Bible Study for October 11 : God's Promise of a New Home : Revelation 21

I may not be at Sunday School this week so here's the lesson.

Bible Study for October 4 God's Promise of Victory Romans 8:28-39

Here is this weeks Bible Study for those in my Sunday School class that won't be there or for anyone else who just wants to hear it. The text is Romans 8:28-39

Let me know in the comments what you think.

Days without the Sun?

One of the most popular questions received by young-earth creationists, other than "Where did Cain get his wife," has to do with the order of creation events. The questioners wonder how the earth could have been made in six literal days, if the sun wasn't created until day four. After all, a day is defined by the position of the sun. So how could there be three days before the sun was created?

The truth is, you don't need a sun to define days. All you need are regular repeating intervals of light and darkness. We read in Genesis 1:1 that the first thing God created was space and earth. So we have a rotating planet. In Genesis 1:3 we see that the next thing God created was light. Most likely, as soon as God said "Let there be light." the entire earth was illuminated. Light came from all directions and had to be coalesced into a single source in verse 4.

Now there is a rotating earth with light on one side and darkness on the other. That's all that is needed for the term "day" to be used. Verse 5 specifies that there was evening and morning, that is, the earth was rotating out of and into the light just as it does today. This is one reason why I believe the six days of Genesis have to be six literal days. How can you apply the terms evening and morning to an unspecified length of time? Also, the terms "first day", and "second day," etc. point to literal 24 hour periods. If I was talking to you about my vacation and said "On the third
day there," you would assume I meant the third literal 24 hour period.

On the fourth day, then, God takes the light and confines it to a source. Actually several sources, for he makes all of the stars on this day, not just the sun. But the light already existed, now there's just this big ball of plasma for it to come from. An interesting parallel can be found in the description of the New Earth in Revelation 21:23. It says that the New earth won't need a sun for God will provide the light from his own shekinah. That is his own glory. Maybe that's how there was light before the sun in the beginning. We'll never know the source of the first light. After all, the Bible is not a science book, as skeptics are quick to point out. But it is a history book, so we can believe it when it describes the creation.

Revelation 12 : The Woman and the Dragon

This is a Sunday School lesson I gave a few weeks ago on Revelation 12. It concerns the vision of the woman and the dragon and the fall of Satan. Thanks to archive.org for hosting.

You have no free will (if you're a 'scientist')

Here is what, in my mind, is the final clinching argument against scientific naturalism. For the scientifically-impaired, naturalism is simply the belief that everything that has or will happen in the universe can be explained by purely natural meaans. That is, there is no supernatural. This belief is the foundation of such scientific theories as the big bang, evolution and, in fact, all “true science” according to the definition of science as set by the National Science Foundation.
As I have mentioned before in my article The Problem with Science, the underlying fault with this belief is this. If there is, in fact, a supernatural force, it is not even taken into account as a possibility as the cause of any events. However, there is somethng that we do everyday that I believe requires the presence of a supernatural, which I believe to be the God of the Bible.
The very fact that we are able to debate it proves a supernatural force exists. This argument is so simple, I'm surprised it is not brought up more often. Follow my logic.
According to naturalistic belief, all processes of living things are essentially chemical in nature. Unless you believe in some magical force called “life” which would be supernatural in itself. Actually I think some biologists do believe in the mystical “life.” They just don't admit it. “Life finds a way.” says Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park.
Anyway, if all biological processes are chemical in nature, then they all simply follow the laws of chemistry and occur according to the nature of chemical reactions. For example, in 10^th grade biology we were all taught the various chemical reactions that make up the processes of photosynthesis or DNA replication. Now understand that in a purely naturalistic universe, all chemical processes are the result of the law of cause and effect. In other words, if this molecule comes within a certain distance of that molecule they will always react in a certain way. In a purely naturalistic universe there is no randomness. All molecules are where they are because some other effect caused them to be there.
Now if this is true, then the same types of processes occur in the brain. After all, thoughts, according to naturalistic science, are simply caused by chemical reactions. As stated before, these reactions are caused by certain molecules being in certain places at certain times. But these places and times are determined by previous reactions. This series goes all the way back to our conception, which itself was caused by molecules being in certain places at certain times.
Therefore, in a purely naturalistic universe, there is no such thing as a random thought. All thoughts you have ever had were the result of chemical reactions which were caused by previous chemical reactions, etc. You have no free will even regarding your thinking, unless you believe that something called “the mind,” which Christians would call the soul, directs these molecules to be in certain places at certain times causing certain thoughts. But that would be supernatural. Otherwise, even the actions of the mind would be the result of cause and effect.
So, if you believe in a purely natural universe, you are saying that we can actually know nothing to be real because all thoughts were pre-determined at the time of the Big Bang (if there was one) and all aspects of the universe (even thoughts) are simply the results of series of chemical reactions. If you have an independent thought that you caused, then you must have a supernatural mind that can direct the chemicals that cause your thoughts. 

What does "gift" mean?

In Romans 6:23 it says "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." The Greek word that Paul used that is translated 'gift' is the word 'charisma.' The root form of that word is 'charis' which is usually translated 'grace.' Grace is when you are given something good that you don't deserve, which is precisely what a gift is. God grants us eternal life through no effort of our own. There is nothing we can do to earn it. All we have to do is trust Jesus.

Non-Christians just don't "get it."

In 1 Corinthians 2:14 the Apostle Paul says " But the unbeliever^[a] does not welcome what comes from God’s Spirit, because it is foolishness to him; he is not able to understand it since it is evaluated^[b] spiritually. " What this means is, it does no good to argue spiritual things with a non-Christian because he just doesn't "get it." I've told my Sunday School Class many times it's useless to use the Bible as an argument when your opponent doesn't believe the Bible. This is why we usually lose the arguments on homosexuality, abortion, etc. when we argue with non-believers. If they don't accept our authority, then the are not swayed by it. The best we can do is to try to win our opponent to Christ, first. A good study of Biblical apologetics works here, too. We must show the authenticity of the Bible before the skeptic will accept its arguments. Prayer is the best method to use. Pray that the Holy Spirit will convict the person to at least listen.