Your Main Task, Dear Parent

I have no faith in our politicians, either federal or state, to give my children righteous role models or teach them how to live a godly life. I certainly would not want the sitting President to teach my child how to live. How few claim to follow Christ, and fewer actually live like it.

While your specific school board may exhibit a much healthier and more spiritual attitude than some others, the public school system is owned and operated by the government, states and local school boards being the final administrators. How many atheists, evolutionists, and godless men and women pass their moral (or immoral) philosophies down through the curriculum and syllabi? Children in the public school systems (and many in private school systems) might be blessed with a few spiritually-minded teachers, but the majority are unapologetically godless.

Modern education has stripped parents of the desire and confidence to teach their own children. Parents parent and teachers teach, and never the twain shall overlap (unless the parent happens to have a degree in teaching granted by the system).

I wonder why we parents would trust a system to teach our children if that same system produced parents (us) who don’t feel like we have enough education to teach our own children.

Modern education seems to be a strategic piece in Satan’s battle against the family unit. It steals our children for most of the good hours of the week. It pounds information into their heads that we would rather them not have. It fails to instill the morals and values that we do want them to have. It gives our children (and us) a sense that parents don’t really have a role in teaching. It segments children off into age groups, not allowing them much time to interact with those much younger or much older then they. It encourages kids to think themselves wiser than their elders.

Am I saying it’s a sin to send children to public school? No, I’m not. Neither am I saying Christians should necessarily shun the public school system (especially in teaching roles). In fact, the solution for keeping children spiritually healthy through private or home school is the same for children in public school.

What is that solution? God gave it around 1500 B.C. in the book of Deuteronomy:

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!
You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.

And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart.
You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them
when you sit in your house,
when you walk by the way,
when you lie down,
and when you rise up.
You shall bind them as a sign on your hand,
and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.
You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.
(Deuteronomy 6.4-9)

First, dear Parent, God’s word must be in your heart. If it’s not in your heart you cannot transfer that word to your child’s heart.

Second, you shall teach them diligently to your children. It only takes a generation to fall away from the Lord, and we fall away because we don’t love and respect God’s word.

Third, you shall talk of God’s word all the time and everywhere! Take every opportunity, whether driving in your car, eating supper together, getting ready for bed, waking up in the morning.

Fourth, make sure God’s word is everywhere. Keep them on your person–reminders. And have verses hanging on your walls, on the bathroom mirror, on your child’s wall.

Your child should have no doubt that God’s word drives and directs everything you do in your household.

Who teaches your children? It has to be YOU, Parent! You cannot leave your child’s education to others. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking math, science, and history can be taught by atheists and they’ll get their Bible at church. No! They need to understand how God created math, how science reveals God, and how history tells His story. If we allow modern education to have its way, God will be confined to a brief activity we engage in once a week.

Wherever your child “goes to school,” you are and must remain his primary teacher.

Teach your children. All the time. Don’t stop. For their sake and for yours. This is your main task, dear Parent.

How Do You Measure Jesus?

The white man thinks Him too brown.

The black man thinks Him too blond.

The tall man thinks Him too short.

The short man things Him to tall.

The legalist thinks Him too gracious.

The despot thinks Him too kind.

The miser thinks Him too generous.

The libertine thinks Him too strict.

How do you measure Jesus?

“John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ But wisdom is justified by all her children.” (Luke 7.33-35)

People seem never satisfied with Jesus. He’s too harsh or too kind, too noble or too low, too powerful or too weak. On and on they complain, and by their complaints they reject Him.

Perhaps we should quit measuring Him and notice that He is measuring us!

What Is the Opposite of Fear?

Fear of failure. Fear of pain. Fear of rejection. Fear of losing.

Fear freezes the gears of our lives. We shut down, become immobile, stop advancing.

Fear causes us to remain silent when we should speak, to sit when we should stand, to settle for the comforts of today when we should work towards the glory of tomorrow.

Someone recently asked an audience, “What is the opposite of fear?” The general reply was “love,” as the Christians in the room knew 1 John 4.16-19:

We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. We love, because He first loved us.

Remember that one-talent man in Matthew 25.24-25? He hid his talent in the ground because he was fearful of what the master might do to him if he lost the money. Instead of taking some risks with it in order to work hard and increase the wealth of his master, he froze up and sat on the talent. The master became angry with that servant. God has no place for kingdom citizens who operate from a platform of fear. If he had loved his master and realized his master loved him, he would have felt free to do the master’s will.

However, fear has another opposite in Scripture.

When the waves tossed the disciples so badly they thought they would die, Jesus stilled the storm. Afterwards He chided, “Why are you so afraid? Have you still no faith?” (Mark. 4.40).

Faith is the opposite of fear!

When we don’t enter difficult conversations because we don’t want our feelings hurt or we don’t want to lose our job or we don’t want pain, we fall victim to fear. When we don’t discipline our children because we don’t want to lose their friendship, we react out of fear. When we don’t tackle the addictions in our lives because we know it will cause pain and discomfort, our decisions are based out of fear. When we don’t speak the gospel to our neighbors because we don’t want them to think we are weirdos (who actually believes dead people can rise from the grave?), fear freezes our mouths.

The fact is, we don’t have enough FAITH to face these sins or these God-given tasks! What we need is an increased faith.

A distraught man once begged Jesus to cast a terrible demon out of his son “if You can do anything.” Jesus replied, “All things are possible for one who believes.” With gripping honesty, the man exclaimed, “I do believe! Help my unbelief!” (Mark. 9.22-24)

I want to understand God’s love to the point that I don’t fear this world. I want a faith so strong that I know God undoubtedly loves me and is with me no matter what trial I face. I want a faith which walks through death’s door with great anticipation and conviction. I want a love and a faith that casts out fear.

The Theory of Evolution Is NOT a Scientific Theory

Defining terms ranks among the most important activities in which scientists, philosophers, and thinkers must engage. It’s not enough to say “evolution is a fact” or “I don’t believe in evolution.” You must define your term because there are different kinds of evolution and you may look silly if the hearer inserts the wrong kind of evolution into the conversation. Do you not believe in micro-evolution, the observable fact that organisms undergo minor changes within species from generation to generation? If you don’t believe that, perhaps you haven’t properly observed your surroundings, and we suggest you begin taking notes on the nature around you.

On the other hand, macro-evolution states that one species evolves into another, different species across thousands or millions of years. This has been called the “Theory of Evolution” and “Darwinian Evolution,” which uses the theorized mechanism of “natural selection.”

That brings us to a second term which demands a strict definition: theory. What is a theory? In normal, every-day terminology we use the term “theory” as an idea inside someone’s head. No empirical facts back it up. It’s quite possibly fanciful and imaginative, not to be taken too seriously.

However, evolutionists quickly explain that a theory in SCIENCE holds a rather different definition. Here is an explanation from ScientificAmerican.com:

scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing.

From Study.com:

Outside of science, the definition of a theory is a thought that may or may not be true. In the science community, a scientific theory is defined as a hypothesis or a group of hypotheses about some phenomena that have been supported through research using the scientific method.

You will notice both of these define a “scientific theory” as something which has much scientific support through research and testing (using the scientific method).

If we define “scientific theory” in this way, can we in all honesty and integrity call macro-evolution a scientific theory? Have scientists tested the mechanism of natural selection on the macro level? Sure, we daily observe changes within species–Darwin’s darling was the family of finches he observed in the Galapagos Islands. Some had short beaks, which they used to pick up seeds on the ground. Others had long beaks, which they used to pierce cacti and grab grubs. The different beaks were put to different purposes, but they were all finches.

Scientists have classified 13 or 14 different species of finches among the Galapagos Islands, but it is obvious that all of them came from a common ancestry. Darwin’s finches have become one of the leading tools in promoting the theory of macro-evolution–the idea that one species can give rise to another, different species.

But let’s define species. From Evolution.Berkeley.edu:

A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In this sense, a species is the biggest gene pool possible under natural conditions….

That definition of a species might seem cut and dried, but it is not — in nature, there are lots of places where it is difficult to apply this definition. For example, many bacteria reproduce mainly asexually. The bacterium shown at right is reproducing asexually, by binary fission. The definition of a species as a group of interbreeding individuals cannot be easily applied to organisms that reproduce only or mainly asexually.

Also, many plants, and some animals, form hybrids in nature. Hooded crows and carrion crows look different, and largely mate within their own groups — but in some areas, they hybridize. Should they be considered the same species or separate species?

Notice: members of one species cannot interbreed with members of another. This is the major way of defining the boundary of a species. What many evolutionists don’t confess is that at least six of the separate “species” of finches on Galapagos have been observed to interbreed! What we have, then, is not evolution from one species to another but micro-evolution within a species. At the very least, we understand they are all still finches! These have not evolved into some other kind of bird.

In fact, not a SINGLE example of a “missing link” has been documented successfully. Not a single transitional species has been found. You would think that if macro-evolution were true our world would be absolutely covered up with weird and wild plants and animals across the spectrum. I would expect to still have every one of those apes and ape-like creatures you see in the science books illustrating the evolution of man.

So here we stand in the 21st Century without a single observation or test which shows macro-evolution to be true. It may be a theory, but it doesn’t qualify as a scientific theory as defined above, because it cannot be and never has been tested. It should be understood as an idea (a fanciful one, at that) that men have created in their heads.

Others, including Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick, have theorized that aliens seeded this world with life. I’d say their theory stands on equal footing with the evolutionists’.

All Cells Come from Other Cells

Robert Hooke is credited as the first to discover a cell in 1665, which he found in bits of cork–dead plant material. Though he truly discovered cells (they looked to him like little rooms), he only observed dead, empty cells. The world, as yet, knew nothing of the complexities in those little rooms.

Almost 200 years later in 1838, two men (Schwann and Schleiden) together observed living plant and animal cells and noticed the similarities. They gave the world the first cell theory:

  1. The cell is the unit of structure, physiology, and organization in living things.
  2. The cell retains a dual existence as a distinct entity and a building block in the construction of organisms.
  3. Cells form by free-cell formation, similar to the formation of crystals (spontaneous generation). (from BiteSizeBio.com)

One small observation for man; one giant theory for mankind.

You may have caught the problem with number three above, because cells do not form spontaneously. “How does new life form?” was the great question, and the answer so many had rested upon was that it simply popped into existence! Louis Pasteur famously disproved spontaneous generation once and for all in 1859.

In 1858 Rudolf Virchow introduced the following description of cellular regeneration:

Omnis cellula e cellula: “All cells come from cells.”

In other words, in order to get a new cell, you must have a pre-existing cell. That sounds right, doesn’t it? In fact, it has been scientifically verified again and again until today, and we now understand much more as to the actual mechanics of how cells transfer data from a mature cell to a brand-new duplicate.

But think about the consequences of that statement: all cells come from other cells. If I killed every kind of platypus cell on earth, it would be absolutely impossible to generate another platypus.

Newly-generated life must derive from pre-existing life. That’s what we can observe. That’s what is scientific. Of course, scientists and philosophers wonder (along with everyone else) how life first came into being, because that’s a question science cannot answer–it’s not observable, quantifiable, or reproducible.

So what might we say about the theory of Evolution and the theory of Creation? Which is more probable? Which supports more of the facts? Which seems to continue to rely on the theory of spontaneous generation?

In the words of Maria in The Sound of Music, “Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing ever could.”