Rationalism vs Revelation: The Mind vs The Heart

“A different form of attack upon the Scriptures, which may be described as Rationalism, was developed in the 19th century. Rationalism set aside Revelation, assuming the sufficiency of the mind, or Reason, to enable man to find out truth and to attain to the highest good.

The unprecedented progress made in scientific knowledge not only gave valuable insight into the works of God in Creation, but also stirred in some minds a desire to explain creation apart from God. This made it necessary to prove that the account of the Creation given in the book of Genesis did not spring from Divine inspiration, but from the ignorance of men, who, living before us, were presumed to have known less than we do. As fresh discoveries were made in the illimitable field of Nature, theories were founded upon them which were said to be incompatible with the Genesis history and therefore to prove it incorrect. As further facts came to light new theories had to be formed, each displacing its predecessor, yet each in turn accepted on the authority of the learning of the men of science who promulgated it. The “Origin of Species” published by Charles Darwin in 1859 is an important landmark in this development of thought.

Those who accepted the view that there had been no creation, of necessity lost the knowledge of the Creator. This involved the loss of all revealed knowledge, for the revelation of God through the Scriptures begins with Creation as the work of God, without which there could have been no Fall of His creature, Man; and neither need nor possibility of man’s Redemption. Consequently, the new theories evolved from the minds of men who discarded the Scripture teaching of the Fall, replacing it by constantly changing theories of the development of man from a lower form of life. The experience of Salvation and the hope of Redemption became incredible on the basis of these teachings, and whatever vague promises might be held out to the race, the individual was left without hope.

Although in the minds of the multitude evolution has replaced God the Creator, so that many trace their ancestry from beasts rather than from God, and are ignorant of God as their Redeemer, yet not all, even among those recognized as the most eminent men of science, have followed this teaching. It would not be correct to say that increase of knowledge of the facts of Nature necessarily leads to disbelief in God or in the Scriptures. Many have found that the more they have learned of the works of God in Creation the more they have appreciated the consonance of this revelation with that contained in the Scriptures. Indeed, the assertion so often and so eagerly made that no modern, intelligent, educated man can believe the Scriptures, is without foundation. It is not a fact that the more people know the less they believe, nor yet that the more ignorant they are the more faith they possess.

Rationalism is largely due to the failure to recognize that man is not only mind, but mind and heart, and that the mind always serves the heart. The heart, which is the character, will and affections, and is the seat of experience, uses in its service the mind, with its intelligence and reasoning powers. The heart of the natural man uses his mind in order to justify his unbelief in God and in Scripture by finding countless reasons for complaint against God, and contradictions and errors in the Scriptures, but if this same man has an experience which brings him to see his sinful state, his need of salvation, and Christ is revealed to him, then his heart — that is his will and affections —are captured; they go out to Christ in faith as Saviour and Lord, and the Divine and Eternal Life is communicated to him, as it is written: “that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16). With that his mind, though neither more or less capable, intelligent and instructed than before, enters into the service of a changed heart, finding truth and beauty and revelation in the very Scriptures which it formerly despised, and discovering in the ways of God constant reason for thanksgiving and worship. Saul the persecutor, changed to Paul the apostle is a striking illustration of this.

Excerpt from The Pilgrim Church by E.H. Broadbent, pp. 493-495

The Origin of Racism

Acts 17:26a
“And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth. . . .”

Does God approve of inter‑racial marriage? To answer this question, we must look at the concept of race. The Bible teaches that we are all descended from the man Adam. Scripture also states, we are all of one blood; Scripture never even uses the idea of race.

The descendants of Ham, who were cursed, were the Canaanites. Yet when Rahab, a Canaanite, came to faith in the true God, she not only was welcomed to marry a believer, but God included her in the line leading to Christ.  The idea of different races, as distinct from different religions, was not much of an issue until 1859 when Charles Darwin published his famous book, On the Origin of Species.  Darwin was a product of Victorian times and extremely racist in his views, always referring to colored peoples as “savages.”  Among the book’s purported scientific claims for evolution was the claim that there are different races because some groups are more evolved than others. As this idea became accepted both in and out of the Church, racism became institutionalized. Today we know that typically the genetic differences between you and anyone else is only 0.2 percent. Scientifically, there is only one human race, as Scripture clearly teaches. The Church can only combat racism by proclaiming the truth that all people on earth are one flesh, descended from one, real Adam, whose blood we share. It can also proclaim the Gospel, that all believers are spiritual descendants of the Second Adam, the Lord Jesus Christ, who has redeemed us and made us new creatures.

Prayer: Help me, Father, love all people as Your Son did when He died for them. Amen.

Author: Paul A. Bartz

Ref:  Ken Ham, Inter-racial marriage: is it biblical?, Creation 21(3) June-August, 1999. Photo: Pixabay (PD)

© 2022 Creation Moments.  All rights reserved.

Is The Great Reset a “Great Thing” or A Satanic Thing?

If you cut off the tails of cats, will they give birth to tail-less kittens? Of course not! Yet, more than 3,000 mainstream biologists were dismissed, imprisoned or even killed for disagreeing that a similar idea might work when applied to plants.

Soviet genetics research was effectively destroyed in the 1930s and ‘40s because the scientist at the head of the Soviet Academy of Agriculture Sciences squashed all dissent from his own view. And he had the power of the communist state behind him!

His name was Trofim Lysenko, and he believed the Soviets could transform Siberia into “a land of orchards and gardens” by “training” seeds to handle cold weather and harsh conditions. He believed that plants could be engrafted to permanently change the heritable characteristics of the stock. Such ideas were based on Darwin’s predecessor – the early evolutionist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829). Lamarck argued for evolution through inheritance of acquired characteristics. In other words, build up your muscles so you can then pass bigger muscles on to your kids.

Charles Darwin wrote his book On the Origin of Species in 1859 to make Lysenko’s ideas seem more scientific by appealing to “deep time” to allow for the imperceptible changes we cannot observe, and appealing also to “natural selection” to try to make the heritable changes more plausible.

But Lamarck was the first to suggest the famous evolutionary scenario of giraffes acquiring a long neck. Giraffe parents supposedly stretched above other animals to reach the leaves of tall trees. And thus they passed on their increasingly stretched necks to their offspring through succeeding generations.

Lysenko was an evolutionist too impatient for Darwin, so he put Lamarckism into practice. For example, he believed he could transform a spring-wheat species into an autumn-wheat species via 2 to 4 years of autumn planting. It would supposedly condition them to “a revolutionary change”. But genetically this was impossible since the spring wheat species had 28 chromosomes in 4 sets of 7, and the autumn species had 42 chromosomes in 6 sets of 7. Change and adaptation is always limited to within the original species or “kind” by virtue of the genes needing to be there in the first place – put in place by our Great Designer and Maker. Lysenko’s plantings on the collectivist farms never took hold or simply rotted away. Geneticists in free market countries knew Lysenko to be a fool.

But Lysenko and the Soviets under Joseph Stalin were true believers in the ideology that mankind needed to “reset” the old and traditional (“bourgeoise”) ways. And that this could be made to happen as society “toughed it out”. In other words, they believed in Marxism. “Tear down the old order to build a new one.”  Build it back better! Sound familiar?

Great famines took place in the Soviet Union under this ideologically driven pseudo-science and the false hope it raised. The famines were made worse, of course, as private farms were stolen and put into collectives, and successful farmers were persecuted. Lysenkoism was kept in place throughout Stalin’s life, and it ruined agriculture in other communist countries, too. These included Eastern Europe and Communist China, where horrible famines took place in the 1950s under Mao Tse Tung.

As I’ve pointed out in previous letters, we are bombarded today with much pseudo-science, not only Evolutionism but also Climate Change Alarmism. We are fed fear and false hopes which are driving a “great reset” of world culture, education, government and economics. Many are on board with it – just as they were in the days of Lysenko, Stalin and Mao.

Every storm or series of storms now gets blamed on Climate Change – which is, of course, ridiculous. What little science there is in an agenda-driven pseudo-science becomes tainted by whatever assumptions about earth history enter the narratives or computer models. And much scientific research is funded by government grants. The research grants are written with a desired outcome in mind, and those applying for the grants know in advance whether to assume Evolution or to assume man-made Climate Change.

An interesting development is the new awareness of how much Communist Chinese money is funding elite American University research. Since the Department of Education recently began enforcing Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 for disclosure of university funding, it has come to light that most of the $6.5 billion of undeclared university research funding has come from Communist China. And much of it is to promote climate alarmism – considered a weapon for distracting and weakening the U.S. economy.

We need to keep going back to the Bible. That’s where the truth is. The desire for a “great reset” goes all the way back to the Serpent in the Garden with Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve believed Satan’s lies, and they wanted their “eyes to be opened”, “to be as gods”, knowing (a perfected knowing of) good and evil” (Genesis 3:5). They wanted to be “enlightened” (as they were in a way, vs. 7) and, therefore, they went along with the temptation to tear down the original order.

This Satanic philosophy of tearing down God’s order is what Karl Marx promoted (The Devil and Karl Marx, P. Kengor; Marx and Satan, Rev. R. Wurmbrand). It also manifested at the Tower of Babel, as Nimrod (whose name means “to rebel”) argued against God and for the “enlightenment” of making themselves “as gods”. Nimrod is the classic type of anti-Christ. It should be no surprise to see in our day a great push for a Great Reset to One World Economy, One World Government and One World Religion under a controlling system apart from God.

But we know from the Bible who wins in the end. And we know that those who follow Christ will win with Him! Thank you, dear friend, for helping us reach others from “all nations” with the message of truth! The Bible is true, and it is to be believed and proclaimed so that more can believe!

Yours in Christ,

Mark Cadwallader, Board Chairman – Creation Moments

Evolutionary Prediction Fails

“When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him” (Deuteronomy 18:22).

If man is the result of billions of years of evolution from the simplest of creatures, evolution predicts that man should have retained most, if not all, of the best abilities of those other creatures in his heritage.

According to evolution, our ape-like ancestors had opposing toes, just as we have opposing thumbs. If we had retained those opposing toes, we could pick things up without bending over. The female chimp can pull 1,260 pounds with one arm. That would be a pretty handy facility. And then, there is the hero shrew of Uganda, just six inches long, but it can support the weight of a one hundred and sixty pound man on its back!

Even the lowly snail can pull up to 200 times its own weight, and lift ten times its weight. Then what about the trilobite, right at the bottom of the evolutionary ladder and supposedly extinct for 300 million years? This little fellow had the most sophisticated eye lenses, actually double lenses, ever found in nature!

Since all of these abilities would be greatly beneficial for us, why didn’t evolution let us keep or develop these abilities as we evolved? The answer is simple. We have not evolved. Rather, we have been made by a Creator Who made us for the purpose of a relationship with Himself through His Son, Jesus Christ.
http://www.creationmoments.com/radio/transcripts/evolutionary-prediction-fails-1

Evolution a Replacement Religion

Chances are you may not have heard of renowned writer and Yale University professor David Gelernter (School of Engineering and Applied Science). He has been making waves since acknowledging that he now rejects Darwinian evolution. In an interview organized in 2019 by the prestigious Hoover Institution (Stanford University, California), Gelernter lamented the obstruction of free speech experienced by anyone trying to voice alternatives to evolution, such as Intelligent Design. Worse still, he said, some pro-Darwinian academics actually seek to destroy the careers of dissenters:

  “It’s a bitter rejection … a sort of bitter, fundamental, angry, outraged, violent rejection, which comes nowhere near scientific or intellectual discussion. I’ve seen that happen again and again. ‘I’m a Darwinist, don’t you say a word against it, or, I don’t wanna hear it, period.’”  

Elsewhere, in his review of Stephen Meyer’s excellent book Darwin’s Doubt (see our review here), Gelernter makes this interesting remark about the passionate defenders of evolution:

  “They remind us of the extent to which Darwinism is no longer just a scientific theory but the basis of a worldview, and an emergency replacement religion for the many troubled souls who need one.”  

Christians are often despised … for their faith-based acceptance of biblical miracles because these cannot be scientifically tested. Yet these same antagonists get very frustrated if their own beliefs are subjected to the same scrutiny!  

Everyone knows, of course, that the displaced religion referred to by the good professor is Christianity, more specifically, that which has a high view of Scripture as the inspired, inerrant Word of God—including the belief in supernatural Creation, resting upon a grammatical-historical understanding of Genesis.  

Gelernter has many predecessors (including secular humanists) who have admitted the religious and philosophical nature of Darwinian evolution. But surely evolution is science, not “an emergency religion” as Gelernter claims? According to the OED, the word ‘religion’ includes “a pursuit, interest, or movement, followed with great devotion”, and “action or conduct indicating belief in, obedience to, and reverence for god, gods, or similar superhuman power”. If you substitute ‘god’ for the alleged power of Darwin’s theory (in any of its modern forms) and factor in the zeal and fervour of its adherents, these definitions fit perfectly.  

Christians are often despised by secular writers and commentators for their faith-based acceptance of biblical miracles because these cannot be scientifically tested. Yet these same antagonists get very frustrated if their own beliefs are subjected to the same scrutiny! They want an exemption, expecting their own unsupported beliefs (their non-scientific assertions) to be accepted without question or criticism.

  Far too often, popular science is reported in a way that portrays evolution as hard science—whether radio, news outlets, social media or magazines. Refreshingly honest admissions among evolutionary writers are few and far between, but there are some. Writing about human racial origins Angela Saini acknowledges:

  “It’s impossible to escape our beliefs, our upbringing, our environment, even the pressure of wanting to be correct, when it comes to interpreting the facts. Our stories get in the way.”   Evolutionists seldom question the narrative because it is their substitute origins story. It permits the secular ‘faithful’ to ignore the claims of the Creator.  

Quite right, and we have seen supporting examples of just how true this is for many who tenaciously hold onto evolution. They seldom question the narrative because it is their substitute origins story. It permits the secular ‘faithful’ to ignore the claims of the Creator (see also Getting behind the evolution facade).

  But does this replacement religion offer its devotees answers to the big questions of life:
  • Questions of origins—Where did we come from?
• Questions of meaning—Why am I here? •
 Questions of destiny—What happens after I die?

Many claim that evolution does answer these questions. While it is fundamentally an alternative theory of origins it is far more than that, as a re-reading of David Gelernter’s earlier-quoted words confirms. For example, British physicist and TV personality Brian Cox (a confessed humanist) admits: “… there is self-evidently meaning in the universe because my own existence, the existence of those I love, and the existence of the entire human race means something to me. I think this because I have had the remarkable luxury of spending time in education.”

  Sadly, he rejects the existence of his Creator, the One from whom life emanates and whose revealed scriptures give the only reliable answers about the meaning of human existence and destiny. David Gelernter is surely right in his opinion that “Darwinism is … an emergency replacement religion for the many troubled souls who need one.” But that spiritual craving in human beings can only be satisfied by embracing the undiluted truth of the Creation/Fall/Gospel message of the Bible. Compromises like ‘God used evolution’ will not do.    https://creation.com/evolution-replacement-religion
From Berean Call
%d bloggers like this: