Tyson is simply doing what is wise.

What about you?






Dear Reader.
Let’s settle our terms. An unbeliever is one who denies the sufficiency of Christ’s atoning sacrifice at Calvary. He is one who adds anything to that finished work, be it false religion, piety, supposedly efficacious sacraments, worldly philosophy or some competing ideology.

The unbeliever knows much, yet as I illustrated in my last post, embraces absurdity. For example, the adulterous husband knows his actions are a cruel betrayal of trust. His behaviour is contrary to a reasoned application of what is honourable and dignified. It matters not if by some perversion his spouse knows or even endorses his deviance, it contravenes God’s divine purpose for marriage. So why, you might ask, would one commit adultery by embracing a degree of physical or even intellectual intimacy which is the preserve of a husband and wife? It is because we ‘choose’ to believe that which is contrary to God’s law,  Romans 1:21, For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. We succumb to short term pleasures, and sacrifice long term satisfaction because we’ve believed the lie.

There are few adulterers who when caught don’t speak of regret, shame, or not thinking clearly. There’s often blame and excuses. But these are temporal for so often they return to lustful thoughts, inappropriate language, and even physical intimacy: 2 Peter 2:22 What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.”

This is the evidence of mankind left in our natural state. We do what we know is wrong, that which is self-destructive, and cruel to those we’ve professed we love! Romans 7:24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? You’ve been taught to believe you are a purposeless, bag of molecules; stardust floating in space with no greater purpose than what you design in your imagination. You’re an output of an evolutionary process that never had you in mind. A pitiless, heartless, naturalistic system where love is nothing more than self gratifying chemical reactions, it doesn’t really exist, and you will die, rot, and be none the wiser.

How convenient for you. Choose to believe you are an animal, no moral, or for that matter logical absolutes and you’re free to behave how you want. Trouble is the bible tells you that’s how you’d behave. You’re a wretched Son or daughter of Adam whose hatred of Christ is manifest in your rejection of His very real bodily, physical sacrifice for the very sinners who despise Him:

Isaiah 53:3
He was despised and rejected by men;
a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

I present in my blog not an opinion, a sophisticated argument or great theology but Christ alone. Please wrestle with these eternal truths for your opinion, preferences and proclivities are leading you to the very place you deny exists. However, apart from believing in Christ, putting your faith in Him, your sincere convictions and the reality of hell will collide on the day you die.

The more time one spends time on the streets engaging with unbelievers the clearer the bible becomes. Folks cling to these firm convictions that their life, the universe, and events are ungoverned and unguided but then live in a contrary manner. They act as moral, intellectual and compassionate agents while denying the God they know exists. They stretch the boundaries of credulity further by claiming they don’t deny God but find HIm unproven. Given that God says clearly in His word that we have all the evidence we need, Romans 1:18, you have to ask, “what evidence would satisfy you that God exists?”

The Bible says that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, fools despise wisdom and knowledge. We do not live in an arbitrary universe governed by luck. Every turn of the dice is governed by invariant, immaterial and universal laws of physics. We then understand these turns of the dice by applying invariant, immaterial and universal laws of logic. Nature cannot of its own accord create nature, and neither can information produce information from nowhere, for if that were the case there would be no information anywhere, and no universe. It is absurd to imagine that you can have a creation without a creator, and yet, people cling to absurd worldviews; We’ve met them on this blog.

So what’s to be done? Preach the gospel. Jesus Christ did not only come to save souls, he also came to save reason. Our aim as Christians is awaken people’s conscience, and to encourage them to stop suppressing what they know to be true. It’s not even as if they will have an excuse when they die, Romans 1:20. I have yet to hear a coherent explanation from an unbeliever as to where you get objective moral and logical absolutes apart from the God of the universe who created them. Why do people reject what God communicates to them through their intellect and conscience? Well the bible explain: Their throat is an open grave, Romans 3:13, they love their sin and want to remain in it. Sin is powerful, it blinds the intellect and worst of all, hardens the heart.

The heart of the problem is the problem of the human heart. It is a hate crime to allow sinners to go to hell without a warning. If you are a christian, go warn an unbeliever today that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God, Hebrews 10:31.

This article by Dr. Danny Faulkner from September 2, 2010 was helpful. Scientific research is a natural place for a Christian to be. It is a place of uniformity, induction, invariant and universal logic that allow us to discover and apply certain invariant and universal physical laws. The Christian owns science because only the Bible gives an authentic account for its very origins, that being the mind of God. History shows that scientific “truth” changes over time. The uncertainty is the reason why continued testing of our ideas is so important in science..

Science is the study of the natural world using the five senses. Because people use their senses every day, people have always done some sort of science. However, good science requires a systematic approach. While ancient Greek science did rely upon some empirical evidence, it was heavily dominated by deductive reasoning. Science as we know it began in the 17th century. The father of the scientific method is Sir Francis Bacon (1561–1626), who clearly defined the scientific method in his Novum Organum (1620). Bacon also introduced inductive reasoning, which is the foundation of the scientific method.

The first step in the scientific method is to define clearly a problem or question about how some aspect of the natural world operates. Some preliminary investigation of the problem can lead one to form a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an educated guess about an underlying principle that will explain the phenomenon that we are trying to explain. A good hypothesis can be tested. That is, a hypothesis ought to make predictions about certain observable phenomena, and we can devise an experiment or observation to test those predictions. If we conduct the experiment or observation and find that the predictions match the results, then we say that we have confirmed our hypothesis, and we have some confidence that our hypothesis is correct. On the other hand, if our predictions are not borne out, then we say that our hypothesis is disproved, and we can either alter our hypothesis or develop a new one and repeat the process of testing. After repeated testing with positive results, we say that the hypothesis is confirmed, and we have confidence that our hypothesis is correct.


Notice that we did not “prove” the hypothesis, but that we merely confirmed it. This is a big difference between deductive and inductive reasoning. If we have a true premise, then properly applied deductive reasoning will lead to a true conclusion. However, properly applied inductive reasoning does not necessarily lead to a true conclusion. How can this be? Our hypothesis may be one of several different hypotheses that produce the same experimental or observational results. It is very easy to assume that our hypothesis, when confirmed, is the end of the matter. However, our hypothesis may make other predictions that future, different tests may not confirm. If this happens, then we must further modify or abandon our hypothesis to explain the new data. The history of science is filled with examples of this process, and we ought to expect that this will continue.This puts the scientist in a peculiar position. While we can definitely disprove a number of propositions, we can never be entirely sure that what we believe to be true is indeed true. Thus, science is a very changing thing. History shows that scientific “truth” changes over time. The uncertainty is the reason why continued testing of our ideas is so important in science. Once we test a hypothesis many times, we gain enough confidence that it is correct, and we eventually begin to call our hypothesis a theory. So a theory is a grown-up, well-developed hypothesis.

At one time, scientists conferred the title of law to well-established theories. This use of the word “law” probably stemmed from the idea that God had imposed some order (law) onto the universe, and our description of how the world operates is a statement of this fact. However, with a less Christian understanding of the world, scientists have departed from using the word law. Scientists continue to refer to older ideas, such as Newton’s law of gravity or laws of motion as law, but no one has termed any new ideas in science as law for a very long time.

Isaac Newton

Isaac Newton (1643–1727)

In 1687, Sir Isaac Newton (1643–1727) published his Principia, which detailed work that he had done about two decades earlier. In thePrincipia, Newton presented his law of gravity and laws of motion, which are the foundation of the branch of physics known as mechanics. Because he required a mathematical framework to present his ideas, Newton invented calculus. His great breakthrough was to hypothesize that the force that held us to the earth was the same force that kept the moon orbiting around the earth each month. From knowledge of the moon’s distance from the earth and orbital period, Newton used his laws of motion to conclude that the moon is accelerated toward the earth 1/3600 of the measured acceleration of gravity at the surface of the earth. The fact that we on the earth’s surface are 60 times closer to the earth’s center than the moon allowed Newton to devise his inverse square law for gravity (602 = 3,600).

This unity of gravity on the earth and the force between the earth and moon was a good hypothesis, but could Newton test it? Yes. When Newton applied his laws of gravity and motion to the then-known planets orbiting the sun (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn), he was able to predict several things:

  1. The planets orbit the sun in elliptical orbits with the sun at one focus of the ellipses.
  2. The line between the sun and a planet sweeps out equal areas in equal intervals of time.
  3. The square of a planet’s orbital period is proportional to the third power of the planet’s mean distance from the sun.

Johannes Kepler

Johannes Kepler (1571–1630)

These three statements are known as Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion, because the German mathematician Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) had found them in a slightly different form several decades before Newton. Kepler empirically found his three laws by studying data on planetary motions taken by the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe (1546–1601) over a period of 20 years in the latter part of the 16th century. Kepler arrived at his result by laborious trial and error for over two decades, but he had no explanation of why the planets behaved the way that they did. Newton easily showed (or predicted) that the planets must follow Kepler’s law as a consequence of his law of gravity.

Many other predictions of Newton’s new physics followed. Besides Earth, Jupiter and Saturn had satellites that obeyed Newton’s formulation of Kepler’s three laws. Newton’s good friend who privately funded the publication of the Principia, Sir Edmond Halley (1656–1742), applied Newton’s work to the observed motions of comets. He found that comets also followed the laws, but that their orbits were much more elliptical and inclined than the orbits of planets. In his study, Halley noticed that one comet that he observed had an orbit identical to one seen about 75 years before and that both comets had a 75-year orbital period. Of course, when the comet returned once again, Halley was long dead, but this comet bears his name.

In 1704, Newton first published his other seminal work in physics, Optics. In this book, he presented his theory of the wave nature of light. Together, his Principia and Optics laid the foundation of physics as we know it. Over the next two centuries, scientists applied Newtonian physics to all sorts of situations, and in each case the predictions of the theory were borne out by experiment and observation. For instance, William Herschel stumbled upon the planet Uranus in 1781, and its orbit followed Kepler’s three laws as well. However, by 1840, astronomers found that there were slight discrepancies between the predicted and observed motion of Uranus. Two mathematicians independently hypothesized that there was an additional planet beyond Uranus whose gravity was tugging on Uranus. This led to the discovery of Neptune in 1846. These successes gave scientists a tremendous confidence in Newtonian physics, and thus Newtonian physics is one of the most well-established theories in history. However, by the end of the 19th century, experimental results began to conflict with Newtonian physics.

Quantum Mechanics

Near the end of the 19th century, physicists turned their attention to how hot objects radiate, with one practical application being the improvement of efficiency of the filament of the recently invented light bulb. Noting that at low temperatures good absorbers and emitters of radiation appear black, they dubbed a perfect absorber and emitter of radiation a black body. Physicists experimentally determined that a black body of a certain temperature emitted the greatest amount of energy at a certain frequency and that the amount of energy that it radiated diminished toward zero at higher and lower frequencies. Attempts to explain this behavior with classical, or Newtonian, physics worked very well at most frequencies but failed miserably at higher frequencies. In fact, at very high frequencies, classical physics required that the energy emitted increase toward infinity.

Max Planck

Max Planck (1858–1947)

In 1901, the German physicist Max Planck (1858–1947) proposed a solution. He suggested that the energy radiated from a black body was not exactly in waves as Newton had shown, but was instead carried away by tiny particles (later called photons). The energy of each photon was proportional to its frequency. This was a radical departure from classical physics, but this new theory did exactly explain the spectra of black bodies.

In 1905, the German-born physicist Albert Einstein (1879–1955) used Planck’s theory to explain the photoelectric effect. What is the photoelectric effect? A few years earlier, physicists had discovered that when light shone on a metal to which an electric potential was applied, electrons were emitted. Attempts to explain the details of this phenomenon with classical physics had failed, but Einstein’s application of Planck’s theory explained it very well.

Other problems with classical physics had mounted. Physicists found that excited gas in a discharge tube emitted energy at certain discrete wavelengths or frequencies. The exact wavelengths of emission depended upon the composition of the gas, with hydrogen gas having the simplest spectrum. Several physicists investigated the problem, with the Swedish scientist Johannes Rydberg (1854–1919) offering the most general description of the hydrogen spectrum in 1888. However, Ryberg did not offer a physical explanation. Indeed, there was no classical physics explanation for the spectral behavior of hydrogen gas until 1913, when the Danish physicist Niels Bohr (1885–1962) published his model of the hydrogen atom that did explain hydrogen’s spectrum.

In the Bohr model, the electron orbits the proton only at certain discrete distances from the proton, whereas in classical physics the electron can orbit at any distance from the proton. In classical physics the electron must continually emit radiation as it orbits, but in Bohr’s model the electron emits energy only when it leaps from one possible orbit to another. Bohr’s explanation of the hydrogen atom worked so well that scientists assumed that it must work for other atoms as well. The hydrogen atom is very simple, because it consists of only two particles, a proton and an electron. Other atoms have increasing numbers of particles (more electrons orbiting the nucleus, which contains more protons as well as neutrons) which makes their solutions much more difficult, but the Bohr model worked for them as well. The Bohr model is essentially the model that most of us learned in school.

While Bohr’s model was obviously successful, it seemed to pull some new principles out of the air, and those principles contradicted principles of classical physics. Physicists began to search for a set of underlying unifying principles to explain the model and other aspects of the emerging new physics. We will omit the details, but by the mid-1920s, those new principles were in place. The basis of this new physics is that in very small systems, as within atoms, energy can exist in only certain small, discrete amounts with gaps between adjacent values. This is radically different from classical physics, where energy can assume any value. We say that energy is quantized because it can have only certain discrete values, or quanta. The mathematical theory that explains the energies of small systems is called quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics is a very successful theory. Since its introduction in the 1920s, physicists have used it to correctly predict the behavior and characteristics of elementary particles, nuclei of atoms, atoms, and molecules. Many facets of modern electronics are best understood in terms of quantum mechanics. Physicists have developed many details and applications of the theory, and they have built other theories upon it.

Quantum mechanics is a very successful theory, yet a few people do not accept it. Why? There are several reasons. One reason for rejection is that the postulates of quantum mechanics just do not feel right. They violate our everyday understanding of how the physical world works. However, the problem is that very small particles, such as electrons, do not behave the same way that everyday objects do. We invented quantum mechanics to explain small things such as electrons because our everyday understanding of the world fails to explain them. The peculiarities of quantum mechanics disappear as we apply quantum mechanics to larger systems. As we increase the size and scope of small systems, we find that the oddities of quantum mechanics tend to smear out and assume properties more like our common-sense perceptions. That is, the peculiarities of quantum mechanics disappear in larger, macroscopic systems.

Another problem that people have with quantum mechanics is certain interpretations applied to quantum mechanics. For instance, one of the important postulates of quantum mechanics is the Schrödinger wave equation. When we apply the Schrödinger equation to a particle such as an electron, we get a mathematical wave as a description of the particle. What does this wave mean? Early on, physicists realized that the wave represented a probability distribution. Where the wave had a large value, the probability was large of finding the particle in that location, but where the wave had low value, there was little probability of finding the particle there. This is strange. Newtonian physics had led to determinism—the absolute knowledge of where a particle was at a particular time from the forces and other information involved. Yet, the probability function does accurately predict the behavior of small particles such as electrons. Even Albert Einstein, whose early work led to much of quantum mechanics, never liked this probability. He once famously remarked, “God does not play dice with the universe.” Erwin Schrödinger (1887–1961), who had formulated his famous Schrödinger equation stated in 1926, “If we are going to stick to this ****** quantum-jumping, then I regret that I ever had anything to do with quantum theory.”

Note that with the probability distribution we cannot know precisely where a particle is located. A statement of this is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (named for Werner Heisenberg, 1901–1976). We explain this by acknowledging that particles such as electrons have a wave nature as well as a particle nature. For that matter, we also believe that waves (such as light and sound) also have a particle nature. This wave-particle duality is a bit strange to us, because we do not sense it in everyday experience, but it is borne out by numerous experimental results.

For instance, let us consider a double slit experiment. If we send a wave toward an obstruction with two slits in it, the wave will pass through both slits and produce a distinctive interference pattern behind the slits. This is because the wave passes through both slits. If we send a large number of electrons toward a similar apparatus, the electrons will also produce an interference pattern behind the slits, suggesting that the electrons (or their wave functions) went through both slits. However, if we send one electron at a time toward the slits and look for the emergence of each electron behind the slits, we will find that each electron will emerge through one slit or the other, but not both. How can this be? Indeed, this is perplexing. The most common resolution is the Copenhagen interpretation, named for the city where it was developed. This interpretation posits that an individual electron does not go through either slit, but instead exists in some sort of meta-stable state between the two states until we observe (detect) the electrons. At the point of observation, the electron’s wave equation collapses, allowing the electron to assume one state or the other. Now, this is weird, but most alternate explanations are even weirder, so you might understand why some people may have a problem with quantum mechanics.


Is there a way out of this dilemma? Yes. Why do we need an interpretation to quantum mechanics? No one demanded any such interpretation of Newtonian physics. No one asked, “What does it mean?” There is no meaning, other than the fact that Newtonian physics does a good job of describing what we see in the macroscopic world. The same ought to be true for quantum mechanics. It does a good job of describing the microscopic world. Whereas classical physics introduced determinism, quantum mechanics introduced indeterminism. This indeterminism is fundamental in the sense that uncertainty in outcome will still exist even if we have all knowledge of the relevant input parameters. Newtonian determinism fit well with the concept of God’s sovereignty, but the fundamental uncertainty of quantum mechanics appears to rob God of that attribute. However, this assumes that quantum mechanics is a complete theory, that is, that quantum mechanics is an ultimate theory. There are limits to the applications of quantum mechanics, such as the fact that there is no theory of quantum gravity. If the history of science is any teacher, we can expect that quantum mechanics will one day be replaced by some other theory. This other theory probably will include quantum mechanics as a special case of the better theory. That theory may clear up the uncertainty question.As an aside, we perhaps ought to mention that the determinism derived from Newtonian physics also produces a conclusion unpalatable to many Christians. If determinism is true, then all future events are predetermined from the initial conditions of the universe. Just as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics led to even God not being able to know the outcome of an experiment, many people applying determinism concluded that God was unable to alter the outcome of an experiment. That is, God was bound by the physics that rules the universe. This quickly led to deism. Most, if not all, people today who reject quantum mechanics refuse to accept this extreme interpretation of Newtonian physics. They ought to recognize that just as determinism is a perversion of Newtonian physics, the Copenhagen interpretation is a perversion of quantum mechanics.

The important point is that just as classical mechanics does a good job in describing the macroscopic world, quantum mechanics does a good job in describing the microscopic world. We ought not expect any more of a theory. Consequently, most physicists who believe the biblical account of creation have no problem with quantum mechanics.


There are two theories of relativity, the special and general theories. We will briefly describe the special theory of relativity first. Even before Newton, Galileo (1564–1642) had conducted experiments with moving bodies. He realized that if we move toward or away from a moving object, the relative speed that we measure for that object depends upon that object’s motion and our motion. This Galilean relativity is a part of Newtonian mechanics. The same behavior is true for the speed of waves. For instance, if we ride in a boat moving through water with waves, the speed of the waves that we measure will depend upon our motion and on the motion of the waves. In 1881, Albert A. Michelson (1852–1931) conducted a famous experiment that he refined and repeated in 1887 with Edward W. Morley (1838–1923). In this experiment, they measured the speed of light parallel and perpendicular to our annual motion around the sun. Much to their surprise, they found that the speed of light was the same regardless of the direction they measured it. This null result baffled physicists, for if taken at face value, it suggested that the earth did not orbit the sun, while there is other evidence that the earth does indeed orbit the sun.

In 1905, Albert Einstein took the invariance of the speed of light as a postulate and worked out its consequences. He made three predictions concerning an object as its speed approaches the speed of light:

  1. The length of the object as it passes will appear to shorten toward zero.
  2. The object’s mass will increase without bound.
  3. The passage of time as measured by the object will approach zero.

These behaviors are strange and do not conform to what we might expect from everyday experience, but keep in mind that in everyday experience we do not encounter objects moving at any speed close to that of light.

Eventually, these predictions were confirmed in experiments. For instance, particle accelerators accelerate small particles to very high speeds. We can measure the masses of the particles as we accelerate them, and their masses increase in the manner predicted by the theory. In other experiments, very fast-moving, short-lived particles exist longer than they do when moving very slowly. The rate of time dilation is consistent with the predictions of the theory. Length contraction is a little more difficult to directly test, but we have tested it as well.

Relativity Confirmed

Relativity Confirmed

In 1919 a total eclipse of the sun allowed scientists to confirm Einstein’s general theory of relativity. As a result of the sun’s gravitation, stars appeared to be displaced from their true positions, just as Einstein’s theory predicted.

Einstein’s theory of special relativity applies to particles moving at a constant rate but does not address their acceleration. Einstein addressed that problem with his general theory in 1916, but he also treated the acceleration due to gravity. In general relativity, space and time are physical things that have a structure in some ways similar to a fabric. Einstein treated time as a fourth dimension in addition to the normal three dimensions of space. We sometimes call this four-dimensional entity space-time or simply space. The presence of a large amount of matter or energy (Einstein previously had shown their equivalence) alters space. Mathematically, the alteration of space is like a curvature, so we say that matter or energy bends space. The curvature of space telegraphs the presence of matter and energy to other matter and energy in space, and this more deeply answered a question about gravity. Newton had hypothesized that gravity operated through empty space, but his theory could not explain at all how the information about an object’s mass and distance was transmitted through space. In general relativity, an object must move through a straight line in space-time, but the curvature of space-time induced by nearby mass causes that straight-line motion to appear to us as acceleration.

Einstein’s new theory made several predictions. The first opportunity to test the theory happened during a total solar eclipse in 1919. During the eclipse, astronomers were able to photograph stars around the edge of the sun. The light from those stars had to pass very close to the sun to get to the earth. As the stars’ light passed near the sun, the sun attracted the light via the curvature of space-time. This caused the stars to appear farther from the sun than they would have otherwise. Newtonian gravity also predicts a deflection of starlight toward the sun, but the deflection is less than with general relativity. The observed amount of deflection was consistent with the predictions of general relativity. Astronomers have repeated the experiment many times since 1919 with ever-improving accuracy.

For many years, radio astronomers have measured with great precision the locations of distant-point radio sources as the sun passed by, and those results beautifully agree with the predictions. Another early confirmation was the explanation of a small anomaly in the orbit of the planet Mercury that Newtonian gravity could not explain. Many other experiments of various types have repeatedly confirmed general relativity. Some experiments today even allow us to test for slight variations of Einstein’s theory.

We can apply general relativity to the universe as a whole. Indeed, when we do this, we discover that it predicts that the universe is either expanding or contracting; it is a matter of observation to determine which the universe actually is doing. In 1928, Edwin Hubble (1889–1953) showed that the universe is expanding. Most people today think that the expansion began with the big bang, the supposed sudden appearance of the universe 13.7 billion years ago. However, there are many other possibilities. For instance, the creation physicist Russell Humphreys proposed his white hole cosmology, assuming that general relativity is the correct theory of gravity (see his book Starlight and Time1). It is interesting to note that universal expansion is consistent with certain Old Testament passages (e.g., Psalm 104:2) that mention the stretching of the heavens.

Seeing that there is so much evidence to support Einstein’s theory of general relativity, why do some creationists oppose the theory? There are at least three reasons. One reason is that, as with quantum mechanics, modern relativity theory appears to violate certain common-sense views of the way that the world works. For instance, in everyday experience, we don’t see mass change and time appear to slow. Indeed, general relativity forces us to abandon the concept of simultaneity of time. Simultaneity means that time progresses at the same rate for all observers, regardless of where they are. As we previously stated, in special relativity, time slows with greater speed. However, with general relativity, the rate at which time passes depends not only upon speed but also on one’s location in a gravitational field. The deeper one is in a gravitational field, the slower that time passes. For example, a clock at sea level will record the passage of time more slowly than a clock at mile-high Denver. Admittedly, this is weird. However, the discrepancy between the clocks at these two locations is so miniscule as to not appear on most clocks, save the most accurate atomic clocks. This sort of thing has been measured several times, and the discrepancies between the clocks involved always are the same as those predicted by theory. Thus, while our perception is that time flows uniformly everywhere, the reality is that the passage of time does depend upon one’s location, but the differences are so small in the situations encountered on the earth that we cannot perceive them. That is, the predictions of general relativity on earth are consistent with our ability to perceive time. However, there are conditions beyond the earth that the loss of simultaneity would be very obvious if we could experience them.

A second reason why some creationists oppose modern relativity theory is the misappropriation of modern relativity theory to support moral relativism. Unfortunately, modern relativity theory arose at precisely the time that moral relativism became popular. Moral relativists proclaim that “all things are equal,” and they were very eager to snatch some of the triumph of relativity theory to support their cause. There are at least two problems with this misappropriation. First, it does not follow that a principle that works in the natural world automatically operates in the world of morality. The physical world is material, but the world of morality is immaterial. Second, the moral relativists either did not understand relativity or they intentionally misused it. Despite the common misconception, modern relativity theory does not tell us that everything is relative. There are absolutes in modern theory of relativity. The speed of light is a constant. While the passage of time may vary, general relativity provides an absolute way in which to compare the passage of time in two reference frames. The modern theory of relativity in no way supports moral relativism.

The third reason why some creationists reject modern relativity theory is that they think that general relativity inevitably leads to the big-bang model. However, the big-bang model is just one possible origin scenario for the universe; there are many other possibilities. We have already mentioned Russ Humphreys’s white hole cosmology, and there are other possible recent creation models based upon general relativity. True—if general relativity is not correct, then the big-bang model would be in trouble. However, if general relativity is correct, then the shortcut attempt to undermine the big-bang model will doom us from ever finding the correct cosmology.

String Theory

With the establishment of quantum mechanics in the 1920s, the development of the science of particle physics soon followed. At first, only a few particles were known: the electron, proton, and neutron. These particles all had mass and were thought at the time to be the fundamental building blocks of matter. Quantum mechanics introduced the concept that material particles could be described by waves, and conversely that waves could be described by particles. That led to the concept of particles that had no mass, such as photons, the particles that make up light. Eventually, physicists saw the need for other particles, such as neutrinos and antiparticles. Evidence for these odd particles soon followed. Experimental results suggested the existence of other particles, such as the meson, muon, and tau particles, as well as their antiparticles. Many of these new particles were very short-lived, but they were particles nevertheless.

Physicists began to see patterns in the growing zoo of particles. They could group particles according to certain properties. For instance, elementary particles possess angular momentum, a property normally associated with spinning objects, so physicists say that elementary particles have “spin.” Imagining elementary particles as small spinning spheres is useful, but modern theories view this as a bit naive. Spin comes in a quantum amount. Some particles have whole integer values of quantum spin. That is, they have integer multiples (0, ±1, ±2, etc.) of the basic unit of spin. Physicists call these particles Bosons. Other particles have half integer (±1/2, ±3/2, etc.) amounts of spin, and are known as fermions. Bosons and fermions have very different properties. Physicists also noticed that elementary particles tended to have certain mathematical relationships between one another. Physicists eventually began to use group theory, a concept from abstract algebra, to classify and study elementary particles.

By the 1960s, physicists began to suspect that many elementary particles, such as protons and neutrons, were not so elementary after all, but consisted of even more elementary particles. Physicists called these more elementary particlesquarks, after an enigmatic word in a James Joyce poem. According to the theory, there are six types of quarks. Many particles, such as protons and neutrons, consist of the combination of two quarks. The different combinations of quarks lead to different particles. Some of those combinations of quarks ought to produce particles that no one had yet seen, so these combinations amounted to predictions of new particles. Particles physicists were able to create these particles in experiments in particle accelerators, so the successful search for those predicted particles was confirmation of the underlying theory. Therefore, quark theory now is well established.

In recent years, particle physicists have in similar fashion developed string theory. Physicists have noticed that certain patterns among elementary particles can be explained easily if particles behave as tiny vibrating strings. These strings would require the existence of at least six additional dimensions of space. We already know that the universe has three normal spatial dimensions as well as the dimension of time, so these six extra dimensions bring the total number of dimensions to ten. The reason why we do not normally see the other six dimensions is that they are tightly curled up and hidden within the tiny particles themselves. At extremely high energies, the extra dimensions ought to manifest themselves. Therefore, particle physicists can predict what kind of behavior strings ought to exhibit when they accelerate particles to extremely high energies. The problem is that current particle accelerators are not nearly powerful enough to produce these effects. As theoretical physicists refine their theories and we build new, powerful particle accelerators, physicists expect that one day we can test whether string theory is true, but for now there is no experimental evidence for string theory.

The Size of Strings

The Size of Strings

Looking at progressively smaller parts of a water molecule, we can glimpse the complexity God designed in all things.

We realize the illustration used deuterium, a rare isotope of hydrogen, to help convey the point.

Currently, most physicists think that string theory is a very promising idea. Assuming that string theory is true, there still remains the question as to which particular version of string theory is the correct one. You see, string theory is not a single theory but instead is a broad outline of a number of possible theories. Once we confirm string theory, we can constrain which version properly describes our world. If true, string theory could lead to new technologies. Furthermore, a proper view of elementary particles is important in many cosmological models, such as the big bang. This is because in the big-bang model, the early universe was hot enough to reveal the effects of string theory.


Modern physics is a product of the 20th century and relies upon twin pillars: quantum mechanics and general relativity. Both theories have tremendous experimental support. Christians ought not to view these theories with such great suspicion. True, some people have perverted or hijacked these theories to support some nonbiblical principles, but some wicked people have even perverted Scripture to support nonbiblical things. We ought to recognize that modern physics is a very robust, powerful theory that explains much. At the same time, the theory is very incomplete in some respects. In time, we ought to expect that some new theories will come along that will better explain the world than these theories do. However, we know that God’s Word does not change.

String theory has emerged in the 21st century as the next great idea in physics. Time will tell if string theory will live up to our expectations. What ought to be the reaction of Christians to this? We must be vigilant to investigate the amount of nonbiblical influences that may have crept into modern thinking, particularly in the interpretation of string theory (as with modern physics). However, we must be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. That is, can we reject the anti-Christian thinking that many have brought to the discussion? The answer is certainly yes. As with the question of origins, we must strive to interpret these things on our terms, guided by the Bible. Do the new theories adequately describe the world? Can we see the hand of the Creator in our new physics? Can we find meaning in our studies that brings glory to God? If we can answer yes to each of these questions, then these new theories ought not to be a problem for the Christian.

Compliments of Answers in Genesis.


Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” ,Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” John 20:26-32

Dearly beloved here is Jesus Christ, in His graciousness, speaking a command and gentle rebuke to Thomas. Christ has revealed Himself to Thomas, despite Thomas’s previous statement that he would never believe, we see Him in a repentant posture of worship, “Ho Kurios moi, kai ho Theos mou”.

This is a dramatic event as Thomas makes this shift from unbelief to belief. Let’s look carefully at the Scripture to see the impact of this account.

What does the record tell us about Thomas prior to his emphatic rejection of his fellow apostles accounts of the resurrection?

We see his appointment and the teaching he was under:

From Luke 6:12-19,

In these days he went out to the mountain to pray, and all night he continued in prayer to God. And when day came, he called his disciples and chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles: ….the bible names, Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, and Simon, and Judas son of James and Judas Iscariot.

Each rabbi would have disciples, a group who were under his teaching, for example we read in Acts 22:3 that Saul was under the teaching of Gamaliel, a leading scholar of the age. Jesus already had a large following of disciples and he now selected apostles. An apostle is an envoy, a delegate a messenger.

In this same passage Luke 6, we see the themes of Christ’s message as He continues with preaching the beatitudes. He speaks to the poor, hungry, those who weep, and those who are marginalized. He offers stern warnings for the rich, those whose bellies are full, those who laugh and who are offering the popular teaching of false prophets. He orientates his hearers to a correct attitude to their enemies, and correct judgment, culminating with this admonition in verse 46 – 49.

“Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you? Everyone who comes to me and hears my words and does them, I will show you what he is like: he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock.

All we read shows that Thomas was obedient to Christ. Moreover, He knew those who built their house on the sands of false religions, vain philosophies, and competing ideologies; the hypocrites and sycophants. He was as familiar as we are with the pious religious types, those we would know today as a cultural Christian.  Thomas met the followers of rituals, ceremonies and traditions, who consider themselves Christian but their hearts ultimately care for their own creature comforts and conveniences, more concerned with matters of the world than those of the kingdom.

Are your foundations down to the rock? Consider this:  who make the best fighters? If you were heading to war, where the bullets are striking the ground, the shrapnel blasting through the air scattering molten shards of metal able to slice a man in half and scatter body parts, who would you want alongside you, as an ally?

With an enemy ready to deceive, and distract, do you want to be with a theorist or a practitioner? A theorist being one who may be well versed in Scripture, one who has an intellectual understanding of the requirements of warfighting but who has not actually fought in a battle. A practitioner someone who puts knowledge into action, facing the trials of battle and has the scars of experience to show? The soldier who has been to war, the surgeon who has actually conducted operations, or the lawyer who has fought a case in court.

Let me ask you, have you a faith constructed on the sands of intellectual ascent to Jesus through study or even a temporal religious experience, or do you bear battle scars from conflict and trials because you have a firm foundation and your soul belongs to Christ?

Why does Ephesians 6:14-18 speak of the Christian being issued the full armour of God?

the belt of truth,

the breastplate of righteousness,

for your feet, the readiness given by the gospel of peace.

the shield of faith,

and the helmet of salvation,

and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

You only issue armour to a soldier if he’s going to war. The one who never leaves the safety and protection of the training ground for the field of conflict is of no need of armour and is of no value to his commander.

If you are born again, you’re on the rock, if you’re on the rock then you are in the fight. If you are in the fight, you are collecting the bruises and wounds of engaging with the enemy. Thomas was not only under the teaching of the Lord but as one of His commissioned officers he was in the battle and by all accounts prepared to die, see John 11:6.

In Matthew chapter 10 we see Thomas the apostle sent with authority, the text reads: These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.  And proclaim as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons.

Do you suppose Thomas received this authority and did not exercise it? There is no questioning from scripture his obedience. Our account shows he is a man of faith, on the streets preaching the word and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom. Don’t miss this important phrase, the kingdom is at hand! at hand is the greek phrase. ‘eggizo’, it means, be at hand, come near. There was an urgency to Thomas mission. He knew from Daniel 7:13 how near that kingdom was: ……

And Don’t you just love Thomas for being the one who asked the question that attracted one of Christ’s most profound statements, I am the way the truth and the life, found in John 14, starting in verse one:

“Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me……And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you maybe also. And you know the way to where I am going.” Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”

What a great question from Thomas. That’s my encouragement ask questions, inquire, seek answers. In the garden, we read in Genesis 3 God asked, “where are you Adam?”, Jesus asks Thomas, “have you believed because you have seen?”.

Why ask these questions? God the Father, God the Son have no need of the answers; God does not accumulate knowledge, He has no need to seek answers. He is omniscient, all knowing, immutable, unchanging.

We face questions from God because they cause us to think.  That is to be our approach when teaching one another or when dealing with the unbeliever.

“What is it you believe and why do you believe it?.

If you’re approaching dialogue by making assertions, seeking to get your point across that you might persuade someone of the strength of your argument then you are missing the point.

Pastor mentioned the other week, ‘proof is different to persuasion’. You can offer irrefutable evidence of the biblical truths, display your encyclopedic knowledge of the Bible, but that will not change the mind of the unbeliever. Would it not be more productive to get him to think through the issue, wrestle with it intellectually?

You ask the questions, allow God to do the persuasion, It is He who does the drawing, John 6:44, we simply proclaim the gospel.

And that brings us back to Thomas. He had heard Christ say during his public ministry “believe in me”, moreover, these men and women whom he knew and trusted, with who he had shared hardship, persecution, sorrows and joys most certainly tried convincing him that they had seen the risen Christ. But he would not believe them.

Why not? Simply ,Thomas has his foundational beliefs, and no amount of evidence was about to change them. Consider this:

Thomas is a devout Jew immersed in the Scripture. He had been with who He understood was the Christ, Messiah, Meshiak Matthew 16:16. The Scriptures were on his heart and rooted in his mind. He knew they spoke of liberation from oppression. God had repeatedly responded to the cries of His chosen people. Under the yolk of slavery in Egypt, and Babylon. They were delivered from corrupt judges and bad kings. He knew of God’s covenant with David in 2 Samuel 7 and read King David’s prayer in response :

  1. And now, O Lord God, you are God, and your words are true, and you have promised this good thing to your servant. 29 Now therefore may it please you to bless the house of your servant, so that it may continue forever before you. For you, O Lord God, have spoken, and with your blessing shall the house of your servant be blessed forever.” 2 Samuel 7:

This is Thomas’ sure expectation from God’s Word, the Torah and Tonach. From the prophets he reads of the promised fulfillment of the Davidic covenant. He is anticipating a conquering redeemer to restore David’s physical throne. He was in possession of the same messianic chapters and verses we read today: Genesis 3:15, Psalm 2, and 22, Isaiah 7:14, 52 and 53 and many more.

We now know these point to Jesus Christ, to his life, death, burial and resurrection but Thomas cannot see this in the Scripture. The one he had hoped was Meshiak is now dead, ignominiously executed by the Romans and Thomas has no Interest in a crucified Messiah – he is in mourning, grieving for the loss of one he deeply loved.

Listen to this from Dr Steve Lawson: To the Jew, the message of a murdered Messiah was the ultimate scandal. In Roman times, crucifixion was a punishment reserved for the worst criminals. So dreaded was death by crucifixion that no Roman citizen could be nailed to a cross. Such a horrific death was reserved for the notorious enemies of the Empire—terrorists, murderers, and anarchists. When the Jews were told that their long-awaited Messiah had been put to death on a cross, this was a stumbling block to them—literally, a scandal. It was a scorned message of defeat, not victory, that caused them to fall further into unbelief.

And now you have the picture of Thomas. A devout Jew who twice a day would say the shemah:

“Shamah Yisrael Adonai Elo-hey-nu Adonai echad.”

One who had faith in The One God of the Bible, the sovereign creator God, who laughs at the plans of man and when he chooses meets out justice to the enemies of his chosen people. God is not defeated and certainly not hung on trees.

However, Thomas was radically changed. Here is a faithful, devout Jew, who knew the cost to his soul of blasphemy, who knew God’s just penalty for bowing to false gods was death, worshipping Jesus Christ as God. Why?  because Jesus Christ is God and we see in this dramatic episode this being revealed to Thomas.

From here we see the consequence of coming to know Christ as Lord and King. Thomas is sent with all authority, we see him later gathered in Jerusalem ready to go to all the known world. He has set Christ apart in his heart as Lord, 2 Peter 3:14 and is prepared to give a reason for his hope.

Thomas will be in ministry for another 37 years, faithfully preaching the gospel of the kingdom, sin, repentance , and faith in the one true and living Triune God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit of the until in AD70, around his mid 50s, Thomas was speared to death at Calamina, a martyr proclaiming Christ.

In these verses in John 20, we see how an encounter with the risen Christ radically changes the man.

Christ says to the new Thomas, “have you believed because you have seen? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Through history Jews anticipated Meshiak, the Messiah. Those who have not seen and yet believed were here blessed by Christ. He is speaking in the past tense, those who have believed. How were those who came before Christ saved? Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David? Was it by works of the law? Obeying the ordinances of the priesthood, the sacrificial system? By no means. The psalmist tells us “a sacrifice I did not desire” Psalm 46:6, 51:16, they have no value for cleansing from sins. Hebrew 10:4, “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” Those who had gone before were saved in the same we are: by faith. How does that faith come about? By the eternal Son of God, Jesus Christ who is the author and finisher of our faith, Hebrews 12:2.

In this text, Jesus is blessing those who in faith eagerly anticipated Israel’s Redeemer. On this side of the veil we now see clearly God predetermined plan of redemption. We have now, along with Thomas, seen the Christ. He is revealed to us through God the Holy Spirit, who opens our spiritual eyes, changes our hearts and turn our minds to love for our King, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords son.

October 20, 2014

Dispensationalism (hereafter DT) has several primary tenants. Ryrie wrote that the sine qua non of DT are as follows:

1. Doxological view of history. This is the view that all of human history from creation to consummation is ultimately for God’s glory. With this, all Christians agree.

2. Literalistic hermeneutic. Most Christians would agree in principle with this concept, that scripture ought to be understood as it presents itself. DT maintains in particular that the Old Testament prophecies concerning the nation of Israel must be understood in a literal fashion, i.e., not spiritualized to mean something other than what they appear to say on the surface. By this they mean that they must be fulfilled by ethnic, national Israel.

3. Ongoing distinction between two peoples of God: Israel and the Church. It is this tenant that truly separates the system from the rest of Christianity. In order for the Old Testament prophecies concerning the nation of Israel to be fulfilled in a literal fashion (2.), there must be a clear distinction between Israel and the Church. This principle is actually what drove John Nelson Darby to conceptualize a Pre-Tribulational rapture for this reason: If the Church and Israel are both on the earth at the same time, God cannot fulfill promises to Israel without neglecting the Church and vice versa.

In contrast to Covenant Theology (hereafter CT), when the New Testament authors utilize an Old Testament prophecy and apply it to the Church, DT understands this to be secondary to the ultimate fulfillment, which must be literal.

Traditionally, DT maintains that the Church was a mystery in the Old Testament. By this, they mean that the Old Testament does not speak of the Church in any way and that no prophecy explicitly references the Church. The Church, in DT, obtains blessings because of God’s promise to Israel rather than (as CT holds) in fulfillment of them. So when a New Testament author utilizes an Old Testament prophecy and applies it to the Church, DT maintains that this cannot be the ultimate fulfillment of the prophecy but rather a spiritual application of it. The true fulfillment must be found in future Israel, according to DT.

The third of the sine qua non (according to Ryrie) is an ongoing distinction between the two peoples of God: the Church and Israel. This is both a serious theological problem and an entirely anachronistic concept. Before Darby in 1830, no one conceptualized this distinction. It had always been understood throughout Church history (and especially among the apostolic fathers) that the Church IS Israel.

At this point, it’s necessary to address the common accusation by DT that every other system is a form of “Replacement Theology.” By this, they mean that non-DT systems wrongly believe that Israel has been replaced as God’s chosen people by the Church. This is first and foremost a confusion of the opposition. We do not suggest that the Church has replaced Israel but rather that the Church is the ultimate fulfillment of Israel. I will elaborate on that more below. Second, this accusation of “Replacement Theology” is somewhat ironic since it is DT that believes Israel has been “set aside” and, essentially, replaced by the Church during the Church Age.

Now, when I say that the Church is the ultimate fulfillment of Israel, we have to understand how the term is used in the NT as well as the OT. The Greek term for church is ἐκκλησία (ekklesia). It is derived from terms meaning, lit., “called out ones,” and means “assembly” or “congregation.” In fact, in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (which was in use in the first century) called the Septuagint (LXX), the term ἐκκλησία is used to translate the Hebrew word which refers to the assembly of Israel. So the term “Church” is not even new to the New Testament, so it could not be a new concept either. What is strange about the New Testament Church is not that some other entity has become God’s chosen people but that God’s chosen people now includes Gentiles. Thus, Israel is not replaced but rather expanded from primarily those of Jewish descent to include people from every tribe, tongue, nation, and people.

Now a problem arises at this point which is addressed thoroughly in scripture because the issue came up in the early church: How can Gentiles be God’s people if they are not becoming Jews? Of course, by “becoming Jews” they would mean becoming circumcised, following the dietary restrictions, partaking in the festivals, adhering to the dress-code, participating in ceremonial washings, and taking part in the temple worship and sacrifice system. All these things were what, to the mind of the first century Jew, separated them from everyone else. It was a dividing wall of hostility between Jew and Gentile.

In Ephesians 1 through 2:10, Paul addresses the many blessings that were given to Israel—”the first to hope in Christ” (“Men of Israel” in Acts 2)—and then applies these blessings equally to the Gentiles—”you also when you heard the word of truth.” He continues this argument throughout the entire book, calling Jew and Gentile to be as one in Christ, explaining that this massive influx of Gentile believers was foretold long ago. The means by which this would occur was veiled until the cross. But see how Paul highlights that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile in Christ:

Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

(Ephesians 2:11-22)

Those things which separated Jew from Gentile were all types and shadows of Christ. Now that the substance had come, the shadow gave way to the Light. This dividing wall was removed by the blood of Christ, and so Jew and Gentile are one. Gentiles were once strangers and aliens (lit., foreigners) of Israel, her covenants and promised blessings, but now Gentiles have been made fellow citizens (of Israel) and members of the household of God, having been grafted into the single Olive Tree, the corporate assembly of Israel. He made the two into one new man: the Body of Christ, the Church.

Paul reiterates this same concept when discussing why there were so many apostate Jews. The implicit question was this: If God promised to save Israel, and many Israelites are not saved, has God’s promise failed? Paul’s answer is this:

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

(Romans 9:6-8)

Ishmael was descended from Abraham, his seed according to the flesh, but Ishmael received none of the blessings promised to Abraham’s seed because he was not a child of the promise. Who now are children of Abraham? Paul’s argument explains:

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea,

“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’

and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”

“And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’

there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”

(Romans 9:22-26)

This prophecy was originally made to Israel and concerning Israel, yet Paul here uses it as proof that both the called Jews and the called Gentiles are heirs of this promise. Who then are the children of Abraham? Who are the Jews?

For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

(Romans 2:28-29)

Israel of promise had always been a spiritual identity, not a physical one. For many Gentiles were included in the corporate body of Israel in the Old Testament, including Rahab the Cannanite, the prostitute who aided the spies in Jericho; Ruth the Moabitess, wife of Boaz and great-grandmother of King David; Caleb the Kenizzite, one of the two faithful spies sent into the land of Canaan; and Obed-edom the Gittite, the man who kept the Ark of the Covenant in his house for three months. These all became Jews not by changing their ethnicity but by changing their religion. It was always a spiritual people, but beforehand the nation was a geo-political entity; now it is a spiritual entity:

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

(1 Peter 2:9-10)

Peter applies all these terms used explicitly of Israel and even quotes a prophecy pertaining specifically to Israel and applies this to the church. Just in case it was not clear enough:

And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

(Galatians 3:29)

Christians are the seed of Abraham, not those who are biologically related to him.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 37 other followers