Dr. Brown interviews Doctors Hugh Ross, Fuz Rana, and Jeff Zweernick, scientists at Reasons to Believe, as they discuss some amazing scientific discoveries that point to God the Creator. Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: You do not need to shut off your mind to believe in God. You do not need to deny the scientific evidence. No, look at the scientific evidence and fall on your knees in worship of the Creator!
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: We don’t need to be afraid of science. We don’t need to be afraid of atheistic claims that if you knew science you wouldn’t believe in God. To the contrary, the God of Scripture is the God of science, and the more you know science the more you worship the God of the Bible!
SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!
The 10 Scientific Discoveries of 2012 Mini-Book and Dr. Brown’s Line of Fire Interview with Reasons to Believe Scholars, both Resources for $12! Postage Paid!
Call 1-800-278-9978 or Order Online!
1. Well, your superficial interpretation of “none seeks God” MUST be wrong, since Scripture is replete with examples men who sought after God: Gen 4:2 literally says “men began to call on the Name of the LORD”; Hebrews 11 cites example after example of men who pleased God through living lives of faith.
That’s first of all.
2. I’m not saying men are capable of living right or good – thus, you are misapprehending what I am saying right out of the gate – I’m saying that men can WANT to live right and fail to do so because of the Law of Sin in their flesh that takes them captive (sometimes even against their wills) to do its will.
3. Someone who believes in an old earth can believe that dinosaurs were created on a metaphorical “day” before humans and continued living after the fall. I don’t understand where the difficulty is.
Not all those who hold to a peshaṭ understanding of Genesis are Calvinists. The Jewish sages of centuries past were not Calvinists, and not all Christians are Calvinist either. So to bring total depravity into the debate is actually embarrassing as it has nothing to do with it. There are Arminian Christians who affirm the peshaṭ understanding of Genesis too.
Jonathan and I were discussing what seemed to have been a certain attitude Ken Ham seemed to have had towards scientists (in the interview, which I’d reviewed a few times before), which he used Romans “no man seeks God” to justify – in reality, I think there’s a chance he was/is angry with the scientists for (what he thinks is) undermining Scripture.
I wasn’t saying you personally were reviling anyone, but I’ve seen so many times when Christians speak revilingly (with the wrong heart) of the unsaved and use “no man seeks God they’re all unrighteous” as an excuse for their evil – it is a (misunderstanding and) misapplication of a Truth that is true enough ON ITS OWN but is false in the way they are applying it (in order to speak hatefully, usually to try to win an argument).
Either I misspoke or I was misunderstood: I don’t think any men are good; I think that there can be a desire to do good/not sin in people, but there is a Law in their members that does not allow for the realization of that good.
What is “good” is for them to admit this: “I want to do good, but I don’t do it… the good things I want to do I don’t do and the very thing I hate that is what I find myself doing!!! Who will save me from this body of death!?” and to be broken over it so they can eventually say “Thank God through Jesus Christ!” Those who think they’ve found the answer to their sin problem are deluding themselves, and that is evil upon evil (not only being evil but also lying about the truth that you are doing evil – sin layered upon sin).
Again, I don’t think men are good apart from grace. We may look good standing next to a Hitler or the devil, but standing next to God Almighty (as on Judgment Day) we will see what we really are: every last person is a terrible criminal.
I’ve seen my sin before God, and I know that it is evil – “even” one sin of mine is so evil that I compare it to the devil himself – but I’m also saying that there is something within even a fallen human being that has the ability to recognize that there is something amiss, and that EVIL cannot do that (cannot speak Truth – as, for instance, the Samaritan woman did in John 4 and as Paul did in Romans 7).
One thing I notice is that you tell me that a certain passage or verse does not mean what I indicate it means. But then you never say what you believe Romans 1:18-23 and Romans 3:11 DOES mean.
However, I do believe we are starting to get off subject.
Let’s put aside your perception of Ken Ham’s attitude. For the sake of argument, let’s say Ken Ham had an incorrect understanding about the hearts of the scientists. That really was a small part of the whole show anyway. And since I doubt very many secular scientists tuned into a Christian tv program on a Christian tv network, it’s really not the most important part of the program. What were your thoughts on the Scripture and theology that was exchanged by the participants througout the show?
To reply to where you say: ” Someone who believes in an old earth can believe that dinosaurs were created on a metaphorical “day” before humans and continued living after the fall. I don’t understand where the difficulty is.”
Maybe they can. But that is not what old earth leaders teach. Not in all cases, but in many cases, a large reason to interpret Scriptures to say it was an old earth is to agree with what secular scientists say.
Secular scientists say that dinosaurs died out before man came into existence.
I am unaware of a single old earth teacher that teaches that dinosaurs were still alive by the time of Adam. If you are aware of one, you can let me know.
I know that Hugh Ross teaches that dinosaurs became extinct before man came into existence.
So whether you believe the days were literal or a metaphor, you are left with (if you agree with the old earth teachers) that dinosaurs suffered painfully with cancer before the Fall.
So what do you believe? I notice you never answered that.
Jonathan and Dan1el,
YHWH used a donkey to speak to Balaam. Sometimes we think a donkey, or the other word for donkey, is speaking to us and disregard the message that comes with divine approval. We would do better to judge righteous judgment instead of according to the appearance. Being a respecter of persons can have to do with the quality of the presentation. The best salesmen can sell just about anything to just about anyone, but that doesn’t mean that the little girl selling girl scout cookies has an inferior product.
1. “One thing I notice is that you tell me that a certain passage or verse does not mean what I indicate it means. But then you never say what you believe Romans 1:18-23 and Romans 3:11 DOES mean.”
1. I’m not saying that these scientists will believe in God 100% from nature, itself; but, when you put together a scientist like Hugh Ross’s witness with the awe that nature is inspiring in them because “the heavens declare the glory of God”, it is not hard to imagine that it is altogether possible. The point is made more clear when one considers a quote like, “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
The line from Romans 1 is actually agreeing with me – saying that the glories of God which the Heavens declare ought to win souls and the men are without excuse when they do not pay attention but shut their hearts to it.
2. “However, I do believe we are starting to get off subject.”
OK, but you can’t play down what it must feel like to be on the receiving end of such a holier-than-thou furious blast “they are all evil haters of God”. You don’t think it stings – you don’t think it drives people away from God?
2. I was witnessing to a young man one night while I was working as a valet in Hollywood, FL; as I spoke with him, he was inconsolable, which he expressed as anger. He thought that he had committed the unpardonable sin, because Rick Warren said that not believing in the Gospel was the unforgivable sin (or something like that). The young man was scared out of his wits because of some ignoramus misinterpreting the bible, and as a result was very angry – and his anger made it difficult to get through to him.
When these scientists are accused of being evil, brute beasts who hate God, don’t you think it has a similar effect – that it may have a self-fulfilling prophecy that destroys hope in their hearts? That satan uses it to mess with their heads? I understand that they don’t tune in to TBN, but this is the sort of accusations they have to deal with from that sort of Christian *all the time (as such attitudes are voiced by a number of well-meaning people). I think if w give them the full spectrum understanding of that verse, we will make a more compassionate appeal to them – granting that they MAY desire to do good, but that ultimately they find themselves like birds with broken wings which cannot fly. When you do that, you get into their heart because you are touching Truth. I feel that the “you are haters of God” method shuts compassion off – I’ve seen it many times.
I understand this is (strictly-speaking) aside from the issue, so we can move on.
3. What were your thoughts on the Scripture and theology that was exchanged by the participants througout the show?
3. It was too long ago to remember all my thoughts on the Scriptures; however, I remember thinking, “that professor just contradicted himself” when he was talking about the seven day creation LOL
4. To reply to where you say: ” Someone who believes in an old earth can believe that dinosaurs were created on a metaphorical “day” before humans and continued living after the fall. I don’t understand where the difficulty is.”
Maybe they can. But that is not what old earth leaders teach.
4. I’m not saying they DO teach that; I’m speaking hypothetically.
5. Not in all cases, but in many cases, a large reason to interpret Scriptures to say it was an old earth is to agree with what secular scientists say.
5. Well, Luther and Calvin both called Copernicus a heretic; it ended up being that both of their interpretations of Scripture were wrong and the heretic was right. It just may be that studying nature can clarify our understanding of Scripture. When you said earlier that neither Jesus nor Paul told us look at nature, I think that was wrong. Jesus said to look at nature and learn a lesson about how birds do not sow or reap but God feeds them, Paul said that the invisible attributes of God are known through the creation. Actually, it is considered a spiritual discipline – like fasting – by some Christians to look upon and contemplate the wonder and beauty of creation: “when I consider the work of Your Hands, what is man that you are mindful of him” (para.)
6. Secular scientists say that dinosaurs died out before man came into existence.
I am unaware of a single old earth teacher that teaches that dinosaurs were still alive by the time of Adam. If you are aware of one, you can let me know. I know that Hugh Ross teaches that dinosaurs became extinct before man came into existence.
So whether you believe the days were literal or a metaphor, you are left with (if you agree with the old earth teachers) that dinosaurs suffered painfully with cancer before the Fall.
So what do you believe? I notice you never answered that.
6. I’m not saying secular scientists teach what I am saying is a possibility; I’m just speaking of a possibility which I felt you overlooked even if it is not held by ANY Old-Earther.
I would disagree with Hugh Ross, obviously – I already said in my first post that I thought Ken Ham’s point was a highlight of the show – that it truly did cut through all the “grey” when Ken mentioned dinosaurs had cancer. This persuades me that the dinosaurs were alive after the fall.
*the quote from #1 is from a scientist speaking about discovering the ultimate understanding of the universe
1. You still never explained about what it means when Romans 1 talks about seeing the creation testify and suppressing the truth of it. You never addressed at all what you believe Romans 3:11 means. But that’s fine. As you said, we can (and probably should) move on.
2. As far as your Rick Warren example. I don’t know what he said and you don’t know what he said. Your “or something like that” tells me that. I tried looking it up on the internet and couldn’t find what you are referencing. Now I am not a Rick Warren fan and feel that he gets some things wrong. But how do you know what he said was incorrect if you are hearing is second hand? Maybe the guy you were talking to heard it wrong or misinterpreted what Warren said. Do you think that could be possible?
3. You said you had “reviewed the interview a few times before”. But you came away with nothing aside from your position about scientists coming to salvation through nature? You didn’t have any thoughts about what the Scriptures that they quoted meant or about the theological ramifications that were talked about? Personally, I would recommend you watching it again looking at those things. Because those are what will help you determine whether old earth or young earth is correct; not your other point.
4. Fine, but they DON’T teach that. And anyway, I asked you what you believed.
5. “Well, Luther and Calvin both called Copernicus a heretic” Could I have your source on that? Here is what I see:
“The difficulty begins with the fact that Bertrand Russell quoted Calvin as saying “Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?” However, this quote does not actually appear in Calvin’s work. Edward Rosen has shown that this quote can be traced back from Russell through Andrew Dickson White’s Warfare of Science with Theology and finally to Frederic William Farrar’s History of Interpretation. Farrar fails to state from where in Calvin’s work he took this quote. In fact, it appears that this quote does not appear in any of Calvin’s work. Further, Rosen even quotes Farrar and Farrar’s son as saying that Farrar often quoted from memory, and that he did not have the time to catch all errors which may have crept into his work.”
Taken from: http://www3.nd.edu/~mdowd1/postings/CalvinAstroRev.html
And: “he sharpest point of conflict between Copernicus’ theory and the Bible concerned the story of the Battle of Gibeon in the Book of Joshua where the Hebrew forces were winning but whose opponents were likely to escape once night fell. This is averted by Joshua’s prayers causing the sun and the moon to stand still. Martin Luther would question Copernicus’ theory on these grounds. According to Anthony Lauterbach, while eating with Martin Luther the topic of Copernicus arouse during dinner on 4 June 1539 (as professor George Joachim Rheticus of the local University had been granted leave to visit him). Luther is said to have remarked “So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth.” These remarks were made four years before the publication of On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres and a year before Rheticus’ Narratio Prima. In John Aurifaber’s account of the conversation Luther calls Copernicus “that fool” rather than “that fellow”, this version is viewed by historians as less reliably sourced.”
Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus
If the preceding is correct, it is a far cry from calling him a heretic.
So do you have some sources for this
6. So if you agree that secular scientists would disagree with dinosaurs and man living together, than if you believed that dinosaurs DID live together with man you would not be agreeing with the secular scientists. So if you still believed in an old earth it wouldn’t be for that reason. So what reason would you believe in an old earth?
By the way, did you know that the quote from a scientist that you quoted was not from a believer, it was from an agnostic. I find that ironic, don’t you? Could it be that he could clearly see the creation testifying but he still exchanges the truth of God for a lie?
In thinking that we can accommodate the wise of this world by giving them an easier approach to real faith in Y’shua we do the opposite of Paul and Y’shua. Real faith does not come from reason or logic or IQ. Sometimes it takes laying all that down.
1 Corinthians 1
17 ¶ For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.
Sometimes we cast our pearls before swine trying to reason with the wise of this world. The point of believing a literal Genesis is more about humility in our age than in any other. Will we die to self and our scientific wisdom that brings no eternal or spiritual answers to the table.
2. This is a common saying among Christians who don’t understand the unforgivable sin. It is the same every time I hear it: not believing in the Gospel OR not believing in the Spirit (it comes in those two ways 99% of the time) is the unforgivable sin, Thus, you have youtube videos of people saying, “I DENY THE SPIRIT!” from such reckless interpretation of Scripture.
3. I repeat: I believe that TOGETHER WITH HUGH ROSS (or others with his approach)’s WITNESS he has a better chance of winning scientifically inclined souls than Ken Ham has because of Ken Ham’s carnal hatred of scientists vs. Hugh Ross’s compassionate and hopeful approach that the evidence PLUS HIS TESTIMONY would win their souls for sure. He seemed confident the men could turn, whereas Ken Ham seemed doggedly determined to rail on them hatefully. He seemed more interested in attacking scientists.
4. Right. I hope I’ve made myself clear.
5. None other than R.C. Sproul (Reformed theologian)
6. Precisely; I’m just saying there are different “possible” ways of looking at the Bible – I don’t want to be dogmatic about something I am not certain about.
2. I don’t care if it is a common saying or not. I don’t and you don’t have any proof that’s what Rick Warren said. So it edges on gossip for you to say that he did when you have no proof. Unless you have specific proof of what he said, I think we would do well to drop this point right here. I would challenge you to not tell others negative things about someone if you don’t specifically know them to be true.
3. So aside from that single issue, you threw out the rest of the show? That seems to be what you are telling me. If that’s what you are telling me, perhaps that’s why you can’t answer me about what you believe about whether it is an old earth or young earth.
4. No you haven’t. I asked what you believed and you still haven’t said.
5. I asked you for a source. Obviously Mr. Sproul was not there back then and he is not a historian; he is a pastor. So what were his sources? I gave you documented sources. What were his sources? Did he list them? If not, there is no documentation to prove what you are saying. Since I gave documentation with my sources, which are more compelling evidence?
6. Again, I asked you a specific question. You seem to have a difficult time responding to specific questions. Here is the question again: If you aren’t going by what secular scientists say (which you wouldn’t be if you believed dinosaurs lived at the same time as man), what would be the reason for believing in an old earth?
3. I thought the show was interesting but honestly mostly it was empty for me – what of it? Am I your servant or God’s?
4. Go back and read it.
5. Mr. Sproul is a Reformed Theologian and he knows about Calvin and Luther – I take him at his word, especially seeing as how he is going to look for ways to DEFEND Calvin. I’m not interested in proving myself to an internet hothead like yourself.
6. Nope. I already responded and you keep trying to find fault with me when there is no fault.
I did not enter the conversation looking for a conflict but it seems that is what you are hankering for, and I’ve given enough of myself to the work of satan in arguing with you.
Have a good night.
3. So, like I said, it seems you came away with one small part of the program and missed the main conversation. If, that’s true, I guess that is your choice. I found the show to be a clear distinction between the old earth and young earth views with each side providing some of the verses they derive their position from. I found that to be helpful, but I guess you thought otherwise. So, if that wasn’t helpful, then what was helpful for you in determining your position and what position have you come to?
4. I did, I saw the same thing I saw before. You postulated about what somebody COULD believe but never told me what you actually believe.
5. So you are yet again taking someone’s word for it when they present someone else in a bad light and then repeating it as truth. As with what you said about Rick Warren, without any proof of what you claim about Calvin and Luther, to repeat a claim without any proof comes close to slander. I urge you to put your standards higher when it comes to repeating things without a shred of proof. That is not being a hothead, that is following Biblical principles. If Mr. Sproul had proof for what he said, I’m sure he documented his proof, right? What was it?
As you said, go back and read what I wrote. You have never stated your position. I’m not entirely sure why. But you have not answered the question. I can’t understand WHY you believe what you believe if I don’t even understand WHAT you believe. So if you can’t or won’t be upfront about that. The perhaps this is not a productive conversation.
I am not looking for a conflict either. You put out a link implying you disagree with a young earth position but when I try to converse with you as to why you believe that way, you are not being very clear. As I ran into before, you tend to want to criticize certain individuals that hold to a certain position rather than evaluating what the positions are and why we should or should not hold to them.
I have not attacked you at all. I have called you to a higher standard when it comes to repeating unsubstantiated claims. But I have not called you names or insulted you. I am genuinely trying to have a conversation with you. Whether or not you choose to continue the conversation, please know and understand that.
The next to last paragraph of my last post should have said: “As I ran into before with someone else on this discussion thread….”
1. At this point, I am going to seek to bring an end to the conversation we are having. The reason I am saying it very plainly is so that there will not be any mistakenness: I never intended to enter, in any “serious” way, into the debate/discussion (I was/am concerned with other things of more personal import – not that this is wholly “unimportant”; just, to me, at the moment it is not important).
From the beginning, I never wanted to get too deeply involved, but somewhere along the way; yet the more I’ve tried to clarify myself/my position, the more “sticky” the situation became (like bubble gum in hair – I try to fix the problem, and leave the discussion but more and more problems keep cropping up; then, I have to stay longer and longer and clarify and answer questions).
Please understand: I have not been nor am I now interested in carrying on a long, drawn out, point-for-point debate about “7-Day Creationism” or the correct biblical interpretation of Genesis 1 – I simply do not care about it (right now).
I don’t have a dog in the fight, because I am willing to believe whatever the Truth (ultimately) ends up being.
I did not enter the conversation thinking to present or defend any “position”, because – in all honesty – *I do not have a well-defined position on “7-Day Creationism* (nor is it a real “priority”, for me, at the moment)! Creationism hasn’t been something I’ve spent much time studying, because I haven’t found it to be very relevant (though I understand why it is important for other people – defending the Scripture as inspired, etc., etc.,) to my personal concerns.
I would like to clarify all of the points that need clarification and answer the questions, but I just can not be dedicating any more of my time to a discussion which I never even wanting a serious part of.
I don’t mean to offend.
Excuse the number: I was going to give some responses, but I decided to try to make it as concise and brief as possible (without possibility of giving rise to more controversies).
There are a bunch of errors in the post but I trust the point I wanted to make was made.
It just occurred to me that the “constants” are not “static” (they have been found to be in a state of change), so when scientists measure the distance of stars using the “speed of light” they do not know for certain that the distances or ages are correct.
Here is a link to that information:
Especially look around 10min:30secs
Nicholas Petersen, I remember who you are now:
ἦ τοι μὲν πρώτιστα Χάος γένετ᾽, and the possibility that Hesiod was referring to a chasm between earth and sky that came into being.
I’m thrilled you remembered! That’s one of the best extra-biblical citations on the matter in my view too 😉 Did you ever get to share any of that material with Mr. Kulikovsky?
For others reading, I had the privilege of spending a day with Dr. Sarfati at one of his Designed for Life presentations in Ohio about a year ago. It was excellent. I was just reading yesterday a few pages from your By Design book (which I need to get back to my Mom, its her copy!). About the wonders of the Chameleon tongue – which pulls 50 Gs (if I read that right)! Unbelievable. Also from that book – I will *never* think of bones the same way again. Now often when I pass a bridge I think of the wear and stress on the steel, and how our apparently inferior bones hold up far greater – by continuing to grow by miraculous design at the points of stress.
I’ve definitely decided that, God-willing, I will be putting all of this research on the raqia’ out on the website indicated above (www.hebrewcosmology.com), though it could still be some time before that is up as I’m building the CMS. I’d appreciate any of your prayers, and as I indicated above, any of you who are interested can contact me at copernicus 365 at g mail.
Jonathan, thanks so much for visiting us here!
Thanks for the purpose of providing these kinds of awesome data. Just simply wanted to say I am just grateful I came onto your internet page. Truly such a important internet site. Just simply needed to emphasize Now i am grateful that i happened on your web site.
Comments are closed.