Utterly Depraved?

I am a bit down this weekend. OK, so I am not at all depressed at the thought of the end of the political ads coming this Tuesday. But part of my being down is how hard the economy has hit my family and others, and how slow any recovery appears. And this weekend, as I allow this darkness to seep into my soul, I was hit by a quote from Martin Luther. Here’s his quote:

The works of God, though they may always look evil and have the appearance of being very bad, are yet in fact works of eternal merit.

As I chewed on Marty’s quote (that’s how close I am to the founder of Protestantism, I can call him Marty), I thought about how some people (not naming names, but their initials are Ed and TJL) see everything done by God as wrong. Even evil. And I suppose that why this quote initially caught my attention. The Heidleberg Disputation provides further explanation and insight into Martin Luther’s quote, and it states:

Heidleberg Disputation: That the works of God are unattractive is clear from what is said in Isa. 53:2, »He had no form of comeliness«, and in 1 Sam. 2:6, »The Lord kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up.« This is understood to mean that the Lord humbles and frightens us by means of the law and the sight of our sins so that we seem in the eyes of men, as in our own, as nothing, foolish, and wicked, for we are in truth that. Insofar as we acknowledge and confess this, there is »no form or beauty« in us, but our life is hidden in God (i.e. in the bare confidence in his mercy), finding in ourselves nothing but sin, foolishness, death, and hell, according to that verse of the Apostle in 2 Cor. 6:9-10, »As sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as dying, and behold we live.« And that it is which Isa. 28:21 calls the »alien work« of God »that he may do his work« (that is, he humbles us thoroughly, making us despair, so that he may exalt us in his mercy, giving us hope), just as Hab. 3:2 states, »In wrath remember mercy.« Such a man therefore is displeased with all his works; he sees no beauty, but only his depravity. Indeed, he also does those things which appear foolish and disgusting to others.
This depravity, however, comes into being in us either when God punishes us or when we accuse ourselves, as 1 Cor. 11:31 says, »If we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged by the Lord«. Deut. 32:36 also states, »The Lord will vindicate his people and have compassion on his servants.« In this way, consequently, the unattractive works which God does in us, that is, those which are humble and devout, are really eternal, for humility and fear of God are our entire merit.

Tom’s Wrap:I know this is a lot to put your mind around, especially on a weekend morning. Especially on a day when our blood is pumping for the anticipated sugar fix that is coming later on (Halloween, and all). But here is my take. I think what Luther and the Disputation are getting at is not so much how God’s ways can only be viewed over the long-term, and over many years when everything will be put it order. Instead, I think it is more likely pointing toward man’s utter depravity and God’s holiness and righteousness. When I say man’s utter depravity, I mean that every inclination of our heart is to do the sinful, rebellious, self-centered action. While God’s actions cannot possibly be understood by us for what they truly are. God’s actions alone are of “eternal merit”, as Luther describes.

The 1 Corinthians 11:31 verse is powerful. If we were able to judge ourselves properly, then there would be no need for God’s judgment. My final takeaway is this: think about Nehemiah’s response upon learning of Jerusalem’s destruction. His response to the Sovereign God allowing Jerusalem to be destroyed and disgraced? He “sat down and wept”, and then pleaded for forgiveness of Israel’s sin (Nehemiah 1:4-6). As we face trouble and battles, and as we see the pain that the economy’s devastation is taking all about us, I hope we don’t ask “where is God”? Instead, I hope we trust in the holy and righteous Sovereign God, and what He is doing through this time. I praise Your holy name Lord God, /s/Tom Wolff

Death for All

We recently discussed the topic of sin in the Men's Group I have breakfast with every Thursday morning. I found our discussion helpful, and so I wanted to write about this same topic this morning. First, what is sin? It's a big word, and the traditional description of sin is "missing the mark". But I prefer the Pastor Keller (Reason for God) definition of sin as not simply doing bad things, it is putting good things in place of God. Think about it, God gives us good things in this world, things like food, sex, work, and others, etc. But sin is when we take these good things and put them in place of God. Sin is seeking to become one-self, and to get an identity apart from Him.

OK, I hope everybody gets two points on sin that are foundational for the Gospel, the Good News of Jesus Christ: We are all sinners, and that Jesus came as the world's Savior to pay the price for our sins: death on the Cross. But does this mean that our sins deserve to be punished with the Death Penalty? Sure, Osama Bin Laden deserves the death penalty. Yes, Hitler and Stalin, but why should my sins deserve the just punishment of death? Yeah, maybe my sins deserve 2 or 3 years in prison, but DEATH? C'mon, the death penalty should only be given to those who have murdered, or done realllly bad things. But not me, right?

So I wrestled with this issue a few years ago, and I decided to start by looking at the 10 Commandments (Exodus 20). Yes, I have honored my father and mother, I don't steal much, I've never murdered, and those commands on coveting other people's property are kind of slippery, so I felt ok looking at my sinfulness looking at most of the 10 Commandments. But then I started looking at the portion of the Commandments that dealt with God – No, I don't always Honor the Sabbath, and no, sometimes I take the Lord's name in vain. And the First Commandment of Honoring the Lord our God, and having no other gods beside Him, was the one that stuck with me. What was I putting in place of God? Yes, I am prideful, and being logical is very important to me. And being able to spend my time doing what I want is very important to me. But was I putting these in place of God? I think this is what Pastor Keller was getting at with his definition of sin as taking "good things and putting them in place of God".

But do I really deserve to be put to death for not honoring God? So I did some Bible work to look up the punishments that ought to be given to someone who violates the 10 Commandments. And I discovered that for any violation of a single Commandment, the Death Penalty should be given. Here is my breakdown:

1^st and 2^nd Commandments (Honor God and No Idols): Deut. 13:6-10; Lev. 20:1-5

        Those who draw others away from God – Deut. 13:6-9

        Those who lead others to idolatry – Deut 13:1-5, 18:20.

Witchcraft, consulting spirits, necromancy, divination, sorcery, augery, soothsaying Lev. 19:26, 20:6; Deut 18:10-16;

3^rd: Taking Lord's Name in Vain: Lev. 24:10-14;

4^th: Break Sabbath: Exod. 31:14-15, 35:2; Numbers 15:32-36;

5^th: Honor your Parents: strike your parents, punish with death – Exod. 21:15; curse parents, death penalty Ex. 21:17, Lev 20:9; Those who are disobedient to their parents: Deut. 21:18-21, Rom. 1:30-32;

6^th: Murder: Intentional – Ex. 21:12-14; Numb. 35:9-28; Deut. 19:4-13; cause miscarriage Ex. 21:22-25;

7^th : Adultery punished with death – Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22-24; rape Deut 22:25; incest – Lev. 20:11, 12, 14, 17, 19-21; Deut. 27: 20-23; Lev. 20:11, 14; Homosexuality – Exod. 22:19, Lev. 18:22-3, 20:13, :15-16; Prostitution Gen. 38:24, Deut 22:21-26, Lev. 19:29, 21:9; Bestiality Ex. 22:19, Lev. 18:23, Deut. 27:21.

8^th: Thou shall not steal – restitution plus interest Ex. 22:1-4, Lev. 6:4-5; if can't pay back what was stolen, thief is sold into slavery – Ex. 22:1; kidnapper of a person – death, Ex. 21:16, Deut. 24:7; Death for all thieves, Zech. 5:4; Thieves will not inherit the kingdom of God – 1 Cor. 6:9-10;

9^th: Thou shall not bear false witness: whatever was intended to be done to victim of false witness, should be done to liar – Deut. 19:15-21; Death – Zech. 5:4; Rev. 21:8, death for lying to Church, Holy Spirit (Ananias and Sapphira): Acts 5;

10^th: Thou shall not covet – Deserves death - Rom. 1:28-32.

And so, by checking into the punishments for sinning against the 10 Commandments, I discovered I did not deserve 2 or 3 years of jail time for my sins, no, instead I deserved death. You cannot flagrantly disobey and dishonor the God, Maker of the Universe without there being a consequence. This is what makes God a holy God, who deserves to be feared. And so, this list helped me better understand what the Apostle Paul meant when he wrote that the wages of sin was death (Romans 6:23). And of course, this helped me understand the debt that was owed when Jesus took the punishment that was owed for my sins, when He died on the Cross. He died to save me from the punishment that my sins deserved. My sins are paid for, I don't need to feel guilty about what I have done. And the extra bonus is this – Jesus' death and resurrection also provides us with the freedom so that we don't have to keep on sinning. Praise God for His plan and the giving of Jesus as a sacrifice in my place!

I hope this post was helpful for you in better understanding what sin means and deserves. But enough of this theological stuff. Go Vikings against those stinking Packers playing on Sunday night. And my favorite Halloween candy? Reese's Peanut Butter cups – what's yours? /s/Tom

A New “Earth” Found?, and other topics

Good morning. I wanted to address last week's news story about a "new" Earth, as well as another topic. First, the New Earth – this is a planet scientists discovered that has similar conditions to that of Earth, and may be able to support life. Here's the story from Sept. 30 CNN:

1. A New Earth Found?    Gliese 581g may be the new Earth. A team of astronomers from the University of California and the Carnegie Institute of Washington say they've found a planet like ours, 20 light years (120 trillion miles) from Earth, where the basic conditions for life are good. "The chances for life on this planet are 100 percent," Steven Vogt, a UC professor of astronomy and astrophysics says. "I have almost no doubt about it." The planet is three times the size of Earth, but the gravity is similar. Dr. Elizabeth Cunningham, planetarium astronomer at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, says the discovery is a huge deal. "It could have liquid water on the surface," she said. "That's the first step to find life." …
   

   But if we did - we'd find some other things familiar. The atmosphere and gravity are similar to Earth, and if you're from the polar regions, you'd definitely feel right at home. Scientists say the highest average temperature is about -12 degrees Celcius (10 Fahrenheit), but they point out that the planet doesn't have a night and day - one side continually faces the star and the other side faces the darkness of space. This means one side is blazing hot and the other freezing cold. But Cunningham also called it a Goldilocks planet – it's not too cold, and it's not too hot, it's just right for water to form.
   

   Tom's view – in the past I have shown skepticism on the chance of life being found on another planet. I based this on the exceptional number of unique characteristics that Earth has in which to support life. Not just water, but other things like the right force of gravity, a right sized moon, the right speed of rotation, the right atmosphere, etc. But now that this other planet was found, with a temperature of 10 degrees, that does not rotate, and because Gliese 581g has two of these conditions: the possibility of water on the planet along with a similar gravity, Professor Vogt states that there is a 100% chance that life will form. A body of water is all that it takes for life to form on a planet? Hmmm, I may be wrong, but it seems that life is little more difficult to create than having just a body of water. It's interesting to me that they are able to discover the possibility of water on a planet 20 light years away, and that they make a good guess as to its gravity. Science is amazing, but the quote that there is a 100% chance that life will form on Gliese 581g, is clearly overstated.
   

2. Clues to God's Existence. I have been asked before what evidence is there to support God's existence. I believe that Intelligent Design is the best position to explain life on Earth. I may be wrong, but when it comes to either a naturalist explanation (like Darwinism) or a supernatural one, it seems to me that the supernatural explanation makes more sense. And the evidence of how Darwinism actually works, continues to support my understanding. As one writer submits, don't we have "astronomical numbers of organisms" in the real-world data collected in the cases of malaria, HIV and e-coli? In these cases, Random Mutation + Natural Selection produced only trivial changes and no other evolutionary processes came into play at all, despite strong selection pressures. In the case of e-coli, the data were produced in the lab over the space of about a decade. Isn't it likely that we'll have more and more sets of data of this kind as medical science proceeds? Why keep telling stories about how a Lexus evolved from a Ford and a Volvo when you can go inside the Lexus factory and actually observe workers assembling parts produced entirely in Japan?
   

   Well, I am reading a book by Pastor Timothy Keller entitled "The Reason for God", and it has a good way of describing "clues" of God. These are not proofs of God's existence. But instead they are strong clues that point to His existence. Divine fingerprints if you will. Here are a few:
   

• Big Bang. Scientist Francis Collins writes, "15 billion years ago, the universe began with an unimaginably bright flash of energy from an infinitesimally small point. That implies that before that, there was nothing. I can't imagine how nature, ion this case the universe, could have created itself. And the very fact that the universe had a beginning implies that someone was able to begin it. And it seems to me that had to be outside of nature." Everything we see is 'contingent', meaning that there is a cause outside of itself. Why should the universe be any different? This makes a lot of sense to me, but it certainly is not a proof;
  

  
   

• The Cosmic Welcome Mat. Keller: Everything about physics from the speed of light, the gravitational constant, the strength of weak and strong nuclear forces – must all have values that together fall into an extremely narrow range. This is called the "fine-tuning" of the universe, that makes it appear that the universe was prepared human beings. It seems as though there were a large number of dials that all had to be tuned to a narrow setting, and they all were turned to that setting. Again, this is not a proof. I'm sure there is a theoretical chance that there are billion upon billions of unobservable other universes out there. Yeah, sure. But the one universe that we can see, tells us that someone has made sure that life be created on Earth. The clues point to a Creator.
  

 

• Love. Yes, it is possible that chemical reactions in our brain create an attraction to another person. But that doesn't tell half of the story. Chemical reaction doesn't explain my wife's love of someone like me who can be grumpy, selfish, and not give her the attention of love back to her that she deserves. Yet, she still loves me. Chemical reactions seem as a laughable explanation for love. We have free choice to love others in our life by our actions, or to make selfish, unloving choices to those around us. We don't get to blame our genetics for our choices.
  

 

And of course, God's example of sending His Son as a sacrifice to pay for all of the World's sins is the best example of love. The Gift of Jesus' sacrifice was made to allow people to be in relationship with God. No one is forced to believe or accept this gift. But if it is accepted this is the beginning of a grand adventure. A relationship with the Creator of the universe, who gives us jobs to do – to help others, and provide glory to God. And the relationship gives us what we need, peace, growing is purity, growing in our faith and knowledge of the Creator. It's a great plan, and it's open to everyone.

Thanks for those who email me with comments. May God bless you this week with His joy and peace. /s/Tom

Difference Between Darwinism and Intelligent Design, Part 2

My thanks to TJL and Edward Oleander for their comments to my last post on the difference between Darwinism and Intelligent Design. I wanted to spin-off one of the issues raised from their comments on the fossil record, and more specifically the fossil record of the "Cambrian Explosion". Edward Oleander writes:

1. Very few creatures get fossilized. … By looking at how modern species are spread out, it is possible to estimate that the vast majority (perhaps as much as 95%) of species never left any remains behind at all.
   
2. The Fossil record records very little data about soft tissues.
   

It appears Edward O. is drinking the Kool Aid of Richard Dawkins. As the Arch-Bishop of Darwinism Richard Dawkins notes: "It's as though they (the Cambrian fossils) were just planted there, without any evolutionary history" (Dawkins 1996: 229). Dawkins doesn't claim to know why there is so little pre-Cambrian fossil evidence but he suspects "it might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize" (Dawkins 1996: 230).

The Fossil Record.    So let me start by making clear what the Cambrian Explosion fossil record is, then both sides can suggest why the record is the way that it is. The Pre-Cambrian fossil record is from the Ediacaran, and an example of the sort of fossils is the Treptichnus pedum, which is a segmented, soft-bodied worm (a brief description and picture is found in Wikipedia here.) And from this worm, in a period as short as 5-10 million years, we have as Time Magazine describes "worms and flies, mice and fish". And most interesting, is the fact that in the Cambrian Explosion we see the appearance of all of life's basic body plans found in nature today are here: bodies with heads, tails, and appendages (this is from pbs.org). We get crab shells, the skeletal structure of fish, with eyes, fins, gills and mouths. We have the air breathing ability of mice, and their tails, paws, and teeth. We have the birds, with their ability to fly, with wings, feathers, and tails. We have insects. And the Darwinist claim is that this all arose from this soft-bodied worm.

So. to aid our discussion, let me ask a few questions:

1. Why have no new body plans for life arisen after the Cambrian Explosion?
   
2. The Darwinist claim is that there are few fossils, and the fossils provide little detail about "soft tissues". So I want to know what exactly you are claiming is missing: is it all of the transitions from (for example) the Trept Ped worm to the crab and its' shell? Or is it all of the transitions from the Trept Ped worm to the first fish, PLUS all of transitions from the fish to the Crab and its' shell?
   
3. Why is that all of the same transitions are missing from the fossil record all over the world? The Cambrian Explosion shows the same record throughout the world.
   
4. Think of all of the new parts of life created in the Cambrian Explosion. Here's just a few:
   

• All of the life's Body Plans;
  
• The brain;
  
• Wings and limbs, feet and fins;
  
• Shells;
  
• The spinal column;
  
• From an asexual reproductive system to a sexual reproductive system, along with the creation of the womb, placenta, etc. to sustain the newborn life;
  
• Teeth and the digestive system;
  

I could go on. So I will, the blood system, antibodies, muscles, the ability to walk on four feet, and two feet, the five senses all working together with the brain, and all of this comes from the Trept Ped worm? There's much more, but let me stop here.

And so, my question to the Darwinists out there, what is there in life that leads you to think that this kind of rapid change in the DNA of these creatures. Specific examples are demanded in your answer.

Thanks in advance to anyone who adds to the discussion. My final thought is this – we all have to live with the "truth" of our worldview. We cannot one day decide the truth of the Tooth Fairy, and then live in full acceptance of the Tooth Fairy's power and existence. But alongside the need for "truth" in our lives, is the question how is your worldview helping you? With the big questions that we all have, like Why are we here? What's the meaning of life? What am I supposed to do with my life Today? I think Christianity is the best way to have both "truth" and those large questions of life answered. Ask me if you would like more details on this. May God bless your health, your relationships, and provide you with sufficient provision, In Jesus the Messiah's name, Amen. /s/Tom

The Difference Between Intelligent Design and Darwinism

Summer is coming to an end, and my family and I went to Elko speedway for the first time last night. I had no idea of what to expect, but we had a blast. They have a great community feel to it, where it seems like there are a lot of people who know each other, who support their drivers, and who enjoy partying. On to today's post, which is my attempt to explain the main difference between those who believe in unguided evolution (Darwinism) and those who believe in Intelligent Design. So let's get started:

1. Intelligent Design. Most of those who believe in Intelligent Design start with the foundation that there is some sort of Creator responsible for our universe, Who I will refer to as God. All evidence is then viewed in light of the assumption of God's existence and direct responsibility for the creation of our world and life around us. With this foundation, we have the following evidence to support our acceptance of the Intelligent Design position:
   

   
    

• Big Bang. The universe has a start, and the best explanation for this start is that there is a Creator God who caused this to take place. The massive amount of energy squeezed into an impossibly small space sounds like a supernatural event to most people. Energy doesn't just appear out of thin air, right? And the resulting order that came out of the Big Bang which led to the creation of a life-sustaining planet, again points to God. Anyone who looks at the start of our universe and does not assume God's Hand as the cause of it, must do some serious mental gymnastics to get around all of the surrounding problems where random forces are assumed as the cause;
  

 

• Fossil Record. Sudden appearance, sudden disappearance. No intermediate transitions. This is the fossil record. And this is the record that caused the now departed Harvard Professor /Darwinist Stephen Jay Gould to come up with his theory of punctuated equilibrium. Darwinism is supposed to make small changes over great periods of time, resulting in things even as great as a species change. But Professor Gould's theory looked at the evidence and postulated that some unknown force caused a great deal of change to take place in a very short period of time, which could explain the creation of new structures (like an eye or brain) and even new species. The fossil record evidence is a serious problem for anyone who holds to traditional Darwinist beliefs;
  

 

• Mutation Rate / Complex Structures. E Coli has been studied for over 44,000 generations by Professor Lenski. Malaria infects 500 million people a year, and the malaria replicates in an ill person until there are 1 trillion malaria cells. And science has thoroughly studied what happens when these cells reproduce over their short life-spans. Especially with malaria, given the number of these cells and the number of people effected, it is an easy analogy to make for those who hold to an Intelligent Design viewpoint that over the whole lifespan on Earth, we are able to see in the battle against malaria what the Darwinist force of random mutation can actually do, as if the history of life was being replayed before us. And the result? Not much. Mutation can create a resistance to an anti-biotic designed to fight malaria. But the mutation rate is far too low to do anything useful. As an example, in order for the malaria cell to develop resistance to chloroquine ( a common early drug used to fight malaria), it takes a change in just two amino acids. How easily does this take place? Oh, about 1 in 10²⁰ of the malaria cells that have reproduced. Infinitesimally small, right? There just isn't enough mutations taking place to cause what Darwinists think evolution can do.
  

  And the problem of complex structures was analogized by Professor Behe to a mousetrap. Darwinism believes small changes take place that can lead to create something new. But inside the cell, even the simplest of structures require many parts, self assembled, and all working together at the same time. And the addition of 1 piece provides no benefit to the organism, until all 10 (or however many are needed) pieces are put together. Darwinist belief is that any improvement or benefit will be passed on to the next generation. But without a benefit, the change will be lost. You know, like a mousetrap. You can't catch a mouse with just a board and a spring. It takes all of the parts assembled before there is a working mousetrap. In other words, there is no benefit to a creature to just having 2 of 10 pieces. Adding this to the extremely low mutation rate, and it is hard to see why anyone would believe in random mutation as the creative force behind Darwinism.
  

 

1. Darwinism. Which leads me to Darwinism, which has the following foundation:
   

   
    

• Naturalism. According to Darwinists, every cause has a natural effect. Claimed Supernatural events are unproven, and cannot be repeated.
  
• Similarities in Structure / Chromosomes. You look at an ape and it kind of looks like a less 'evolved' human. A fin looks like a wing which looks like a hand. I get it. And there is similarity in the chromosomes of humans and other animals. For example, humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than chimpanzees – a human has 23 pairs, while a chimpanzee has 24. Scientists can look at the chromosomes and say that the chimpanzee chromosome 2 a and 2 b somehow fused together into a large chromosome 2 in humans. And this genetic evidence supported the Darwinist's belief in common descent, that in the Tree of Life all species came from one ancestor. And the crowning claim of Darwinism that humans are nothing but evolved monkeys.
  

  
   

  But the Darwinists were tied to the theory Darwin's mechanism for change by Random Mutation, which science has shown to be impotent. The mutations in the genome take place too slowly, and certainly cannot account for the large differences in life. And so, this is the essence of the differences between Darwinists and Intelligent Design – Darwinists see similarity and assume a natural, non-supernatural connection will be found that accounts for this similarity, and all of the changes in the life around us. While in Intelligent Design, we see the evidence before us, and make the claim that natural mechanisms cannot account for these changes. Darwinists have theory, and rely on circumstantial evidence. While in Intelligent Design the evidence of the fossil record and the limitations of change within the genome show that something else is responsible for the difference between a monkey and a human, as well as the other life in the world around us. And although it is not part of Intelligent Design, most assume it can point to God as the responsible Agent.
  

  
   

So that is my conclusion, Darwinists have theory, and rely on circumstantial evidence. While in Intelligent Design the evidence of the fossil record and the limitations of change within the genome show that something else is responsible for the difference between a monkey and a human. And although it is not part of Intelligent Design, most assume it can point to God as the responsible Agent. Let me know if you would like to add or correct anything for either of the positions discussed. Thanks. /s/Tom Wolff

God is Sovereign, Part 2

"…. Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven…" (Lord's Prayer, Matthew 6:10). With this simple, yet powerful prayer, Jesus taught His followers that God's Will is only done where His Kingdom is present. And so, in this post I will discuss several Bible verses that raise the possibility that Satan has sovereign power over the Earth. In addition to the petition in the Lord's Prayer that God's Will be done through the coming of His Kingdom, we have the confrontation between Jesus and Satan in the story of the temptation in the desert (Matthew 4:1-11). Satan tempts Jesus with three different temptations, but it is the third that I want to focus upon – where Satan takes Jesus upon a high mountain, and showed Jesus all of the kingdoms of the world, and said "all these I will give you, if you fall down and worship me." What was the temptation? Think of how many people Jesus could have helped – illness, disease, famine eradicated. The end of wars. The pain of this life could be lifted. I think Satan was preying upon Jesus' compassion with this temptation. Yet Jesus stood firm and quoted the Old Testament command - 'You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.'  (from Deut. 6:13.)

The conclusion I want to draw out from this Third Temptation of Christ is that Satan has authority and control over all of the kingdoms f Earth. This is supported by other verses in the Bible such as his being given title of 'god of this world' (2 Cor. 4:4, Job 9:24, John 14:30); And that he is the prince of the powers of air (Ephesians 2:2). So what sort of power does Satan over the world? Is Satan's kingdom at war with God's Kingdom?

Let me raise two other verses on this topic – first, is a verse from Daniel chapter 10, which I have raised several times before in my blog. In this story we have Daniel a prophet of God praying and fasting to God. An Angel is immediately sent by God in response to these prayers – See, Daniel 10:12: "Fear not, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand and humbled yourself before your God, your words have been heard, and I have come because of your words…" But the Angel's response was delayed for three (3) weeks even though it was God's Will that the Angel come to Daniel. The reason for the delay? An unseen demonic spiritual force referred to as the "the Prince of the kingdom of Persia" battled the Angel until the arch-Angel Michael came and defeated this demonic "prince". From this story, we see that Satan's kingdom can temporarily delay God's Will through attacks upon the servants of God. And so, it is not God who is attacked, but God's faithful servants. And this battle caused a short delay in God's Will (an answer to Daniel's prayers) from being answered.

Another interesting story of the spiritual warfare taking place around us is contained in 2 Kings chapter 3. The villain in the story is Mesha the king of Moab. The Good Guys were the divided kingdoms of Israel – where Israel is divided into the northern and southern kingdoms, yet they joined together with the king of Edom and set out to destroy all of the cities and villages of Moab. Would they win? A prophet of God Elisha son of Shaphat was asked and he told the kings that God "will also give the Moabites into your hand…" (2 Kings 3:18). They received confirmation of this prophecy with God's provision of water for their armies. And the combined forces overthrew all of the Moabite cities (v. 25). But then comes the interesting party of the story – the combined armies surrounded the last Moabite city, Kir-hareseth, which appears to be the Moabite capital. And our villain, Mesha, the desperate king of Moab took his 700 tough swordsmen to try and break the siege but they failed (v. 26). He then took his eldest son, and…, well, let's read how God's Word describes it:

Then he (Mesha) took his oldest son who was to reign in his place and offered him for a burnt offering on the wall. And there came great wrath (NIV describes it as a great "fury") against Israel. And they withdrew from him and returned to their own land. (v. 27)

 

What?! God's Will of destroying all of Moabite cities was prevented by Mesha's sacrifice of his son to the Moabite god, Chemosh. And I like the way the NIV describes it, as a "fury" coming upon the combined forces, and the Moabite was saved. Despite God's prophecy through Elisha, that God would give the Moabites into the combined force's hands, the sacrifice of king Mesha's son caused some sort of force and impact to save the Moabite city of Kir-hareseth. What was this fury or wrath that defeated the combined force's armies? Well, this is a subject of some dispute, but my take is that this was a powerful demonic attack brought about by the sacrifice to the Moabite god Chemosh. And this somehow prevented God's Will of the destruction of Moab from taking place.

Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? declares the Lord. Do I not fill heaven and earth? declares the Lord. (Jeremiah 23:24 – ESV)

 

So, how do I put together the verses in my last post on God's sovereignty, and this beautiful verse from Jeremiah 23:24, that describe God as an active God, involved in all parts of our lives throughout the whole Earth, with the verses on Satan's power (and his allies), that have demonstrable power against the servants of God? I think that is the key – they can only battle the servants of God. The enemy can only delay the implementation of God's plan, not thwart it. But God's Will is carried out. Well, that is what is on my mind this week. May God bless you with His peace (shalom) this week. In Christ, /s/Tom

 

Sovereignty of God

Congratulations to my nephew and his wife who were blessed with a boy they named Timothy Robert last night. It's great to hear that everyone is doing well after the childbirth.

I wanted to post this morning on the topic of the sovereignty of God. The Bible makes clear that God is Creator of everything in heaven and on Earth (Genesis 1). Here are but four of the dozens of verses proclaiming that God is Sovereign (Rules with supreme authority having controlling power over all that takes place in heaven and on Earth): Dan. 4:25, :35; Romans 9:15-23; 1 Timothy 6:15; Revelation 4:11.

So if there is anyone who could have authority other than God, it would be Satan. Satan is called the god of this world - 2 Cor. 4:4, John 14:30. He is also called the adversary (Job 1:6-7, 1 Pet. 5:8). And so, the initial question I ask is this: is Satan the adversary of God, or as is more likely, the adversary of humans?

And so, to answer my initial question, Satan is the adversary of mankind and not the adversary of God. This is made clear in other verses describing Satan and his activity:

He seeks to cause evil    John 13:2,27, 1 Tim. 4:1

He seeks to secure or trick people to worship him; Luke 4:6-8, 2 Thess. 2:3-4

He seeks to make men renounce God    Job 2:4-5

He seeks to undo God's work in people's lives Mark 4:15, Matt. 13:19,38, Luke 8:12-13

He seeks to steal, kill and destroy    John 10:10

He attacks through thoughts    1 Chron. 21:1, Matt. 13:37-39, Acts 5:3, 2 Cor. 10:5

The people of the world are his children    Acts 13:10, 1 John 3:10

They do his will        John 8:44, 2 Cor. 12:7

He possesses them    Luke 22:3

He blinds them        2 Cor. 4:4

He deceives them        Rev. 20:7-8

He ensnares them        1 Tim. 3:7

He confuses them        1 Cor. 14:33

He causes distress and trouble    1 Sam. 16:14

He makes evil attractive    Gen. 3:6

He tempts thru lack of self control in sex    1 Cor. 7:5

And so, from these Bible verses, I have shown that Satan is an adversary of all people, believers and unbelievers alike. I make this my first step in showing that God is Sovereign over the universe. If there is interest, I will show and deal with at least three sets of verses where Satan attacks the work of God more directly. But I will still try to make the point that despite these verses God is Sovereign despite the activity of Satan in the world. For God's glory, /s/Tom