Apologetics – Biblical Notes

Apologetics, Doctrine, Epistemology, Existence of God, Logic/Philosophy, Theology

Why Can’t God Lie?

Posted on March 5, 2026 by Mac Deaver

To ponder the existence and attributes of the God of the Bible is an exercise in fascination. Of course, in our thinking, we eventually run up against a wall in that we cannot discover and it has not by revelation been made known the exact clue to God’s eternality. But, there are things that we can, in our focus, come to comprehend. And as we do this, it gives us greater understanding as to why things are in reality as they are. It certainly helps us to come to a greater appreciation of God, his wonderful word, and all that he has done for us in making salvation possible.

Before answering the question which constitutes the title of this article, I would have us consider several relevant points that hopefully will provide a little background for proper thinking about the question at issue.

The apostle John once wrote, “I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and because no lie is of the truth” (1 John 2:21). John was writing to “the children of God” (3:1). He is not writing to non-Christians as such. And he is telling his brethren that they had come to understand saving truth or the gospel. In 2:21 he makes three claims regarding why he has written to them: (1) it was not because they didn’t know the truth; (2) it was because they did know the truth; (3) and it was because no lie is of the truth. If they did not know the truth, they would not yet be Christians. Furthermore, it was very important that they did know the truth because one cannot be saved without coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4), and since truth is truth, in knowing it they could have the benefit of what truth offered because no lie is of the truth. If they had only known the lie, they could not yet know the truth.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12, interestingly, there are definite articles which are so insightful. To some who “received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved,” Paul informs us that God will send “a working of error” that those people should believe “the lie.” These are folk who believe “not the truth,” but who have pleasure “in the unrighteousness.” The definite article “the” is there in the original text where I have positioned it.

So, to mankind, two options are open to us regarding salvation information: (1) the truth, and (2) the lie. And in 1 John 2:21, John declares that “no lie is of the truth.” The “laws of thought” as regulative intellectual principles are relevant just here. According to Lionel Ruby’s Logic—An Introduction, the Law of Identity as applied to things means that things are what they are. To say that a horse is a horse means that the thing (horse) is itself. As applied to propositions the law means that if a proposition is true, then it is true. If a proposition is false, then it, of course, is false. It is itself. The second law of thought is the “Law of Excluded Middle,” which for propositions means that a precisely stated proposition is either true or it is false. With regard to things, if we say that all men are mortals, it is either true that all men are mortals or it is false that all men are mortals. There is no middle ground to take. The third law of thought is the “Law of Contradiction.” For things it means that nothing can be both A and its contradiction, not-A. If it is true that a thing is a horse, then it cannot be true that the thing is a non-horse. As applied to propositions, if it is true that man is made in the image of God, then it is false that man is not made in the image of God. A precise statement cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense. If a human being is a male, it is false to say that he is not a male. If it is false to say that he is a male, then it is true that he is a non-male. These are basic regulatory principles innate to man that govern all his thinking (see Ruby, pp. 262-268).

So, when John says that “no lie is of the truth,” he is saying something about the nature of God (since God is the ultimate source of truth), and the nature of man (since man is made in the image of God), as well as the nature of truth. John implies that (1) truth is truth (thus affirming the Law of Identity), and (2) if a precise statement is made, it is either true or it is not true—it has to be one or the other (the Law of Excluded Middle), and (3) if a statement is true, its contradictory cannot be true; it must be false. A precise statement cannot be true and its contradiction be true also (the Law of Contradiction). In his incarnation, Jesus claimed to be the personification of truth (John 14:6). The Bible is truth in proposition form (declarations, affirmations, statements).

Now, we have two passages in the New Testament that inform us that God cannot lie. In Titus 1:2 Paul refers to God “who cannot lie.” And in Hebrews 6:18, Paul affirms that “it is impossible for God to lie.” And so we learn that not only does God not lie, but there is an explanation as to why he never does. Now please consider the seriousness of this affirmation. If God has not, does not, and will not lie, and if God has written the Bible, then what he has written is what it is (the Law of Identity), and it is either, in summary, true or it is false (the Law of Excluded Middle), and finally, the Bible cannot be both true and not true (the Law of Contradiction). The Bible, again, has to be either true or false, if it is true then it is true, and if it is true, it cannot then be non-true or false. No lie is of the truth!

Now, as we proceed, some critic might suggest that all we yet know is that the Bible claims that God cannot lie. And, furthermore, the critic might suggest that it might be true that the claim itself allegedly made regarding God in the Bible is itself false. Maybe God can lie, he suggests. If there is a God behind the writing of the Bible, why can’t we think that he could put some falsehood in it without identifying the falsehood, and telling us all the time that the falsehood is, after all, true?

Let me here say that our options regarding the authorship of Scripture are very limited. Either man wrote the Bible or God wrote the Bible. Without going into elaborative proof of the fact that no man and no set of men could possibly have written the Bible (given the nature of the Bible), then we are left with the option of God. Now, if someone thinks that “God” or the alleged God named in the Bible is capable of lying, we take up the exploration of the question at this point. (If the reader wants more information proving the impossibility of non-divine authorship of Scripture, we would suggest that he get a copy of The Utterance of God from the Warren Christian Apologetics Center at WarrenApologetics.org or 304.917.3707).

But now, let us begin to explore the “why” it is that the God of the Bible (the One who is claimed to be the author of the Bible) cannot lie.

The very concept of truth and the concept of falsehood entail the necessity of person. Only a person can tell a truth or a lie. And since a lie (falsehood) is the denial of truth, it presupposes truth. In other words, if the falsification of truth were actually possible without the already existent truth, the lie could not be false.

As we think about God and his relationship to truth, let us ask two questions:

1. Why can’t God be evil?

2. Why can’t God do evil?

First, God cannot be evil because of the definition or meaning of what God would necessarily have to be. Since ultimate reality would have to be either mind or matter, and since eternal matter is impossible and since eternal mind would have to be personal, ultimate reality would have to be mind. (see the Warren-Flew Debate for an excellent philosophical discussion of this most important truth). The world as we experience it and the Bible as we possess it are rationally explainable only on the basis of eternal Mind. And since mind implies person (only person possesses mind), and since evil presupposes good, the ultimately eternal existent Mind would of necessity have to be good. Ultimate reality or ultimate greatness is not only person, it is good Person. Good person entails moral agency or morality. You might remember that Jesus said there is a sense in which God is the only good person there is (Matt. 19:16-17). This is no coincidence! Ultimate greatness would entail, among other things, moral perfection (that is, there is absolutely no deficiency of any kind in this attribute).

As ultimately good, God would have to be—

1. Eternally good

2. Infinitely good

3. Unalterably good

4. Invulnerably good

5. Willfully good

Anselm argued that God is “that greater than which cannot be conceived.” And any “god” that would be deficient in goodness could not be that God.

If someone says that what God is is good regardless of its moral quality or character, then he is denying the ontologically necessary distinction between moral good and moral evil. In other words, if God’s own character decides for us what “morality” will be but his character is not actually a morally good one but simply “the way God is,” then such would be a declaration that there is no qualitative distinction between what is really morally good and what is really morally evil. They could be the same. God could then merely pontificate that murder is good and loving one’s neighbor is evil.

Second, in answering the next question as to why God can’t do evil, we must consider that not only is it the case that God is good, but we must also consider that God desires to be good. That is, God wants to be who he is, and he is certainly content with himself. He is actually good and if he “decides” to do anything such as to create something, he always does so and desires to do so from the point of view of what his goodness would implement. This brings us to the concept of God’s will.

The will of God is such a fundamental and extraordinary concept in Scripture. Jesus taught us to pray with regard to God’s will that it be done on earth as it is in heaven (Matt. 6:10). Jesus came to earth to do the Father’s will (John 6:37-38). If we are alive on earth today, it is only by the will of God (Jas. 4:15). Jesus also informed us that “If any man willeth to do his [that is, the Father’s] will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself” (John 7:17).

Now, as a moral agent (the ultimate One), God is good and, therefore, wills to do good. God can only will to do good because he is good. And since he is good and wills to do good, his relationship to truth then (as something told) can only be to tell it if he speaks or declares anything at all. It is impossible for God to lie because it is impossible for God to will to speak a lie. And if God cannot tell a lie, he cannot write one!

I will close this brief piece with the observation without elaboration that the accuracy and profundity of the Bible (as well as its other traits) conclusively demonstrate that God is the divine author of all Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16-17; John 5:46). This is God who cannot lie!

Apologetics, Baptism, Doctrine, Expository, Heaven, Holy Spirit, Inspiration, Nature of Man, Resurrection

The Man Within

Posted on May 17, 2025May 17, 2025 by Mac Deaver

My friend, Glenn Jobe, and I study together a lot over the telephone. We have wrestled together for years over various concepts and passages. We have studied together regarding death and what happens immediately following death. It has been very helpful to me in the light of my late wife’s passing on July 30 of 2021. We continue to study. Much of the thought contained in this article is due to Glenn’s wonderful thinking. Recently, in a telephone conversation with my good friend, Charles Pugh, we were discussing the resurrection. And, he and I (just as Glenn and I) were wrestling with some complicated matters involved in the resurrection and the resurrection body. Following that conversation, I was stirred to study with more focus in trying to solve some of the hard questions that arise regarding what the Bible says about what happens to us at death and what is entailed in the concept of resurrection.

It is good to note that in 2 Cor. 4:16 Paul refers to our “outward man” and our “inward man.” In Eph. 3:16 he again refers to the “inward man.” This article is putting extreme focus on the time at which Christians first are blessed with the “inward man.”

In working on the matter, the thought came to me several weeks ago that we already have the body that is to be raised on the day of the resurrection, and that body is within us now. I called Glenn to ask him if he knew of any passage that would “crush” this idea. We had a good and very profitable conversation. While a question still in our minds was not resolved regarding one passage, it seemed that the idea of our already having the resurrection body is possible. And in further contemplation and with another phone call to Glenn, it does seem to me that the Bible teaches that the Christian’s body that will be raised from the dead is a body that the Christian has presently within his physical body in this life. Furthermore, that body within is the very body that enters Paradise at physical death. That body is certainly not physical (1 Cor. 15:50). What does this mean then? Let us think about this very carefully. And I think that if what I contend for in this article is true, it unravels the complications of the resurrection that have baffled us for years. That is, the explanation provided here does at least two things. First, it preserves the distinction between the physical body and the spiritual body. Second, it shows how that there is continuity of personal identity that continues in a non-physical (spiritual) body following physical death that makes it possible for an actual resurrection to occur according to New Testament teaching.

According to Paul, two bodies are involved in discussion of the resurrection. There is the physical (or, “flesh and blood”) body (1 Cor. 15:50), and there is the “spiritual” (or, non-flesh and blood) body (1 Cor. 15:42-49). He gives a comparison of them.

He calls the physical body the “natural” body (v. 46). This body is “of the earth” (v. 47), and it is the first body that man receives. The second body is the “spiritual” body and is “of heaven.” The first body bears the image of the “earthy.” The second body bears the image of “the heavenly” (v. 47-48). The two bodies stand in stark contrast to one another. Not only do they differ in nature as to realm of formation (earth or heaven), but they differ, consequently, in their natures. The natural body is given to “corruption,” it is “sown in dishonor,” it is “sown in weakness,” it is “sown a natural body.” The second body, however and in great contrast to the first, is “raised in incorruption,” it is “raised in glory,” it is “raised in power,” and “raised a spiritual body” (v. 42-44). Remember, the first body (“first man”) is “of the earth,” and the second body (“second man”) is “of heaven” (v. 47). Thus, the two bodies have natures that fit the two environments: earth and heaven. This entails the conflict of flesh and spirit (Gal. 5:17). And as long as we are alive in this world, we are composed of physical body, soul, and spirit that comes from God (1 Thess. 5:23; Gen. 1:27; 2:7; Heb. 12:9; Mal. 2:14-15). The “soul” seems to be the animation or vitality initiated at the point of contact between flesh and spirit. When the spirit leaves the physical body, the physical body is dead or lifeless (Jas. 2:26). When physical death occurs, Solomon said the body as composed of dust goes back to the earth, and the spirit returns to God (Eccl. 12:7).

Now, the concept of resurrection entails the nature of man as composed of both body and spirit. Since man is made in God’s image and his spirit comes from God, then the separation of the physical body from human spirit necessarily implies two different consequences. Even the unsaved man who dies is immortal in that his human spirit is not quenched or snuffed out. He, too, enters eternity and faces judgment (John 5:28-29; Matthew 10:28; Jas. 1:27). There is no Bible description of the spiritual body of the wicked that enters eternity and goes to judgment.

But we do have in 1 Cor. 15 and 2 Cor. 5 elaborate discussion of the situation engulfing the righteous dead as to their spiritual or eternal bodies. Of course, language used is definite but accommodative to help us understand what takes place when we die even though it is difficult for us to get a clear picture of how it all is. But the new body is viewed as new clothing (cf. Rev. 3:4), just as the old (physical) body is (Jude 23). The spiritual body is a dwelling place “not made with hands, eternal, in the heavens” (2 Cor. 5:1). It is new clothing “from heaven” (v. 2). If it were not for this new set of clothes, after death we would be “naked” (v. 2-3) [Compare this point to the “bare” (or naked) grain in 1 Cor. 15:37]. In this first body, we presently “groan,” and therefore long for a new and better one (v. 2; cf. Rom. 8:23, 26). When a person becomes a Christian, he is a new creation or creature living in the earthly body (2 Cor. 5:17).

A person becomes a Christian by faith, repentance, confession of faith and immersion in water and in Holy Spirit (John 8:24; Luke 13:3; Rom. 10:9-10; Acts 2:38; 1 Cor. 12:13). And while a believing, having confessed, penitent believer is still in the water of baptism, he is regenerated by the Holy Spirit (Tit. 3:5-6). This occurs as the Holy Spirit engulfs or surrounds the human spirit. That is why it is referred to as a baptism (1 Cor. 12:13). The Greek preposition ἐν in that passage should be translated “in” in English. No one was ever baptized “by” the Holy Spirit. Only Jesus is said to do that (Matt. 3:11; Luke 3:16; cf. Acts 2:33). Furthermore, it is the same preposition used of John’s baptizing people “in” water per Matt. 3:11 as the element in which they were baptized. If John baptized in the element of water, Jesus then baptizes us in the element of the Holy Spirit. Now, following this baptism in Spirit, the Spirit now enters inside the human spirit (Gal. 4:6). When the immersed person rises from baptismal waters, he is “in Christ” because he is now “in Spirit” (Rom. 8:9). This is why he can be said to be a part of the non-personal spiritual body of Christ on earth, which is the Lord’s church (Col. 1:18). From water baptism (which he leaves) and in Holy Spirit (in which he remains), he rises to walk in a new life (Rom. 6:3-4). Thus, this person is now a spiritually alive person and a new creature. And in addition to the physical life that he had before baptism, he now possesses spiritual life while he remains in his mortal or earthly body (Rom. 8:11).

He is now a new creature, spiritually connected to (being “one” with) the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:17). So, he can be renewed each day by this spiritual fellowship or “communion” with the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 4:16; 13:14). This is how the Spirit leads him (Rom. 8:14), enabling him to produce Holy Spirit fruit (Gal. 5:22-24; cf. Eph. 5:3-14). Being “led by the Spirit” enables him to rightly claim to be a child of God, to hold sin down, and to have continual cleansing of his sins (Rom. 8:14; 1 John 1:7). When a man forfeits the Spirit, he reenters “flesh” or, in other words, his physical body no longer has spiritual life in it (Rom. 8:11). The physical body is once again the sin-dominated body that the person had before he became a Christian (“the body of this death,” Rom. 7:24).

Just as we, in the past, could not yet see that the gift of the Holy Spirit is, in fact, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, we could not yet see that the regeneration and indwelling of the Spirit is the initiation or production of the new spiritual body. We have viewed the conversion as the human spirit being regenerated (and rightly so). But we failed to comprehend that this new creation was not of a spirit without a spiritual body. We took it to be the production of a new creature but simply with his old, earthy body awaiting the future time when he would receive his new spiritual body in the resurrection.

Sometime back, I wrote an article claiming that the new spiritual body is provided immediately following death. That article, “A Tale of Two Bodies,” was published here in 2021. What I affirmed in it was progress, doctrinally speaking, in that it showed that the resurrection body is not given at the time of the resurrection but before it. And while this was an advance in the way to think about resurrection, now, looking back, I see that there is more to be said, and that, actually, the resurrection body is given a Christian earlier than the point for which I argued in that previous article. The more complete understanding of what Paul is saying in 2 Cor. 5 entails the idea—it now seems to me—that the new spiritual body that we receive is not received following death at all. Rather, it is received when we are converted to Christ! The regeneration and indwelling of the Holy Spirit actually constitutes the new spiritual body, the body that enters Hades if and when we die, and the body that will be either raised from Hades or changed at the last day (1 Cor. 15:51; 1 Thess. 4:13-18; 2 Cor. 5:1-2).

Now notice, Paul is not saying in 2 Cor. 5 that Christians on earth will be given in the future a body from God or a “habitation” from heaven. He is saying that when we die (our earthly body being “dissolved”), we already have in place this other spiritual body in which we leave this earth at death! In other words, he is saying that one does not need to worry about being “unclothed” at death (in putting off this physical body) because his human spirit is already housed in his new body. He already has his new set of clothes. When we die, we are already dressed for our entry into glory and into the presence of God (cf. Rev. 22:4).

And when Paul says that we long for the day when we will be “clothed upon with our habitation which is from heaven,” he is saying that we long for the day when we will no longer be burdened as we are now in this physical body. Having put it off, we will experience the revealing or manifestation of our spiritual body that we have had since our conversion. We will see Christ in glory as he is when we die (cf. Phil. 1:23). When Christ at his coming is manifested to faithful Christians living on earth, they will be like him for their spiritual body manifestation at that time will be observable by him and to them as well (1 John 3:2). This is the “revealing of the sons of God” of which Paul spoke in Rom. 8:19. It is “the redemption of our body” (Rom. 8:23). The redemption of the body occurs at death; the resurrection of the body occurs at the last day. The redemption of the body concerns the saved; the resurrection of the body concerns all men.

Notice that in 2 Cor. 5 Paul affirms that God made it possible for Christians to have their new spiritual bodies by means of the Holy Spirit. God is the One who made it possible for us to have the new clothes or the new spiritual body by giving us the Holy Spirit, who is the earnest of our inheritance (v. 5; cf. Eph. 1:13-14). This is the Spirit that made it possible for us to have spiritual life in our “mortal bodies” (Rom. 8:11). So, when our mortal body (“earthly house”) is “dissolved,” our new house is revealed. It is not then given to us. Rather, having been given us at our conversion, we continue to have it so that the spiritual life that we had in the mortal body continues to exist without the mortal body. How? The spiritual life is in our new heavenly body. This new body is “from heaven” (2 Cor. 5:2).

As stated earlier, Paul distinguishes between the “outward man” and the “inward man” (2 Cor. 4:16-18). The “outward man” (physical man) is presently “decaying.” The “inward man” (spiritual man) is being “renewed day by day.” In this life, we can see the “outward man,” but we cannot with physical eyes see “the inward man.” However, Paul shows in this passage that we must see the “inward man.” It is one of those invisible things (v. 18) that we must by faith see (cf. 2 Cor. 5:7). Notice, Paul says that when this decaying outward man “be dissolved, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens” (2 Cor. 5:1). “Be dissolved” is an aorist tense verb, but “we have” is present tense. Paul is telling us that at the point when we Christians put off the “outward man,” we keep on having this “building from God” or this “inward man.” We already have it! It is “in the heavens” in the sense that this is the domain of all of our spiritual blessings. Paul said that all of our spiritual blessings are “in the heavenlies” (Eph. 1:3).

Now, think about this. Jesus had told Nicodemus, “Except one be born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3-5). Water is of the earth, just as our first body is (1 Cor. 15:42-46). The birth from above is spiritual and concerns our human spirit (Rom. 6:17). Question: Can a man be born without a body? Answer: No. And Jesus called our transition from the world of sin to spiritual life a “birth.” Paul contrasted our outward man with our inward man. It has been very easy for us to miss the point that the inward man is actually a “complete” man. That is, we never concluded that the inward man had a body since we know that we are still in this first body. However, we have simply missed what we were being told. It is not the case that our human spirit (if we are Christians) is inside one body only (the earthly). He is within two bodies—the physical and, since conversion, the spiritual. Our inward man is a man. It is the same man that is in this earthly body which we can see. But our spirit is now also inside a new body which we as yet cannot see. It is one of those invisible things of which Paul speaks (2 Cor. 4:16-18). Paul encourages us to keep on looking at those things that keep on not being seen. But eventually, when the old, first body is laid aside, the new body will be seen. It is the new man that is being renewed day by day now (2 Cor. 4:16; Rom. 12:1-2). The spiritual body within is getting stronger day by day as our physical body gets weaker and weaker. And consider this point: The church is the non-personal and yet spiritual body of Christ. Christ’s personal glorified body is in heaven at the right hand of God (1 John 3:2; Acts 7:56). This is why I refer to our being the “non-personal” spiritual body of Christ. But also, note that if the church is actually now the spiritual body of Christ (Col. 1:18), then that is so by virtue of the fact that as Christians our spiritual bodies compose it! Our physical bodies cannot possibly be the spiritual body of Christ. Would anyone contend that the Lord’s spiritual body on earth is composed of earthly bodies? Would anyone on earth like to contend that the Lord’s spiritual body on earth is composed of human spirits who have as yet no spiritual body? How can they have no spiritual body and yet be the spiritual body of Christ?

At our new birth, we were given a new body from heaven (from above). This is our “building from God, a house” that God produced, an “eternal” body, “in the heavens” (2 Cor. 5:1). But how is it “in the heavens,” if we have it now? It is like saying that we are not in the world because we are not of the world. We are certainly in the world in one sense (1 Cor. 5:9-10). But we are not of the world in another sense (John 17:16). Our new body is not of this world. John had written, “But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name: who were born, not of blood, nor of will of flesh, nor will of man, but of God” (John 1:12-13). Christians have been born of God. They have been born from above. They are new creatures whose spiritual bodies are from heaven where their citizenship is.

Consider Phil. 3:20-21 carefully. (1) Our “citizenship is in heavens” (plural). (2) We are now currently waiting for the return of the Lord. (3) The Lord will “fashion anew the body of our humiliation,” (4) “that it may be conformed to the body of his glory,” and (5) this is accomplished according to the same power and authority by which he is able “to subject all things unto himself.” Paul is, of course, alive on earth in his earthly body at the time of this writing (before physical death has occurred; cf. 1 Thess. 4:13-18). In context, Paul had already referred to some of the Lord’s enemies who “mind earthly things” (Phil. 3:19). If what we said about 1 John 3:2 is correct, and if our contention is that our spiritual body was created at our conversion, how do we square those points with Phil. 3:21, where we are told that Jesus shall “fashion anew the body of our humiliation”?

In Greek, the word “shall fashion” (or change) means to remodel or transfigure (Harper, p. 267). Now, since “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 15:50), and since we already have and are “our inward man” (2 Cor. 4:16), and since the first body is to be “dissolved,” how can the Lord “fashion anew the body of our humiliation”? In 2 Cor. 5:1 the word for “dissolved” means “to dissolve, to destroy, demolish, overthrow, throw down…” (Harper, p. 218). If there is to be both a remodeling or changing of the body and at the same time a dissolving (destroying, overthrowing) of the body, how can these things be?

I suggest that changing (or remodeling or fashioning anew) our body is simply a reference to the releasing of the new spiritual body from its attachment to the physical one. Flesh and blood are not remodeled. They are dissolved or destroyed. The Lord’s fashioning anew the body of our humiliation means that he he will release the spiritual body from the physical body when he returns. Its new form will be by virtue of its disconnection from the physical body in which it now resides. Remember, Paul is writing from the viewpoint of the those living on earth. He is not writing from the viewpoint of faithful Christians whose spiritual bodies have already been released from their earthly bodies. So, he is discussing the release of a spiritual body from a physical body and not the creation of a spiritual body at the Lord’s coming. This refashioning would be the equivalent of “the revealing of the sons of God” in Rom. 8:19.

Furthermore, let us remember that what Paul says regarding the Lord’s fashioning again the body of our humiliation (Phil. 3:21) has the background of his comments earlier made with regard to the Lord’s incarnation. Speaking of Christ Jesus, Paul wrote that he “emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:7-8). He said that Jesus gave up “the form of God” (v. 6-7). So, he gave up the divine form (not the divine essence or substance) and took on human form. Jesus retained his eternal identity (John 1:1-2, 14) when he became the son of Mary (Luke 1:35).

Our new body that is conformed to the glorified body of Christ is the new form of the body of humiliation (the physical body). Jesus “humbled himself” in leaving divine form for human form (Phil. 2:8). He humbled himself in being formed as a man. The Lord’s physical body was the body of his humiliation as ours is to us. And notice that the transformation that obtains in our body of humiliation being conformed to the body of his glory is “according to the working whereby he is able even to subject all things unto himself” (Phil. 3:21).

Compare this to what Paul says in Col. 2:11-12. When we were baptized into Christ, Paul says that such constituted “the putting off of the body of the flesh.” Now, that is not the physical body that was put off; it was the body of sin or sin-dominated body. Paul said he was still in the physical body (Gal. 2:20). He is referring to the sin-dominated body or “the body of this death” (Rom. 7:24). And putting off the body of flesh, “having been buried with him [i.e. Christ] in baptism” (Col. 2:12), Paul says that we “were also raised with him through the faith [i.e. the gospel] in the working of God, who raised him from the dead” (v. 12). So, there is a “working” or divine operation that raises us up in our spiritual resurrection from spiritual death at the time of our conversion. That is our “first resurrection” (cf. Rev. 20:6). Regarding our second resurrection, God’s “working” changes us or conforms us to the Lord’s glorified body (Phil. 3:21). This is the fashioning anew of the body of our humiliation. Now, how is it if “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” that God can “fashion anew the body of our humiliation”? If the physical body goes back to dust, and the spirit goes back to God who gave it, then the fashioning anew refers to the release of the spiritual body within from the physical body without. The new form or fashion of the spiritual body is without its attachment to the physical one. Our glorified body is disconnected from the body of our humiliation. Presently our glorified or spiritual body remains within the body of our humiliation.

Consider some points Paul makes on death, burial, and resurrection in 1 Cor. 15:

1. Our physical bodies are not going to be raised from the dead because “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (v. 50; cf. Gen. 3:19). The body goes back to the earth (Eccl.12:7), and the earth will finally be burned up (2 Pet. 3:10-12).

2. At the resurrection the righteous dead (those who will inherit the kingdom of God) will be “raised incorruptible,” and the righteous then-living ones will “be changed” (v. 51-52).

3. “Death is swallowed up in victory” (v. 54) as our spirit is released from its first set of clothes (the flesh and blood body characterized by its corruption and mortality; cf. Jas. 2:26).

4. Victory is obtained before resurrection and at the point of one’s death (v. 54).

5. Eternal clothing (or the new body) is already in place at the time of one’s death (v. 52-54).

6. The buried body is likened to the seed that a farmer plants (v. 36).

7. The seed has to die in order that and before its body comes forth (v. 36).

8. The seed is not the same as the body that it becomes (v. 37).

9. God prepares each body that each kind of seed becomes (v. 37-38).

10. There are various kinds of flesh (v. 39), two basic kinds of bodies (v. 40), and various kinds of glory (v. 41).

11. Paul then declares that the resurrection involves what he has just declared (v. 42). (1) A man must die in order that a body might come forth from the grave; (2) the man’s physical body (as seed) that is planted is not to be confused with the body that comes forth; (3) the body that comes forth, like all bodies, is designed by God (v. 37-38); (4) the identification of “fleshes” and “bodies” and “glories” (v. 39-41) indicates that the resurrection entails the full nature of man (both the physical body and the spiritual).

Remember, Paul is discussing the resurrection of the saved (v. 20-23). It is not a discussion of the resurrection of the lost, although certainly some points made would apply to all men. But the concepts of “incorruption,” “glory,” “power,” “spiritual body” refer to saved people only (v. 42-44). While all men who die will be raised (John 5:28-29), only the righteous are raised in incorruption, glory, power, and in a spiritual (or heavenly) body. The spiritual body is the “heavenly” body (v. 46-49). Remember, when we were baptized into Christ, we were born from above (John 3:3-5). We received that spiritual or heavenly body that is the one and only one of our two bodies (physical and spiritual) that will come forth from the grave.

Before listing several formal arguments, let me comment on 1 Cor. 6:13-20. In our second book on the Holy Spirit, Except One Be Born From Above, I explained the passage (p. 229-237), showing how Paul’s discussion of the Christian’s body actually entailed an identification of three different bodies: (1) the Holy Spirit-filled body, (2) one’s own body, and (3) the body of sin (p. 233). When a Christian, walking in the light (1 John 1:7), still commits a momentary act of sin, he sins without “the body of sin” or the sin-dominated body. But Paul says that when a Christian commits fornication, he sins against his own body (“the Holy Spirit-filled body”). And I wrote, “The Christian in the commission of fornication has created a situation such that the Holy Spirit has been driven out of his body…The Holy Spirit cannot indwell an unholy heart or remain in an unholy body (cf. 2 Cor. 7:1)” (p. 234).

In the past when I have been asked what happens to the personal presence of the Holy Spirit when a Christian apostatizes from the faith, I would answer that he leaves the body. Why is this? Because the Holy Spirit’s presence in the physical body of the saint is proof of the saint’s future inheritance in glory (Eph. 1:13-14; 2 Cor. 5:5). This personal presence makes the saint’s physical body a “temple” of God (1 Cor. 3:16-17; 6:19-20). So, if the Christian apostatizes from the faith, he forfeits the personal presence of the Holy Spirit in his body, whose presence constitutes the Christian’s “earnest” of his inheritance.

In Gal. 4:19, we find a most informative truth in Paul’s description of the apostates in the churches of Galatia. Some brethren had been led away from the purity of the gospel (Gal. 1:6-10). Some Jews had falsely instructed them that they had to submit to circumcision in order to be faithful to Christ. In other words, they were being told that Gentiles had to become Jewish proselytes before they could obey the gospel. Some of them fell for the falsehood, and Paul said of these, “Ye are severed from Christ, ye who would be justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” These were apostate brethren. They had stopped obeying the truth (5:7). He reminded them that if they were “led by the Spirit,” they were not under the law of Moses (5:18). This reminds us of Rom. 8:14, where Paul wrote, “For as many as are led by Spirit of God, these are sons of God.” Now, in Gal. 4:19 Paul says, “I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you.” Marshall’s The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament translates the Greek word ὠδίνω to mean “I travail in birth.” Harper’s Analytical Greek Lexicon gives this definition of ὠδίνω: “to be in travail (Gal. 4:27; Rev. 12:2); met. To travail with, to make effort to bring forth (Gal. 4:19)” (p. 282). For the Greek word μορφωθῇ translated “is formed,” Harper gives the meaning as “to give shape to, mould, fashion, (Gal. 4:19)” (p. 273). Thus, Paul is figuratively expressing the idea that he is in spiritual labor until Christ is formed or moulded or shaped in them once again!

Now remember, the formation of a Christian’s spiritual body happens originally when that having confessed, penitent believer is baptized into Christ (John 8:24; Luke 13:3; Rom. 10:9-10; Gal. 3:26-27; 1 Cor. 12:13). The formation of a convert’s spiritual body takes place when he becomes a Christian. That first formation entails (1) the surrounding of the human spirit by the Holy Spirit himself when the Holy Spirit enters his physical body. This is the immersion of a human spirit in the Holy Spirit, at which point the human spirit is regenerated (that is, given spiritual life—1 Cor. 12:13; Titus 3:5-6; Rom. 6:3-4). This the precise point when one is added to the church (i.e. becomes a part of the spiritual body of Christ). The formation of a person’s spiritual body also entails (2) the movement of the Holy Spirit to within the heart of the forgiven and now regenerated person who is, in fact, a Christian (Gal. 4:6). The process of baptism in Spirit plus indwelling (1 Cor. 12:13; Rom. 8:9-11; 2 Tim. 1:14) constitutes the “formation” of the Christian’s spiritual body! Don’t confuse the human spirit with Holy Spirit. All humans have a human spirit (Gal. 1:26-27; 1 Thess. 5:23). Only Christians have been regenerated by and are indwelled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:32; 2 Tim. 1:14).

So, when Paul says that he is in spiritual travail until Christ be formed in the Galatian saints, since Christ is personally at the right hand of the Father (Acts. 2:33; 7:55), he can only be “formed” in them again by his Spirit whose form had been forfeited when they fell from grace. That spiritual form (or body) can be reinstated if they heed Paul’s instructions. Amazing!

Let’s conclude with a few arguments:

Argument One

1. If (1) our new birth entails being born of water and Spirit, and if (2) our new birth entails being born from above, and if (3) water is from below and Spirit is from above, and if (4) our human spirit was regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and if (5) we became a new man or a new creature by means of this birth of water and Spirit, and if (6) the concept of being born entails having a body, then we received a new spiritual body when we were born again and became a new man.

2. (1) Our new birth entails being born of water and Spirit (John 3:3-5), and (2) our new birth entails being born from above (John 3:3-5; 1 Cor. 12:13), and (3) water is from below and Spirit is from above (observation; Col. 3:1-4), and (4) our human spirit was regenerated by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5-6), and (5) we became a new man or a new creature by means of this birth of water and Spirit (Titus 3:5-6; Rom. 6:1-4), and (6) the concept of being born entails having a body (Gen. 2:7, 23; John 1:13; 1 Cor. 15:47-49).

3. Then, we received a new spiritual body when we were born again and became a new man.

Argument Two

1. If the new birth is comparable to and superior to the old birth, and if the old birth essentially entailed the fundamental concept of a body, then the new birth essentially entails the concept of a body.

2. The new birth is comparable to and superior to the old birth (John 1:13; 3:3-5), and the old birth essentially entailed the fundamental concept of a body (1 Cor. 15:42-49).

3. Then, the new birth essentially entails the concept of a body.

Argument Three

1. If those who are born again or born from above already have a spiritual body within, and if the physical body will go back to dust at death, then it is the spiritual body that enters Hades at death to be raised on the day of the resurrection.

2. Those who are born again or born from above already have a spiritual body within (see Argument Two), and the physical body will go back to dust at death (Gen. 3:19; Eccl. 12:7).

3. Then, it is the spiritual body that enters Hades at death to be raised on the day of the resurrection.

Argument Four

1. If (1) the church’s condition as the spiritual body of Christ on earth is analogous to the condition of a Christian’s spiritual body following physical death, and if (2) that analogy is based on the church’s relationship to (being in) the Spirit now, and if (3) that relationship between the Christian and the Holy Spirit entails the fact that the Christian is a part of a new creation, then the church’s spiritual body following physical death is a body created by the Holy Spirit.

2. (1) The church’s condition as the spiritual body of Christ on earth is analogous to the condition of a Christian’s spiritual body following physical death (Col. 1:18; 1 Cor. 15:44-49), and (2) that analogy is based on the church’s relationship to (being in) the Spirit now (Rom. 8:9-11; 2 Cor. 5:4-5), and (3) that relationship between the Christian and the Holy Spirit entails the fact that the Christian is a part of a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17).

3. Then, the church’s spiritual body following physical death is a body created by the Holy Spirit.

Argument Five

1. If (1) a Christian’s spiritual body is a body created by the Holy Spirit, and if (2) it remains our body following our physical death, then we have our spiritual body before we die a physical death.

2. (1) A Christian’s spiritual body is a body created by the Holy Spirit (see Argument Four; and John 3:3-5), and (2) it remains our body following our physical death (1 Cor. 15:42-49).

3. Then, we have our spiritual body before we die a physical death.

Argument Six

1. If (1) what is sown is what is raised in 1 Cor. 15, and if (2) what is sown is sown a natural body and raised a spiritual body, then the body remains an individual’s body though it changed from natural to spiritual.

2. (1) What is sown is what is raised in 1 Cor. 15 (15:42-49), and (2) what is sown is sown a natural body and raised a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:42-44).

3. Then, the body remains an individual’s body though it changed from natural to spiritual.

Argument Seven

1. If (1) an individual Christian’s body remains his own body but is changed from a natural body to a spiritual body, and if (2) his spiritual body is not a flesh and blood body, and if (3) his natural body puts on a spiritual body, then his spiritual body was within his natural body before he died a physical death.

2. (1) An individual Christian’s body remains his own body but is changed from a natural body to a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:42-49), and (2) his spiritual body is not a flesh and blood body (1 Cor. 15:50-58), and (3) his natural body puts on a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:53-56).

3. Then, his spiritual body was within his natural body before he died a physical death.

Argument Eight

1. If (1) the natural body (physical body) has spiritual life in it on earth by means of the Holy Spirit’s presence in it, and if (2) the natural body is the mortal body, and if (3) the spiritual body is the immortal body, and if (4) the natural body will not be raised but the spiritual body will be raised, then the natural body has spiritual life within it by means of a spiritual body within it.

2. (1) The natural body (physical body) has spiritual life in it on earth by means of the Holy Spirit’s presence in it (Rom. 8:9-11; 6:1-11), and (2) the natural body is the mortal body (1 Cor. 15:44; 2 Cor. 5:1-5), and (3) the spiritual body is the immortal body (1 Cor. 15:42-49; 2 Cor. 5:1-8), and (4) the natural body will not be raised but the spiritual body will be raised (1 Cor. 15:50, 42-49).

3. Then, the natural body has spiritual life within it by means of a spiritual body within it.

A Concluding Thought

Not only does the previous argumentation show that the Christian’s resurrection body is provided to him when he becomes a Christian, but it also provides a unique form of new apologetic argumentation for the inspiration of Scripture and, thus, for the existence of God. The myriad of details involved in the history of man, as told in Scripture, is such that from man’s first appearance on earth to his final destiny, his history reveals the necessity of the divine inspiration of the Book that records that history!

No one but God himself could have told the story of human experience (with all the essential features of it), revealing the necessity of divine redemption in such a complete and coherent way as to provide such a profound account of the nature, the condition, the purpose, and the need of man from time to eternity.

Argument on Inspiration

1. If the Bible provides an account of the totality of human experience (from time to eternity) which is impossible to be the written production of mere man or of any combination of men, then the Bible is the word of God.

2. The Bible provides an account of the totality of human experience (from time to eternity) which is impossible to be the written production of mere man or of any combination of men. [Note: The proof of this second premise is the story of Scripture beginning with man’s first appearance on earth and concluding with his resurrection and/or transformation into his final phase.]

3. Then, the Bible is the word of God.

Apologetics, Logic/Philosophy, Metaphysics

Giving Up On Creation

Posted on October 19, 2022 by Mac Deaver

Several months ago, I wrote an article entitled, “Could God Create (Ex Nihilo) On The First Day?” It appeared in the Warren Christian Apologetics Center periodical, Sufficient Evidence (Fall 2020). I did not know that anyone ever later attempted to respond to my article. But on January 25, 2022 a preacher friend of mine informed me that he had come across an article entitled, “God Was Not ‘Within Time’ When He Began Creation?” by a writer who works with Apologetics Press. The writer’s article was published on October 22, 2021. I am glad to know of the article to which I will now make a response.

As the title of our critic’s article indicates, he is quite willing to take the position that God was within time when He created. I am quite sure that my critic has no idea as to what he has implied in taking that position, but I will try to explain very carefully.

In my first article I pointed out that some of our brethren have for years tried to prove a young earth, thinking that such was necessary in order to meet the challenge of atheistic evolution. I pointed out, furthermore, that such is simply not the case. The notion of Darwinian evolution, even though it claims much time for its theory, is not based on time. As I suggested in my first article (as well as in my chapter in The Utterance Of God, a book published recently by the Warren Center), evolution cannot be established on the basis of time. It entails the idea of impossible chance. If we grant the evolutionist billions and billions of years for his theory, he still cannot prove it, for time is NOT the issue.

Furthermore, in my first article, I pointed out that three of our our most accomplished scholars in the church (Guy Woods, Roy Deaver, and Thomas Warren) took the position that no one can know how old the universe is. That is my view also.

But since Apologetics Press has invested so much effort over many years in the attempt to prove a young earth, it does not surprise me that some staff member should attempt to dismantle my evidence. Let us see if the staff member was successful in his recent effort.

Our critic refers to two different approaches at establishing an older earth, one of which he refers to as the “Gap Theory.” First of all, let me suggest that such language is prejudicial and dismissive. I could refer to his view as the “Non-Gap Theory.” Calling something a mere theory does not make it so. But my critic thinks that he can persuade the reader to dismiss my contention by referring to it as a mere theory.

Second, he suggests that every now and then someone comes along and tries to argue for an older universe even though he is sure that staff writers at Apologetics Press have already proved a young earth. Let me just here suggest to the reader that if the articles from these men offered no more proof for a young earth than our current critic offers in his current effort at answering my article, then neither those men nor he have proved a young earth. In fact, I firmly declare that my critic is assuming what he has not proved. I state categorically that no one at Apologetics Press or anywhere else has proved the age of the universe.

In my first article, I used six arguments. My critic refers to only two of them, and he does not falsify either one of these. He does not question the validity of the syllogisms, so that the only route to falsification is by disproving one of the premises in the arguments. This is what he tries to do, but he does not accomplish what he wishes the reader to believe that he has. The conclusion to the first argument of mine that he quotes is: “Therefore, He (God, MD) cannot be within the first day’s 24-hour period.” The conclusion to the second argument of mine that my reviewer quotes is: “Then, Exodus 20:11 excludes Genesis 1:1 in its reference to six days.”

My position, as stated, is that God cannot be in time at the initial point of creation, and since that is so, then Exodus 20:11 must exclude Genesis 1:1.

Now, what does my critic do? He writes, “Time begins at the exact point at which physical matter and space come into existence. The initial creative event is a simultaneous occurrence of both matter and time. All time starts with the first atom of matter that is created since time (as it relates to the physical Universe) is connected to the Universe.” I agree that time begins when matters first exists. However, I do not agree that “The initial creative event is a simultaneous occurrence of both matter and time.” In my first article I showed why such was impossible.

Now, please notice how my critic proceeds. “The simple response to the above argument is to recognize that, though the author of the argument focuses on the ‘location’ of God in relation to time, Genesis 1:1 and Exodus 20:11 are not addressing how God relates to the events before the creation of the physical Universe. These passages address the passing of time that is connected to the physical Universe.” Dear reader, please notice the expression “passing of time.” We’ll come back to that.

My friend continued, “God existed before time, is currently outside of time, and is from everlasting to everlasting, as Psalm 90:2 states. Thus, all of God’s activities before the creation of the physical world were ‘before’ time, but those activities would have no bearing on the time that has elapsed in the material Universe. They would not add billions of years to the age of the Universe. Time is an aspect of the physical creation and cannot be separated from it.” Notice, please, the words “time that has elapsed.”

My first article was not on the “passing of time” or the “elapsing” of time. It was all about the very INITIATION of time! My critic’s argumentation here is completely beside the point and quite inadequate to the two arguments of mine that he did quote. He quoted my final two arguments. I will now present again the first four arguments for the reader’s consideration to show what issue my antagonist is up against.

Argument #1

1. If God initiated creation within time, then time existed before the heavens and the Earth did.

2. But it is false that time existed before the heavens and the Earth did.

3. Therefore, it is false that God initiated creation within time.

Argument #2

1. If God was within time at the point of initial creation, then He was not inhabiting eternity.

2. But it is false that God was not inhabiting eternity at the point of initial creation (Psalm 90:2; Isaiah 57:15).

3. Therefore, it is false that God was within time at the point of initial creation.

Argument #3

1. If (1) God began creation from His habitation in eternity, and if (2) God made heavens and Earth for six days, and if (3) there is a conceptual pause between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:3 at Genesis 1:2 dividing the chaotic condition of the formless and void Earth from the initial orderliness beginning in verse 3, then the making of heavens and Earth for six days per Exodus 20:11 begins with Genesis 1:3.

2. (1) God began creation from His habitation in eternity (Psalm 90:2; Isaiah 57:15), and (2) God made heavens and Earth for six days (Exodus 20:11), and (3) there is a conceptual pause between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:3 at Genesis 1:2 dividing the chaotic condition of the formless and void Earth from the initial orderliness beginning in verse 3 (the text reveals this).

3. Then, the making of heavens and Earth for six days per Exodus 20:11 begins with Genesis 1:3.

Argument #4

1. If God creates time, then He is not within time at the initial point of time’s creation.

2. God created time (with the creation of heavens and Earth—Genesis 1:1).

3. Then, He is not within time at the initial point of time’s creation.

Now, dear reader, it is important to see that my opponent in this issue simply did not address these arguments except by way of redirecting the reader’s attention away from the initial point of creation to the “passing of time” and to the “elapsing” of time. But, this is no answer at all! I was not discussing the passing or elapsing of time. I was discussing the enormously important point of the initial moment of time (that is, when time began and what its relationship to God had to be at that initial making of the first moment).

Furthermore, my friend noted that I had admitted that time arrived simultaneously when matter first appeared. That is correct. But what I did not admit and what I do not and cannot believe is that the initial movement of God in creation was within time because time did not exist when that creative movement began. Again, my critic said, “The initial creative event is a simultaneous occurrence of both matter and time.” My response is: while matter and time must occur simultaneously, the initial creative movement must precede them. It cannot at all simply be simultaneous with them. Why not?

This is very, very important. I am sure that my critic did not mean to be doing this, but when he suggests that the initial creation event is completely simultaneous with matter and time (thus willingly placing God “within” time), he is eliminating the conceptual distinction between CAUSE and EFFECT. If “cause” takes place at the exact same moment as “effect,” then “cause” IS “effect,” and “effect” IS “cause”! Theologically that lands my critic in the position of pantheism. That is the view that God is the world, and the world is God. Furthermore, if pantheism is correct, creation is NOT an event at all. Creation simply does not occur. There is no creation! Now, as I said, I am quite sure that my critic was not trying to imply pantheism, but he did so in his futile effort to falsify my argumentation. If the young earth view implies pantheism, and if pantheism is false, then the young earth view is false since any doctrine that implies a false doctrine is itself false. I am not saying, however, that the young earth view does imply such, but I am saying that my critic’s argumentation regarding simultaneity does imply such.

Remember, I am not contending for a young earth or an old earth. I am contending for the position that we cannot know how old our universe is. Furthermore, if modern space exploration suggests or seems to suggest at the moment that an older earth is what we have, then when theists try to “prove” a young earth, these theists are rendered ridiculous in the eyes of informed scientists. Now, I know that the “scientific method” is based on an invalid logical procedure, and that because of that, science can present by that methodology no absolutely proved conclusion. However, scientists even with that invalid method continue to explore and suggest. And when their suggestion is based on their actual findings or discoveries, theists cannot simply dismiss discovered facts or alleged facts.

For example, Fred Heeren in his tremendous book, Show Me God, declares, “Looking at the discoveries of modern science, Robert Gange finds powerful evidence of a Supernatural Creator. But he doesn’t start his argument with the discovery that the universe must have had a beginning or with the evidence for design. He starts with the evidence that the universe is old (Fred Heeren, Show Me God, p. 318).

Now consider carefully this quotation from Robert Gange:

“The thing that argues for the existence of a Supernatural Creator is the fact that the universe has been in existence for between 14 and 17 billion years. Now that almost sounds contradictory. Most Christians who are trying to argue the Henry Morris line are trying to say that everything is very, very young. What they’re not realizing is the fact that scientists today accept ages of the order of 14 to 17 billion years is itself proof of a supernatural creation.” (Show Me God, p. 318)

If space exploration is, in fact, currently suggesting an older earth, so be it. If the information gathered is being wrongly reasoned about, so be it. It does not matter one bit as far as a Bible believer’s soul is concerned as to whether we have an old universe or a young one or a young one that looks like an old one. What we have is a magnificently created one!

God could have created the universe in an orderly fashion, but He chose not to do that. The initial condition of matter was originally chaotic (Gen. 1:2). The earth was without form, and it was void. Notice my father’s words in his commentary on Romans:

“In Isaiah 45:18 the record says, “For thus saith Jehovah that created the heavens, the God that formed the earth and made it, that established it and created it not a waste, that formed it to be inhabited.” The King James Version says: “He created it not in vain.” The word translated “in vain” in Isaiah 45:18 is the same as that translated “without form” in Genesis 1:2. The Revised Standard translates it “waste” in both places. Hence, God created the earth “not in vain,” not a “waste.” Referring to the original condition of the earth Job tells us that when God first laid “the foundations of the earth” that conditions were such that “the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy” (Job 38:6-7), thus indicating the perfection and completeness of the work of creation. Many have called attention to the point that the original word for “create” (bara) implies perfect work, perfect and beautiful order.” (Roy Deaver, Romans, God’s Plan For Man’s Righteousness, p. 168)

So, if God created the earth not in vain, and if the creation of the heavens and the earth was in vain in Genesis 1:1-2, then the creation of the heavens and the earth of which Isaiah speaks in Isaiah 45:18 excludes Genesis 1:1-2 and begins at Genesis 1:3.

Finally, God could have initially created an ordered universe, but He chose not to do that. He did create matter in chaos out of which order was brought. When did the initial creation take place? We do not know. The Bible does not say, and no one should be considered uninformed on the issue who refuses to submit to someone’s claim that he has found out how old our universe actually is.

Endnotes

This article is a response to Kyle Butt (2021), “God Was Not ‘Within Time’ When He Began Creation?”, https://apologeticspress.org/god-was-not-within-time-when-he-began-creation/, published by Apologetics Press on October 22, 2021.

Apologetics, Doctrine, Evolution, Logic/Philosophy, Metaphysics

Could God Create (ex nihilo) on the First Day?

Posted on July 8, 2021March 5, 2022 by Mac Deaver

[Note: This piece appeared in the Fall 2020 issue of “Sufficient Evidence,” the bi-annual apologetics journal of the Warren Christian Apologetics Center in Parkersburg, West Virginia. We appreciate the interest in the article by our good friends, Charles Pugh and Terry Varner, and their desire to publish it.]

In Genesis 1:1 we find these words, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Now we know that the Hebrew word used for “created” is “bara” and can entail ex nihilo creation. According to the Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, it is not always used that way, but the word itself does entail that possible use which, no doubt, it must have in Genesis 1:1. In Genesis 1:27 the word “bara” is used for the creation of man whose existence clearly came from already existing dust (Genesis 2:7) and rib (Genesis 2:21-22) and from Holy Spirit (Malachi 2:15; Hebrews 12:9). Now notice that in Genesis 2:3 the same word “bara” is used for something other than or in addition to what we face in Genesis 1:1. Consider Genesis 2:1-3: “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.”

Now, the word “created” in 2:3 covers all that is entailed in the finished work of God. Verse 2 shows that he ended his work that he had “made” (not the word “bara” but “asah”). While “asah” can refer to creation as such, “The basic meaning…is ‘do’ or ‘make’ in a general sense” (ibid., p. 1626). So, God finished the creation, at least as provided in the description given in Genesis 1:2ff.

Years ago, our brethren did not make an issue of the age or alleged age of the earth. In fact, there was a certain obscurity in Moses’ account that most of us realized from the way that Moses wrote. Some prominent preachers were quite clear in their definite conclusion that the Bible is indefinite regarding the age of the earth. In a most excellent article entitled “Questions of Chronology” that appeared in the February 22, 1962 issue of Gospel Advocate, Guy N. Woods affirmed, “(1) The inspired text contains no data on which the events of Genesis 1 may be dated” and “(2) It is not necessary to assume that the earth and man were created at or near the same time” (p. 122). Thirty years later (1992) my father (Roy C. Deaver) published his commentary, ROMANS—God’s Plan For Man’s Righteousness, and in it he wrote, “How much ‘time’ (as men view time) elapsed between the original creation and the renovation (the work of the six days) no one can say with certainty” (p. 167). Both Woods and my father gave elaboration that I will not here insert, but both of them were convinced that regarding the age of the earth, we simply do not know and cannot say because the Bible does not reveal that information to us. I can remember years ago hearing brother Woods saying to my father that these preachers that are trying to prove that the earth is a very young earth are painting themselves into a corner. And I can remember that my father received some criticism of his commentary for inserting the truth regarding the non-knowability of the time of the creation in Genesis 1:1.

And yet, with the passing of more time, it seems that some among us have become quite emboldened in their attempt to claim that a young earth can be proven, and that it must be proven, and that those of us who are informed must know and claim that the earth created in “the beginning” (Genesis 1:1) has only existed for a few thousand years.

Let me say just here that it is my opinion that much of this push among some preachers and other brethren in claiming certitude with regard to a young earth is an overreaction to a social condition or cultural situation. Some seem to think that since Darwinian evolution requires a tremendous amount of time in order to satisfy the requirements for the evolutionary theory, we must in response to that false theory whittle down the time. To me, it is comparable to what the church did years ago in its response to Pentecostalism. In order to react properly to the false claim of modern miracles, some brethren went to the extreme and equally false position that the Holy Spirit does nothing (other than what he does in his word). Now, to respond to a false view that seemingly requires billions of years for enough time support, some of us have gone to the other extreme and claim that the Bible teaches that there is not sufficient time for the evolutionary theory because it can be proven that the earth is, in fact, quite young. It needs to be understood that Darwinian evolution cannot be proven even if we were to allow the evolutionists trillions and trillions of years in which to weave their web. Evolution cannot be established by the allowance of a great amount of time or of more time in addition to the first amount allowed or by the addition of more time after that, etc., etc. Time is simply not the issue! Some things are not possible in the nature of things, and the theoretical creation of more time to allow possibility doesn’t help if possibility is not a possibility! Given all the time conceivable, absolutely nothing cannot give existence to something, a man cannot become God, and life cannot be derived from non-life.

Now, be that as it may, let us be clear about motivation and position. There is a difference between (1) the motivation for or the reason why someone takes a view and (2) the evidence used in support of the view. So, regardless why some of us believe we must stand for a young earth in order to meet the threat of evolution, the claim to prove a young earth must stand or fall on its own. Of course, both camps (those who favor an old earth and those who favor a young earth) are trying to be faithful to God. But we certainly do not need to judge the faithfulness of a brother on the basis of which view on this issue he takes. If Moses wrote so that we can know that a young earth is what we have, then so be it. And if Moses wrote so that we cannot know that a young earth is what we have, so be it. But if Moses did not reveal the approximate date of the earth, no one has the right to claim to know that alleged date, and he certainly has no right to impose that claimed date on his brethren. Furthermore, he certainly has no right to consider someone who disagrees with his claim as being simply uninformed on the issue. We do not advocate the truth, and we do not defend the faith when we attempt to prove what cannot be proven. Claiming to prove what cannot be proven is just as wrong as asserting that we cannot know what the Bible affirms that we must know.

Furthermore, it needs to be pointed out that the topic here discussed does not lend itself to scientific inquiry. Guy Woods, Roy Deaver, and Thomas Warren all understood that “origins” does not come within the scope of science. It falls within the scope of philosophy and theology. If one would study “the beginning” of our universe, he has to step outside the discipline of science in order to make the exploration. The “scientific method” applies to material things only in their material existence—not in how their material existence initially came into being. Science’s method applies to empirical things and not to how empirical things originally arrived. Science must consider material things as they now are.

A good friend of mine recently reminded me of something I had forgotten though I had marked it in my own book years ago. In Rubel Shelly’s 1975 book, What Shall We Do With The Bible?, Shelly affirmed, “The ‘beginning’ could have been millions or billions of years ago. Or it could have been only a few thousand years ago—with the earth having been ‘aged’ at the time God brought it into existence” (p. 91). Shelly’s onetime professor, Thomas B. Warren, wrote the “Introduction” to that book, and Warren’s publishing company, National Christian Press, published it and holds the copyright on it. Warren did not disavow the remark or edit it out of the book.

Now, let us begin to look seriously at the Genesis text. The KJV has, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved (ASV—was brooding) upon the face of the waters.” Notice that the original creation (v. 1) is separated from the literary account of additional creative work (v. 3) by verse 2 which entails a conceptual change and a pause in the creation account itself. Verse 2 indicates that God’s Spirit was surveying the scene of the formless and void earth; it was a chaotic, water-earth mixed mass. Verse 2 is a transition verse that ties verse 1 to verse 3.

Verse 3 follows the survey of the scene, and God then continues with creative effort: “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” Then “God divided the light from the darkness” (v. 4), and he “called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night” (v. 5). Then at the end of verse 5, we have, “And the evening and the morning were the first day.”

Now, in our Genesis 2:1-3, Moses wrote, “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.”

So, clearly there is a creation week of six days duration followed by a seventh day of rest. Now the question becomes: When did the first day begin? Did God create (ex nihilo) on the first day? Is Genesis 1:1 a part of what is described in Genesis 2:3? Or does Genesis 2:3 omit Genesis 1:1? Please notice that God rested “in” the seventh day (Genesis 2:3). So, did he initially create something out of nothing on or “in” the first day?

Now, we must remember that in Exodus 20:11 Moses recorded this: “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” So, we ask ourselves whether or not Exodus 20:11 includes Genesis 1:1, or does it begin with Genesis 1:3 following the Spirit’s survey of the chaotic scene. As we ponder that question, let us think about the extraordinary situation that it addresses. Let us think about the situation like this: before creation, during creation, after creation. Or we have—

God Before He Creates (Eternity Before Time)

God As He Creates (Eternity With Time)

God After He Creates (Time After Eternity)

Now, when does the first day in Genesis 1 actually begin? We can exclude the first category (God Before He Creates) because by definition Day One as described by Moses is a part of creation (Genesis 1:5). That leaves two categories to consider. And this is where the controversy has always been. Now let me ask, does the third category (God After He Creates) end with Genesis 1:1? Of course not. And no one claims this on either side of the issue. So, we then ask, does the third category (God After He Creates) end with the completion of the six days work? Or, is the creation finished completely by the time of the sixth day? Yes. Again, everyone agrees that it is. So the issue has always been: Where do the six days of creation as per Exodus 20:11 begin? Do the days begin in Genesis 1:1 or do they begin in Genesis 1:3? This is the essential question in settling the dispute as to whether or not the Bible provides information whereby we can know the approximate age of the earth.

Now, the advocates of the extremely young earth theory claim that Exodus 20:11 includes Genesis 1:1 so that God began the actual creation itself on the first day, and the first day is like all the others in that it is a 24 hour period. We do not disagree as to the time of each day, but we must explore whether or not Genesis 1:1 allows for such a description of God’s initial creative act. So, let us think about God and his relationship to time.

God Before Time

God Making Time

God After Time

Regarding the first category (God Before Time), we know from Scripture as well as from philosophy that God existed alone before time began. Of necessity he existed before his own creative work began, of course (cf. Psalm 90:2). The third category entails all of God’s personal history subsequent to his creation of the first thing that he created. Now the fascinating and crucial category regarding our issue is the middle one: God Making Time. When did time begin? The correct answer is that it began at the point at which the first thing came into existence. Since God didn’t “come” into existence, the point at which the first thing came into existence was the creation of the heaven and earth. Whether the heaven came first or the earth came first or they came simultaneously, Moses does not say. But time is simply the description of the duration of a created condition. Time is the “marking” or “passing” of moments or segments of duration. That is, time entails the existence of something that was created and which can only be maintained by something external to itself (God). So, time began when God created the heaven and the earth. But, of course, God did not make “time” in the same sense in which he made the heaven and the earth. Time was “made” by the creation of the heaven and the earth. Simultaneously time arrived at the same point at which the heaven and the earth arrived.

Now the question is: Did God create the heaven and the earth on the first day as Moses described that day? In Genesis 1:5 Moses wrote, “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.” The boundaries or markers that defined the first day were an evening and a morning. Again, I would certainly agree that as with the other six days, we are discussing a 24 hour period.

So, the next question would be: Was the initial creation of the heaven and the earth WITHIN that 24 hour period? If the answer is “yes,” then the advocates of the extremely early earth must be correct. If the answer is “no,” then there is no biblical proof of an extremely early earth (nor of an old one either). Now, which answer is correct? The correct answer, as far as I can tell, is “no.” Why? Look at the following chart:

The First 24 Hours

Before The First 24 Hours

Within The First 24 Hours

Following The First 24 Hours

God’s first creative act as recounted by Moses (Genesis 1:1) needs to be identified or classified in order to get at the truth with regard to whether or not Exodus 20:11 includes Genesis 1:1 in its six day reference. Consider the following:

T or F #1. God initially created before the first 24 hours began (True).

T or F #2. God initially created within the first 24 hours or after the first 24 hours began (False).

T or F #3. God created following the first 24 hours (False).

We would all say that #3 is false. So what about #1 and #2? Did God initially create before the first 24 hours began? If #2 is true, then God himself was within the 24 hour period at the time of creation. That means that time already was existing before creation was initiated! If #1 is true, then we face the situation that before time, God started his initial creative work. Either God was already “in” time at the initial point of creation, or he was “outside” of and “before” time. If Exodus 20:11 includes Genesis 1:1, then we must face the “fact” that God was already existing in time before he did his initial creative work! Consider the following possibilities:

T or F #1. When God created the heaven and the earth, God did so before time.

T or F #2. When God created the heaven and the earth, God did so during time.

T or F #3. When God created the heaven and the earth, God did so after time.

To consider these questions, let us think of initial creation (ex nihilo or “out of nothing” creation). But as we consider this, we must remember to distinguish the Creator from his own creation.

Creator

Creation

In order for God to precede creation, creation as an act of force must somehow precede what the force brings about. Does God exist before the heaven and the earth do? Of course. Well, that means that the creation category must exist subsequently to that of the first category (God). So, in the creative act itself, we still have to differentiate between God himself and the thing he is creating. If there is anything about the initial creative act that preceded the actual existence of the something that came to be, then that “anything” (power exerted by God) existed prior to the first day’s 24 hour period.

Creation is the transition from nothing to something. Now, when the nothing (ex nihilo creation) becomes something, the something must be marked by time since the something was, in fact, a created something (i.e. non-eternal). So, time begins with the initial existence of what is made if what is made is durative (i.e. something that has the capacity to go out of existence).

But now remember (as already explained), that God himself is not within time to make the initial something that he makes (the heaven and the earth). Before creation, the Bible plainly teaches that God was everlasting (Psalm 90:2). But, “everlastingness” (or eternity) is not time. There is no time to eternity. Eternity is outside the boundaries of time. Time began with something created. So, again, the question is: Was God within time when he created the first thing he created, or was he before time and, therefore, outside of time?

If we affirm that God was within time, we contradict Psalm 90:2 because we are told that before God formed the world he was before time (cf. Isaiah 57:15). But, in order to claim that Genesis 1:1 is a part of the six day creation per Exodus 20:11, we must say that God was “within” time (within the first 24 hour day of creation [Genesis 1:5]). In other words, to claim that Genesis 1:1 is a part of the creation referenced in Exodus 20:11 is to put God “inside” of his own creation rather than to allow him to remain “outside” and prior to and the cause of that creation. Furthermore, note that it is not enough to claim that the earth existed on the first 24 hour day of the creation week. Of course it did. The work that God does, beginning in verse 3, has to do with an already existing heaven and earth. But the point of controversy has to do with the “creation” of the earth. In our analysis we must remain clearheaded about this.

Now, let us revisit the three True-False statements already given regarding God and time:

T or F #1. When God created the heaven and the earth, God did so before time.

T or F #2. When God created the heaven and the earth, God did so during time.

T or F #3. When God created the heaven and the earth, God did so after time.

Applying each statement to Genesis 1:1, we would have the following answers:

The first True-False statement would be “true” in the sense that God’s initial creative act had to commence or begin before the heaven and earth actually appeared. Otherwise, God did not exist before his own creation did.

The second True-False statement would be “false” in the sense of the initial exertion of divine force because the initial exertion of that force would, by definition, have to be before time or there would have been no creation at all. That is, the cause has to be prior to the effect, but in the initial “creation” of something out of nothing, the exertion of the force must result in the thing God intended (heaven and formless and void earth) where the effect “triggers” time. When God’s initial exertion results in immediate effect (heaven and earth), the effect is now in time because it is empirical (subject to ruin and passing away). Where divine cause meets physical effect is where time began. But if the initial effort or divine exertion, in any sense, preceded the effect (heaven and earth), then God did not completely create the heaven and the earth within the first 24 hour day. There had to be a foundational or first exertion of divine power that constituted the initial act of creation, the force of which resulted in the coming into being of the heaven and the earth. So we would have:

Initial Divine Exertion (Cause)

The Heaven And The Earth As Formless And Void (Effect)

The third True-False statement would be “false” in reference to God’s initial exertion of force in the creative act in Genesis 1:1, but it would be “true” with regard to the creation account as recorded in Genesis 1:2-31.

Now, in conclusion, I would offer the following arguments that proceed from the above analysis:

Argument #1

Remember: God either (1) initiated creation from “within” time, or (2) God initiated creation before time and, therefore, outside of time.

If God initiated creation “within” time, then time existed before the heaven and the earth did.
But it is false that time existed before the heaven and the earth did.
Therefore, it is false that God initiated creation “within” time.

Argument #2

If God was “within” time at the point of initial creation, then he was not inhabiting eternity.
But it is false that God was not inhabiting eternity at the point of initial creation (Psalm 90:2; Isaiah 57:15).
Therefore, it is false that God was “within” time at the point of initial creation.

Argument #3

If (1) God began creation from his habitation in eternity, and if (2) God made heaven and earth for six days, and if (3) there is a conceptual pause between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:3 at Genesis 1:2 dividing the chaotic condition of the formless and void earth from the initial orderliness beginning in verse 3, then the making of heaven and earth for six days per Exodus 20:11 begins with Genesis 1:3.
(1) God began creation from his habitation in eternity [Psalm 90:2; Isaiah 57:15], and (2) God made heaven and earth for six days [Exodus 20:11], and (3) there is a conceptual pause between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:3 at Genesis 1:2 dividing the chaotic condition of the formless and void earth from the initial orderliness beginning in verse 3 (the text reveals this).
Then, the making of heaven and earth for six days per Exodus 20:11 begins with Genesis 1:3.

Argument #4

If God created time, then he is not within time at the initial point of time’s creation.
God created time (with the creation of heaven and earth [Genesis 1:1]).
Then, he is not within time at the initial point of time’s creation.

Argument #5

If God is not within time at the initial point of time’s creation, then he cannot be within the first day’s 24 hour period.
God is not within time at the initial point of time’s creation (Psalm 90:2; Isaiah 57:15).
Then, he cannot be within the first day’s 24 hour period.

Argument #6

If God cannot be within the first day’s 24 hour period at the point of time’s initial creation, then Exodus 20:11 excludes Genesis 1:1 in its reference to six days.
God cannot be within the first day’s 24 hour period at the point of time’s initial creation (Psalm 90:2; Isaiah 57:15; Genesis 1:1).
Then, Exodus 20:11 excludes Genesis 1:1 in its reference to six days.

Apologetics, Doctrine, Logic/Philosophy, Nature of Man

God’s Fairness and Man’s Free Will

Posted on October 12, 2020October 7, 2020 by Mac Deaver

Historically, controversy has raged with regard to the nature of man and his relationship to God. In Christian Apologetics, one would have to find a way to defend both God and man as to (1) God’s justice or fairness in making man in the first place (2) with a human will put to a purpose that would evoke divine justice in the form of punishment in the second place. This short piece cannot survey the total scene of all relevant aspects of the complete picture (even if we were capable of such a survey). However, we can identify and explore briefly some elements involved in this complex matter.

First, God knowingly and lovingly made man in His image, having in mind an eternal purpose to save him from sin, even before the first sin by Adam had been committed (Gen. 1:26-27; 1 John 4:8; John 3:16; Eph. 3:10-11). God desired to bring many sons to glory (Heb. 2:10). Giving man existence and giving him nature in the image of God made heaven a possible destiny.

Second, man was free from the beginning to choose obedience or disobedience. This is the significance of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:17). This provided man an opportunity for definite pure positive law choice in the expression of his free will. The punishment for the violation of the prohibition regarding the tree shows us that God considered man responsible enough to understand the prohibition and accountable for the violation of it. The initial punishment for the man and the woman (Gen. 3:16-19) enacted for the violation was based on the fact that the violation of the prohibition entailed a will that was (1) independent, (2) free to exert itself, and (3) accountable before God for the consequences that would follow.

Third, there was nothing wrong or imperfect about the nature of man as God made him. He was innocent and mature from the beginning. Solomon tells us, “Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions” (Eccl. 7:29). Adam and Eve when made were certainly inexperienced, but they were not imperfect creatures. It is something essential to the creation of man. Of necessity a created man could have no past (experience). But he had to be mature by nature in order to be responsible from his initial moments of existence, and he had to come without experience if he was to come at all. While Adam was not deceived into sin, Eve was (1 Tim. 2:13-14), but neither one of them could sin without a good will that was his/hers to be expressed in the selection made.

Fourth, after sin entered the human domain, several things changed, one of which was that the human heart in every human being born (remember, Adam and Eve were not born) would be a heart that would choose evil early on in its personal history. This is what we learn in Genesis 9:21. After the flood, God said to Himself that He would never again curse the earth (cf. 3:17 and 4:12) or kill almost everything off as He had just done, because “the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” The exception, historically speaking, consisted of Adam and Eve who never had a youth. But beginning with Cain and Abel, this truth that God later has Moses record in Genesis 9 represented the things that were in place regarding all who came after Adam and Eve. The flood became necessary because “the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). The “evil from youth” fact was cultivated by Noah’s contemporaries to the degree that they were no longer fit to live.

Now, while many people have over the years opted for the view that man is evil from his conception or birth, the Scriptures never declare that. They do say, however, that sin enters the heart of any given person during his youth. This was my experience and yours, too.

Fifth, this means that the universality of human sin following Adam was inevitable. Even now, none of us is waiting for an individual to arise who will never commit sin. One of the ways in which Jesus was and is so different from the rest of us is that by His divinity He kept His humanity under complete control. His sinlessness is a characteristic that proves His deity. When Paul wrote Romans around 57 or 58 A.D., the fact was then as it stands now: “for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God” (3:23). Furthermore, he later affirmed that after Adam “all sinned” (5:12).

Sixth, given the point just discussed, there must be an inherent “weakness” involved when Holy Spirit is joined to flesh so as to produce a mere human being. God is the Father of our spirits (Heb. 12:9), so there is nothing inherently weak about our human spirit. Our spirit comes from Holy Spirit (Mal. 2:14-15). After all, we are in God’s image (Gen. 1:26-27). However, when combined with flesh, there is essentially a weakness that obtains because of the connection now initiated because spirit is now made vulnerable. The lust of the flesh is the spirit’s expressing desire via the flesh. So, the weakness of the flesh is because of the power of the flesh to weaken spirit. This sets up our freedom of will (Gal. 5:17). Consider: God cannot be tempted, but Jesus could be (Jas. 1:13; Heb. 4:15). We are not born in sin. But we are born with a nature that is now weak! This helps us to understand the “why” of Romans 3:23. Remember the Lord’s admonition to three apostles that they needed to watch and pray to avoid temptation, for “the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matt. 26:41). Every person born from Cain and Abel forward has been born with this weakness. That’s how it could be truthfully declared that Jesus tasted death for every one of us (Heb. 2:9).

Seventh, since God knew that all men would sin, there had to be a plan whereby all could be saved. That is, the solution had to be as large as the problem. In fact, in the language of Scripture, the solution was much larger than the problem, and so we read of such things as grace abounding “more exceedingly” than sin did (Rom. 5:20-21) or of “the riches of his grace” (Eph. 1:7). There has always been an “over supply” of divine blessing to deal with the sin of mankind.

Eighth, in Scripture we read of many sinners lost in sin and some who found salvation. The two categories rest on the free will of the men involved. Since God was always prepared to save any man from his sin, the finally lost condition of any individual bespoke what that man had decided in life to be on his own, and the salvation of any man bespoke the fact that he had decided to become what God would bless him to be. Man has never been finally lost because of his weakness; he has been finally lost because he has chosen weakness over strength. In other words, he chose flesh over spirit! And the spiritual law of kinds informs us that our crop can be no better than our seed (Gal. 6:7-8).

Ninth, this means that when Jesus spoke of the impossibility of people coming to Him unless the Father drew them to Him (John 6:44-45), He was referring to the two categories of people whom Paul later identified as (1) “vessels of honor” or “vessels of mercy” and (2) “vessels of dishonor” or “vessels of wrath” (Rom. 9:21-23). Furthermore, when Jesus referred to people who could not believe Him because they “were not of his sheep” and because of such could not hear His voice and follow Him (John 10:16-29), He was referring to those whom John would later identify as people who were characterized by the spirit of truth and the spirit of error (1 John 4:5-6). That is, the two classifications of people (regarding salvation and damnation) are: (1) those who are of the world, and (2) those who are of God. Christians and all those bound to become such today are in Scripture language “of God” (cf. 1 John 4:4; 5:19). They have an “honest and good heart” (Luke 8:15). Notice the possibilities and impossibilities just here:

T F 1. One can have an honest and good heart.
T F 2. One can have an honest and non-good heart.
T F 3. One can have a dishonest and good heart.
T F 4. One can have a dishonest and non-good heart.

The first statement is TRUE. In fact, this is the only class that can be saved or ever could be saved! The second statement might at first be considered “true” if picturing a man before he is willing to come to repentance and would seem to show the possibility of a man squarely facing sad facts about himself but yet unwilling to do the right thing about his sin (cf. Luke 15:17; 2 Cor. 7:10). But, on the other hand, if he is unwilling to do the “right” thing about his sin, he is not being honest about his sin. So, it would appear that this statement is itself FALSE. The third statement is FALSE. No one can be both dishonest and good at the same time. The fourth statement is TRUE. A person can have a non-good heart (evil heart) partly composed of his dishonesty.

Now regarding the third statement in the above list of True-False statements, consider again what Jesus said in John 6:44-45. No one can come to Jesus unless drawn by the Father, and he cannot be drawn by the Father unless he has an honest and good heart (Luke 8:15). Verse 45 shows that the “drawing” is done by Scripture. And those who are “drawn” are those who are taught of God, have heard from the Father, and have learned. These are the only ones that can come and do come to Jesus! The Father draws and the Father teaches, but all these students who are taught, who hear, who learn, are the ones who then come to Jesus.

So, all whom the Father draws to Jesus are those who are taught, who hear, who learn and who come. They all come! There is no class of those who learn, in this context, but who still do not come. My father used to refer to the word “learned” in verse 45 as a learning “in the sense of this passage.” What John said in 1 John 4:6 helps us with some clarification here. “We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he who is not of God heareth us not. By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.” Those who are “of God,” those characterized by “the spirit of truth,” those characterized by “an honest and good heart” upon hearing the truth are drawn by the truth. And they are the only ones drawn by it!

Tenth, if God wants all men to be saved, and He does (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9), then whatever are the full complexities of features that contribute to a man’s damnation, they all rest on the rock bottom foundation of a man’s own free will which (1) was given as a blessing and which (2) turned out to be a curse because (3) the man himself failed to use it as it was designed to be used (Acts 17:27; Eccl. 12:13-14). He used his own will against himself! Jesus once said it like this: “If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself” (John 7:17). So, God can never be rightly criticized for the damnation of anyone or of everyone who is lost, but He can be and should be praised for the salvation that He has made possible (1 Tim. 4:10). And it is a wonderful thing that God is able and willing to use the evil purposed free will of men to His own glory and to the ultimate salvation of all those who love truth (Acts 2:23; 2 Thess. 2:10-12).

Apologetics, Evolution

You can’t believe both Jesus and evolution

Posted on September 7, 2017September 24, 2020 by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

Much can be said in falsifying the theory of humans evolving from non-humans. The field of study in defense of the existence of God, the deity of Christ, and the inspiration of the Bible is called apologetics. This paragraph is not to delve into that overwhelming evidence, but, rather, to address the all-too-frequent tendency of people who say they believe the Bible, but also believe things that contradict the Bible, such as evolutionary theory. You cannot believe both Jesus and evolution. Why? Because Jesus explicitly contradicts evolution. Hear his words in Matthew 19:4-5, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” (ESV). According to Jesus, from the very “beginning” there were male and female. In fact, from the beginning it was a man joined by God in marriage to his wife. If evolution is true, then Jesus is wrong. If Jesus is right, then evolution is a lie. Those who claim to accept the Bible need to be honest enough to accept what it teaches. Trying to twist biblical miracles into something that fits modern skepticism is a fool’s errand. If God created the universe, as Genesis 1 teaches, there is no reason in the world to doubt any miracle as described in the Bible. Jesus himself endorsed the Genesis creation account. Shame on us if we feel the need to compromise God’s facts to harmonize with Satan’s fiction. In the end, we will be judged neither by Charles Darwin’s theory, nor the invective of a Richard Dawkins or Bill Nye. Jesus claimed in John 12:48, “The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day.”

Apologetics, Reviews

An “Intelligent Design” debate review

Posted on July 16, 2015September 24, 2020 by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

On November 7, 2008 I attended a debate with my father and oldest son. It was held from 7:00-10:00 p.m. at the Will Rogers Auditorium in Fort Worth, Texas. The discussion was billed as “The Great Debate: Intelligent Design and the Existence of God.” There were probably 600-700 in attendance.

The debate was sponsored by St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church of Fort Worth. I assume this church wanted to spark interest in the community and spur people toward what they consider to be Christianity. If that were their goal, then the selection of speakers was quite curious, since there was not a single Bible believer on the panel. Of the four panelists, the only one who claimed to be a Christian was an ardent evolutionist who actually sided with the atheist against the concept that intelligent design (ID) theory has any usefulness for science.

Unlike a typical debate with each speaker behind a podium, this was more a round table discussion, with all speakers seated. Each was given twelve minutes to make an opening speech, then each speaker was allowed to ask another speaker a question. After a break, questions collected from the audience were asked of the speakers, during which there was give-and-take among the panelists. The four panelists were Dr. David Berlinski, Dr. Bradley Monton, Dr. Denis Alexander, and Dr. Lawrence Krauss, all of whom have impressive academic credentials and achievements unnecessary to document here.

Berlinski is a secular Jew and an agnostic. Ironically, he was there to represent the “Pro-ID Theist Position.” In the course of discussion, he made cogent observations and served to counterbalance the strident atheist sitting across from him. But the best he could do was poke holes in the anti-ID position, since he, himself, is not yet convinced that God really exists and/or that intelligent design has been proven. That the man closest to the truth (i.e. Berlinski) was a Jewish agnostic, we wonder why the Episcopal Church could not field a man to debate who was convicted of God’s existence, intelligent design, and even the inspiration of the Bible.

Monton was a curiosity. He was there to represent the “Pro-ID Atheist Position.” He began by describing himself as an atheist who believed there was evidence of intelligent design in the universe, that this evidence deserved to be taken seriously, and that this evidence should not — a priori — be ruled out as unscientific. He said the evidence was not enough to convince him that design exists, but that it was enough to make him less confident in his atheism. So, though he was there to represent an atheistic viewpoint, he seemed more agnostic than atheistic from the get-go. Monton, along with Berlinski, believes that ID ought to at least be considered by the scientific world. Furthermore, and most ironic, Monton actually argued that science should not dismiss the possibility of the supernatural as a legitimate explanation for certain phenomena!

Alexander was a disappointment. Of the four, he alone claimed to be a Christian. Yet, he fought tooth and nail (with soft-spoken British reserve) against the concept that ID has anything to do with science. To his way of thinking, if ID does not lead to experiments and doctoral dissertations, then ID is useless. Berlinski (the theistic-leaning agnostic) tried to convince Alexander (the theistic evolutionist) that a truth can have inherent value even if it does not lead to scientific experiments, but Alexander would have none of it. He has drunk deeply at the Darwinian well and, in his mind, has somehow wedded Christianity to evolution so that he thinks both can be true. Monton (the agnostic-leaning atheist) was taken aback that a “Christian” would argue against ID, since it would seem to be only natural that a Christian would be in favor of the concept.

Krauss was the staunch atheist, there to argue in favor of the “Anti-ID Atheist Position.” Unlike the two agnostic-leaning panelists (Berlinski and Monton), Krauss was completely secure in his convictions. Unlike the theistic evolutionist (Alexander), Krauss had absolutely no use for God or the Bible. Krauss was the bombastic, no-holds-barred, in your face atheist who was not embarrassed to say the most blasphemous things in an effort to make a mockery of Scripture. He was witty, obnoxious, and dominated more than his share of the conversation. Krauss bows at the altar of science, believing that science must inform religion, and never vice versa. Thus, if the Bible and current scientific theory ever clash, science should never be the one to reevaluate its conclusions to accommodate Scripture (rather, the Bible should be considered to be wrong). Krauss argued that God is not falsifiable; thus the concept of God has no bearing on science. Krauss argued from both sides of his mouth, on the one hand that scientific laws (e.g. gravity) are immutable, while on the other hand criticizing the suggestion that there is constancy in the universe (which, if it existed, would lend credence to ID theory). Though the subject of miracles was not explored to any depth, one can imagine Krauss (or any thoroughgoing atheist) using the perceived constancy of scientific laws as an argument against the supernatural. The fact that he argues against constancy when someone suggests that the observed regularity of the planets is evidence in favor of design only shows that this atheist wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Krauss was upset at the idea of ID being taught in schools because, to his thinking, evolution is a settled fact and to suggest that evolution is controversial would be lying to students. What Krauss fails to realize is that, if atheism is true, then he has no reason to value truth at all, and there is no more good in telling truth than there is harm in telling lies. Again, he wants it both ways: to kick God out of the picture while still trying to value truth — an unjustifiable position.

To Krauss, evolution is a proven, uncontested fact of science. He said there was much evidence proving this to be the case; yet, given opportunity, he refused to comment on the “origin of man.” Berlinski pointed out the arrogance of modern science, and Krauss came across (to me, at least) as exhibit #1 for science’s complete lack of humility as a discipline. Dr. Krauss would do well to back away from his idolizing of modern science. After all, it is very limited in what it can do. For example:

Science alone cannot give us a reason to value science.
Science alone cannot give us a reason to value truth.
Science alone cannot explain the nature of a “fact.”
Science alone cannot demonstrate an obligation regarding any fact.
Science alone cannot explain purpose.
Science alone cannot prove that we should reject lies.

Science must eventually defer to philosophy (and, dare we say, to revelation?), whether it likes it or not. Those who bow to the god of science fail to grasp where the more important truths lie, including truths about why science should even exist, how it could be useful, and the nature of the knowledge it seeks.

Overall, the debate was an intellectually stimulating disappointment, at least compared to what might have been. In 1976, Thomas B. Warren debated renowned British atheist, Antony Flew, on the existence of God (in Denton, Texas). Flew’s atheism suffered a relentless and withering attack from Warren, who deftly wielded religious, philosophic, and scientific truth in such a way as to leave Flew with the newfound notion that he was not going to say as much about God in the future as he had in the past. Amazingly, thirty-one years later (in 2007), Flew published a book making the case for why he changed to belief in God. Why couldn’t those who arranged this Fort Worth debate have found somebody willing to defend ID who was neither an agnostic nor evolutionist? The truth deserved a better defense than it got.

There is obvious design in the universe, and this design does point directly to a Creator. Moreover, we would even argue that the capacity and tendency to recognize design are — like the laws of thought — inherent in man’s mind. God made us to perceive design and expects us to use our design-perceiving nature when we analyze the universe. Consider two passages. “For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God” (Heb. 3:4, ESV). A man who looks at a house and concludes that it was not designed is being false to the way God made him to think. “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:20).

I left the debate that night thinking of two passages, in particular. “Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” (1 Cor. 1:20). Here was a panel of men of erudition and the highest attainment of academia; yet, they all rejected the facts as stated in Genesis 1. Truly, some are “always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 3:7).

[Note: Earlier published on my personal blog, this review appears here for the first time.]

Apologetics, Existence of God

We Can Know That God Exists

Posted on March 12, 2015September 24, 2020 by Weylan Deaver

By Roy C. Deaver (1922-2007)

[Note: This piece by my grandfather was published in the July 1977 issue of Spiritual Sword (Thomas B. Warren, editor); at the time, he was serving as director of the Brown Trail Preacher Training School. —Weylan Deaver]

It is not unusual at all in our day to hear someone say, “Yes, but we cannot know that God exists. There is no way to prove that God exists. We are compelled to accept the idea of the existence of God by faith.” In response to special invitation I had taken the men of Brown Trail Preacher Training School to Abilene Christian College for the “Preachers’ Workshop.” One of the “buzz sessions” was on “Christian Apologetics.” Of the twenty-five men present in that session twenty-two of them were students at Brown Trail. I had the opportunity of making a few remarks about the meaning and nature of faith, the meaning and nature of knowledge, and the importance of being able to prove that God is, and that the Bible is the word of God. A member of the ACC faculty responded by saying, “There is no way we can prove the existence of God.”

Then again, just this past year, I went with our students to the workshop. The first lecture of the program dealt with the problem of knowledge and its relationship to the existence of God. The speaker—a highly educated, highly trained, exceptionally capable man—emphasized over and over that there is no way to be sure; there is no way to KNOW; there is no way to PROVE the existence of God. He made brief reference to the various arguments frequently used in efforts to prove the existence of God, but he stressed that these arguments were not adequate. He repeatedly declared that “These arguments take you down to this point but from there on you have to proceed on the basis of faith.” He said that this is the case because “There is no way to really know. ”

Immediately following this presentation there was a question session. I raised my hand, was recognized, and spoke as follows: “I would like to ask the speaker one question: Are you sure about that?” He recognized immediately the force of the question, stepped slowly to the microphone, and said: “No.” This admission, of course, destroyed his entire speech. But, his answer was really the only one he could give. If he had said “yes,” he would thereby have admitted that there is some process by which one can arrive at certainty with regard to at least some points. And, if he could follow that process and arrive at certainty with regard to that point, it just might be possible that I could follow that process and arrive at certainty with regard to other points.

Too, it should be pointed out that the brother who made the speech was misusing the word “faith.” That is, he was not using the word “faith” in harmony with the New Testament usage of the word “faith.” When this brother said, “These arguments take you down to this point but from there on you have to proceed on the basis of faith” he was stressing the idea that evidence will take one just so far, and from there on he must proceed upon the basis of accepting something with regard to which there is no evidence. And, to use the word “faith” in the sense of proceeding where there is no evidence is to use the word out of harmony with and contrary to the Bible usage of this word.

Others also are guilty of misusing the word “faith.” One brother, in insisting that we cannot know but that we can establish strong probability, declares that the man of faith behaves “as if” he knew. We would be inclined to ask the question: if the man of faith acts as if he knows, when in reality he knows that he does not know, why is not the man of faith a hypocrite? Further, why is not the man of faith an agnostic? The following quotations are from men whom I love and respect—men of marvelous educational background, men who love the Lord and His word, men who are personal friends of this writer. I am listing here their statements—not to embarrass them, but to try to drive home the point that many are using the word “faith” in a sense out of harmony with the Scriptures. Note carefully: “As indicated earlier, there is not enough evidence anywhere to absolutely prove God, but there is adequate evidence to justify the assumption or the faith that God exists.” “This choice or commitment is into the realm of the subjective, to be sure, since it transcends the objective and what can be clearly proved, and thus it is a leap of faith,” “Hence, it is more reasonable to take the short leap of faith required in Christian belief than it is to take the long leap of faith that is required in atheism. Absolute, dogmatic, unequivocable, complete evidence is often not possible, but a strong presumption is demonstrable.” “The evolutionist has a faith and I have a faith. I happen to believe that my faith is the more reasonable faith.”

What is the meaning of “faith” in the Bible? How is this word used? Does “faith” (in the Bible sense) mean strong probability? Is it identical with assumption? Does it exist only in the absence of evidence? “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain,…” (Heb. 11:4). “By faith Noah…prepared an ark to the saving of his house” (Heb. 11:7). “By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed to go out unto a place which he was to receive for an inheritance…” (Heb. 11:8). What does “by faith” mean in these statements? Were Abel, Noah, and Abraham guessing? Were they responding upon the basis of assumption? strong probability? acting where there was no evidence? The Bible declares: “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,” (Rom. 10:17). Therefore, Biblical faith inherently involves; (1) the fact of the existence of God; (2) the fact of the existence of man; (3) the revealing ability of God to man; (4) the response-ability of man; (5) the testimony of God to man; (6) man’s proper response to that testimony. Faith—in the Bible sense—means taking God at His word. It means doing just what God said do, just because God said to do it. There is no Biblical faith where there is no testimony of God.

Faith does not mean absence of evidence. In fact, Biblically approved faith requires evidence. Where there is no evidence there can be no faith. God expects us to be concerned about evidence. The very existence of the Bible presupposes the need for evidence. John said, “…but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing, ye may have life in his name” (John 20:31). We are not inclined in the least to criticize the attitude of Thomas. Rather, we have great respect and admiration for his attitude. His attitude was: “Without evidence I will not believe. Give me the evidence, and I will believe.” The Lord gave him the evidence. When Thomas saw the evidence, he declared: “My Lord and my God.”

Faith does not in all cases mean the absence of literal sight. Sometimes faith is clearly contrasted with sight (as in 2 Cor. 5:7), but there can be faith where there is sight. The Lord said to Thomas: “Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed.” Many more of the Samaritans believed on the Lord because of His word (John 4:41). The fact of their seeing Him did not preclude their believing on Him. There can be faith where there is no sight. The Lord said to Thomas: “…blessed are they that have not seen, and yet believed.”

Neither does faith mean the absence of knowledge. It should be shouted from the housetops that Biblically approved faith does not rule out knowing. Paul said, “being therefore always of good courage, and knowing that whilst we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord…” (2 Cor. 5:6). How did Paul know? “For we walk by faith, not by sight,” (2 Cor. 5:7). Here is knowledge which is the product of faith. Many of Samaria who believed on the Lord said to the woman: “Now we believe, not because of thy speaking: for we have heard for ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Saviour of the world” (John 4:42). These said, “We believe” and “We know.” Faith does not preclude knowledge, and knowledge does not preclude faith. Peter said to the Lord, “And we have believed and know that thou art the Holy One of God” (John 6:69). Paul said, “…for I know him whom I have believed…” (2 Tim. 1:12).

Can we know that God exists? The basic question underlying this question is: Can we know anything at all? For, if it is possible to know anything, then it is possible to know that God exists. Can one know anything? Is a normal human being capable of really knowing anything? To answer this question we must come to a knowledge of what “knowing” means. (Interesting sidelight: Is it possible for one to come to a knowledge of what knowing is? Would it be possible for one to know that it is impossible for one to know?)

The answer to this question (Can we know anything?) involves the whole field of study called epistemology. Epistemology is that field of study which deals with the origin, nature, methods, and limits of knowledge. The human being, in two basic ways, comes to have knowledge. We come to know (learn) by experience, and we come to know (learn) by contemplation. Knowledge which comes by means of actual experience is placed under the heading of SCIENCE. Knowledge which comes by means of contemplation is placed under the heading of PHILOSOPHY. The knowledge which comes by experience may be: mathematical, physical, biological, or social. If the contemplation is about the universe it comes within the realm of metaphysics. If the contemplation is about conduct, it comes within the realm of ethics. If the contemplation is about the beautiful, it comes within the realm of aesthetics. If the contemplation is about correct reasoning (the principles of valid reasoning), it comes within the realm of logic. This reasoning involves two kinds: inductive and deductive.

The Empirical philosophers insist that only real knowledge is that which comes by means of the physical senses. The Existential philosophers insist that there is no way that one can really know anything. We are insisting at this point that though it is certainly true that there is knowledge which comes by means of the physical senses, it is also true that there is knowledge which comes by means of contemplation. We are insisting that it is possible for one to know and to know that he knows by working (in thought) according to the demands of the principles of correct reasoning.

It is generally recognized that 7 x 7 gives 49. The “49” represents a conclusion arrived at by contemplation. But it is possible for us to know (and to know that we know) that 7 x 7 gives 49. Likewise, if one places a dime in an envelope, and then places the envelope in a trunk—we can know where the dime is. We can know that the dime is in the trunk. And, this knowledge we have by contemplation, rather than by sense perception. If it is the case that all men are mortal beings, and if it is the case that Socrates was a man, then we know that it is the case that Socrates was a mortal being. I recently said to my students: “If it is the case that the accute accent can stand on either of the last three syllables of a Greek word, and if it is the case that the circumflex accent can stand only on either of the last two syllables of a Greek word, and if it is the case that the grave accent can stand only on the last syllable of a Greek word—then it is the case that if the third (the antepenult) syllable of a Greek word is accented that accent will have to be the accute. And, you can know this, and you can know that you know it.”

The “law of rationality” holds that “We ought to justify our conclusions by adequate evidence.” Adequate evidence absolutely demands certain conclusions. We are not talking about assumptions. We are not talking about guesses, or speculations. We are speaking of that conclusion which is absolutely demanded by the evidence at hand. And that conclusion which is demanded by the evidence is a matter of knowledge. It is “knowledge” just as much as is the case with regard to sense perception. It is evidence at hand. And that conclusion which is demanded by the evidence is a matter of knowledge. It is “knowledge” just as much as is the case with regard to sense perceptions. It is this kind of knowledge in particular that we have in mind when we emphasize that we can KNOW that God exists. It is this kind of knowledge which is compelled by consideration of the facts: there can be no effect without an adequate cause; there can be no law without a lawgiver; there can be no picture without a painter, no poem without a poet, no design without a designer, no thought without a thinker, no engineering without an engineer, no chemistry without a chemist, and no mathematics without a mathematician.

It is not the purpose of this article to discuss in detail how we can know that God exists, but rather to declare emphatically that it is a fact that we can know that God exists.

Perhaps it should be pointed out that so far as concerns those who love, believe and respect the Bible there should be no problem on this point. For, the Bible frequently and emphatically declares that we CAN and that we MUST know God. The Lord said, “And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ” (John 17:3). John said, “I have written unto you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning” (I John 2:13, 14). In fact, in the book of First John the writer uses the word “know” (in some form) twenty-four times. Those who insist that we cannot “know” would do well to study carefully John’s writings.

Apologetics, Evolution

The Scientific Method: Two Problems

Posted on July 28, 2014September 24, 2020 by Mac Deaver

By Mac Deaver

I want to mention two problems with what has been termed the “scientific method.” But before identifying the problems let me assure the reader that I am well aware of the fact that the “method” has over many years resulted in much benefit to the human family. It is the method of trial and error. The scientist will imagine a working hypothesis or theory that he wants to test to see whether or not it can be identified as the given cause of a certain effect. He says to himself that if x is the case (my theory is correct as the cause of this certain effect), then y will follow. He runs his experiment and finds that y is, after all, certainly present. He then concludes that x is to be presently accepted as the cause of y.

Now, the first problem is a problem for atheistic scientists who view the so-called “scientific method” as the completely encompassing route to truth. There are those among us who decry the very concept of the metaphysical or spiritual reality. They claim that there is nothing but matter. For example, Sam Harris in his book, The Moral Landscape, even denies any spiritual person. There is no mind, according to Sam, distinguishable from a brain. Man is at most a brain without any spiritual or metaphysical agent to operate the brain. Matter is all that there is and so matter is all that matters!

And since science is the discipline that explores matter, then science is the vehicle whereby truth (all truth) is known if known at all. In other words, given this radical evaluation of reality, there is no truth accessible to man via any route other than science, and the method by which science discovers truth is the so-called “scientific method.” There is no domain outside the purview of this method since it is believed by atheistic scientists that there is nothing to be explored except matter itself.

But the first difficulty we raise has to do with the selection, identification, and application of this method. Just how is it that scientists have selected this method as “the” method for the discovery of any and all truth that is accessible to mankind? In the first place, if it is a method whose application is to matter only, then the method selected presupposes a metaphysical position with regard to the exhaustive scope of matter. For a scientist to affirm that “matter is all that there is” is not a materialistic declaration. It is an attempted description allegedly of all reality to be sure, and it is a claim that there is nothing besides matter, but the explanation itself is a purely metaphysical explanation. Rocks don’t talk. Monkeys can’t lecture. The very nature of rational explanation implies rationality (not merely a brain) and rationality simply cannot coherently be reduced to matter.

So, for one to say that “matter is all that there is” is to assert something in contradiction to the nature of the assertion. It is like saying, “I am not here.” It is a metaphysical attempt at denying the metaphysical. It is an explanation (whether correct or not), and the nature of explanation is such that it is not reducible to mere matter. A description of matter and an explanation of matter can never be matter itself. Matter cannot explain itself either by content or attempted rational explanation. A brain cannot explain itself. Brains don’t study brains. Minds can study both brains and other minds. Brains can be used by minds in offering explanations (and must be), but brains alone offer nothing by way of explanation any more than kidneys do.

In the second place, when atheistic scientists choose to employ the “scientific method” as their one and only tool for truth discovery, we must point out that their selection of this all-encompassing vehicle of discovery was not made by utilization of the method itself. That is, when they identified the “scientific method” as the alleged one route to all truth, they did not make the selection based on the use of that method at all. They did not use the “scientific method” in order to arrive at the conclusion that the “scientific method” is the route to all truth. And since they used some other means to arrive at that method, they have already implied by the selection of the method for use in science that there is some means of getting at some “truth” other than the method itself, since they used some other means to select the “scientific method” as the only way to find truth! Furthermore since they used some other means of arriving at the “scientific method” (other than the method itself) as the method of choice in truth discovery, that means that whatever it is that they used in order to select the “scientific method” is surely a more fundamental route and a far more encompassing route to the discovery of truth than the “scientific method” could ever by itself be.

The selection of the “scientific method” as the method of choice for science is a reasoned or rational selection made without the use of that method in the selection process. The “scientific method” was simply not employed in order to select the “scientific method” as the one and only method of truth discovery. And even for those scientists who are not atheistic, still it is true that their employment of the method is not based on the use of that method in the selection of that method.

The situation that I am referring to is very unlike the use of reason. We simply cannot identify and describe reason without employing it. We must in every attempt at the recognition and identification of the “laws of thought” always be utilizing them. However, it is not so with the so-called “scientific method.” And even though atheists want to claim that their method of discovery is the only means of discovery, yet their method was not discovered by means of the method! The selection of a trial and error method of truth discovery was not itself made based on any trial and error test for that method. Since the method itself is a metaphysical construct, it could not in and of itself be placed in a materialistic format for analysis. For someone to suggest that “if a is true, then y will follow, and y did follow; therefore, a must be true,” is an exercise in reason (be it right or wrong), and not simply an exercise in matter exploration by other matter. Consider the following points:

Either the atheistic scientist has decided to use the so-called “scientific method” as the exhaustive approach to all truth by means of the “scientific method” or by some other means.
The atheistic scientist did not use the “scientific method” to locate the method nor to elevate it to its alleged exhaustive role in truth discovery.
So, the atheistic scientist decided to use the “scientific method” and prescribe the use of it for all truth discovery on some basis other than the method itself.
This means that the atheistic scientist implies that the so-called “scientific method” is not the only way to discover truth!

The very idea of using the “scientific method” as “the” avenue to all truth is itself not discernible via the method. The method itself cannot possibly prove the non-existence of something outside the purview of that method of discovery. Materialism can never by a materialistic means prove the non-existence of the non-empirical (the metaphysical). In other words, the atheistic scientist who limits the discovery of truth to the “scientific method” has himself used some other criteria for giving that method its lofty and all-encompassing status. He has so elevated it but not by virtue of its all-encompassing nature, but because of his atheism!

The bottom line is that no scientist can defend the “scientific method” without reason. And when he does so, he admits that reason is superior to matter and very necessary in any explanation attempt. And when atheists attempt to claim that the “scientific method” is the one and only justifiable route to truth, they do so ignorantly and in self-contradiction since the employment by them of that route is because of a reasoned choice and not by means of some empirical trial and error vindication of the method itself. In fact, there can be no reasoned justification for the method itself, given the way that it is constructed. And that brings us to the second problem with the method.

The second problem with the “scientific method” has to do with the logical form of it. Consider the following illustration. Let us say that a couple decides to visit some nearby friends but without notifying their friends first. They get into the car and begin to drive. The husband says to his wife, “I hope they are home.” She responds, “We’ll know when we see the yard, for if they are home the yard will be mowed.” Then they get to the house and they see that the yard is mowed, and conclude. “They are home.”

Now, let us analyze what happened and put it into a strict logical form so that we can easily determine what was said and whether or not it was logical and conclusive. Let us use x for “if they are home.” And let us use y for “the yard will be mowed.” If we affirm x (they are home), then we could conclude y (the yard will be mowed). But the couple didn’t do this. They affirmed y (the yard is mowed) because they saw the mowed yard when they drove up to the house, and then they reached the conclusion that x (they are home). Now, let us suppose that they found no one at home. Even though they realized that their friends always kept up their yard work when at home (so that they had a right to say to themselves if x [they are home], then y [the yard will be mowed]), they were not counting on any explanation for a mowed yard other than the presence at home by their friends. But they found y (the yard is mowed) and yet they found non-x (the friends were not at home). Later, let us suppose, they found out that their friends had gone on vacation and had hired some yard workers to attend the yard while they were gone.

You see, the would-be visitors drew a conclusion not warranted by the evidence. They arranged their reasoning in this way: “If they are home, then the yard will be mowed. The yard is mowed. Therefore, they are home.” But then they found out that even though the yard was mowed, their friends were not at home. The argument—or, syllogism—looks like this:

If x then y (if they are home, then the yard will be mowed).
y (the yard is mowed).
Therefore, x (they are home).

And this is an illogical form. It is invalid. The conclusion is not established by the premises. And yet, this is the very form that is characteristic of the “scientific method.” Note this carefully. The “scientific method” entails an illogical or invalid form. And this means that the conclusion reached by using this form is not established! It is not proven! In a hypothetical syllogism (an “if-then” syllogism), we can either affirm the antecedent (what follows the “if”) or we can deny the consequent (what follows the “then”). The first form is called modus ponens; the second is called modus tollens. These are both logical or valid forms. But to deny the antecedent or to affirm the consequent is to construct an invalid form (see Lionel Ruby’s Logic—An Introduction, pp. 272-276). The couple in our illustration constructed an invalid form. They said: if x (antecedent) then y (consequent). That is, if they are home, the yard will be mowed. But then they affirmed the y (the yard is mowed), and concluded x (they are home). And this is an invalid form. They affirmed the consequent.

If a scientist tests his hypothesis and says if x is correct (if they are home) then y will follow (the yard will be mowed), and then he runs his test and finds that y is, after all, present (the yard is mowed), he concludes then that x is established at least as a theoretical cause (they are home) of y. But since the form is invalid, he has no right to reach a conclusion that is absolutely true. The whole process of his trial and error method is logically flawed. For y (the yard is mowed) may be caused by something other than x (their being home). There could well be another explanation for y (the yard’s being mowed).

It is sometimes reassuring that some scientists recognize the tentative nature of scientific claims and admit that they have not proven a position but only identified a possibility. Their conclusions they hold tentatively. However, some bold atheists and obsessed evolutionists overreach their findings and draw conclusions from their method that they deem beyond reproach. It is enough here for us to realize that no conclusion whatever reached via the “scientific method” can by that method be established as absolutely true.

Apologetics, Existence of God

Made To Seek God

Posted on July 23, 2014September 24, 2020 by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

If you are reading this, then you were made to seek God. That is what the apostle Paul affirmed in Acts 17:27. It is an extension of the fact that humans are created in God’s own image (Genesis 1:27). Consider that humanity has such dignified status that we can be described as being “a little lower than the angels” (Hebrews 2:7). The Biblical worldview and the secular worldview could not stand in greater contrast. The Bible says we are a little beneath the angels. Evolution says we are a little above the apes. One or the other is a lie, no matter our personal feeling or preference. It comes down to facts and evidence, of which evolution has neither. Nothing comes from nothing, and everything came from something. Despite a plethora of hopeful guesses, skeptics will never be able to prove the cosmos began on its own, or that matter can explain itself without mind. Thoughtful people should be able to see the absurdity involved in the concept that we, with intelligence, can reflect on a universe that somehow is here by no intelligence whatsoever. The existence of a grain of sand implies God; how much more so, then, the existence of such an incredibly complex, moral being as man is. If God made me, and if God made me to seek after (and find) him, then this conclusion follows: To fail to seek and find God is to be false to my own human nature. God is not absent and is, in fact, “not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27).