BABY BAPTISM & ITS BLESSINGS!

As a minister of the Word and Sacraments in the Presbyterian Church of Australia I have been given the great honour and privilege of baptizing my little grandson at the Presbyterian church my daughter and her husband attend. Much of my own and extended family will be there to witness this grand event as we, along with the rest of the congregation, officially welcome this infant into the Lord’s church.

Since baptism is a sign and seal of God’s promise of salvation to all who believe, I will baptize my grandson with water in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit by sprinkling him with water. Sprinkling is Scriptural: See eg, Dr Francis Nigel Lee’s Sprinkling is Scriptural – A Reply to the Baptist Adamthwaite’s “Baptism is Immersion” http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs5/sis/sprinkle.pdf

“Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person.... It be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance!” Westminster Confession, 28:3-5.

Baptism does not regenerate, but the Holy Spirit certainly does! Hence the Father's promise of the Holy Spirit with the shed blood of Jesus as sign-ified in Covenant Baptism. As wax with the stamp of the king’s sign-et ring sealed an official letter, so the water with the name of the Triune God affixed on the baby’s head sign-ifies and seals the promise God makes to believers and their children – including my grandson.

May we all be reminded to improve on our baptism! (See Westminster Larger Catechism 167 below)

WLC Q. 165 What is Baptism?
A. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into Himself, of remission of sins by His blood, and regeneration by His Spirit; of adoption, and resurrection unto everlasting life; and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church, and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord’s.

WLC Q. 166. Unto whom is baptism to be administered?
A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to Him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to Him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized.

Q. 167. How is our baptism to be improved by us?
A. The needful but much neglected duty of improving our baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others; by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein; by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our engagements; by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament; by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace; and endeavouring to live by faith, to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness, as those that have therein given up their names to Christ; and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body.

HOW REFORMED IS A "REFORMED BAPTIST"?

A friend, in an email to me, mentioned that so-and-so was a “Reformed Baptist.” I must admit that I don’t know what the term “Reformed Baptist” means. Are “Reformed Baptists” Reformed or are they Baptist? Is the term “Reformed Baptist” not an oxymoron?

The term “Calvinistic Baptist” perhaps helps a little. From this term one can see that the Baptist at least has Calvinistic leanings, kind of like the Welsh Calvinistic Methodists, who are Methodists with Calvinistic leanings. Why then don’t we refer to Calvinistic Methodists as “Reformed Methodists”? Maybe some do and I’ve just missed it. Anyway, I found the following helpful hint about areas in which Reformed Baptists so-called believe that Calvin misread Scripture:

“Are Baptists Calvinists? If a Calvinist is a person who follows strictly the teachings of John Calvin, then in three important respects Baptists are not, and have never been, Calvinists. Calvin was a pedobaptist (practicing infant baptism); Baptists are credobaptists (believers' baptism only). Calvin believed in a presbyterian form of church government; Baptists are congregationalists. Calvin believed that the civil magistrate should enforce both tables of the law (moral responsibilities towards God and towards one's neighbor), suppressing heresy and blasphemy by force if necessary. Baptists believe in religious liberty for all persons.” Timothy George http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/thepastinthepresent/historymatters/whatbaptistscanlearnfromcalvin.html

According to the above Calvinists are:

1. Pedobaptist (ie, believe that the Bible teaches Covenant Baptism).
2. Presbyterian (ie, believe that the Bible teaches the Presbyterian form of Church Government.
3. Theonomist (ie, believe that the Civil Magistrate has the duty to administer the Ten Commandments in Civil Law.

To be sure there a Calvinists who don’t like the term “Theonomist” to describe the responsibilities of the Civil Magistrate, but it seems to me like a fair enough description of the how the Bible describes the function of the Civil Magistrate.

From the three points above we can discern that the Baptist has a different view of

a) The nature of the children of believers.
b) The nature of the Church.
c) The nature of the Civil Magistrate.

For the Calvinist the nature of the children of believers, according to Scripture, is “holy” and therefore is “covenantal.” In a word, infants and little children of believers, on account of God’s covenant, are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Thus, according to Scripture, they are candidates for baptism.

For the Calvinist the nature of the Church is universal, many churches make up the one Church. A church is a congregation which is overseen by a plurality of elders (ie, at least one teaching or preaching elder plus two or more ruling elders.

For the Calvinist the nature of the Civil Magistrate is one that is an expert in the interpretation and application (ie, the administration) of God’s Law as summarized in the Ten Commandments.

Since Reformed churches are Presbyterian in Church Government and Presbyterian churches are Reformed in their doctrine, the term "Reformed" in Reformed Baptist is (to me at least) at best simply confusing and at worst meaningless!

THE MODE & MEANING OF BAPTISM

(Photos by me)


Please forgive me, but writing the following is good (purifying and cleansing) therapy for me!

Every once and a while I feel a great need to swing the old baptism chestnut. Honest, I don't wish to cause any grinding of teeth, but I know that those of the baptistic persuasion won't admit defeat on the meaning and mode of baptism till the Lord returns! But it does drive me a wee bit bonkers (conkers?) when I read comments such as, "It would seem clear from Scripture that those who were baptized were fully immersed in water." O yeah, where in Scripture?

Talk about presuppositions: baptistic people always think "immersion" when the read the word "baptize" and its cognates - even to the point of refusal to even admit that Presbyterian or Reformed sprinkling and pouring are valid and Biblical. However, see where, for example, Moulton's "The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised" lists meanings of Baptism and its cognates which include "to dip", to dye", "an ablution", "immerse", "to cleanse or purify by washing".

The Reformed or Presbyterians believe "to cleanse or purify by washing" is the best definition of what Scripture teaches about baptism. Thus the meaning and mode of baptism is not an historical issue, but rather theological.

The quoted comment: "It would seem clear from Scripture that those who were baptized were fully immersed in water" was found in a book containing the entire KJV of the New Testament. See how the aforementioned quote squares with, for example, Mark 7:4: "And when they come from the market, except they wash (baptisontai), they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing (baptismous) of cups, and pots, and of tables".

I've heard of dunkin' donuts, but tables? Give us a break! Try sprinkling, it will save you heaps on not having to buy new furniture! And how does the one size fits all "immersion" fit with Hebrews 9:10's "divers washings (baptismois)"? What's "divers" about "immersion"? Can there be various "immersions"? I think I'll stick with: Baptize: "to cleanse or purify by washing", at least it's Biblical!

With the definition in mind, "to cleanse or purify by washing", hear what the writer to the Hebrews (referring to Exodus 24) says, "Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, saying, this is the blood of the testament which God has enjoined to you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of ministry." Hebrews 9:18-21.

Covenant Baptism (as opposed to baptistic baptism) pictures Christ's purifying blood and cleansing Spirit, ie, the Promise, the Covenant Promise of the Father, being applied to the passive recipient.

How does Jesus Baptize His Church with His Spirit? Does He dunk His Church in His Spirit or does He pour His Spirit on His Church? (See eg, Joel 2:28; Luke 24:49; Acts 2:17,33,38,39,41 etc. etc. etc. All of Scripture attests to the latter mode of baptism (ie, to sprinkling or pouring).

I'm glad to have gotten that off my chest (nut)!

(See also my "Baptism" and "The Baptismal Seal"):

http://web.mac.com/macfhionn/More_Snow_on_the_Ben/Holding_Fast_Our_Confession.html

THE LAW OF NATURAL SELECTION

In terms of natural selection or the survival of the fittest, only those who follow Christ are fit to survive, for, according to the Bible, Jesus Christ saves only those who believe in Him for salvation. To the non-Christian world, belief in Christ is seen as a crutch, a weakness, but to God it is a vital component in His plan of cosmic redemption. It is as Jesus says, ‘Whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?’ Mark 8:35-37. Therefore according to the law of natural selection unbelief is irrefutable evidence demonstrating to the unfit that they thus far have not survived nor will survive when God calls them to give account!


"A man or woman rejects God neither because of intellectual demands nor because of the paucity of evidence. One rejects God because of a moral resistance that refuses to admit one’s need for God. God invites each one to come to Him, the Author of life, and receive His salvation offered through Jesus Christ. Jesus Himself reminds us that it will profit a man nothing if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul. But to the one who trusts in Him, He offers life in all its fullness."[1]

When Adam and Eve rebelled against God they sought to hide themselves from Him among the trees of the Garden. The contemporary Evolutionist or neo-Darwinist seeks to do the same by hiding in a world in which (according to him) all need for God has been or in due process will be removed. In other words because the neo-Darwinist has adopted the Materialist worldview he proclaims to all who will listen that there is no ‘evidence’ for God. Here the Christian reminds the neo-Darwinist that he is rejecting the Triune God who has revealed (i.e., has given ‘evidence’ of) Himself in at least three verifiable ways.

Thus the Christian presents the neo-Darwinist with ample ‘evidence’ of the Triune God by inviting him to consider:
1) The general revelation of God, i.e., the material things God has made, e.g., the sun, the moon, the stars, the birds, bees, trees, etc., including man and his social interactions.
2) The written revelation of God, i.e., the sixty-six books of the Holy Bible.
3) The internal revelation of God, i.e., the individual’s own conscience (which either accuses or excuses the individual for his or her own thoughts, words, and actions.)

Of course, being part of the fallen mass of mankind the neo-Darwinist continues trying to hide from God by suppressing the truth of God in the three aforementioned spheres. Therefore, as expected, he rejects outright the ‘evidence’ for God as revealed in the things God has made (from the macro to micro). And, since he has already said ‘no’ to the Triune God, he feels he can safely reject His written revelation too. Then he explains away the revelation of God in the human conscience simply by adjusting it to fit his Materialistic Evolutionary worldview. Thus the neo-Darwinist rejects all of the ‘evidence’ the Triune God gives of Himself.

The neo-Darwinist is a Materialist, but God is Spirit. Therefore Materialism is Atheism. And, because it has adopted a Materialist stance neo-Darwinism has introduced the cancerous cell-destroying and soul-destroying Atheism into the scientific sphere.

"The atheist risks everything for the present and the future, on the basis of a belief that we are uncaused by any intelligent being. We just happen to be here. That one is willing to live and die in that belief is a very high price to pay for conjecture."[2]

As per the law of natural selection, Atheism means that there is no room for a Grand Design or a Grand Designer at the back of creation. This is why the rod of contemporary Atheism is trying to swallow Almighty God! However, even with his mouth full of evidence to the contrary the neo-Darwinist insists on proclaiming absurdities (such as those espoused by the Atheist Richard Dawkins e.g., that all design in creation is merely illusory!) But, the neo-Darwinist cannot have his cake and eat it too. For, there is evidence that at least one neo-Darwinist does not believe in ‘blind indifference’, i.e., lack of design and purposelessness.

In a reply to a poster in a forum discussing whether science should be taught in (Scottish) schools based on Evolutionist or a Creationist presuppositions a pro-Evolutionary-science poster wrote:

"Natural selection is NOT chance. Don’t you get it? It is NOT chance. Evolutionists are NOT proposing chance events alone over time, but a selective mechanism (natural selection) that sorts out the mutations and builds on what has gone before. That is NOT chance. Got it? It is NOT chance. Only the mutations are chance (or random – another word you [i.e., a pro-Creationist-science poster] abuse) but that is irrelevant as even if they were not, natural selection would still operate. By deliberately omitting the non-chance mechanism of natural selection you are deliberately misrepresenting me, and that is just plain dishonest."[3]

Whether the writer just quoted was being dishonestly misrepresented is something we’ll leave for Judgment Day. However, clearly this Evolutionary-science advocate, by positing that there is a ‘non-chance mechanism’ component to Natural Selection, has seen the need to distance himself from Richard Dawkins who preaches that:

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."[4]

Since ‘non-chance’ and ‘blind, pitiless indifference’ are as mutually exclusive as chance and purpose, by definition, any non-chance mechanism cannot at the same time be indifferent. Here, Dawkins, the forum-poster, and I are in agreement that genetic mutations happen in accordance with ‘chance.’ Mutations have the appearance of no design or purpose. For example, a fruit fly with legs for antennae clearly is not according to design! So far so good! However, please note that it is precisely because of the use of the words such as ‘chance’, and ‘random’ when referring to mutations that purpose and design are exemplified. A fruit fly with antennae where wings ought to be is an anomaly. It is a breakdown or degeneration of the original model or design. Otherwise we would not refer to it as a ‘mutation.’ Therefore by speaking of chance mutations we are acknowledging that which goes against the norm. Put another way, chance mutations break the law of original design.

Dawkins and the forum poster deny original design while insisting that mutations occur by chance! Then our forum-poster insists that, through a process of natural selection, some mutations are randomly selected and survive as the fittest to produce more mutations that may or may not be selected in the process! However, any mutation or random event is a suspension or disruption of a natural law. It is a going against the ‘norm.’ Whether mutations occur by chance or not is not the issue. The issue is whether there is an original non-mutant model, i.e., a working model before mutation. The mere use of the word ‘mutation’ is testimony that there is. Thus Natural Selection is design by another name, and as such, cannot at the same time be an illusion of design!

We therefore agree with our ‘forum poster’ that though genetic mutations may very well be ‘chance’ occurrences, Natural Selection itself is a non-chance mechanism. However, as Calvinists we do not believe in chance in any sphere but rather believe in the sovereignty of God in all things, from the micro to the macro, and we believe in His sovereignty in all creation from beginning to everlasting. In short, we believe that everything that comes to pass was ordained by God and, though man is held responsible for his own actions, everything is sovereignly brought to pass in accordance with God’s decretive will.

The pro-Evolutionist-science advocate just quoted above (i.e., the forum-poster) is clearly frustrated with the confusion caused by the use of the term ‘Natural Selection’ – which term, (if I have understood him correctly!) he believes to be synonymous with ‘random selection.’ The terms natural or random selection frustrate me too! Random or natural selection sounds very much like an oxymoron to my ears.

While viewing the same ‘evidence’ in nature Calvin and Darwin concluded different things, which was that, whereas Calvin saw that the reason for cruelty among animals (e.g., a cat toying with a mouse before it kills it) is because creation is fallen. This is in accordance with God’s written Word. However Darwin, on the other hand, putting the written revelation of God to one side, started talking in terms of the ‘Survival of the Fittest,’ otherwise known as ‘Natural Selection.’

We do not have any real problem per se with these two synonymous terms (i.e., Survival of the Fittest and Natural Selection) so long as they are qualified with what our ‘forum reader’ refers to as a ‘non-chance mechanism.’ By definition, ‘non-chance’ denotes purpose, (i.e., real, not imagined, purpose!) Therefore Natural Selection is evidence or revelation of purpose. Purpose is evidence or revelation of intention or design. Design is evidence or revelation of a Designer, but not any old designer, but rather the Triune God. Thus Dawkins’ panicky head-in-the-sand denial of design is because he dare not let God get a foot in the door of his Evolutionary religion.

The Calvinist RC Sproul offers some help regarding the oxymoron of natural or random selection. Says Sproul,

"Logic functions as a policeman not only when we indulge in irrational concepts like self-creation. We find other oxymorons popping up from time to time in discussions of science (and in philosophy, theology, and every other field of inquiry).
Linguistic confusion occurs when analytically false statements are used or when ‘studied ambiguity’ replaces linguistic precision. Precision in speech is an important complement to precision in research.
"When phrases such as ‘inherent randomness’ or ‘random selection’ are used, we wonder what they mean.
"If a particle is said to have ‘inherent randomness,’ this suggests that a random character is built in or intrinsic to it. Does this mean that it acts the way it does for no reason at all? Or does it merely mean that its activity cannot presently be predicted? The latter is a posture of humility commensurate with the real limitations of our knowledge. The former suggests an illogical concept, namely that the activity of the particle is an effect without a cause.
The phrase random selection (or random mutation) is also somewhat confusing.
To make a ‘selection’ suggests some sort of intentionality, a trait usually associated with intelligence. Is it possible to have an unintentional intention?
"In popular jargon we use the phrase random selection to describe certain types of actions. Suppose we are going to draw a ticket stub from a box in order to award a door prize to a ‘lucky’ participant. We shake the box to insure a proper mixing and perhaps even blindfold the person designated to select the ticket. We want to choose the ticket ‘at random’ to insure that the drawing is not rigged in favour of a particular contestant. We seek to leave the outcome to ‘chance.’
"This is a legitimate use of the phrase random selection. A selection is made but without the specific intention of choosing a particular person’s ticket. But intention is at work. We are intentionally choosing an unknown ticket. Again ‘chance’ does not influence which ticket is chosen. That is determined by how the hidden tickets were mixed in the shaking and where the selector’s hand reaches into the box. There is no operation of chance itself.
If the phrase random selection is used as a synonym for action-without-a-cause, then it is illogical. Also the term selection may be used in a metaphorical or figurative sense. This is the way the phrase natural selection is often used."[5]

The folly of neo-Darwinism’s worldview can surely be seen in its use of the term Natural Selection. This term is an oxymoron – but, ironically, only to the neo-Darwinist! Selection that takes place naturally is still selection. For selection naturally follows a set of laws, even if those laws are natural laws. All law is evidence or revelation of a lawgiver. Even a cursory reading of Genesis chapter one would demonstrate to the reader that every time the Triune God said the word ‘Let’ He was setting ‘natural’ laws in place. For example, ‘Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth according to its kind”, and it was so.’ The antecedent of all law (whether physical, genetic, biological, mathematical, aeronautical, lingual, musical, moral, natural, etc., etc.) is God the great Lawgiver. Natural Selection is indeed a ‘non-chance mechanism.’ Therefore whatever else it may be, Natural Selection, is a law, i.e., of Natural Law,[6] and as such, is revelation of – i.e., is evidence of – the lawgiver who is none other than the Triune God.

[1] Ravi Zacharias, The Real Face of Atheism, Baker Books, 2006, pp. 155-6.
[2] Ibid. p. 154.
[3] The Herald Forum, Glasgow, May 8, 2008.
[4] Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden. p. 155.
[5] RC Sproul, Not a Chance, The Myth of Chance in Modern Science & Cosmology, Baker Books, 1994, p. 162-163.
[6] Natural Law = 1 Philos. Unchanging moral principles common to all people by virtue of their nature as human beings. 2 a correct statement of an invariable sequence between specified conditions and a specified phenomenon. 3 the laws of nature; regularity in nature (where they saw chance, we saw natural law). Oxford English Reference Dictionary.

CALVINISM VERSUS DARWINISM

Make no mistake, Calvinism and Neo-Darwinism are two very much opposed worldviews. They are locked in mortal combat. So serious is this matter that, if it hasn’t already, Western democracy will become detached from its Christian moorings to be set adrift in the uncharted seas of relativism – i.e., if Neo-Darwinism is permitted to cut the West’s Biblical moorings.
Says one representative atheist,

'We must fight for a post-Christian secularism, that is to say atheistic, militant, and radically opposed to choosing between Western Judeo-Christianity and its Islamic adversary – neither Bible nor Koran. I persist in preferring philosophers to rabbis, priests, imams, ayatollahs, and mullahs. Rather than trust their theological hocus-pocus, I prefer to draw on alternatives to the dominant philosophical historiography: the laughers, materialists, radicals, cynics, hedonists, atheists, sensualists, voluptuaries. They know that there is only one world, and that promotion of an afterlife deprives us of the enjoyment and benefit of the only one there is. A genuinely deadly sin.'[1]

Au contraire! As a matter of fact, as a Christian I enjoy this world very much thank you! I’m also looking forward to this world’s future renewal! Therefore I would much rather listen to the Frenchman and Christian John Calvin than the Frenchman and anti-Christian Michel Onfray any day! Says Calvin,

'The Apostle Paul distinguishes believers by this mark, that their ‘conversation is in heaven,’ whence also they ‘await their Saviour’ (Philippians 3:20). And, that their courage may not fail in this race, Paul joins all creatures to them as companions. For because formless ruins are seen everywhere, he says that everything in heaven and on earth strives after renewal (Romans 8:19). For since Adam by his fall brought into confusion the perfect order of nature, the bondage to which the creatures have been subjected because of man’s sin is heavy and grievous to them. Not that they are endowed with any perception, but they naturally long for the undamaged condition whence they have fallen. Accordingly, Paul has attributed ‘groaning’ and ‘birth pangs’ (Romans 8:22) to them, that we, ‘who have received the first fruits of the Spirit’ (Romans 8:23), should be ashamed to languish in our corruption, and not at least to imitate the dead elements, which bear the punishment for the sin of another.

'To prick us more sharply, Paul calls the final coming of Christ ‘our redemption’ (cf. Romans 8:23). It is true indeed that all the parts of our resurrection have already been completed; but because Christ was once for all offered for sins (Hebrews 10:12), ‘He shall appear a second time, apart from sin... unto salvation’ (Hebrews 9:28). Whatever hardships distress us, let this ‘redemption’ sustain us until its completion.'[2]

John Calvin (1509-64) systematized the Christian Religion at the time when the Church that had become very deformed under the papacy and Roman Catholicism, was being reformed. Reformed Christianity, to which I adhere, began at the time of the great Reformation – a time of getting back to what the Bible really teaches.

Perhaps you have been inoculated against Reformed Christianity and the Christian worldview. Perhaps some portion of misinformation propagated by anti-Christians such as Michel Onfray or Richard Dawkins has so gotten stuck in your craw that it causes you to spit whenever you hear Calvin’s name mentioned! A small sample of the teeth gnashing and vitriol spewing that the name of Calvin causes in some can be found the following caricature of Calvin and some of his Biblical understandings, as painted by the Darwinist and ‘journalist’ Christopher Hitchens,

'According to the really extreme religious totalitarians, such as John Calvin, who borrowed his awful doctrine from Augustine, an infinity of punishment can be awaiting you even before you are born. Long ago it was written which souls would be chosen or ‘elected’ when the time came to divide the sheep from the goats. No appeal against this primordial sentence is possible, and no good works or profession of faith can save one who has not been fortunate enough to be picked. Calvin’s Geneva was a prototypical totalitarian state, and Calvin himself a sadist and torturer and killer, who burned Servetus (one of the great thinkers and questioners of the day) while the man was still alive. The lesser wretchedness induced in Calvin’s followers, compelled [them] to waste their lives worrying if they had been ‘elected’ or not…'[3]

Hitchens goes on to state that he has had some crazy people phone him ‘with hoarse voices condemning me to death or hell or both’ … And of ‘the eternal blackening of my name by religious frauds and liars.’[4] Crazy people are crazy whatever their worldview, but, in the interest of truth, sanity, and the un-blackening of the name of John Calvin, Francis Nigel Lee sets the record straight,

'Servetus had blasphemously described the most blessed Trinity as a three-headed dog and a monster from hell! Yet even at a time when the Catholic Inquisition was seeking to slay Servetus and every Protestant city in Europe had expelled him or condemned him, Calvin corresponded with him and sent him a copy of his Institutes. For Calvin sought to win Servetus to Christ!

'Knowing full well that Calvin favoured the punishment of exile for heretics and the death penalty for blasphemers, the wretched Servetus arrogantly made his way to Geneva planning to overthrow Calvin and de-christianize the city. Put on trial by the civil magistrates of Geneva (and not by Calvin who was neither a judge nor a citizen of that city) Servetus was found guilty of blasphemy and sedition and sentenced to death by burning. Calvin unsuccessfully tried to get Servetus to recant his errors. When Servetus would not recant, Calvin pleaded for a milder form of punishment. And later still, Calvin also pleaded with Servetus in his death cell to get right with God and accept the Divine Christ as his Lord and Master!

'Rarely in the annals of history has so much evangelical concern ever been shown to such a monstrous miscreant, as Calvin showed to Michael Servetus, enemy of Christ and Christianity and of public law and order! Even during that highly intolerant age, the gentle Calvin tenderly yet firmly presented Christ and His salvation to the very man who had sought to destroy him!'[5]

See also Doug Phillips’ article John Calvin, Founding Father in Washington Post

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2009/07/the_calvin_quincentenary_and_american_liberty.html

 

 

[1] Michel Onfray, The Atheist Manifesto – The Case Against Christianity, Judaism and Islam, Melbourne University Press, 2007, (Translated from the French by Jeremy Leggatt) p. 219.
[2] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3:25:2, 1559.
[3] Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great, How religion poisons everything, Allen & Ulwin, 2007, p. 233.
[4] Ibid. p. 271.
[5] Francis Nigel Lee, John Calvin True Presbyterian, Jesus Lives Series, pp. 17-18. http://www.dr-fnlee.org/

TEN MILLION PIECES OF EVIDENCE FOR DESIGN DISMISSED!

By the astounding claims of one of its chief proponents and apologists there is now irrefutable evidence that Evolutionism is beginning to collapse on account of a faulty design built upon a faulty premise. The Neo-Darwinist Richard Dawkins (also a biologist), in answer to the argument that design in creation necessarily implies a designer, alleges (in the face of the mass of evidence to the contrary!), that

'We live on a planet where we are surrounded by perhaps ten million species, each one of which independently displays a powerful illusion of apparent design.’[1]

Wow! Don't rush past this. Think about it. Here we have a biologist dismissing ten million pieces of evidence of design because the body of evidence does not fit with his theory! What’s happening here? Ultimately Dawkins’ argument begins and ends with that which he believes beforehand, which is to say that his argument is based upon his own set of neo-Darwinian presuppositions. These presuppositions may be summarised by something like the following ‘I believe in the Theory of Evolution. And I believe that Natural Selection is the mechanism by which contemporary man has ‘evolved’ to his present state. Therefore I will do all I can to defend my belief-system – even to the point of claiming that all design in creation is simply ‘apparent’ and therefore is illusory. And by so doing I refuse the God of Christianity, i.e., the alleged Designer of creation and all therein, even a foot in the door.’

To this the Christian replies as the Christian has replied for centuries:

'I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth; And in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord, Who was conceived of the Holy Ghost, Born of the Virgin Mary, Suffered under Pontius Pilate, Was crucified, dead, and buried; He descended into hell; The third day He arose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.'[2]

Rather than beginning and ending with contemporary man Christian cosmology holds up the eternal transcendent Triune God who has revealed Himself in the Bible as the great originator of all things (i.e., the universe, life, man etc.) And because Christian cosmology begins with God it holds that contemporary man is not identical to man as God created him in the beginning. Contemporary man is fallen man.

[1] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Bantam Press 2006, p. 139.
[2] This, the so-called ‘Apostles’ Creed’, articulates the basic teaching of the Bible and therefore what all Christians believe. Christians other than the Apostles wrote the Apostles’ Creed in the early centuries after Christ.

DAWKINS DESIGN DEBATE!

Click on the following to see New Zealander Renton MacLachlan interview himself, which is to say that he interviews himself as "Richard Dawkins." It's brilliant!

Warning: One needs to have evolved at least half a brain to follow "Dawkins'" non-argument!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2RMU9_7jSY

Dawkins' cowardly refusal (the big fearty!) to debate Creationists about design is no problemo for Renton!