Your session will end in  seconds due to inactivity. Click here to continue using this web page.
Thursday, July 29, 2010 | Comments (37)

“Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed quickly, therefore the hearts of the sons of men among them are given fully to do evil” (King Solomon, Ecclesiastes 8:11). That summarizes the attitude of a scoffer. He mistakes the patience of God for leniency, and mocks the prospect of a coming judgment. One of the defining qualities of a scoffer is to forget the past, willingly. Case in point, the Genesis Flood.

The Apostle Peter exposed the folly of scoffers with an inspired history lesson from the book of Genesis. If you take Genesis as literal history (as Peter did), you’re in good apostolic company. Peter didn’t rebut the scoffers with poetical or allegorical interpretations of Genesis, and neither should we. Pull up a chair—school is in session again, with Professor John MacArthur . . .

Watch the sermon video, then visit the comment section and discuss the following question: How does the catastrophic global flood threaten the system of uniformitarianism (i.e., “the present is the key to the past”)?


Make a Comment

Click here to subscribe to comments without commenting.

You have 3000 characters remaining for your comment. Note: All comments must be approved before being posted.

Submit

#1  Posted by Dan Wilson  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 5:23 AM

It shows the key to the past. The Global Flood is the first judgement.

In scripture says people were eating,drinking,getting married,and etc.

The flood came and took them away. The 8 people on the ark with animals

were safe. It shows that the earth was once watery world,then flood it

again and soon earth and heavens will burn up. This Global Flood

was real and it's a key to know what will happen in the last day. It's

in the bible. Matt. 24 will be a impact on others to know that we don't

know when Jesus is coming and Jesus wants us to prepare for that.

#2  Posted by Alex Soriano  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 8:02 AM

Like any other system of belief or theory, there are plenty of rooms to justify the claims of uniformitarian system. Even the so called catastrophic flood is not enough to threaten such fortified heresy – it will always find its way to modify itself to avoid the truth. Like what JM said, this belief system was from Satan himself; so I think those who followed or who are following the lies Satan will also adjust accordingly.

But the good news is for those who are at the verge of turning to Christ and also for those who are already in Christ yet have the tendency to buy into such satanic scheme. The truth of the historic flood will indeed threaten or lessen the deceiving power of the Uniformitarian. Furthermore, the signs of the end times are slowly unfolding in this present generation and I think this reality will not only threaten the uniformitarian; it will totally destroy the system and shame the scoffers.

#3  Posted by Keith Farmer  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 9:01 AM

I posted this link on the previous blog series but it deserves to be viewed here as well...This is a great new production:

http://www.themysteriousislands.com/

#4  Posted by Jorge Alvarado  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 8:07 PM

"How does the catastrophic global flood threaten the system of uniformitarianism (i.e., “the present is the key to the past”)?"

I think it would be hard to find, today, anyone who would say things in the world are going on as they always have. (like they did in Peter's day).

Today's science has convinced some people that the world IS changing, for the worse, because of: (all together now) Global Warming!.

God has even been taken out of the picture. Scripture says creation groans up to the present time. Science says "Nature" is being hurt, and it's up to us to save it (Her).

Just the same, it's just a diversion from satan to divert attention from God.

We know everything is going according to God's plan. These ARE the last days (just as they were in Peter's day). But today, some people would rather save the earth than their own souls.

Let us not keep silent. There's too much at stake.

#5  Posted by Donavan Dear  |  Thursday, July 29, 2010at 11:03 PM

Because of wooden literalism we get problems like in Zechariah 14: Where the Bible talks about the Mount of Olives being ripped in half and the land changed into a plain while Jerusalem rises in elevation. This is a good passage to show how John MacArthur's view of interpretation is in my opinion in error.

Zech 14:8 speaks about 'living water' that flowed out of Jerusalem after these seposed tremendous geological changes. As I have said before there is always an obvious clues that the passage is symbolic. Living water is not really living, it is symbolic of salvation, even in the New Testament Jesus himself speaks about 'living water' to the woman at the well and contrasts that with literal wet water in John 4:10. This is easy to understand if you aren't entombed in a particular system that rigidly forms your Biblical interpretation. You must ask yourself a question, are you committed to the truth of the Bible or a system of Bible interpretation.

#6  Posted by Keith Strunk  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 5:00 AM

I seems to me that an honest submission to the truth of God's word not only threatens the system of uniformitarianism, but it obliterates it. The flood ordained by God in judgment is proof all by itself that things will not remain unchanged as the scoffers sarcastically suggest in Peter's prophecy, which has come true! But these scoffers are natural men, unable to submit to the truth of God's word because it is spiritually discerned, so it is foolishness to them.

However foolish the cross may be to them though, according to Jude we are to cautiously snatch them from the fire. The only way to do that in my estimation is through preaching the message of Christ. Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. Soli Deo Gloria

#8  Posted by Fred Butler  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 6:11 AM

Donavan,

There are no such things as "wooden literalists." That's a mythological character invented by preterist propagandists like Hank Hanegraaf and Gary Demar. And speaking of Gary Demar, his ministry, American Vision, is one of the foremost promoters of preterism in the United States. He is also a young earth creationist. So does the smear of "wooden literalism" apply to him as well? I think you did admit to being a preterist in the comments under a previous post, correct?

#9  Posted by Bernardo Felix  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 6:17 AM

Keith, that link you shared for that new film is amazing... I can't wait to watch the full film! However, I'm struggling with a question which I hope someone can help me to answer. I'm from the New York City area and recently visited the Museum of Natural History. There I saw the reconstructed fossils of our "alleged" primitive ancestors, such as Australopithocus Africanus; a small ape-like pair of human ancestors...and many more just the same. How do we explain these finding?? Who are they?? In light of the Scriptures, where did they come from?? Why do these "cavemen" not look so much human as they do primates?? Someone please help me answer some of these questions... thank you!

#10  Posted by Paul Tucker  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 7:23 AM

Hi Fred: Thanks for the links to Joey- pretty good stuff.

 ‘For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the Lord; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death. 16 ‘So the sons of Israel shall observe the sabbath, to celebrate the sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.’ 17 “It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed.

New American Standard Bible . 1986; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996 (electronic edition.) (Ex 31:15-17). La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

I think it is interesting that God summarized the Genesis days of creation and linked it to Israel the way he did. He had called out this people and used the sign of the seven day week, and more particularly the Sabbath as a "sanctified" sign post intended to link the days of creation to a "normal" 168 hour week. It would be odd to link the work week and day of rest to millions of years, and I do not think it is a stretch to say that the reason God used 7/24 hour days is because he had redemption in mind- to redeem a people to himself of both Jews and Gentiles- making one new man.

#11  Posted by Scott Christensen  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 7:54 AM

Donavan,

Can you put on your decoder ring and tell me what Geba, Rimmon, Benjamin's Gate, the First Gate, the Corner Gate and the Tower of Hananel means in Zech. 14:10?

#12  Posted by Donavan Dear  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 8:33 AM

Fred,

Yes I'm a preterist but that doesn't matter I'm committed to truth not a system that tells me what to believe, why do you want to categorize people so much, just deal with their arguments.

#13  Posted by Fred Butler  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 8:45 AM

Donavan,

Your original comment under #5 implies that John's view of Genesis is due to his "wooden literalism." Hence, if John weren't a "wooden literalist," he wouldn't take the view of Genesis that he does, i.e., YEC.

You are a preterist, and further imply your hermeneutics are superior. You then provide an unrelated example in Zechariah 14 so as to show how John's hermeneutics are messed up and then relate that to how he understands Genesis. I merely point out to you that Gary Demar, a well-known popularizer of preteristic ideas is also a young earth creationist. Thus, your theory about John's deplorable hermeneutics doesn't seem to wash. Care to try again?

#14  Posted by Donavan Dear  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 9:20 AM

Fred,

Also 'wooden literalist's is John MacArthur's term.

#15  Posted by Fred Butler  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 9:28 AM

So does your response mean you aren't going to rectify your criticism of John's "wooden literalistic" hermeneutic that yields a young earth view of Genesis with preterist, Gary Demar, and his young earth view of Genesis? Just wondering.

#16  Posted by Jorge Alvarado  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 9:35 AM

Re # 9, Felix wrote:

"Someone please help me answer some of these questions... thank you!"

Hi, Felix, this is from the "battle for the beginning" sermon series, creation day 6, part 1, from John MacArthur.

"Now I don't want to get too technical, but just to kind of show you that you can do your homework on this and the Bible will stand, the evolution of man has sort of been divided into three sort of Latin parts...ramapithecus, australopithecus, and pithecanthropus. And those names will be on the quiz, of course. These have all been...these are the Latin terms given to these supposed fossils and they have been heralded as transitional forms between ape and man. The average person on the street probably still believes these classifications represent genuine intermediate forms. But they don't. Even evolutionists are seriously divided and none of these classifications documents any human evolution at all."

Hope this helps. Remember, since evolution did not happen, all those "proofs" will be debunked sooner or later.

#17  Posted by Dan Wilson  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 9:40 AM

Comment deleted by user.
#18  Posted by Dan Wilson  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 9:59 AM

#9 Bernardo Felix

There is a christian website you can go to. www.answersingenesis.org

The bones are usually fakes and some of them, they made up from a

single bone, and some are real bones.

Cavemans are hunch over cause of lack of vitiman D but they were not savages like some museums. True.

Does it help?

#19  Posted by Donavan Dear  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 10:26 AM

Fred,

Sure I'll try again, I used Zechariah 14 because it shows three important points relating to this blog,

1) Geological change, a mountain splitting in two and Jerusalem rising in elevation.

2) This passage according to dispensational theory happens fast, supporting an argument against Uniformitarianism

3) Zechariah 14 shows a very clear interpretational comparison between Christians who believe in inerrancy and have devoted there lives to Jesus.

You think Genesis is clear it's not by definition or this blog would be worthless, nothing more than cheerleading. When people who love God debate in order to find the truth blogs are God honoring if they deteriorate to Ad Hominem attacks they are a waist of time. I don't claim to have a decoder ring, I do claim to have an argument and an obvious example of poor interpretation, if i'm wrong show me and I'll change my mind,

#20  Posted by Fred Butler  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 10:38 AM

Donavan,

There are no Ad Hominem attacks going on here. You are specifically leveling a charge against John's specific hermeneutic and I am telling you that one of your very own, probably a guy who taught you a lot of the stuff you believe about preterism, doesn't fall into the picture you are painting of John. Demar is a committed young earth creationist and a preterist (your position) and yet he doesn't seem to believe how one understands Zechariah 14 is any way a problem with believing Genesis in the exact same way as John. How exactly do you answer this problem to your accusation? You have a person who holds to nearly the exact same hermeneutic of the Bible you do. But he's a YEC. You're just going to ignore this blatant contradiction against your critical remarks against John?

#21  Posted by Keith Farmer  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 11:12 AM

Bernardo Felix ...

Your question is addressed in the film.

One of the reasons I like the film, perhaps the main reason, is its powerful attestation to the Gospel. These men are Godly men who seek to bring glory to our Creator God by giving testimony to the truth about scientific discoveries. They go on to give a very straight forward presentation of how all of this fits into the redemptive plan God ordained before he formed the world.

I hope you guys will invest the few dollars necessary to order the film and watch it. When you do make sure you watch the included outtakes...great stuff there as well.

#22  Posted by Donavan Dear  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 11:44 AM

Fred,

When any person is in a system of understanding (Democrat, Republican, Dispensational, Preterist) they identify with the group, it's human nature, in fact thats one of the reasons why I stopped working at Grace Community Church. Everyone has their tradition, but I feel no allegence to any Bible teacher even my favorite teachers like JM when it comes to the Bible. Of course I respect and emulate JM but not in every way. Do you think a Christian should take on all the beliefs of a particular teacher?

#23  Posted by Fred Butler  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 11:54 AM

Donavan,

This will be my last attempt: I am not accusing you of following men, or whatever. I am merely pointing out that your claim that John is reading Genesis with wooden literalism is rather empty seeing that a person who holds to the exact same hermeneutic you do agrees with John on how we are to interpret the book of Genesis. For some reason you seem to be unable to see this severe disconnect with your accusation against John's reading of Scripture.

#24  Posted by Dan Wilson  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 12:13 PM

#2 Alex Soriano,

Last days are closer. Yes, Humans will forget the first judgement and

mocking it. And the Flood is not a false belief. It's the judgement God

did cause the humans were wicked to their bones. Jesus says if one does

not agree on one thing in the Bible, and He said how would one believe

the rest. Does that help?

#25  Posted by William Rhoden  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 1:31 PM

"How does the catastrophic global flood threaten the system of uniformitarianism?"

The flood literally demolished the system. I'm sure when Noah was making the ark, he was met with the same uniformitarianism we have today. Yet, sadly they did not repent and were literally destroyed. The future judgment will arrive in the same fashion, and it will be even more terrible. Matthew 24:37-39, Matthew 24:21

God is always faithful to His Word. He will fulfill in His own time.

#26  Posted by Alex Soriano  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 4:47 PM

Do you think a Christian should take on all the beliefs of a particular teacher?

I think the answer is in 1 Corinthians 1:12-13

We need unity for the Gospel's sake. You see how these Uniformitarianism and other heresies are becoming pervasive and hindering our effort in evangelism. I believe these whole discourses on creation will teach us on how to engage the belief system of those people whom we are supposed to preach the gospel.

You don't need to hang around with one teacher - why should you? Even JM and other bible teachers won't even recommend that but at least you need someone whom you can trust and accept even with their hard-to-believe tradition. How foolish it is to stop in the ministry just because you don't feel allegiance with someone.If that feeling is hindering your preaching of the gospel, then, it's time to have a deeper meditation on 1 Cor. 1:10-14.

#27  Posted by Dan Wilson  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 6:48 PM

Donavan,

You said it in the last 4 blogs' subjects. Why this subject about wooden literalism. Is it hard to understand the answers of people helping you to understand what is the truth of God's Word . God gave JM a plan in his life to be a pastor. God speaks through him. But to let you know God does not want us to argue about His Word. What God said, is what He says in the Bible.

For example, In this subject is about the Flood and the key to it.

What do you think of the subject about the key prior to the Flood?

#28  Posted by Paul Tucker  |  Friday, July 30, 2010at 10:18 PM

Hi Folks: The Question at hand is "How does the Global Flood threaten the system of Uniformatarianism?"

The Biblical Teaching on the Deluge is that it is a one time event. The results of that Flood would overturn the uniformatarian view of fossils, and evolution of every species which has existed since the Flood. (And since we have had geologist on this blog which discount the uniformatarian view- we should be good --right, no of course not. Catastrophic changes that have occurred are still thought of in uniformatarian terms, because without it evolution could not take place. There has to be a period of relative calm for the "evolutionary gestation" of the single proteins to single cell to fish to amphibian to animal to ape to man. If there is too much of change, there is a chance that "chance" would not be able to produce the first parents... grandma and grandpa Singlecell. (I sure miss them- they came along before the advent of stone hammers- we could have and a picture or monument or something). Anyway... Chance is a fickled master, I had hoped to look like Robert Redford but instead I look like Paul Tucker- what are the odds. I hope that the chances are good that my wife will still speak to me, he he. If there were really any chance for uniformatarianism, we should all look alike,clones off the old Grandpa. (Probably not true- but sounds good.)

#29  Posted by Dan Wilson  |  Saturday, July 31, 2010at 7:20 AM

#26 Alex Soriano

You are right on one thing. Trust no one but God. Remember that God

sends godly men to help us. That's the Holy Spirit job. Does it

help?

#30  Posted by Donavan Dear  |  Saturday, July 31, 2010at 9:46 AM

JM's is setting up a straw man when he speaks of uniformitarianism with respect to evolution, punctuated equiblirum generally means there were periods of equiblearium and then periods of punctuations (change). I believe this was simply Stephen Gould's fix to escape the fact that there is inadequate fossil evidence to explain transitional forms. I am not in any way an evolutionist, but I think arguments such as JM has given puts Christians in a bad light, evolutionists do believe in al kinds of change, in fact they say their system can't work without it.

#31  Posted by Keith Farmer  |  Saturday, July 31, 2010at 10:45 AM

This may be of help:

http://www.icr.org/article/1842/

This recent article is great...here are a few quotes followed by a link to the article:

"...the doctrine of recent creation is vitally important to true biblical Christianity."

"Compromising monotheists, both in ancient Israel and in the early Christian church, repeatedly resorted to various allegorical interpretations of Scripture, involving some form of protracted creation, seeking to amalgamate creationist/redemptionist theology with pagan humanistic philosophy. Almost inevitably, however, such compromises ended in complete apostasy on the part of the compromisers."

"The wastefulness and randomness and cruelty which is now so evident in the world (both in the groaning creation of the present and in the fossilized world of the past) must represent an intrusion into His creation, not a mechanism for its accomplishment."

"The fact is that geologists are today finally abandoning their outmoded 19th-century uniformitarianism, realizing that catastrophism provides the only realistic explanation for the great geological structures of the earth."

"If it were not for the continued apathetic and compromising attitude of Christian theologians and other intellectuals on this vital doctrine of recent creation, evolutionary humanism would long since have been exposed and defeated."

All quotes from this article:

http://www.icr.org/article/5360/

#32  Posted by Dylan Perkins  |  Saturday, July 31, 2010at 2:49 PM

Hey Bernardo #9

"I'm from the New York City area and recently visited the Museum of Natural History. There I saw the reconstructed fossils of our "alleged" primitive ancestors, such as Australopithocus Africanus; a small ape-like pair of human ancestors...and many more just the same. How do we explain these finding?? Who are they?? In light of the Scriptures, where did they come from?? Why do these "cavemen" not look so much human as they do primates?? Someone please help me answer some of these questions... thank you!"

The American Museum of Natural History there in New York is supposedly awesome, I want to get there myself someday. Did you take pics?

What you have in australopithecines is an extinct genus of hominid from Africa which lived from the late Pliocine to the early Pleistocene. We're going back quite a bit in time, so that's why these "cavemen" look not so much human. Usually caveman refers to our own species Homo sapiens back when we lived in small tribes and hung around caves in Europe and Asia, or sometimes to Neaderthals which were a related human species from Europe and the Middle East that's now extinct. Australopithecines were confined to the African continent, and were much more primitive and apelike.

They came from even more primitive ancestors. Or perhaps they were created directly by God. You'll find many Christians on either side and they all believe Scripture supports them. Most don't think it's a critical issue, so try not to be unduly put out worrying about it.

You'll notice Scripture doesn't mention dinosaurs, or trilobites, or elasmosaurs, or pterosaurs, or kangaroos, or mammoths, or giant pandas, or omomyids, or toxodons, or moas, or many other things either living or extinct. No problem.

#33  Posted by Jorge Alvarado  |  Saturday, July 31, 2010at 5:20 PM

Re # 32, Dylan wrote:

"What you have in australopithecines is an extinct genus of hominid from Africa which lived from the late Pliocine to the early Pleistocene.We're going back quite a bit in time,"

Sorry, you lost me in the mumbo jumbo, are you saying these are "real" ancestors of man?, and if so, how long ago did they live?

Re: "They came from even more primitive ancestors. Or perhaps they were created directly by God."

Before or after Adam???

#34  Posted by Rick White  |  Sunday, August 01, 2010at 3:23 AM

Bernardo #9 and Dylan #32,

The question is they were "reconstructed" out of what? Usually out of someone's imagination. See the following articles to see the YEC response to the evolutionist's propaganda.

http://creation.com/are-there-apemen-in-your-ancestry

http://creation.com/the-human-fossils-still-speak

#35  Posted by Dylan Perkins  |  Sunday, August 01, 2010at 8:05 AM

Hey Jorge #33,

Australopithecines would seem to be primitive members of the hominid family tree, the family that includes humans living today. Whether a particular australopithecus species is the *direct* ancestor of our genus (Homo) is probably not determinable for sure. The last of their fossils dates from early in the Pleistocene, circa two million years ago.

Before or afer Adam depends on when you think Adam lived. If Adam is the first man, or is a symbol for the beginning of modern humans, then they were definitely before.

#36  Posted by Jorge Alvarado  |  Monday, August 02, 2010at 9:29 PM

Re # 35

Hi, Dylan, This from Dictionary.com

"The most complete Australopithecines skeleton found so far, named Lucy by its discoverers, is estimated to be just over 3 million years old. While many scientists believe that australopithecines are ancestors of modern humans, not enough fossils have yet been found to establish any direct descent."

Also:

"The evidence given... makes it overwhelmingly likely that Lucy was no more than a variety of pygmy chimpanzee, and walked the same way (awkwardly upright on occasions, but mostly quadrupedal).

The 'evidence' for the alleged transformation from ape to man is extremely unconvincing."

SOURCE: Albert W. Mehlert,

Former Evolutionist & paleoanthropology researcher. "Lucy - Evolution's Solitary Claim for Ape/Man." CRS Quarterly, Volume 22, No. 3, p. 145

I guess you could produce evidence that Lucy is still a good example of evolution. But that would point out the problem we faced here in these series of blogs. Who are you going to believe, science (so called; ever-changing), or the bible (inerrant) as the word of God?

Or maybe you just don't want to mix science with scripture?

#37  Posted by Daniel Wilson  |  Tuesday, August 03, 2010at 3:12 PM

Dylan Perkins

You are right! Adam is the first man. No other man before him.

Adam from the dust of the ground and Eve from his rib.

Cause if there was humans before Adam then the people before Adam

are not worth it in God's eyes. Then why would God make Adam

and Eve sinless and naked. Seems some think oh God made a mistake

then God had to create Adam and Eve. Seem odd.

God says it's good when He created the heavens and the earth. I will pray for you and I encourage you read God's Word literally. God bless.

Remember God never makes mistakes. He created a perfect heaven and earth for Adam and Eve. No sin in them. Then sad day when Eve and Adam ate the fruit then sinned which cause pain, suffering, death, sickness. Sin will reign in us until death. Sad.

Remember Jesus died for you and He is alive! God is our Creator.

and Eve.

#38  Posted by Dylan Perkins  |  Wednesday, August 04, 2010at 8:10 PM

Jorge #36

Is there anything from the dictionary.com quote I should be responding to? Looks fine to me, as far as I know.

The other thing from the Creation Research Society is not really anything to hang your hat on. You have to consider the source in this case: in my experience, creationist sites are not the best places to go to if you want to find out about something like this. Their purpose isn't to disseminate accurate scientific info, but rather to tell their target audience what they want to hear.

Pygmy chimpanzees are around today. They're the species "Pan paniscus" whose common name is the bonobo. Lucy wasn't one of them. I have not heard any legitimate anthropologist or paleontologist or primatologist etc say that. Lucy belongs to a species that doesn't exist anymore.

I definitely don't want to mix science and scripture, you're right.

Anyway, as it looks like we've reached the end of this whole series, I don't know if I'll stick around or not. Anyone that wants to, feel free to email me at dylanologist [at] hotmail [dot] com for a chat.