Expiation versus Propitiation of Sins


, , , , , , , ,

You might have noticed that Catholic translations of the Bible render Rom 3:25 differently than Protestant and Eastern Orthodox ones.

…God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith…

…God set forth as an expiation*, hrough faith, by his blood…

*Expiation: this rendering is preferable to “propitiation,” which suggests hostility on the part of God toward sinners. As Paul will be at pains to point out (Rom 5:810), it is humanity that is hostile to God.

First, what are the differences between the words? According to R.C. Sproul, “The prefix ex means “out of” or “from,” so expiation has to do with removing something or taking something away. In biblical terms, it has to do with taking away guilt through the payment of a penalty or the offering of an atonement.”

So, when Catholics say that Jesus Christ is the expiation of our sins, it speaks the truth that Christ paid the full penalty on our behalf.

How about propitiation? Sproul writes, “By contrast, propitiation has to do with the object of the expiation. The prefix pro means ‘for,’ so propitiation brings about a change in God’s attitude, so that He moves from being at enmity with us to being for us.”

In short, propitiation means that there is a satisfaction of God’s justice or wrath. Catholics assert that God holds no “hostility” towards those who have sinned against Him. However, several references to God “inflicting wrath” (Rom 3:5) would appear to mitigate against this.

So, what’s the deal? Catholics reject this translation of the same word because they do not wholeheartedly endorse penal substitution, which is the idea that God’s sense of justice demanded that His wrath against sin must be satisfied in the sense that it is exercised somehow. In many ways Catholicism teaches that faith in Christ merely removes impediments between man and God that prevent man from being saved by partaking in sacraments. So both terms include a payment for sins, but only propitiation allows us to infer that God can be fully satisfied by what Christ did, which implicitly removes the necessity for sacraments. To quote Thomas Oden (requoted on an Eastern Orthodox website :)

The focus of expiation is upon the removal of obstacles to the relationship[ with God]. The focus of propitiation is slightly different: upon the welcoming attitude of the Holy One for whom these obstacles are removed (Eleventh Council of Toledo). Through the cross, God is brought near and conciliated, made propitious, or favorable to our hearing and plea.

In short, being that the word in Greek is only used once in the Bible and it can mean either thing, how do we know it is one or the other? Let’s go to it’s one and only usage and see which one actually makes sense:

[Christ is] whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation/expiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Rom 3:25-26).

Let’s ask a few questions?

Who was the expiation/propitiation?

Jesus Christ

How did the expiation/propitiation occur?

The shedding of Christ’s blood, without which there is no forgiveness of sins (Heb 9:22).

How does someone attain the benefits of the expiation/propitiation?

According to Rom 3:25 “through faith.”

Why was the expiation/propitiation necessary?

According to Rom 3:25 “to demonstrate His righteousness.” This alone would lend credibility towards propitiation over expiation simply because the demonstration of righteousness means that the offering of a sacrifice was necessary for there to be justice (which is the same word as “righteousness” in Greek.) So, the plain meaning of Rom 3:25 is that God’s sense of justice had to be satisfied, hence Christ’s blood appeased God’s sense of justice. This is propitiatory language.

How does expiation/propitiation work?

“Sins previously committed” before one has placed their faith in Christ are “passed over.” Expiation would require that these sins are simply forgotten or not accounted for. They are just “passed over,” right? Propitiation would require that the sins were passed over man and placed onto Christ. The latter idea is stated explicitly in the Scripture: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us” (Gal 3:13). “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf” (2 Cor 5:21). So, God did not simply passed over us, forgetting our sins because of Christ’s sacrifice. Instead, the Father specifically passed the curse that belongs to us, because of our sins, over to Christ and He bore our iniquities (Is 53:5).

What does expiation/propitiation demonstrate?

“His righteousness at the present time,” that is, the present time in which we are now faithful in Christ compared to the time we did not know Him.

Why did God want this demonstration?

“[S]o that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” Can expiation both demonstrate God’s justice and make Him the justifier of those who have faith? I honestly do not see how. However, if Christ’s sacrifice had a propitiatory effect it all makes sense. God is just because He punished sin. Expiation does not allow for this, because it means that Christ bore God’s punishment and God was just in issuing the punishment. Further, God is the justifier in that by being just in punishing sin, He has made unjust men just in His eyes. Hence, He is just in punishing and the justifier in making men just. This puts GOd both in the justice and justification business!

In conclusion, it is our contention that propitiation is the clear and obvious choice.

Eternal Damnation and God’s Perfect Justice


, , , , , , ,

“No one deserves to be nailed to a cross forever.” In response to a movie review I made about the movie Christian Mingle, Christopher Sansone made that comment and continued to explain why he refuses to believe in eternal damnation:

No one asks to be born. Nobody deserves eternal torture. Not even Hitler. Jehovah is a God of justice. The wages of sin is (eternal) death. The gift of salvation is eternal life in paradise.

Dante imagined a map of Hell where punishments existed in different grades. Sins of fleeting passion were punished the least, gross sins of passion were punished worse, and deliberate and protracted sins were punished to worst. Hell might very well conform to Dante’s imagination.

Let me respond to this in two ways.

First, the Scripture says damnation is eternal, so if you do not like what the Scripture teaches take that up with Jehovah, not me.

Second, those who oppose eternal damnation do so under the presupposition that the universe is man-centered, and not God centered. In a Theocentric universe eternal damnation makes sense.

Lastly, as a slight addendum, I will reflect on the possibility that damnation exists in certain gradations which would be similar to Dante’s Inferno.

1. Scripture and Eternal Damnation. The Scripture is so abundantly clear concerning the issue, I do not need to add commentary beyond what the Scripture plainly teaches:

Then they will go forth and look on the corpses of the men who have transgressed against Me. For their worm will not die And their fire will not be quenched; And they will be an abhorrence to all mankind (Is 66:24).

If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than, having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched (Mark 9:43-44).

[T]he devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever…And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire (Rev 20:10, 15).

2. The Theocentric Universe. Sansone makes an obvious error: he presumes that God should be judged by man-centered view of ethics. Let’s observe.

“No one deserves to be nailed to a cross forever,” he asks. Why? “No one asks to be born.”

What does someone choosing their birth have to do with anything? I presume the logic is that it would not be fair to be born if God knew that by virtue of being born, you would then go on to live a life that would later merit eternal damnation.

There are obvious Biblical problems with this. First, Paul writes, “[W]ho are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this,’ will it” (Rom 9:20)?

I suppose Sansone would want to answer back, “But I’m not a clay pot, why can’t I question the idea that you can make anyone in the womb knowing that they will grow up and reap the fruits of hell?”

God simply retorts, “Who has given to Me that I should repay himWhatever is under the whole heaven is Mine” (Job 41:11).

Translation: “Whatever the LORD pleases, He does, in heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps” (Ps 135:6).

When we realize the above, we see that simply not asking to be born is irrelevant. God does not do whatever pleases man. He does whatever pleases Himself.

“Nobody deserves eternal torture. Not even Hitler,” Sansone continues.

Why would this be so? For one, the Scripture says that “whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” (Mark 3:29).

The sin is eternal. Can an eternal sin somehow not have an eternal punishment? God can just forget about it or something? This is why eternal damnation and eternal salvation makes sense. Those of us who have faith in Christ share in the benefit that Christ has paid our eternal penalty.

How? Indeed the crucifixion only lasted for hours, but it was not the length of the punishment but Who was punished. Jesus is God, and God is eternal. So, a finite punishment on an infinite God is an infinite punishment. Christ can easily absorb the punishment of every finite man that will ever exist because He is eternal and infinite.

In the same way, those men outside of Christ have committed a finite amount of sins, but against an infinite, eternal God. Thereby, their sins merit a punishment that is both infinite, and eternal. I would venture to say that if you reject Christ, ultimately you reject the Holy Spirit that is given to all who believe in Him. This makes all who reject Christ guilty of an eternal sin.

Sansone missed all of this because he made man the measure. However, if we reflect upon the greatness of God, His forebearance and mercy, His justice and love–the very thought of sinning against the infinite God who loves us infinitely more than we love ourselves is so reprehensible, so disgusting, to think that man gets off with a slap on the wrist is unthinkable. How could any of us, who love God, so happily see Him wronged by men and not desire that the wicked are punished for hating the One Being that is the most “unhateable?”

So, eternal damnation is not only explicitly Biblical, it is most obviously fair and just.

Is Everyone Punished the Same? It would seem that sinning against an eternal God would merit an eternally bad punishment. This would mean an infant that dies simply with original sin gets punished as bad as Hitler. I will speculate against this on two grounds.

First, we commit finite sins against an infinite God. Therefore, it makes the most sense that the punishment is infinite, but the degree of punishment is finite.

Second, the Scripture appears to lend some credibility to the above speculation. The Scripture says, “[I]t will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city” (Matt 10:15). Clearly, some cities and peoples have it “more tolerable” than others. This alone disproves the notion that all the wicked are simply eternally dead or “annihilated,” because such a punishment would be equally tolerable to all. Yet, the Scripture clearly states that this is not the case.

A couple, more tenuous Scriptures I will put forward are as follows:

If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin (John 15:22).

Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent (Acts 17:30).

Both of these Scriptures require certain presuppositions when exegeting them. For one, we presume that neither the Pharisees nor idol-worshiping gentiles were going to heaven anyway. They were committing sins against God and they did not know Christ. So what the passage in John is saying is that the Pharisees are guilty of greater sin because they added on top of their list of sins rejecting Christ and His miracles. In a similar way, ancient gentiles were accountable for their sins but were not guilty of the additional sin of rejecting Christ, for He had not yet been declared to them. Therefore, Paul’s admonishment for them to repent is all the more serious, as now their sinfulness is all the more greater.

Now, if the above is the case, greater sinfulness would appear to necessitate a more intolerable judgment.

Lastly, religious hypocrisy appears to also merit greater punishment:

How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace (Heb 10:29).

So, while all of the above may not prove that there are circles in Hell or anything like that, they are highly suggestive that there are different gradations of punishment.

Whatever God has ordained for the afterlife, we know Him to be just and fair. He is just and kind in all His ways (Ps 145:17), we can place our trust and confidence in Him. To God be all the glory. Amen.

A “Catholic” Flavored Commentary on Romans: Chapter 2


, , , , , , , ,

We are continuing to show that the Reformed understanding of the Gospel is clearly shown in the Scripture and accords with Catholic tradition before the Council of Trent. In Chapter 2, Paul substantiates his case that both self-righteous gentiles and Jews have broken God’s commandments and are in need of His grace.

For Previous Chapter Click Here

2:1 Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. 2 And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things.

Paul’s transition begins a discussion about how both Jews and gentiles are condemned alike, because both disregard the Law (via general revelation and the Mosaic Covenant) that has been revealed to them. Several statements throughout this chapter indicate this, particularly verse 9.

In the first two verses, Paul probably has in mind the Jews who would at this point be shaking their heads at the overt idolatry of the gentiles. It is possible, however, to interpret that Paul has in mind any self-righteous Jew, Gentile, or even Christian, because “you have no excuse…for in that which you judge another…you who judge practice the same things.” If anyone is honest with himself, he probably committed one of the sins between verses 29 to 32 in the last few hours.

Paul’s intention therefore is to humble us, because whether or not we know the Law or just know of the law of nature*, “we know that the judgment of God falls upon those who practice such things.” Certainly, all of us practice such things sometimes, though those of us with the Holy Spirit will not continually make a practice of such sinful behaviors: “For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins” (Heb 10:26).

*You may be asking, “What is the ‘law of nature?’” In short, it is the sense of moral absolutes that we ascertain from our good sense and observation of general revelation (Rom 1:20). For example, we do not need to find it written in a stone somewhere to know that molesting and then killing a child deserves condemnation, we just know it is so. Hence, the Jewish (or Mosaic) Law is not the only thing that convicts us of sin, but also the law of nature.

The term comes from Augustine, who considered the Law and the law of nature one of the same. Both condemned man to damnation, because he never fulfills their requirements. When addressing the issue concerning whether men that never heard of Christ or the Mosaic Law can be saved by simply being good and vaguely believing in God he writes as follows:

Well, if this could have been done, or can still be done, then for my part I have to say what the apostle said in regard to the law: Then Christ died in vain. [Galatians 2:21] For if he said this about the law, which only the nation of the Jews received, how much more justly may it be said of the LAW OF NATURE, which the whole human race has received, If righteousness come by nature, then Christ died in vain. If, however, Christ did not die in vain, then human nature cannot by ANY MEANS be justified and redeemed from God’s most righteous wrath— in a word, from punishment— except by faith and the sacrament of the blood of Christ (On Nature and Grace, Chapter 2).

3 But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?

Looking down upon those who continually make a practice of such sins does not avail one from judgement. The reminder in verse 4 of God’s patience would seem out of place if we otherwise did not presume that everyone alike is under the sins listed in verses 29 through 32.

If anyone is saved, it is because God endures with sinful men and is gracious with them. He can just as easily harden the hearts of all sinful men as a just penalty for their error. Therefore, looking down upon such sinful men is to think lightly of God’s tolerance, for God has not hardened our hearts so that we would not repent. By repentance, we experience His kindness in giving us His Son to pay for those sins we just read about in verses 29 to 32. This should lead us not into judgement of such men (for we were such men and still are to a degree), but rather make us realize that would be us apart from the grace of God. Such a realization should lead us to repentance and not condemnation.

5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who will render to each person according to his deeds:

Those who are unrepentant and disbelieve God do not have their sins paid for on the cross (Col 2:14), and therefore they are storing up wrath upon their own heads. During God’s judgement, each person will be rewarded or punished according to their deeds.

Clearly, to the crowd that says, “I’ve done more good than bad,” this does not sound so bad. However, let’s review thus far how man is judged. Man is judged according to his deeds against a specific standard. The Jews, as we will see are judged according to the Law while those without the Law are judged according to the law of nature.

When judged by such laws, it begs the question, what is the passing grade? Is it a speed limit and 1 MPH over is in violation of the Law? Is there leniency and is 65 percent a passing grade?

God’s revelation tells us that the Law (or natural law) must be upheld on every point, to the letter:

For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.” Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “The righteous man shall live by faith.” However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them (Gal 3:10-12).

This is why God says in Deut 18:13, “You must be blameless before the Lord your God.” God’s standard is perfection, so when we are judged according to our deeds the only way to be judged as righteous is to have done “all things” required by the Law (or law of nature).

7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.

Those who persevere in doing good are judged according to works as righteous. Why? Because the righteous shall live by faith and they are not under the curse of the Law (or law of nature) that demands perfection. Those who disbelieve God and being given over to their own hardness of heart obey unrighteousness, God’s judgement will be that they deserve punishment.

It is very easy to see that both Jew and Greek alike who do not fulfill their respective laws should expect tribulation and distress. Yet, both Jew and Greek who seek to do good (this good living is made possible by faith) may expect immortality and peace with God. God thereby holds both Jews and Greeks alike to the same standards, for there is no partiality with God. They are equally condemned for not following their laws and equally forgiven for placing their trust in Christ and living by that faith in Him.

12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

As discussed previously, all of those who violate their respective laws at any point will perish. It is important to note that Paul does not offer a way out such as, “Only those who have sinned a lot with or without the Law will perish.” Instead, he says “all who have sinned,” which would mean even just one sin.

Paul then notes that merely knowing the Law exists (Jews and now Christians) does not make one right before God. One must “do” the Law. The Law demands that “he who practices them shall live by them.” How do we “do” the Law and save our own necks? It is by faith, which is a topic we will discuss in more detail when we reach Rom 3:31 (“Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.”)

14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

As we have discussed previously, the gentiles by natural revelation have the law of nature, so even without the Law, are a law to themselves. This is not a loophole that gives the heathen a different route to salvation. Far from it. Now they are alike under the curse of the Law. The Law is written in their hearts and not in the sense promised by Jeremiah (Jer 31:33), but rather they are aware of God’s perfect standards.

Just like in a cartoon where there is an angel and a devil on each shoulder representing the individual’s conscience, in Rom 2:15 the same is being described. Some interpret this verse to mean that some, by their good works, have fulfilled the law of nature and will be judged as righteous. This cannot be the case.

Certainly, the existence of the conscience, little devil, angel and all, does not commend a man to God. Rather, it works towards his condemnation, as there is no one righteous who has by the standards of his own conscience always done what he thinks is right, let alone what God thinks. Indeed, “both Jews and Greeks are all under sin” by any standard (Rom 3:9).

17 But if you bear the name “Jew” and rely upon the Law and boast in God,18 and know His will and approve the things that are essential, being instructed out of the Law, 19 and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of the immature, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth,

Being a Jew, with the benefits of knowing the Law and circumcision, does not avail a man.

21 you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one shall not steal, do you steal? 22 You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God? 24 For “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,” just as it is written.

Knowledge of the Law, naturally or prophetically revealed, should teach us that we dishonor God with our sins. Paul’s choice of sins, lifted from the Ten Commandments, show that the self-righteous break even the most rudimentary, easy to remember parts of the Law. Paul might as well ask, “Do you covet? Do you commit adultery in your heart?” You boast in the Law and claim to teach others, but first teach yourself! Can’t you see you fall short of the glory of God?

James writes:

If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not commit murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law (James 2:8-11).

The point is exactly the same. Those who boast in the Law, but fall short of one obvious part of the Law (again, one of the Ten Commandments), are under God’s condemnation. Breaking just one Law is equivalent to breaking all of them.

One may think, “So, I don’t steal, commit adultery, or rob temples!” If you know the Law so well, why don’t you teach yourself? Don’t you know that “through the Law comes the knowledge of sin” (Rom 3:21) and “the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith” (Gal 3:24)? If you did, you would see that the small things you have stolen (if not your whole paycheck) are theft, you have committed adultery with your eyes, that you rob temples when you commit spiritual idolatry by not loving God with all your heart. Can’t you see you are condemned and can only be saved by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross?

25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh

Being guilty of one part of the Law, makes one guilty of breaking the whole of the Law. So, what good is obedience in circumcision if there is not perfect obedience with the whole of the Law? In the same way, isn’t it true that the uncircumcised man, if he places his faith in Christ and keeps the requirements of the Law as it was actually intended, is thereby circumcised in the heart? Indeed, for reasons we will get into later, the righteous that live by faith fulfill the whole Law even though they fall short on points, while the faithless do not fulfill the Law and are condemned for every Law they break when they are judged according to the deeds done in their body.

29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

Birth does not make Jews. Circumcision does not make Jews. Birth does not make Christians. Baptism does not make Christians. The Holy Spirit makes Christians for, “[N]o one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor 12:3). Being that God has done this work in man, even if men applaud faithless men who are impressive, God approves of the seal of the Spirit He has set. What is sealed cannot be unsealed, and what God has done in a man making him righteous cannot be undone.

King Crockoduck Catches Ray Comfort In a Bad Moment…


, , , , , , , ,

One morning at 6:45am Ray Comfort was trying to pass out DVDs of Evolution Vs. God at a local high school.

To sum up the whole movie, Ray Comfort asks even University-trained scientists to find one empirically proven case of macro-evolution. We have demonstrable cases of natural selection and other cases of micro-evolution. For example, anti-bacterial soap kills all the weak bacteria and leaves us soap-resistant bacteria. So, a new creature isn’t really made, but a better one is naturally selected to continue to survive.

However, if all that existed was natural selection, eventually there would be no creatures left because all the weak ones would die out.

Macro-evolution states that through mutations, a single organism can over time and through natural processes become a plethora of new organisms. Throughout Evolution vs. God, Comfort asks for a single empirical example of this kind of evolution. Of course, it does not exist. We have never witnessed a new creature given rise to through natural evolutionary processes (though by using radiation we have made weak mutant bacteria and such.)

Comfort did not have his A game when he was confronted by a young man trying to take him to task on Creationism:

Comfort tries to get the conversation around back to macro-evolution a couple of times, but fails to do so…perhaps because of lack of coffee. The young man named “King Crockoduck” seemed to daze Comfort with big fancy words, but never really proved his point that evolution can be empirically proven.

Crockoduck tried to say there was scientific proof because of Phylogeny (the close genetic similarities between organisms that supposedly evolved from one another.) He says that because DNA can prove who we are related to, that the close genetic resemblance of creatures with similar morphology (appearance) proves that somehow one creature’s progeny had a flash change in DNA to become the similar one.

Again, it is really obvious that this does not prove Macro-Evolution, because the flash change in DNA has never been observed. Therefore, to presume Phylogeny proves evolution via naturalistic processes requires the presupposition that the flash change in DNA has ever happened, though no one has even seen it. This is equivalent to believing that there is a flying spaghetti monster, even though no one has ever seen one. Neither would merit serious consideration.

We see all of this come to a head @ 13:20 of the video:

King Crockoduck asks why Phylogeny exists if there is no evolution.

Comfort: It is because God made them like that.

“King Crockoduck”: Well, why would God want to lie to us?…Why would He create the world in a manner that looks exactly like everything evolved?

Comfort: It does not.

“King Crockoduck”: But, but, but, it just does!

And there’s your big, scientific defense of evolution. “It just does” even though no one has ever seen it.

“Good guys” don’t go to heaven–Set to Alice Cooper’s “It’s Much Too Late”


, , , , ,

I never kicked a dog,
A child or my wife
I never looked at pornography
I swear it on my holy saint mother’s life
But somehow she’s down here with me

The road to hell is littered
with nice guys with good intentions
But once you’re there, you’re there
It’s much too late
I can cry and scream it’s just not fair
To leave me here like you don’t care
There must be some mistake up there in heaven

Now it’s much too late
My time has passed away
All my plans and dreams have all ended
Now it’s much too late
To try and plead my case
And I don’t know the God I’ve offended
It’s too late

I never stole a thing
A toy or a kiss
My conscience is a clear as can be
And when I was a teen
All the sex that I missed
Was an abstinence blessing to me

The road to hell is littered
with nice guys with good intentions
But once you’re there, you’re there
It’s much too late
I can cry and scream it’s just not fair
To leave me here like you don’t care
There must be some mistake up there in heaven

Now it’s much too late
My time has passed away
All my plans and dreams have all ended
Now it’s much too late
To try and plead my case
And I don’t know the God I’ve offended
It’s too late

Guys like the above don’t go to heaven. Why? “Good intentions” won’t get you there. Missing out on sex, even though you really wanted it, doesn’t make you good. Not stealing is no big deal…you’re supposed to not steal. What do you want for not stealing, a cookie?

“Wait a second,” you might say. “That guy in the song is not perfect, but he’s a lot better than most Christians that I know!”

Indeed, many nice guys like the above will spend an eternity in hell, because he simply isn’t good enough. God is perfect, He has perfect standards. The only way to heaven is to know the God you have offended with your sin. Know God, or no God. No God, no heaven.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 156 other followers