Tranformation by Butch Entrekin

      Our current sermon series is developed around the new movie “Transformers.”  The movie highlights the classic theme of the battle between good and evil, and it does this through a conflict between alien robots.  The plot includes a super powerful bad alien robot that is intent on destroying the earth, and four good robots trying to stop him.  These robots are able to transform themselves into cars, ships, airplanes, and other machines, and they do this so they will not be detected by the people on earth.  The robots are actually more effective fighters in their normal state, but they transform themselves while on earth, and the humans do not even realize that a battle is taking place.     

     We as believers in Jesus Christ have been transformed as well.  When we put our faith in Christ’s sacrifice as the payment for our sin, the Spirit of God comes to live in us and gives us eternal life.  The Bible explains that the Christian have passed from death to life. (1 John 3:14)  Often this transformation has no visible affects, but a spiritual transformation has occurred in the inner man, and it changes the person’s life forever.  And this transformation continues throughout our entire lives as we are conformed to be more like Christ. (Romans 12:2)  Every believer is a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17), and the life of faith is exercised as we allow Jesus to live out His purpose in us. (Galatians 2:20)    

     This series is not just about how you as a Christian have had your life transformed, but how you can be a part of Christ’s plan to transform your community and the world.  We come in contact with many different cultures everyday.  Most of us have either a work or school environment, and all of us have sports, hobbies, or special interest that connect us with unchurched people.  We can use these diverse cultures as opportunities to introduce people to Christ.  It may be as simple as just being friendly or it may require an act of service on your part.  But God has put each of us in a strategic position to reach people that do not know the love of Jesus.    

      For many of us this is going to require that we step out of our comfort zone.  But this is exactly what the Lord would have us do.  Listen to our Paul’s Words in 1 Corinthians 9:19-22:

Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave toeveryone, to win as many as possible.  To the Jew I became like a Jew,to win the Jews.  To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.  To those not having the law I became like one not having thelaw (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win the weak.  I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.

     We serve others so that they might place their faith in Christ.  Inviting someone to our Transformer series, or volunteering in one of our ministry opportunities is a great way to start.  Pray that God will give you a vision to reach people.  You really can transform your world by sharing the love of Christ.             

Butch Responds to Questions from an Inmate

Inmate,

     I wanted to try to help you by responding to some of the questions from your letter.  I hope my letter finds you experiencing the peace and joy that God gives, and that you no longer desire the drugs.  Doreen and I pray for you often.

1. Is God the Holy Spirit?

Yes, the Holy Spirit is God.  God is one (Deut. 6:4), but in three distinct Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).  This is what is called the Trinity.  You cannot differentiate between the three Persons of the Trinity because they are identical in nature.  God the Father is spirit, God the Son is Jesus Christ, and God the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God that indwells (lives in) Christians.

2. What is the Book of Life?

The Book of Life is a book that has the names of all the people who have eternal life through faith in Christ.

3. What makes God take your name out of the Book of Life?

God does not take anyone’s name out of the book of life.  Life here refers to eternal life, not physical life.  Only those who are believers have their name put in the book.  Once your name is in the book, it cannot be taken out.  You cannot lose your salvation.  Life that is eternal is just that, it is life that never ends.  Once you trust in Christ as Savior, you immediately receive eternal life. (John 5:24)  There are those that teach that salvation can be lost, but that is not true according to God’s Word.  Anyone born into the family of God through faith in Christ is sealed by the Holy Spirit, and this is your guarantee of eternal life. (Ephesians 1:13-14)  You are a child of God, and nothing can separate you from the love of God. (Romans 8:31-39)

4. If your name is taken out of the Book of Life, can it be put back in?

It cannot be taken out.  You cannot do anything that will make God turn His back on you. Salvation is not based on what you do or don’t do.  It is completely by God’s grace (unmerited favor).  You simply believe that Christ death on the cross paid for all your sins.  You place your trust in what Christ did, not on what you can or will do.  No one is good enough to go to heaven based on what they do.

5. Is it okay to pray for the same thing every night?

Yes, God desires us to talk to Him, and our prayers are our conversation with God.  His Word and His Holy Spirit inside every believer are the way He talks to us.  God does not get upset with us because we pray for the same thing.  He loves us!  He may not give us what we pray for if it is not in agreement with His plan, but He does not chastise us for asking.  He understands that you want your time in prison to go by fast.

6. Is it a sin to pray for the same thing?

No, sin is doing what is opposed to God’s plan.  We know God’s plan by studying and living the truth of the Bible.  We are to accept our circumstances of life (whether bad or good), knowing that God loves us and that He is in control.

7. Is it doubting God to ask for His help, and then turn around and try to do something about it myself?

No, God sometimes uses our own actions to bring about His purpose.  As long as what you are doing is not sinful, it is okay to try to bring about your desires.  It is important to remember however, that it is He who is ultimately responsible.  If your letter gets you on the court docket faster, you can know that God is the reason.

8. In Ezekiel chapters 40-44, why is so important to give exact dimensions?

This is the temple and its courts.  God’s glory during this period of the Old Testament dwelt in this place.  This is where God met with man.  He wanted man to reverence this place, and so He gave explicit instructions.

9. Ezekiel 45:16 and 46:11 talk about a homer, a cubit, an ephah, and a hin.  What are these things?

They are units of measure.  A homer is about 11 bushels, and an ephah is one-tenth of a homer or 1.1 bushels.  A cubit is about eighteen inches, and a hin is about 6 quarts.

10. Should I say two prayers, one to God and one to Jesus?

No, they are both God.  When you pray to God, you are praying to Jesus.  And when you pray to Jesus, you are praying to God.

The Explanation of Why Universal Morality Exist

     The truth is that morals do exist.  There are only two possible conclusions concerning morality, either moral objectivism (there are universal human standards for behavior) or moral relativism (morals are relative to the dictates of society or to the opinions of the individual).  It has been demonstrated that moral relativism is self-refuting, irrational, and just plain unrealistic as a cultural distinctive.  The only conclusion remaining is that morals are objective.  There can be no other solution, and since morals represent objective truth they must be universal and absolute.  

     But from where did this universal morality originate?  There had to be an initial cause for the universal moral code that is innate to man.  And this cause had to transcend human logic, because it has already been shown that human reason will not produce moral conduct.  The existence of moral law suggests a moral law giver, and the Judeo-Christian or Muslim views of God are the only belief systems that satisfy this requirement.   Morality that has its basis in a moral God explains why man hungers for justice.   It also explains the sense of guilt that is felt from wrong behavior.  Relativism takes away man’s moral conscience so the feeling of guilt is removed, and it denies the existence of a moral God that will judge immoral actions.                 

A Rational Response to Relativism

      Relativism is an irrational philosophy because it is based on a faulty premise and it has an illogical conclusion, but there are other fundamental problems associated with this belief as well.  Relativism can only be a philosophical theory because it does not work as an actual model for society.  This is because no one can live his or her life in a manner that is consistent with this philosophy.  The only way Relativism works is when people are completely separated from one another, and isolationism is by definition a contradiction to the concept of society.  When people interact, judgments about behavior naturally occur, and these judgments only make sense if there is a moral standard.

     Relativism is hard philosophy to defend because words tend to expose innermost beliefs, and the arguments of the relativists usually reveal the fallacy of this opinion.  “Morality is built in.  Human beings have an innate capacity to reason in moral categories and to make accurate moral judgements.”*   The relativists own speech usually exposes this inbred morality, thereby destroying their argument.

     In a free society people are allowed to believe whatever they like, and they are also free to express those beliefs, but a society can not allow people to act in any way they like.  One person’s liberty might cause harm to the common good.  “Civic tolerance says that all views should get a courteous hearing, not that all views have equal worth, merit, or truth.”*  It is not intolerant to determine that some ideas are unrealistic, or immoral for that matter, it is just plain common sense.  The relativists would have all moral viewpoints accepted equally, but this entire reasoning is absurd.

     The relativists deny that there are any moral absolutes, and they base this conclusion on the fact that people have different opinions about morality.  It is obvious that this conclusion is not logical.  “How does it follow that if people have different points of view then nobody’s right?”^*  This position was refuted earlier in the response to the Society Does Relativism, but there is an even more fundamental problem that the relativists face in their denial of moral absolutes.  Their position compels them to explain how deviant behavior can be morally benign.  On issues like rape, murder, and genocide there is no question that any sane person would agree that these behaviors are detrimental to society.  How can the relativists support their contention in the face of such overwhelming evidence for moral absolutes?   Here again, the relativists’ own argument has forced a position that he can not be defended.

     Relativism is a selfish philosophy that dulls the conscience.  It causes the individual to lose his or her scruples and all sense of humanity, and it produces behavior that conflicts with social norms.  Ultimately, it is dangerous because it sanctions attitudes and actions that are destructive to society.

* Denotes quotes from the book ”Relativism, Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air” by Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl, Grand Rapids Press ISBN 0-8010-5806-6

The Influence of Relativism on American Culture

     Relativism has become so widely accepted that it has affected almost every area of American culture.  Relativistic philosophy is used in setting behavior guidelines on many university campuses, and political correctness has had a tremendous influence governmental policy.  Political correctness is an ideology that in the name of diversity questions traditional thinking about truth, justice, and standards of excellence.  It strives to promote groups that are thought to be ignored or oppressed whether there is any evidence that discrimination has taken place.   Some public school systems go so far as to teach values clarification to children.  This program aggressively promotes moral relativism under the guise of teaching students to formulate their values, when in reality it is teaching children that values are neutral, and that there are no moral guidelines.

     Often Relativism goes unchallenged by society, and as a result this irrational philosophy has had some disastrous consequences on culture.  It has caused society to condemn any speech that is not consistent with a values neutral philosophy, and it uses power, either politically or socially, to implement this agenda.  Proponents of Relativism back political candidates that support their beliefs, and when they do not win at the ballot box they revert to coercion, intimidation, and name calling.  “To put it philosophically: Ideas are not the power by which to change the world, but rather, the world’s ideas are changed by power.”^* 

     Political correctness promotes Relativism in the name of diversity, and relativists have raised this ideology to an irrational standard.  Prejudice is no longer simply actions or attitudes that expose bigotry, but even perceived intentions are suspect.  This makes discrimination a matter of one’s perception and not a realistic appraisal of actual events.  Perceived perpetrators are assumed guilty because the offended party felt they were being treated in a prejudicial manner, even when there was no discrimination involved.  This unrealistic environment has occurred because relativists are seeking to promote their social agenda and not trying to correct the ills of bigotry and discrimination.

     In truth, this entire social tolerance argument is not a defense for Relativism.  Social tolerance is not to be confused with social approval.  There are many things that are tolerated in a free society that are not thought to be socially beneficial.  Social tolerance only allows certain unapproved behavior when that behavior not directly damaging to others.  “Proponents of social tolerance need not accept personal subjective relativism or absolute autonomy as fundamental to their political or social philosophy.”^* A social tolerant individual may think that certain moral behavior is wrong and that it should not be condoned by society, but this attitude does not require that this opinion be enforced by the state.  

* Denotes quoates from “Relativism, Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air” by Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl, Grand Rapids Press ISBN 0-8010-5806-6 

A Critique of Relativism

     In order to adequately refute Relativism, consideration must be given to all forms of this belief.  There are three kinds of relativism, and each will be examined along with the foundational argument that supports the position.  Then the argument will be critiqued to see if it withstands rational criticism.  And finally a logical conclusion will be presented that is based purely on the evidence.  

     The first form of Relativism is “Society Does Relativism”.  It justifies relativism by pointing out the differences in morality among the different cultures.  This form of relativism is held by many academics particularly those in Anthropology, who highlight the differing values of the indigenous people in various parts of the world.  Its premise is, since some cultures have differing values, there can be no universal moral standard.  Morality must therefore be a subjective determination.

     There are two obvious problems with this premise.  The first is that diverse cultures have different moral values.  All cultures, although different in many respects, share common prohibitions against murder, stealing, and other actions that damage society.  The cultural discrepancies sited by Anthropologists are found to be differences in perception, and not differences in basic values.  But the even bigger problem with Society Does Relativism is it conclusion.  It is non sequential, that is, it does not logically follow the premise.  “Just because cultures differ on moral viewpoints does not mean that objective moral truth is a fiction.”^* The simple fact that there is disagreement on any subject does not mean that there is no justifiable conclusion.  If agreement is a prerequisite for truth, then there can be no truth, because there will never be complete agreement about what is true.  Justifying relativism on the basis of cultural differences is simply an illogical conclusion. 

     The second kind of Relativism is “Society Says Relativism.”  This philosophy teaches that morality is to be determined by the culture itself, and it is different from Society Does Relativism.  Society Does Relativism is only descriptive (reporting on the way cultures appear to behave), but Society Says Relativism is prescriptive (making judgments on how the culture is to behave).  Society Says Relativism requires that its members act in accordance with the code of conduct that it dictates.  But here again, what is right for one society is not necessarily what is right for another, because there is no universal standard for all societies.

     The problem with this philosophy is that society has complete authority to determine morality, and all behavior is justifiable as long as it is accepted by society as a whole.  The individual is obligated to obey the mandates of society regardless of how outrageous they may be.  After all, “if society is the final measure of morality, then all its judgments are moral by definition.”^* But history belies the failure of this form of morality as many societies have allowed and even championed deviant behavior.  One example is the extermination of the Jews by Nazi Germany.  This atrocity was allowed to take place because the German society deemed it permissible for the greater good.  And since Society Says Relativism does not allow one society to criticize the bizarre behavior of another, other nations had no right to protest.

     The third form of Relativism is “I Say Relativism.”  In this philosophy personal preference is the only arbiter of morality, and each individual acts in accordance with his or her conscience.  What is right or wrong is a personal decision whether society agrees or not, and morality is determined to be a completely private matter.  I Say Relativism is the purest and most radical form of Relativism.

     I Say Relativism is not grounded in common sense.  I Say Relativism states that there is no universal standard of truth, and that behavior is simply a matter of conscience.  But this is an irrational premise.  If there is no intrinsic truth, then what is the basis for conscience?  Logic reveals that certain truths are known intuitively, because if there is no innate knowledge, then a person would not be able to know anything at all.  “Philosophers call this of knowing ‘a priori knowledge’ (literally, ‘from what is prior’).”^* And it is this human intuition (i. e. one’s conscience) that explains why fundamental virtues like justice, fairness, and tolerance are universally held.  These innate values are what form the conscience and give the individual the ability to make moral decisions.  The fact that a human being has a conscience disproves the premise on which I Say Relativism is founded.

 

* Denotes quotes from “Relativism, Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air” by Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl, Grand Rapids Press ISBN 0-0810-5806-6 

The Danger of Relativism

     Relativism takes the position that morality is subjective, and that there is no universal objective standard for behavior.  There are “no reasonable or rational ways by which to make moral distinctions that apply every time, in every place, and to every person.”^* What is right and what is wrong, is determined by opinions.  Each individual or group of individuals assess circumstances according to what is thought to be true and ethical, or they may choose to make no moral determinations at all.  No one view of morality is any more valid than any other, and what are generally accepted as traditional values are simply behavioral norms that have developed through the evolution of the human culture.

     Relativism had its beginning in the sixties when the academic community began to question the idea of universal truth.  This brought about “the death of what the late Francis Schaffer called ‘true truth,’ the extinction of the idea that any particular thing can be known for sure.”^* If there is no standard for truth, then it follows that each person is free to determine what he or she believes is true.  Truth evolves in to a concept that is based purely on one’s individual opinion.  This revolutionary thinking created an age of dogmatic skepticism from which relativism was born.

     Any discussion of Relativism must begin by considering whether morality is objective or subjective.  Subjective truth concerns the opinions of the person (subject) that is making the assessment.  If someone determines that a certain color is attractive, it is not the color itself that is attractive (i.e. the color may have no appeal at all to someone else), but the attraction is to the individual making the assessment.  Objective truth is completely different.  It is what is thought to be true concerning something that is external.  The belief that gravity has certain properties, and that these properties are measurable and consistent is an objective truth.  It may be questioned whether gravity really does cause acceleration at 32 feet per second squared, but the question is in respect to the properties of gravity and not about the person making the assessment.

     Relativism considers morality to be subjective.  Behavior is neutral; it can be neither good nor bad.  If a behavior is thought to be acceptable, then it is acceptable.  And if confronted with exactly the same circumstance, two people might have completely opposite responses, but neither response is more equitable than the other.  The subjective nature of morality makes it an indeterminable issue, so in affect, “the morality of relativism is no different than having no morality at all.”^* 

     The relativist believes that this values neutral attitude is at the very core of tolerance.  It is for the sake of tolerance that people should avoid judging the behavior of others.  This philosophy considers it bigotry to consider one form of morality as superior to another.  Tolerance has become the rallying point for the proponents of relativism, and it has been a very effective strategy.  Relativism has so saturated modern culture that many people think that it is wrong to assess the morals of someone else, regardless of how deviant the behavior may be.  People do not want to be thought of as prejudice or judgmental, so they keep their moral opinions to themselves.  Immoral behavior is tolerated, although the majority of people recognize the dangers that it represents.

* Denotes quotes from “Relativism, Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air” by Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl, Grand Rapids Press ISBN 0-8010-5806-6

The Seven Judgements

     Among the many judgments mentioned in the Scriptures, seven are important to understanding doctrine.  Many theologians list them differently, but they are referring to the same judgments.  These seven judgments account for all people except those saved during the Tribulation (of whom Revelations 20:4-6 reveals will be resurrected at the beginning of the Millennium) and those saved during the millennium.  Of these two groups no specific judgment is given.  It is assumed they too will at some point be judged for rewards as are previous believers at The Judgment Seat of Christ. 

1) The Judgment of the Believer’s Sin on the Cross (John 12:31-32)

            *Christ suffered the punishment for the believer’s sin

            *This took place at the cross of Calvary and is finished. (1 Peter 3:18)

            *Believers receive redemption through Christ’s blood

2) The Believer’s Self-Judgment (1 Corinthians 11:31)

            *This is the believer evaluating himself based on God’s truth

            *Self-judgment avoids the chastisement of God

            *This chastisement is not a condemnation

3) The Judgment Seat of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:10)

            *This is only for believers

            *This happens at Christ’s return for His church (rapture)

            *This is only for rewards or for loss of rewards

4) The Judgment of Individual Gentiles at the Return of Christ (Matthew 25:32)

            *For all Gentiles surviving the Tribulation, alive a Christ’s return.

            *It takes place on earth.

            *Those that are saved during the Tribulation are separated from the lost

            *Often referred to as “The Sheep and Goat Judgment”

5) The Judgment of Israel at Christ’s Return (Ezekiel 20:33-37)

            *Takes place at the end of Tribulation for Jews that survive the Tribulation

            *Takes place in Palestine as the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant

            *It is only for the nation of Israel

6) The Judgment of the Fallen Angels (Jude 6)

            *This is the final judgment for Satin and all the fallen angels

            *It takes place after the thousand year reign

            *Christians take part in the process (1 Corinthians 6:3)

7) The Great White Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:11-15)

            *This is judgment of the dead from all generations

            *It takes place in heaven (sometimes referred to as the “Day of Judgement”)

            *The Book of Life is opened at this judgment

            *Only non-believers will be judged for degrees of punishment (Luke 12:47-48)

The Judgement Seat of Christ by Butch Entrekin

      In Romans fourteen Paul is dealing with the issue of judging others.  He reveals that there is no reason for Christians to judge one another since they will all stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ. (Verse 10)  This judgment although only mention twice (also 2 Corinthians 5:10) in Scripture is a very important element to the future of every believer.  Four other passages (1 Corinthians 3:10-15, 4:1-5, 9:24-27, 2 Timothy 4:8) refer to this judgment without stating by name.  And six other passages (1 Thessalonians 2:19, James 1:12, 1 Peter 5:4, Revelation 2:10, 3:11, 4:4, 10) speak of the crown of life that is the believer’s reward at this judgment. 

      The Greek word translated seat is “bema.”  This word literally means base or step, and it refers to a raised platform on which a magistrate would sit in the first century court.  It carried the connotation of having authority, and the one who sat upon the bema possessed the power to pronounce judgments.  In the Judgment Seat of Christ, the Lord Jesus is on the bema seat.  Christ, the Righteous Judge, will judge the actions of all believers.

      The Judgment Seat of Christ is for Christians and salvation is not an issue.  The believer’s sin was judged at the cross when Christ took upon Himself the punishment for humanity’s sin. (John 12:31-32)  All that is required to receive salvation is to believe on Christ’s sacrificial death as the payments for sin.  Eternal life is already assured all who stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ.

      It is important for the Christian to understand what is being judged.  Since sin has already been forgiven, it is obvious that Christ is evaluating something else.  The focus of this judgment is revealed very clearly in 2 Corinthians 5:10.  “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done in the body, whether good or bad.”  It is the actions of the believer while on earth that are being scrutinized, and everything will be considered.  Christ will distinguish between worthy deeds and worthless deeds, and worthy deeds will receive commendations from Christ, but the worthless deeds will receive no reward.

      It is also important that Christians understand the criteria for determining if a deed is worthy.  At the Judgment Seat of Christ the motives behind each and every action will be revealed.  “He (Christ) will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts.” (1 Corinthians 4:5b)  Just taking part in righteous activity is not a guarantee that the work is worthy of the Lord’s approval.  The motivation behind alls deed that are worthy will be the desire to bring glory to Christ (1 Corinthians 3:10-11) and Christ will judge every action on this basis.

      The Bible gives a very vivid picture to explain the way the Christian’s motivation will be revealed.  “His (the believer’s) work will be shown for what it is, because the Day (the day of the judgment) will bring it to light.  It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work.” (1 Corinthians 3:13-14a)  Simply put, fire will be the test.  If an action can withstand God’s refining fire then it will be judged worthy, but any deed that cannot withstand the fire will be destroyed.  The good works that came from an attitude of self-righteousness will not pass the test of fire.

      The Scriptures do not reveal when this judgment will take place, but it can be determined in reference to the time of the Tribulation.  The twenty-four elders, who represent Christians who have attained a special position in heaven, already have their crowns when the Tribulation begins in Revelations four.  So the Judgment Seat of Christ must take place before the beginning of the Tribulation.  Further evidence is seen by the presence of the bride (the church) with Christ before He returns in judgment at the end of the Tribulation.  Apparently believers have already received their reward because they are clothed in white raiment representing their righteous deeds. (Revelations 19:8)  Most Theologians, who take a pre-tribulation view of Eschatology, believe that the judgment seat of Christ occurs immediately following the rapture of the church.  This view places the rapture in heaven just before the beginning of the Tribulation on earth.

      Now that who participates in this judgment, what is being judged, and the time and place of this judgment are known, it is time to focus on the all important outcome.  Each Christian will either receive rewards for their actions or they will suffer the loss of rewards.  This is determined purely on the basis of whether the actions are deemed worthy.  But there is no condemnation handed down at the Judgment Seat of Christ. 

      The loss of reward is a very real and serious matter however, and it may cause intense shame for those who have rewards taken away.  1 Corinthians 4:2 explains that the Christian is required to remain faithful and 2 John 8 reveals the penalty for unfaithfulness.  This verse makes it clear that believers can lose rewards if they do not remain true their calling.  1 John 2:28 reveals that some Christians will be ashamed at the Lord’s return.  This shame is a result of them not remaining faithful until the Lord’s return.  The Bible makes the Christian’s faithfulness is a very serious issue.  Believers should be motivated to be diligent in their work for the Lord, and to not take lightly the grace of God.

      There have been times in every Christian’s life when they have not been completely faithful.  So it can be assumed that every believer will experience some loss of reward, but this is not to suggest that the Judgment Seat of Christ is an unhappy occasion.  The joy that is felt for the praise imparted by Christ will far outweigh any sadness for loss of reward.  Everyone who stands before Christ at this judgment will receive some form of commendation.  A balanced view of the judgment seat of Christ is the correct one according to Hoyt in his Bibliotheca Sacra.  “To overdo the sorrow aspect of the Judgment Seat of Christ is to make heaven hell.  To underdo the sorrow aspect is to make faithfulness inconsequential.” 

      The mention of the Judgment Seat of Christ in Romans 14:10 is in the context of judging others.  Paul recognized that if the believer were to understand that they would ultimately be judged by Christ, then it would relieve him or her of the need to make judgments concerning one another.  Christ is the Righteous Judge, and He is the only One that is qualified to judge.  All believers are equal under God and they should not try to disseminate the motives of others.  While in the flesh Christians retain a sinful nature, and this prevents them from making righteous judgments.  So Paul is exhorting the Roman believers to abstain from making judgments, and to allow the Lord to make all the decisions concerning human activity.           

Response to Tom Blackburn’s article that Intelligent Design is not Science by Butch Entrekin

     In his article Tom Blackburn argues that “Intelligent Design” is not Biology.  Well he must not know his Biology.  In fact the basis for the entire Intelligent Design argument is that Biology is so well designed that it points to a designer.

      Look at the complexity of the DNA molecule, or the fact that Geneticist can now locate the parts of DNA that pass on certain traits.  In some instances they can even modify them to bring about certain changes.  If modern Science through “Intelligent Design” can alter the outcomes of certain Biological processes, is it any wonder that intelligent fair minded people expect that at the origin of these processes there was an intelligent plan.

      Further, to compare the laws of gravity to the Theory of Evolution is simply a ridiculous argument.  A scientific law can be verified and it is true in every case unless there is some outside agent that overrides it.  Evolution is at best random.  The basis for the theory is that random changes can occur if given enough time and the right circumstances.

      I do not think the future of education is dependent on teaching the Theory of Evolution as fact.  Our education system did just fine for two hundred years without this requirement.  In fact education under it current mandates is according to all studies going in the wrong direction.  Can we not bring reason back into the argument?