Evidence that Ancient People Were Very Intelligent (Part 3)

Once again, anthropological findings suggest that ancient people were advanced:

"Dr. Michael Petraglia of the University of Oxford led an investigation into an ancient population site in India that had been buried under volcanic debris. Beneath the ash, he discovered stone tools. A university press release related that “according to the team a potentially ground-breaking implication of the new work is that the species responsible for making the stone tools in India was Homo sapiens.”¹ This finding contradicts the evolutionary molecular clock date of mankind’s presence in India by “about 15,000 years.” But this is to be expected, since different molecules “tick” at different rates, and thus make poor clocks.^"

http://www.icr.org/article/5309/

Canons of Dordt:: Article 2: The Manifestation of God's Love

But this is how God showed his love: he sent his only begotten Son into the world, so that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Canons of Dordt: Article 1: God's Right to Condemn All People

Since all people have sinned in Adam and have come under the sentence of the curse and eternal death, God would have done no one an injustice if it had been his will to leave the entire human race in sin and under the curse, and to condemn them on account of their sin. As the apostle says: The whole world is liable to the condemnation of God (Rom. 3:19), All have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23), and The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23).

Name Calling is an Argumentation Tactic for the Weak

Today, I read an excellent blog article called "Playing the Pharisee Card". This article describes one of the tactics that are used by liberal "Christians" when they are in an argument with "fundamentalist" Christians. Instead of debating why doctrines are not important based upon sound logic, the liberal "Christian" will resort to "name-calling" by calling the Christian who is arguing for the importance of Biblical doctrine a "Pharisee". As we all know, the Pharisees were enemies of Jesus Christ, and therefore no Christian would want to be called a "Pharisee".

This article reminded me of a similar tactic I like to call the "You're being judgmental." tactic. This tactic is typically used when a person wants to avoid disagreement on important doctrinal matters. Previously on this blog, I wrote about why being "discerning" (i.e. "judgmental") is not wrong but is instead an important skill that all Christians need to employ.

Although, I only remember being called a Pharisee (or Pharisaical) one time, I have called "rigid" like the Pharisees, "too literal" regarding the Bible doctrines, "hyperbolic", and a "hyper schoolgirl". Although, this "name calling" did bother me at the time, I have come to realize, just like the author of this article, that these are just tactics employed by those who don't have a good counter argument. Essentially, they know they have no ground to stand on. However, rather than re-thinking their position, they resort to regressive, name-calling tactics reminiscent of the grade-school playground (e.g. "Oh yeah? Well, well.....you're a poopy-head!").

Moral of the story: Don't be a name-calling poopy-head. Instead, to use a phase from my friends at the White Horse Inn: "Know what you believe and why you believe it." and be always "...prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15).

Sententiae Nil blog 200th Post Giveaway

In honor of the Sententiae Nil blog 200th post (and a year of consistent blogging!), he is giving away a copy of Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect (ed. Scott Hafemann). Among the contributors to the volume are: John Sailhamer, Stephen Dempster, Richard Shultz, Andreas Köstenberger, Greg Beale, Peter Stuhlmacher, Nick Perrin, Stephen Fowl, and several more.

So how do you win? Simply subscribe to my blog through an RSS feed (or comparable method) and indicate that you have done so in the comments of this post. I’ll have my wife pick the winner randomly on December 26.

Additional incentive: if you have a blog and mention this giveaway, you will be entered twice (make sure you indicated your post in the comments, either through a comment or a “pingback”).

No "Cherry-Picking"

I am currently working my way through an excellent online book on the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Loraine Boettner. I think the following comments are very true of how humans try to create a god in their own image (idolatry). Wishing and hoping for a god we would like and "cherry-picking" verses from Scripture that match our preconceived desires. Rather than reading, studying and wrestling with ALL of the verses in the Bible to know God as He has chosen to reveal Himself in Scripture. I would substitute the word "theologian" for "Christian", because all Christians should be theologians.

"Men constantly deceive themselves by postulating their own peculiar feelings and opinions as moral axioms. To some it is self-evidently true that a holy God cannot permit sin; hence they infer that there is no God. To others it is self-evident that a merciful God cannot permit a portion of His rational creatures to be forever the victims of sin and misery, and consequently they deny the doctrine of eternal punishment. Some assume that the innocent cannot justly be punished for the guilty, and are led to deny the vicarious and substitutionary suffering and death of Christ. And to others it is an axiom that the free acts of a free agent cannot be certain and under the control of God, so they deny the foreordination, or even the foreknowledge, of such acts.

We are not at liberty, however, to develop a system of our own liking. "The question which of these systems is true," says Dr. Charles Hodge, a zealous and uncompromising advocate of Calvinism, "is not to be decided by ascertaining which is the more agreeable to our feelings or the more plausible to our understanding, but which is consistent with the doctrines of the Bible and the facts of experience." "It is the duty of every theologian to subordinate his theories to the Bible, and teach not what seems to him to be true or reasonable, but simply what the Bible teaches," And again, "There would be no end of controversy, and no security for any truth whatever, if the strong personal convictions of individual minds be allowed to determine what is, or what is not true, what the Bible may, and what it may not be allowed to teach."<sup>23

23</sup> Systematic Theology, II, pp. 356, 559, 531.

Emerging From What? Your Fallible Mind?

This is an example of what happens when people create an image of a god in their own mind and ignore the God that has been revealed to us in the Bible.

http://www.emergingchurch.info/reflection/davidallis2/index.htm

They try to portray God as one who had an anger management problem in the Old Testament, but has now changed into a "lovable Santa Claus". God NEVER changes!(Numbers 23:19)

They pretend to be disciples of Jesus Christ, but they ignore all of the warnings their Master gave them about hell. (Matthew 5:22, Matthew 10:28, Matthew 23:33, Mark 9:47)

They create a humanistic god that would never justly punish his creation regardless of their unholy rebellion against him. They try to exalt mankind to a within a millimeter of the Creator of the Universe. The Bible teach us that we are about as close to being like God as an inanimate lump of clay is to a skilled Potter (Psalm 2:9, Isaiah 45:9, Isaiah 64:8, Jeremiah 18:6, Lamentations 4:2, Romans 9: Revelation 2:27), and even that is an extreme exaggeration.

This is called "idolatry". (1 John 5:20-22)

You DO NOT want an unjust god.