Understanding Intelligent Design From a Biblical Perspective

With all of the hype surround Intelligent Design these days, some basic statements need to be made to help Christians solidify an understanding of what is happening. What is going on in that Pennsylvania courtroom we keep hearing about on the news? How does this affect me as a Christian parent seeking to educate my child upon the foundations of Scripture? How will this entire debate affect how we do science? How will it affect our nation as a whole? I want to make four statements of clarification that I hope are helpful in moving the Christian mind toward a better understanding.

Faith can be logical and still be true faith.

Those who are against teaching ID in the classroom (alongside evolution) as a possible theory for the origin of life, postulate that faith has no place in the classroom. They say that faith is not based on logic or material evidence. I disagree. Now, faith can merely be the belief in something apart from evidence, but it does not have to be. For example, I might believe that I am going to win the gold medal in swimming at the Olympics in 2008. But I have never swam in a competition in my life and I am severely out of shape. So I can have faith that I will win all day long, but it is illogical faith based on absolutely nothing.

On the other hand, I might have faith that Michael Phelps will win the gold medal. He has already won a number of them. He is training with great passion and vigor. It is faith, yes, since it is still future and has not happened, but it is faith based on logic and material evidence. Christianity is the latter type of faith. It is based on the fact that Christianity answers more questions about reality than any other system of thought.

My point is this: ID is not a mere illogical attempt to get God back in the classroom. In fact, in a moment you will see that ID has absolutely nothing to do with faith, but is in a reality an attempt at pure science.

Science need not exclude persons to still be science.

In an interview with one of the parents who is suing the Dover School System in Pennsylvania for mentioning ID alongside evolution, this mother said matter-of-factly, “Science is about ‘what,’ not about ‘who.’” What about this scenario: suppose an archeologist finds an arrowhead while on a dig? Is this scientist ever allowed to ask “who?” This woman’s remarks are clearly illogical! Of course, we have to ask “who” if and when a possible “who” is involved! Science begins with observing data. If the observation reveals even the slightest possibility of design, than science demands that we ask the question “who.”

ID is not about faith. It is about beginning with data and coming to conclusions about that data. ID scientists have shown many times over that the universe itself, cell structures, complexities of systems within the human body (the eye or the ear, for example), and a host of other phenomenon reveals the strong possibility of design. It is a mockery to true science to say that we cannot explore that possibility because of the possible “religious overtones” that are involved. To do that would be to allow culture to determine scientific principles. The whole purpose of science is to pursue the truth. If a particular item appears to have design, than science demands that we ask “who?”

Intelligent Design seeks to be pure science and not biblical Creationism.

Those who have control of the definitions of “science,” and close-mindedly accept evolution as true, continuously postulate that ID is not pure science, but rather Creationism in disguise. I emphatically disagree. ID is not biblical Creationism. ID makes absolutely no guess as to the nature of the designer, but just that the evidence points to one. ID scientists make the observations and hypothesis, but they (if they understand their discipline) should leave the explanation of this designer to philosophers and theologians. ID’s job is to observe the data and make hypotheses and theories, which they do.

What the evolutionists fear is that teaching ID will aid the various religions, and in fact, they are right. Students will not be taught to be closed-minded, and might explore the possibility of God or some divine being. This will invariable lead to the seeking of answers and might lead these people to the church or other house of worship. BUT that is not the goal of ID. Think about it. If Naturalism is believed to be true, then people will certainly behave a certain way in light of it. Some people, for example understand that man is merely an animal and the survival of the fittest, etc., and so they take over a country (Hitler for example) and kill lots of people based on those views. Now the Naturalist scientist did not set out to put a Hitler in charge, but it was a natural consequence of their scientific work. Likewise, ID is not out to grow the church, even though that might be a consequence of their findings. But who cares? The point of science is to find the truth, regardless of the consequences.

Allowing Intelligent Design to be taught can be highly beneficial to the church’s mission.

This being the case, the church needs to be asking the Lord in prayer to allow a victory in Pennsylvania. If ID is allowed to be taught alongside evolution, than at the very least, students sitting in the classroom will not be forced to believe that there is only one possible theory to the origin of life (which stifles true science). To be sure, they will not be getting the Bible, they will not be getting the message of salvation, and they will not be getting the full truth of Creation as described in Genesis 1-2, but they will be getting the possibility of a designer, which might open possible doors for evangelism.

Furthermore, Christian parents who cannot afford private schools or home-schooling can take comfort that their children will be exposed to some form of science that allows for the possibility of a designer. In other words, there will be less to correct when the kids come home from school.

As you can see, the opportunity to teach ID in the classroom can be highly beneficial for believers, both in the realm of providing better science (closer to the truth) and in the realm of opening more minds with the hope of reaching them with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I hope these four points of clarification help.

We Won, So We Won't Play Anymore, And That Way You Cannot Win

"Science organizations have generally turned their backs on forums in which they have been challenged to defend Darwinian evolution, on the theory that engaging the intelligent design school in any way is to take its ideas too seriously." - By Alex Johnson, Reporter MSNBC.COM.

It is kind of like a volleyball game - if it is not your serve, you cannot score. The important thing to remember is that having control of media and institutions has never made a person correct in their thinking or theories.

Russ Moore on the Christian Story

I have a wonderful habit of putting my two little ones to bed by sermon. With streaming audio, we can listen to Piper, MacArthur, Mohler, Sproul, and many others. My kids actually love it. I stroll my 1 year old around the office and kitchen as we listen, which effectively puts her into a deep coma-like sleep, while my 3 year old sits at the computer desk in the spinning chair and listens while rotating.

Last night while attending to this ritual, we listened to Dr. Russ Moore of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary deliver a message in their chapel called, "Beyond a Veggie Tales Gospel: The Bones of Joseph, The Kingdom of Christ, and the Story we Tell." This message was essentially a plea for Christians to embrace the metanarrative of the Bible. It is when we see all of history as God working out all things for His own glory that we rightly make decisions about the relatively small affairs of our daily lives. And without this approach of seeing the world through the eyes of Scripture, we will fail at any task of defending our faith, for it will be reduced to Veggie-Tale styled moralisms. I encourage you to click on the link above and listen intently to this important message about what Christianity is all about.

The Justice of God and His Worthiness to Be Worshipped

Charlotte Schnook, author of the article "Why I Am Not a Christian," continues the meager attempt to support her position by mocking the claim that God is just and that He can be merciful and just at the same time.

Most Christians have responded to this statement with the following rationalization. “God can not let all of his creations into heaven because he is just.” I ask in rebuttal to this, since when is justice more important than love in the heart of a parent?

God by logical definition is all of His attributes perfectly and thus His heart of love and His desire for justice are equal. Many people build an image of God based on their understanding of human attributes, but surely this is an error. God is a loving Father, but that is not all He is.

Is hell even justice, or is it simply cruel and unusual punishment?

I would point you back to the previous blod where I attempt to interact in some detail with this question.

The bible states the system of justice very simply. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. There is also another variation of that system with the biblical verse “eye for an eye”. The Christian God violates his own system of law when he damns his creations to eternal suffering for sins as menial as theft or blasphemy.

Ms. Schnook's comments here reveal a common thread within those who disbelieve in God, namely a perpetual habit of interpreting the Bible OUT of its full context. God's directive of "eye for an eye" is part of His holy law for how a society of His people are to maintain justice among them. Jesus came late and in Matthew 5:38-ff. confronted abuses of this law. In other words, people were taking advantage of this law instead of reaching out to each other in love, which was the purpose of the Law.

God does not violate His own system for two reasons. 1) His system properly interpreted in context allows for perfect justice and perfect love at the same time. 2) His system is designed for people, not for Himself. He is a different type of being who operates on a different standard. This does not mean that He is allowed to be inconsistent, which He never is, but simply that the system was designed for people, not Him.

I hardly think, nor would any logical person, that throwing someone into a gnashing jaw would be justly befitting of nearly any crime. (With the exception of murder, and even so, eternal punishment is pretty excessive.)

Here again, a basic misunderstanding of the value of God, the One who we have offended. Even the smallest crime against an infinite being deserves infinite punishment. We should not think of the degree of the crime, but the degree of the value of the Person we have committed the crime against.

I do think it is interesting that Ms. Schnook concedes that murder might merit eternal punishment. As a moral agent, there is within her understanding a feeling of justice when a particularly attrocious crime is committed. This moral compass, however, within her own atheistic worldview, cannot be grounded upon anything solid. If Naturalism is true, and there is no ultimate justice for crimes, than it is nothing but mere arbitrary opinion that murder is wrong and deserves punishment.

Most courts of law would take custody of your child from you just for an excessive spanking. We as a people enacted these laws, for we thought them to be logical. Is God above logic, or what we deem as compassionate behavior?

The whole "spanking" agenda is heated debate, but needless to say, spanking a child, within limits and certainly not to an abusive degree, is actually a form of committed love. Therefore, it is the courts that are being rather illogical. God is not above logic, but His being is the source of logic and is perfectly consistent with it.

After all he pitches a majority of his children into a lake of “fire and brimstone.” How many of us would want a parent such as that? Anyone of us would immediately sever our ties with such an abusive person. Yet Christians knowingly continue the insanity of giving worship to a God so cruel!

Notice again, Ms. Schnook suggests that all people are the children of God. In some sense, this might be, since He is the Creator. But Jesus makes it clear, that the people who refuse to trust Him are emphatically not the children of God.

John 8:41-43
41 "You are doing the things your own father does."
"We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself."
42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.
43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say.

I am afraid that Ms. Schnook, like these unbelieving Pharisees, is "unable to hear" what Jesus says about this issue. The remainder of this article is redundant and I will not be examining any further. I hope I have accomplished my purpose of showing how illogical and emotion-based are the arguments of atheists and militant agnostics. Well, next blog: Who knows? Maybe Keith or Steve.

Interaction With "Why I Am Not A Christian" - Because Hell Is Unloving

In the previous blog I began an interaction with an essay by Charlotte Schnook called "Why I Am Not a Christian" in which she attempts to show that God, as depicted in the Bible, is not worthy of her worship. In the introduction, she stated that God violated her idea of a moral being. Now she attempts to show from actual Biblical texts what she means, beginning with the doctrine of Hell.

“Hell:

Hell, of course, is the mother of all of my problems with the bible. It is perhaps the most despicable and hideous of all of the Christian God’s crimes. Indeed, the cruelest of all concentration camps. (Certainly far worse than the ones created by the Nazis.) Described biblically as the “lake of fire”, “the place of eternal torment with weeping and gnashing of teeth” Jesus said in Mark 9:42-48 That it is better to commit suicide or self maiming then to be delivered unto hell. So, according to the bible I assume that all here can agree that there is an existence of hell, and that hell is the worst of all circumstance. Knowing this, let me indulge you as to why the existence of hell paints the Christian God as not fit for worshiping.”

I agree that hell is an awful place of punishment and that is has some tough logical problems, but not that it is “crime” committed by the Christian God. Interestingly, Jesus spoke more than any other Biblical person about hell and spoke of it more than He did Heaven, I think making it clear that it is important to try and comprehend why such a place might exist. I also do agree that the Bible clearly teaches that hell exists and that it “is the worst of all circumstance.” Now, let us move forward with Ms. Schnook’s reasoning as to why the existence of hell demotes God to a place unfit for worship.

“I am a moderately compassionate individual, rational, moral, and nurturing. Most of all I am a creator, a mother. I propose this to you, a human question. Can all here, Christian or atheist, safely say that if there is a God, he is our greatest thought magnified?”

Note carefully that Ms. Schnook is again beginning with herself in order to attempt to understand God rather than attempting to understand God as a different sort of being, whatever He might have in common with us. I would agree partly that this author is being rational, but along with Francis Schaeffer, I would say that any worldview that leaves God absent is ultimately irrational. Ms. Schnook is probably a moral person in terms of civil law, but she, like every other human is, according to the Bible, a sinner who has fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). This means that she and I are both totally immoral when we are compared to the holiness of God. Her question at the end of the paragraph is weird, but I really am trying to understand it. Is she saying that God is nothing but a mere thought? Or that God, if He exists, is greater than anything we can imagine? I think in light of her next paragraph, she means the latter interpretation.

“Whatever emotion we feel as human, being created in his image, God is infinitely more feeling? For he is the creator of all things created, I believe this concept is pretty safe to assume. With this being so, my love for my daughter must be a fraction of God’s love for his children. Speaking as a mother, I can safely say that if my child were to commit the greatest harm upon me tomorrow, I would never wish her harm. Why? Simply because she is my creation.”

I do agree here that God has the capacity to feel and know things in a much greater and stronger degree than we humans ever could. But it does not follow automatically from that assumption that God feels love alone. God has other emotions besides love that He feels as well. For example, the Bible repeats again and again that God is a God of perfect justice. “He loves righteousness and justice” (Ps. 33:5). He is not only a Father, but He is also a Judge. So His role over humanity is much different than Ms. Schnook’s role over her daughter. The analogy works a little bit, but breaks down very quickly. What we have here is an author who is using her own emotions and love for her daughter as a grounds for limiting what God can and cannot do, whereas we should limit our understanding of God to what He has revealed to us about Himself in Scripture and give Him enough respect to let Him speak for Himself.

“If my daughter were to maim me, slander me, etc. I would still love her, for my instinct and emotion demands of me to protect and care for her regardless of her actions, much like all rational beings (animal kingdom included). So now I pose the question, why then would God condemn us to hell for something as menial as lack of faith? If he is not infinitely more so loving then me, why would hell even exist? Any true loving being would never condemn his own children to everlasting torment, especially one that proclaims himself to having the very essence of forgiveness.”

Let me add a few comments. First, God does not consider all humans His children in the sense that Ms. Schnook considers her daughter to be her child. The Bible speaks for example of the enemies of God, who He created, yes, but who nevertheless are against Him in every way (Revelation 21:6-8 as an example). Then there are the Israelites of the Old Testament who were God’s children in a particular sense, chosen by Him. No matter what they did to Him as a nation, He continued to pour love upon them. He punished them, but only to draw them back to Him. This distinction is very important in our discussion, for it is not “his own children” that He ultimately condemns to hell, but His unrepentant enemies.

Second, Ms. Schnook here seems to believe that lack of faith is only a “menial” crime. This reveals a basic misunderstanding of the nature of God. God desires one thing above all other things – His own glory. He is most interested in His own fame and renown. “I am the Lord, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images” (Isaiah 42:8).

Many people think this is arrogant. I disagree, for He truly is everything He claims to be. But whatever it is, it is what God has shown us that He is most interested in – the worship of Himself. So God does all things to maximize His own glory. Faith maximizes the glory of God more than sight does. Therefore, He commands that we believe in Him when we cannot see Him and in the face of those who would mock us. This makes Him look good and He loves this. “But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into marvelous light” (I Peter 2:9).

So a lack of faith is no mere menial crime when it is committed against a perfect and holy God who justly demands His own praise. Rather it is an infinite crime against an infinite and perfectly just being.

With all do respect, it seems Ms. Schnook is trying to look down on God as if He is less than human and must bow to the opinions and dictates of man. Yet we must look upward to see God, for He is far above us. He is not only Father but Judge. The Bible makes it clear that we are the guilty ones, born into a state of transgression and guilt and from our birth we deserve the punishment of Hell – every human being. Our hearts are deceitfully wicked and there is none who seeks God (Romans 3). Therefore, the surprising thing is not that God sends people to hell, the surprising thing is that He actually allows some people to go to heaven. He is loving and merciful. “For God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).

Next time, we will continue interacting with this article when Ms. Schnook brings up her problems with the idea that God is “just.” See you then.

Why I Am Not A Christian - An Interaction With Evilbible.com

Freshness is always necessary in the apologetic endeavor. By that I mean we face the same basic objections to the Christian faith year after year, but we need to be able to speak to those objections in new and fresh ways to every generation. This being the case, I want to interact with an essay that is totally hostile to Christian belief, unoriginally titled “Why I Am Not A Christian” by Charlotte Schnook. The essay is posted on the antichristian website, evilbible.com.

Over the course of several blog posts, I will go through Ms. Schnook’s essay bit by bit and point out the many problems with it, demonstrating hopefully how a believer might respond to someone who is hostile to Christian belief. At the outset, I want to stress my desire to show kindness and grace through this process and I appreciate the author’s permission to interact with her article in this fashion. So let us begin with the introduction.

“Introduction:

This essay was inspired by the consistent assumption of Christians that if I believed the Bible were true, I would become a Christian. There are several reasons for my atheism, the leading of which is the idea of a higher power is not probable in light of current scientific data. The second of which is I do not find the state of the world in accordance with an idea of a loving and merciful higher power. Then of course there is the factor that the basis of this essay shall be about; I do not find the Biblical God fit for worship. Over the course of this essay there will be some times when I will speak as if I believe in the Bible, when in fact I do not.”

The author lays out several problems she has with Christian belief, which I shall summarize. 1) She thinks that Christians regularly assume that believing the truthfulness of the Bible leads to an embracing of Christianity. 2) The scientific data does not lead to the probability of a “higher power.” 3) The problem of evil is big for her – she cannot reconcile a loving god and the “state of world,” by which I assume she means the evil in the world. 4) She does not find the Biblical God fit for worship.

Now let me point out here, for the sake of clarity, that Ms. Schnook lists several objections to Christianity here, but she plans on dealing only #3 and #4 in this essay. Read her next paragraph.

“I plan to examine the Bible with critical inquiry. This essay will not be based upon scientific facts and how they disprove the Bible. It shall be an application of my emotions regarding compassion, love, mercy, patience, and justice. I hope to explain more clearly why the God depicted in the Bible violates my idea of a moral being. This shall be done over a series of topics. Each pointing out how Jehovah is undeserving of my worship. I will utilize Biblical verses to support my claim as well as what I consider to be logical reasoning.”

Note carefully her proposed method of approaching scripture, “with critical inquiry.” I truly appreciate this desire and would hope that all who object to Christianity would strive for the same. Frankly, even many Christians fail in this regard. I will say up front, however, that she does not follow through with this stated objective, which will become more apparent in later posts. Rather than approaching the Scriptures with true critical inquiry, this author already has her mind made up about the so-called impossibility of a loving God being reconciled with the actions of the God described in the Bible (such as Hell and genocide), and so she is looking for those scriptures which seem to support her perspective. We must admit that we all do this to some degree. We have presuppositions about who God is before we ever look to inquire in His Word about Him. For the sake of this interaction, I will attempt to let all Scriptures speak for themselves within their contexts, thus letting the Bible say what the Bible says. Now, notice that she narrows her focus by dismissing any desire to disprove the Bible via scientific fact. I suppose we might deal with that particular issue in future blogs.

Now we get to the foundation of what this work is all about, for she states that her essay is an “application of my [her] emotions regarding compassion, love, mercy, patience, and justice.” So, the standard of judgment is the author’s own emotions. {Reflect on that for a moment.} She further states that God “violates my [her] idea of a moral being.” Again, by the author’s own admission, she is setting the standard of what God can and cannot be based on her own opinion.

But can we trust our own emotions and our own constructions and opinions of what is moral and what is not? After all, just by observing humanity, we know that human emotion is a roller coaster ride, and that on a good day. We also know that what humans believe to be moral can actually turn out to be highly immoral in the end. Hitler, who would have made the case that he was doing humanity a favor through ethnic cleansing, truly thought of himself, I believe, as a moral person. In other words, right from the beginning, and regardless of anything else she says, Ms. Schnook’s foundation is shaky at best and useless at worst.

Now the last paragraph of her introduction:

“Now would be the time to ask you to please take out your bibles for consultation. (I personally prefer the NIV or KJV) I will only cite the verse and a brief over view. I do not have the space to write out the verse in its entirety. I especially don’t wish to spew out so much information that I run the risk of overloading those people who dislike reading. (Funny confliction here, isn’t it? We are online, in a purely textual world, and people still have the audacity to complain about reading.) In the case that you dislike reading online essays, I recommend you print this out and thumb through it at your convenience.”

In the next post, I will begin interacting with her argument that the Biblical God is not worthy of worship and I will be printing out the texts. Here is the problem. I believe that a huge part of the misunderstanding of scripture comes when we do not read scripture in its context. Stay tuned to part 2, and here is a glimpse at Ms. Schnook’s first words in the next section.

“Hell:

Hell, of course, is the mother of all of my problems with the bible. It is perhaps the most despicable and hideous of all of the Christian God’s crimes. Indeed, the cruelest of all concentration camps.”

Whose Fault is Katrina?

Dr. Mike Miller is a pastor here in Birmingham, AL at McElwain Baptist Church. On his blog, Life Answers, he deals with the question, "Whose fault is Katrina?"

His post interacts with those who want to blaim the current political administration for the hurricane and its aftermath, but Dr. Miller goes deeper, digging into the Scriptures to remind us that every bad thing we receive is deserved and every good thing we receive is undeserved grace.

This post puts perspective on this issue from a pastoral and theological point of view so give it a read.

Blaise Pascal: An Apologist For Our Times

Rick Wade's article by this title at Leadership University reveals in brief the basic apologetic outlook of this famous mathematician. Wade points out that evangelism is the end goal of Pascal's work, which should be the end goal of all Christian Apologetic endeavors. The first part of the article is particularly effective, as we read Pascal's description of the the human condition as both valuable and fallen at the same time. This quote is from his Pensees.

"What kind of freak is man! What a novelty he is, how absurd he is, how chaotic and what a mass of contradictions, and yet what a prodigy! He is judge of all things, yet a feeble worm. He is repository of truth, and yet sinks into such doubt and error. He is the glory and the scum of the universe!"

This is the difficult place we must begin when we look into the mirror and when we bring the message of the Gospel to the world. It seems that our society cannot imagine that man would be this "mass of contradictions" and certainly they have a difficult time understanding many pastors who warn of the horrors of hell (pointing out the wretchedness of man) while at the same time holding a pro-life position (valuing even the smallest of human life).

I strongly encourage readers to take some time and read Wade's article. Not only is it helpful in understanding the development of apologetics through the centuries, but it also shows us that the purpose of apologetics is always the same - to win souls to Christ.

John Piper on the Question, Was Katrina Intelligent Design?

I have been remarking on the silence of spiritual leaders. But I knew that the Christian community could count on Dr. Piper to say something powerful, meaningful, and God-centered. I have quoted the entire article here.

On his 89th birthday (August 31) NPR Senior News Analyst, Daniel Schorr, observed that President Bush had “staked out a non-position” on the debate between evolution and intelligent design. Bush had said that “both sides ought to be properly taught in the schools of America.” Then, with manifest scorn, Schorr linked the devastation of Hurricane Katrina with the concept of intelligent design: “[Bush] might well have reflected that, if this was the result of intelligent design, then the designer has something to answer for.”

No, Mr. Schorr, you have something to answer for, not God. God answers to no man. Come, Daniel Schorr, take your place with Job and answer your Maker: “The Lord answered Job [and Daniel Schorr] out of the whirlwind and said: ‘Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Dress for actionlike a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me. . . . Who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb, when I made clouds its garment and thick darkness its swaddling band, and prescribed limits for it and set bars and doors, and said, “Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed”?’” (Job 38:1-3, 8-11).

Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Shall the pot say to the Potter, “This is an unintelligent way to show your justice and your power? Come, Maker of heaven and earth, sit at my feet—I have lived 89 years and have gotten much wisdom—and I will teach you—the eternal God—how to govern the universe”?

No. Rather let us put our hands on our mouths and weep both for the perishing and for ourselves who will soon follow. Whatever judgment has fallen, it is we who deserve it—all of us. And whatever mercy is mingled with judgment in New Orleans neither we nor they deserve.

God sent Jesus Christ into the world to save sinners. He did not suffer massive shame and pain because Americans are pretty good people. The magnitude of Christ’s suffering is owing to how deeply we deserve Katrina—all of us.

Our guilt in the face of Katrina is not that we can’t see the intelligence in God’s design, but that we can’t see arrogance in our own heart. God will always be guilty of high crimes for those who think they’ve never committed any.

But God commits no crimes when he brings famine, flood, and pestilence on the earth. “Does disaster come to a city, unless the Lord has done it?” (Amos 3:6). The answer of the prophet is no. God’s own testimony is the same: “I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things” (Isaiah 45:7). And if we ask, is there intelligent design in it all, the Bible answers: “You meant evil . . . but God meant it [designed it] for good” (Genesis 50:20).

This will always be ludicrous to those who put the life of man above the glory of God. Until our hearts are broken, not just for the life-destroying misery of human pain, but for the God-insulting rebellion of human sin, we will not see intelligent design in the way God mingles mercy and judgment in this world. But for those who bow before God’s sovereign grace and say, “From him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever,” they are able to affirm, “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” (Romans 11:36, 33). And wisdom is another name for intelligent design.

No, Daniel Schorr, God does not answer to us. We answer to him. And we have only one answer: “Guilty as charged.” Every mouth is stopped and the whole world is accountable before God. There is only one hope to escape the flood of God’s wrath. It is not the levee of human virtue but the high ground called Calvary. All brokenhearted looters and news analysts and pastors are welcome there.

Six Big Reminders From Hurricane Katrina

The news networks are covering the facts of Katrina, but the leaders of the church must now stand and speak the underlying spiritual truth, from the Word of God, about the trying events facing our nation. I am shocked at the lack of spiritual leadership coming through the news channels. I have seen several Catholic leaders say nothing more than "this is devestating" during the minute or two they are given on the air. That is exactly what the anchors and the political leaders are saying. We must offer more!

I have changed my sermon this Sunday to help my congregation come to terms with the deeper truths involved in this storm and the aftermath. Lord willing (whichI do not say lightly) I will be making the following six points. They are big reminders from Hurricane Katrina. I say "reminders" because we should know them already. These are only the points and the Scriptures, not my additional comments, but I encourage you to think through them and meditate on the truth that our battle is not against flesh and blood.

God is Sovereign

He Sends Storms for His Own Mysterious Purposes - Job 36:27-33 For He draws up drops of water, Which distill as rain from the mist, ²⁸ Which the clouds drop down And pour abundantly on man. ²⁹ Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds, The thunder from His canopy? ³⁰ Look, He scatters his light upon it, And covers the depths of the sea. ³¹ For by these He judges the peoples; He gives food in abundance. ³² He covers His hands with lightning, And commands it to strike. ³³ His thunder declares it, The cattle also, concerning the rising storm.

He Calms Storms - Matthew 8:23-27 ²³ Now when He got into a boat, His disciples followed Him. ²⁴ And suddenly a great tempest arose on the sea, so that the boat was covered with the waves. But He was asleep. ²⁵ Then His disciples came to Him and awoke Him, saying, "Lord, save us! We are perishing!" ²⁶ But He said to them, "Why are you fearful, O you of little faith?" Then He arose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm. ²⁷ So the men marveled, saying, "Who can this be, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?"

Life is Fleeting

James 4:13-15 ¹³ Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, spend a year there, buy and sell, and make a profit"; ¹⁴ whereas you do not know what will happen tomorrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away. ¹⁵ Instead you ought to say, "If the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that."

Sin has Terrible Consequences

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death,

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.

God Brings Good Out of Suffering

Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.

2 Corinthians 1:8-9 ⁸ For we do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, of our trouble which came to us in Asia: that we were burdened beyond measure, above strength, so that we despaired even of life. ⁹ Yes, we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves but in God who raises the dead,

People need To Repent and Be Rescued

Luke 13:4-5 "Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? ⁵ "I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish."

In Eternity, Sin and Its Consequences Are Obliterated For God’s People

Revelation 21:1-6 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. ² Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. ³ And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. ⁴ "And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away." ⁵ Then He who sat on the throne said, "Behold, I make all things new." And He said to me, "Write, for these words are true and faithful." ⁶ And He said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts.