The "Little Grand Canyon"

Kyle Butt, D.Min.

Creation vs. EvolutionGeology

The eruption of Mt. Saint Helens on May 18, 1980, was one of the most-watched geological catastrophes of all time. During the initial eruption, “the mountain released the energy equivalent of 20 million tons of TNT. The total energy output during the nine-hour eruption on May 18 was equivalent to 440 million tons of TNT, approximately 30,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs” (Morris and Austin, 2003, p. 28). This certainly would classify as a major explosion, to say the least. And yet, as huge as this particular eruption was, it paled in comparison to many other volcanic eruptions. For instance, Morris and Austin note that the “last big explosion at Yellowstone, for example, was over 2,000 times the explosive power of Mount St. Helens” (p. 12).

The full extent of what scientists learned from the 1980 eruption has yet to be measured, but certain geological features caused by the explosion have made Earth scientists take a closer look at their interpretations of current geological features. For instance, for many decades, the majority of the scientific community has looked to the Grand Canyon as an example of a geologic feature that was formed over multiplied millions of years. According to the popular mantra that “the present is the key to the past,” geologists have suggested that the Colorado River carved out the canyon slowly but surely. The Grand Canyon National Park website has this to say about the formation of the Canyon: “Grand Canyon is an erosional feature that owes its existence to the Colorado River. Of equal importance are the forces of erosion that have shaped and continue to shape the canyon today. These include running water from rain, snowmelt, and tributary streams which enter the canyon throughout its length” (“Geological Story”). Nothing is mentioned concerning a possible catastrophic origin of the canyon.

The effects of Mount St. Helens, however, have cast some serious doubt on the long-held uniformitarian theory that the Grand Canyon must have been slowly carved over millions of years. Before the eruption, Spirit Lake (the lake close to Mount St. Helens) drained into the Toutle River. The upper river, however, was buried by up to 600 feet of debris from the eruption, which blocked the lake’s usual drainage site. For two full years, Spirit Lake was unable to drain into the Toutle River. Then, on March 19, 1982, a small eruption around the summit of Mount St. Helens caused a mudflow that was 20 miles long. The mudflow pooled behind the debris dam, and sent mud flowing furiously over the west end of the big steam pit. The flow quickly cut a canyon that was 140 feet deep. “The canyon produced by the mud has been called ‘The Little Grand Canyon’ because it appears to be a one-fortieth scale model of the Grand Canyon” (Morris and Austin, 2003, pp. 74-75).

If the eruption of Mount St. Helens could initiate a situation in which a canyon one-fortieth the size of the Grand Canyon was formed in one day, and the eruption of Mount St. Helens was by no means the largest ever (dwarfed by the last eruption measured at Yellowstone, which produced 2,000 times the explosive power), then what would a person expect to happen when the “fountains of the deep” were broken up and the entire world was covered by water as in Noah’s Flood? Surely, the evidence from Mount St. Helens shows that catastrophic origins of geological features like the Grand Canyon are a possibility. The ideology of those who refuse to acknowledge the Flood’s geological force is discussed in 2 Peter 3:5-6: “For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water” (emp. added).

REFERENCES

Morris, John and Steven A. Austin (2003), Footprints in the Ash: The Explosive Story of Mount St. Helens (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

“The Geological Story of the Grand Canyon,” [On-line], URL: http://www.grand.canyon.national-park.com/info.htm.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

Searching for Truth Video 15 min

 Searching for Truth: Introduction About Truth | WVBS Online Video

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

 

Martin Luther Speaks on “Faith Only” and Baptism

Kyle Butt, D.Min.

Bulletin ArticlesDoctrinal Matters

One popular belief in many protestant denominations is the idea that God supplies salvation to each and every person based solely on the faith of that person, apart from any action taken by that individual. This idea, often called sola fide, says, that a person is saved by faith alone. Any number of quotations demonstrating this doctrine can be cited. In a debate with Thomas Warren in 1953, L.S. Ballard affirmed the position that “the alien sinner is saved the very moment he/she believes that Jesus Christ is the son of God” (Warren and Ballard, 1953). This particular belief is commonly worded like this: “People are saved through Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone.”

According to the modern-day advocates of “faith alone” salvation, water baptism cannot be a requisite to salvation, because it is something “more than” faith. While space limitations prevent a thorough investigation of the biblical doctrine of baptism (see Lyons, 2003), it is interesting to note how far the “faith alone” doctrine has drifted from its original form.

The idea of being saved by faith alone is often attributed to Martin Luther. Indeed, he and the other reformers challenged the Catholic Church that sold indulgences and offered a “works-based” type of salvation. Martin Luther often taught that salvation was based on faith alone, and not received based upon a person’s meritorious works. Martin Luther did not, however, take faith alone to mean that mere mental assent to Christ’s deity was sufficient to obtain salvation. In fact, Luther’s idea of faith alone does not conform to the modern-day idea that baptism cannot be required for salvation.

While it is understood that the opinions of men are in no way authoritative when it comes to God’s plan for salvation, it is nonetheless interesting to note that Martin Luther believed wholeheartedly in the necessity of baptism as a requisite for salvation. In his Large Catechism, Luther wrote:

[I] affirm that Baptism is no human trifle, but that it was established by God Himself. Moreover, He earnestly and solemnly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. No one is to think that it is an optional matter like putting on a red coat. It is of greatest importance that we hold Baptism in high esteem as something splendid and glorious. The reason why we are striving and battling so strenuously for this view of Baptism is that the world nowadays is full of sects that loudly proclaim that Baptism is merely an external form and that external forms are useless…. Although Baptism is indeed performed by human hands, yet it is truly God’s own action (1978, pp. 98-99).

From Luther’s comments about baptism, it is obvious that he viewed water baptism as essential for salvation. Many of the protestant denominations that attribute their ideas about “faith only” to Martin Luther have not been taught that Luther’s concept of faith alone was not in opposition to works of God (like baptism and repentance), but in opposition to meritorious works by which a person believes that he or she “earns” salvation.

What, then, would Martin Luther say to those today who teach that “faith alone” excludes baptism? Listen to his words pertaining to this teaching:

But our know-it-alls, the new spirit people, claim that faith alone saves and that human works and outward forms contribute nothing to this. We answer: It is of course true that nothing in us does it except faith, as we shall hear later. But these blind leaders of the blind refuse to see that faith must have something in which it believes, that is, something it clings to, something on which to plant its feet and into which to sink its roots. Thus faith clings to the water and believes Baptism to be something in which there is pure salvation and life, not through the water, as I have emphasized often enough, but because God’s name is joined to it…. If follows from this that whoever rejects Baptism rejects God’s word, faith, and the Christ who directs us to Baptism and binds us to it (1978, pp. 101-102).

Martin Luther was a man. He made many mistakes and believed things about the Bible that were not true. It should be noted, however, that the “faith only” doctrine attributed so often to him has been misrepresented on a grand scale. Martin Luther’s words are unambiguous and clear. His “faith only” doctrine did not exclude baptism as necessary for salvation. Could it be the case that those who loudly tout the “faith only” mantra have not thoroughly investigated the works of the man to whom the doctrine is so often attributed?

The Bible does teach that those who are being saved are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). It does not, however, teach that a person is saved “by faith alone” without any further acts of obedience. Even Martin Luther recognized that water baptism is not a meritorious work that earns a person salvation. On the other hand, it is an obedient act required by God in order for people to obtain salvation.

REFERENCES

Luther, Martin (1978), Luther’s Large Catechism, (Saint Louis, MO: Concordia).

Lyons, Eric (2003), “The Bible’s Teaching on Baptism: Contradictory or Complimentary,” [On-line], URL: https://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/617.

Warren, Thomas B. and L.S. Ballard (1953), The Warren-Ballard Debate, (Moore, OK: National Christian Press).

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

Good Works—To Be Seen or Hidden?

Eric Lyons

Alleged Discrepancies

When examining the various lists of alleged Bible contradictions that skeptics have compiled, a person likely will notice how some alleged contradictions seem to appear on almost every list. The question, “Has anyone seen God?” (cf. John 1:18; Genesis 32:30), appears quite frequently, as does the supposed difficulty of Joseph being the son of two different men (cf. Matthew 1:16; Luke 3:23). One question that also has made its way onto numerous skeptics’ lists (somewhat to my surprise) is that of whether or not God wants His disciples to do good works to be seen of men. Purportedly, two statements that Jesus made within the “Sermon on the Mount” (Matthew 5-7) are incompatible. First, Jesus stated:

You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven (Matthew 5:14-16, emp. added).

Later, Matthew recorded a warning Jesus gave His audience, saying:

Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them…. [W]hen you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly (6:1,3-4, emp. added).

According to skeptics, these New Testament passages are contradictory. At one moment Jesus supposedly said, “We should” let others see our good works, and in the next He said, “We shouldn’t” let others see our good works (see Wells, 2001). Are the skeptics correct in their assertions? What is the truth of the matter?

The Bible student who carefully examines these passages (and others) will notice that Jesus never said that His followers must not do good deeds in the presence of others. On the contrary, He always has wanted good deeds to be done, but they are to be done for the purpose of giving God the glory, not man. Sadly, many Bible critics have twisted the true message of Jesus, in an effort to find a contradiction in His teachings (cf. 2 Peter 3:16). The Bible teaches that God expects His followers to be doing good deeds. To the churches of Galatia, the apostle Paul wrote: “As we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith” (6:10). During the last week of His life, Jesus taught that His disciples are responsible for doing such things as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and visiting the sick (Matthew 25:31-46). But these good works, and many others, are to be done in order to bring glory to God, not ourselves. When Jesus said, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works,” He ended this sentence with the phrase, “and glorify your Father in heaven.” A similar statement was written years later by the apostle Peter:

Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation (1 Peter 2:11-12, emp. added).

Through the good works of mankind, God is to be exalted. (“To Him be the glory both now and forever”—2 Peter 3:18). Man, on the other hand, must never perform godly works for the purpose of drawing attention to himself.

In their efforts to expose the Bible as a book of errors and Jesus as less than divine, skeptics frequently omit the part of Matthew 6:1-4 that gives the context of Jesus’ statement concerning good deeds. Jesus was not forbidding all good deeds done in public. Rather, He was condemning the performance of “charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them” (6:1, emp. added). In the very next verse, Jesus elaborated on what He meant, saying, “Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men.” The hypocritical scribes and Pharisees, whom Jesus explicitly condemned earlier in this sermon (5:20), performed “all their works…to be seen by men” (Matthew 23:5). This was the attitude of which Jesus warned His listeners. Do not do charitable deeds in order to receive praise from men, but do them (whether private or public) to be seen of God.

Jesus taught that the proper motivation must lie behind every “good” action, in order for that action to be pleasing in God’s sight. Some godly actions may be done in secret (e.g., giving monetarily to a good work, praying for the sick, fasting, etc.). Others can (and must) be done openly (e.g., preaching the Gospel—cf. Acts 2). Whatever actions in which we engage ourselves, in order for them to be pleasing to God, they must stem from a sincere heart whose motivation is to bring glory to God.

REFERENCES

Wells, Steve (2001), Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, [On-line], URL: http://www.Skepticsannotatedbible.com.

---

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

SVE-Session II: Can Evolution Get Something from Nothing? video 32 min

 SVE-Session II: Can Evolution Get Something from Nothing? - Apologetics Press

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

 PHYSICS PROVES A CREATOR: THE TWO LAWS EVOLUTION CANNOT BREAK

From the moment God spoke the universe into existence, creation has followed clear, consistent rules. You do not need a science degree to understand them. In fact, these rules are so simple and universal that a child can grasp them. Scientists call them the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. Scripture calls them the fingerprints of order placed into creation by the Lord.

The First Law says energy can be transformed but it cannot appear from nowhere. You cannot pour from an empty cup and the universe cannot magically gain brand new energy. What exists is what was created in the beginning. Nothing in nature creates itself. Nothing summons itself into being. This is exactly what Genesis declares. God alone brought time, matter, and energy into existence. Evolutionists try to smuggle in miracles without a Miracle Worker, but the First Law shuts the door. Nature is not a god. Nature cannot create.

The Second Law says everything is slowly wearing out. Energy spreads out. Order breaks down. Rust forms. Cells age. Stars burn their fuel. Nothing naturally becomes more ordered over long periods. Left alone, things move from structure to chaos, not chaos to structure. You can witness this in your home. You never wake up to a room that cleaned itself. Disorder always increases unless someone with intelligence imposes order. This is not just common sense. It is the foundational law that governs all physical reality.

And here is the unavoidable truth. Evolution demands the opposite of these laws. It requires brand new information to appear out of nothing and it requires disorder to transform itself into higher, more complex order over millions of years. Yet the First Law says you cannot get something from nothing. The Second Law says you cannot get increasing order without an intelligent cause acting on the system. Both laws stand like immovable pillars. Together they declare that creation needed a Creator. This is why the First and Second Laws should have ended evolution the moment they were discovered.

Likely today, you will see what happens whenever these scientific truths trap evolution in a corner. Skeptics run to their favorite objection.. If everything needs a cause, then who created God? They set it up like a trap. But this challenge contradicts the very laws they appeal to. The First Law shows the universe cannot create itself. The Second Law shows the universe is running down, not powering up. Something outside the system had to create the system. Laws do not write themselves. Order does not rise from chaos without an Author.

The Bible answers this question with a clarity that silences the confusion. God is eternal. He has no beginning and no ending. He is outside of time and space because He created time and space. He is the uncaused Cause, the One necessary Being who holds all contingent beings together. Without an eternal Lawgiver, the laws of nature have no source. Without an eternal Creator, the universe has no beginning. Evolutionists mock Scripture while ignoring that the Bible gave this explanation long before modern science ever caught up. It is almost like a wink in the text, a reminder to doubters of why everything works the way it does.

He is the Alpha and the Omega of the universe. The Beginning and the End. The One who formed the laws that reveal His order. The One who speaks and matter obeys. Thermodynamics does not point to chance. It points straight to the eternal Creator who set all things in motion.

Foreknowledge: God’s Wood or Man’s Plastic? Video 5 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/foreknowledge-gods-wood-or-mans-plastic/ 

Copy the link above and follow the paths provided.