FBC Adult Sunday School – January 16, 2022

The Moral Chaos of a Materialistic Worldview

Well, good morning, and welcome to our kind of remote presentation this morning. As you know, last week we started a series on Fearfully and Wonderfully Made. We're looking at the creation, especially from the aspect of the human body.

And I'm going to pick it off, or start off, on slide number 12 on our PowerPoint presentation. And then I'll do kind of a wrap-up, and we'll continue on then to the next thing in our outline. We've been comparing and contrasting materialistic, that is an evolutionary beginning, to the Christian worldview.

So on this particular slide, let me go ahead and read it for you. We'll add a few comments occasionally. The materialistic or evolutionary worldview says this, Morality is defined by every individual according to his own views and interests.

Morality is ultimately relative because every person is the final authority for his own views. And of course, we read in Judges 21 -25, Everybody did what was right in their own eyes. I could wax and wane, not eloquently, but I could spend a lot of time talking about how we see so much of this in society of today.

Both at the governmental and at the average person level, where people are doing just whatever they please. Because an evolutionary or materialistic worldview states you really can't have a uniform set of moral standards that pass the time on and on and on.

Continuing with our slide, the afterlife for the materialistic or evolutionary worldview brings eternal annihilation or personal extinction for everyone. Now, think about what we've been saying last week and even so far this morning about the evolutionary, the materialistic worldview.

And what I'm going to say next may shock you a little bit, but it's the truth. If we accept evolution as science, COVID is a wonderful thing. Because after all, evolution says survival of the fittest, time, chance, and mutations.

So if you truly embrace evolutionary, the evolutionary stance, then you should embrace COVID because it is getting rid of the weak. So, now I'm not personally endorsing this, but an evolutionist would have to intellectually say the more people that COVID kills, the better.

Because after all, they were weak and we don't want weak people in the gene pool. Also, if we accept evolution, hospitals and medical care would be contraindicated because we are intervening to save people who have bad genetics.

That's it. I've even read articles, serious articles written on that subject, that medical care intervenes with this whole science, the evolutionary theory. You know, something else, and again, this may come across as a little bit shocking.

My wife, as much as I love her, she's getting up there in years. She can't have kids anymore. And if I truly accept evolution, what I have to be concerned about is me passing my superior genes on to the next generation.

So that means that any attractive woman that I see who is good looking, who has great teeth and broad shoulders, I should be willing to do anything to try to convince her to have children from me. So if I were to have some gal in the church that I thought, you know, she would be a great mom, carry on my gene line even more than my wife has.

And so I would simply kill her husband, I would grab her, and on the way taking her home, some other guy gets the idea and he kills me and he takes her. And you say, well, Foreman, you've lost your mind.

No, that is evolution playing out. Well, why don't we do that today? Well, we would all agree we don't do that today because we have these moral inhibitions against doing that. Well, where did those moral inhibitions come?

And who's to say that I'm right by continuing to procreate and those moralists who say, oh, you can't do that, they're out to lunch because my morals are different than their morals. That is the lunacy of evolution if we take it to the n degree.

We would also have to say if we embrace evolution, that criminals are ultimately not responsible for what they've done because after all, they've got stuck with the genes that came from their mom and from their dad.

So, do you see the downside of what we can do with evolution if we take it to its natural conclusion? So, next slide. A little hang up with the remote here. If we again look at the materialistic or evolutionary viewpoint, materialistically, it is an act of irrational faith.

It denies reason and it denies revelation. I mean, again, if we look at the phenomenal world around us, if we look at the human body, which we'll be spending a lot of time on, to deny that that is a design, that it is engineered, that it is created, that is an act of irrational faith.

It is empty philosophy. It is vain deceit. It is designed to attack the creator and his glory. It denies the revelation of scripture. It denies God's authority over the universe. And it denies the dignity of man.

We've talked briefly about that before, especially God's authority over the universe. And we know, I've already given you some quotes, did that last week, where man, many of the leaders and the movers and the shakers within the evolutionary field, the reason they embrace evolution so much is because it is a quote-unquote scientific way to get rid of God's authority over them.

And again, for those that will, the next slide will bring about this, that many evolutionists deny any difference between other organisms and man. We're just further up the evolutionary scale, but we are nothing special.

So materialism, evolutionary acceptance, is religious harlotry, arguably the greatest abomination of the earth spawned by the father of lies. Or another way to say it, and I firmly believe it, it's probably the greatest lie concocted by Satan, because it gives scientific rationale and support to get rid of God.

On the other hand, Christianity is an act of revelational, rational faith. So let's look at the natural evolution of evolution. PETA said, the leader of PETA a few years ago, a rat is a pig is a boy. Now, that's a matter of record.

You can get on the internet and find that all over the place. If we accept that, what are we going to do with it? If we're going to act upon that rationally, then there is no difference between a rat or a pig or a boy, which means if we shoot a squirrel, there is no difference between doing that and shooting a human being.

That is the natural flow, if we take it to its end conclusion. Another mover and shaker within the evolutionary world says, I have no ethical right to use my superiority achieved purely by chance to violate the rights of other animals who, through no fault of their own, didn't evolve the same ability.

Well, there it goes. That's going to be pretty restrictive on our diet, and that includes ants and butterflies. Better be careful when you're driving your car down the road. Don't just think of all the bugs that you're going to take out on the windshield.

Next, and this comes from a note who was a Nobel Prize winner, wrote a book entitled Chance and Necessity. Man is alone in the universe's unfeeling immensity, out of which he has emerged by chance. Chance alone is the source of every innovation.

Think of that statement. Chance alone. Well, I would submit to you that there is no such thing as chance. At least it is a mathematical thing. At best, it's all controlled under the sovereignty of God.

So to say that chance alone is the source of every innovation, logically that just does not make sense. Chance alone is the source of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution.

This was a guy who intellectually, I don't know anybody personally that won a Nobel Prize. He's obviously very smart, but there is a lot of foolishness in what he said. Next, this comes from J .W. Burrow, who wrote the Introduction to the Origin of Species.

He says this, Nature, according to Darwin, was the product of blind chance and a blind struggle, and man, a lonely, intelligent mutation. Now, that's an encouraging word to your children. Scrambling with the brutes for his sustenance.

To some, the sense of loss was irrevocable. It was as if an umbilical cord had been cut and men found themselves part of a cold, passionless universe. Do you see how we can get where we are in society today with more and more people believing this, and this is the standard science taught in high schools and colleges and universities across our nation?

Continuing place, Darwinian nature held no clues for human conduct and no answers to human moral dilemmas. Again, I just could rest my case. This is in great part why we see what we see every day in the news.

This comes from Eric Fromm, the German psychoanalyst. This is what he says. The religion of social Darwinism, notice he calls it a religion, the religion of social Darwinism, belongs to the most dangerous elements.

Within the thoughts of the last century, it aids the propagation of ruthless, national, and racial egoism by establishing it as a moral norm. If Hitler believed in anything at all, then it was the laws of evolution which justified and sanctified his actions, especially his cruelties.

We talked about this last week when we look at Marxism, Hitler, Nazism, Fascism, the numbers, again, probably 150 million people that were killed as a result of those belief systems. Hitler himself, in Mein Kampf, wrote this, he would live must fight.

He who does not wish to fight in this world where permanent struggle is the law of life has not the right to exist. I do not see why man should not be just as cruel as nature. Nature likes bastards only a little.

All that is not of pure race in this world is trash. What was some of the justification for making that statement? It was the beliefs that were scientifically supported by Darwin. Marx said this, nothing ever gives me greater pleasure than to have my length on Darwin's.

His wonderful work makes my own absolutely impregnable. Now if you think what Hitler and Marx just said and they tie it back to the science of evolution giving them support, it kind of concerns me that this is the science that is endorsed, embraced, and elevated, and heaven help you if you as a science teacher decide to come up and begin to challenge it.

You will lose your job in a state run university system. Julian Huxley, Essays of a Humanist, wrote this, evolution is the most powerful, most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth. I believe he's right because when he did that thing, that little phrase, the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth, I would agree.

Now, ideas arising from heaven, no, but on earth, evolution is nastiness. Darwin, I am determined to escape from design and a personal god at all costs. Chance is the new soft pillow for science to lie down on.

As long as chance rules, God is anachronism. That was written by Arthur Kessler, who was an internationally known author. You can Google and find out just how world famous he is and how well he is accepted.

And then George Wald, Nobel laureate, writes this, one only has to wait. Time itself performs the miracles. Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable actually certain.

And you say that makes no sense. Well, dear friend, the guy that wrote this is a Nobel laureate. Who are you to challenge him? But you know what a lot of these folks do? They will make a statement that is absolutely astounding, and it appears like the more astounding these statements are, the more people will stand back and say, wow, that's profound.

And pretty soon it's accepted, because after all, who am I not to accept what this genius guy, this Nobel laureate, has written? And over a period of time, pretty soon it's embraced. It no longer ruffles our quiet feathers.

And that's exactly what has happened over the period of time. We have just been lulled to sleep, because after all, evolution really isn't that dangerous. William Provine, Cornell University, he is a professor in three different departments at that university.

This is what he says, the implications of modern science are clearly inconsistent with most religious traditions. No inherent moral or ethical laws exist, nor are there absolute guiding principles for human society.

The universe cares nothing for us, and we have no ultimate meaning in life. Do you think thoughts like that that are taught in our school system and just unchallenged can add to all sorts of psychological disorders and suicide and mental despair?

I mean, after all, here's a really smart guy, professor in three departments, saying this is what happens. So let's do a quick summary of evolution. It's been embraced by Marx, we know that. Principles of evolution were used by Hitler, by Lenin, and Stalin.

Ultimately, based again just in what we've read here and talked about this morning briefly, a person cannot be responsible for committing crime because there are no absolutes, and after all, they are just a chance thing, just a cog in the wheel.

And what they have done or haven't done, they can't take any personal responsibility. We can see that evolution will contribute to the vacillating morality that we see. And again, if we take all of this to the very end point, we arrive I think personally in what is referred to as nihilism, which was taught by Nietzsche.

And nihilism basically says this, the rejection of all religious and moral principles were no better than animals or plants. Life is meaningless. Well, if life is meaningless, then basically what I want to do is have a little fun by eating chocolate and ice cream until I die.

I sure don't want to work 8 or 10 hour week, 8 to 10 hour days and do this and watch my tongue and have to be kind to people that I don't like and all of those things. I sure don't want to waste my time giving money to the church or waste time on Sundays coming and encouraging one another and being fed and told that there is this God out there.

I don't want to do any of that because life is meaningless. But meaningless is emptiness. And as a result, so many people, if you follow it, we're in a mess. So psychologically, evolution precipitates a mess.

Socially, evolution destroys social order. It justifies riots, doesn't it, folks? And philosophically, it leads to despair. So, now that I have all of us depressed, I think it's time to move on to the next phase.

But go ahead, please, spend some time looking at some of these previous slides with the quotes. They are outstandingly dangerous, what these people have said. And so this innocent little thing of evolution, again, drawn to its end conclusion, becomes very, very dangerous.

The Proof of Creation and the Limits of Science

So the proof of creation. And again, this would be one of the texts, one of the sources that I'll put in the future notes so that you can go back and reference this. The proof of creation. Our definition of creation should not be influenced by what can or cannot be proved by natural reason, or what can or cannot be reconciled with modern science and philosophy.

So both of these quotes here come from John Frame, who has written a book called Systematic Theology. It is a profound book. He's done just a superb job of all the books on systematic theology that I've had the chance to read either all or portions of.

His rank's right up there at the top. And he does a phenomenal job with it. But again, look at what he says. Let me please reread that first paragraph. Our definition of creation should not be influenced by what can or cannot be proved by natural reason, or what can or cannot be reconciled with modern science and philosophy.

You see, folks, we've kind of gotten the carpet for the horse. What we do, so many of us, we look at our religion and say, how does that compare with science? Rather than saying, how does science compare with our faith?

And so our reference point has got to be the Bible. It can't be the science. This is what has gotten so many people into a dangerous situation because they don't understand the science, they don't really know their theology, and now science gets raised up as the ultimate standard, which we refer to as scientism, and they will compare passages of the scripture against science as compared to the other way.

And John Frame is saying we don't want to do that. Continuing, Dr. Frame says this, creation is an act of God alone, by which, for his own glory, he brings into existence everything in the universe, things that had no existence prior to his creation were.

He has done a phenomenal job in that one sentence to explain succinctly what creation is, and we'll pick it apart a little bit as we go. I like what Dr. Frame has done here, he divides creation, and follow me as I do this, he divides creation into two parts, original creation and subsequent creation.

And you say, wait a minute, there's just one. Well, yes, but for the sake of understanding it, this is his division, and I really like it. Original creation of the heaven and the earth in Genesis 1 -1.

This, and you've probably heard this frame, this aspect of creation, remember there's one creation, but kind of these two parts do it. This aspect is the ex nihilo, which literally means out of nothing.

So out of absolute nothing, God spoke. Well, how did God create? About all we know is he spoke it into existence. Well, how did he do it? That's above our pay grade. We get to heaven, he might share that with us.

It should not be our concern to figure out how he did it. That has gotten a lot of people in trouble, because what they say is, you know, I'm smart enough to figure this out. And then what they do is they veer over into science, and they tend to abandon what the Bible says.

In this huge thing, this marvelous thing called creation, all it basically says in the beginning, what? God created the heavens and earth. And as Christians, we should be able to say if that's all he told us about it, that's good enough for me.

Now as a science guy, I kind of like scratching my head. I'd like to see, you know, the flow chart of stuff. But I'm okay with accepting how he just, that's all he told us. Continuing on, please. So out of nothing.

That is to say that God created the world without any pre-existing material or medium. He merely spoke. Things appeared along with space and time for them to occupy. Any definition or conceptualization of nothing.

Let me say that again. Any definition or conceptualization of nothing. In other words, when we try to say okay, what does nothing look like? That we'll make it into something. So such definition strictly speaking is impossible.

And you say I don't get it. Well, spend a few minutes working it, working and you'll see. He's basically just saying, God told us what we needed to know. Take him at his word and accept it. It's kind of like where you literally have to prove the existence of God and what does it say?

We come to God by faith. We can't prove his existence using science. But anyone that is a Christian says God makes sense. God makes sense. Subsequent creation. So that's the original creation. Everything or the heaven and earth out of nothing how he spoke it.

Subsequent creation is creation within an already existing world order. So if we go to Genesis 2 -7, it simply says this. Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground. So this is the subsequent creation.

All still part of the first six days. But what he did is the earth, that would be the dust of the ground. It was out of that original creation. Now the subsequent creation comes the plants and the animals and man, etc.

So Dr. Frame is not saying there was two separate creations, but there's kind of two aspects and that helps us get our head around it. And then we can look at Genesis 1 -3 and 6 and 9 and in each of those verses it will say this.

Let there be light. In verse 6 let there be an expanse. So now what God is doing in this subsequent creation, he is forming stuff out of the original creation. I hope I didn't confuse you. So this is where it begins, I think, to get interesting.

Genesis 1–2, the Authority of Scripture, and the Theology of Creation

And the buck stops now at our front door. So here's a question that I have. And I'm going to do this first statement and then I want to talk for a while and then I want to come back to this. If Genesis chapters 1 and 2 don't tell the truth, why should we believe the rest of the Bible?

I mean that's a serious question. And I would submit to each one of us, we need to wrestle with that question until it's resolved. Because if we don't resolve it, there is going to be some spiritual turmoil.

So let me just we're not going to worry about the slide right in front I just want to share a few comments. This came from a sermon that I gave on creation a number of years ago. And so please listen carefully to some of these thoughts.

I want to share a premise statement that may jolt some of you. Creation is primarily a theological issue. It is not a scientific one. Creation is primarily a theological issue. It's not a scientific one.

Why? Because theology is the only source from which we have any first-hand information about creation. If we want to understand how the universe came into existence, we have to look at God's Word. The Bible is not theory.

It's fact. The Bible is truth, no matter the subject, and it is uniquely accurate regarding origins, since no one was there when God created it. We have only His eyewitness account. But, you say, don't we need to apply science to the Genesis account to be intellectually honest?

I hear that all the time. Well, as a science guy, let me make a statement that at first blush seems unscientific. Science makes little, if any, contribution to an understanding of creation. There is no such thing as the science of creation.

Why? Well, think back to your basic days in science. Remember the good old scientific theory? Remember observation, hypothesis, and testing? All true science necessitates verification by observation and testing and repetition, and creation cannot be repeated.

Therefore, it can't be verified scientifically. There is no scientific way to explain creation because it was not a natural event or even a series of natural events. All science is based on observation and no one apart from God observed creation.

Creation did not happen by any uniform, predictable, repeatable, fixed, natural laws. In contrast, it was a series of supernatural, inexplicable miracles that clearly takes it out of the realm of science.

We can look at some of the miracles of the Bible, the feeding of the 5 ,000, feeding of the 4 ,000, the raising of Lazarus from the dead. All the Bible said is that this is what happened, it doesn't explain it.

Can we explain any of those scientifically? No, because they were done supernaturally. Science deals with the natural, with the observable and the repeatable. But, while we can't use science to prove creation, it is very useful in supporting the truth of creation.

And starting next week and going beyond that, I will talk about the cell, we'll talk about homeostasis, systems, organ systems within the body, and we will explore how intricate they are and how well they work together, so we can observe what we see scientifically, which gives great support, in my opinion, to creation.

So, Genesis 1 and 2 presents us with very straightforward account of the origin of the universe. It opens with an exceedingly clear, unmistakable statement in the beginning, God created the heavens and earth.

Though it doesn't explain how, that statement is not unclear, it is not ambiguous. It should cause no debate. In fact, historically it caused very little debate pre-Darwin. But it does precipitate a question to believers.

At what point do you begin to believe the Bible? If you don't accept Genesis 1 -1, you have to throw out chapters 1 and 2. Then the whole flood thing might bother you, so out go the first nine chapters.

In reality, what we do with Genesis chapters 1 and 2 reveals our attitude towards Scripture. Now, some have tried to splice together an acceptance of evolution while still believing in a literal atom, but believing that God created a literal atom in the middle of a long process of evolution really destroys every principle of interpretation.

You can't have a miraculous, instantaneous creation of man in the middle of an evolutionary process. The question that I have for those that don't accept a literal creation or atom is this. At what chapter do you kick in?

When do you finally get on board? Either you believe what the Bible says or you don't. There is no need for us to edit God. There is no need for us to embellish or to have to try to explain away clear verses.

So, hopefully that challenged and helped you. Let's go back to our slide here. So, if the first two chapters don't tell the truth, why believe the rest of the Bible? If the New Testament says that the Creator is our Redeemer, but if God is not the Creator, maybe He's not the Redeemer.

If it tells us in 2 Peter that God will bring an instantaneous dissolution of the entire universe as we know it, that has a tremendous bearing upon His power to create. Well, if He can do what He's going to do in 2 Peter, couldn't He do what He did in Genesis chapter 1?

We can't cherry pick this stuff. Without a right understanding of origins, there is no way to comprehend ourselves. Let that sink in. Without a right understanding of origins, there is no way to comprehend ourselves.

All that time that we spend on the materialistic evolutionary or the Christian worldview, they don't overlap. They don't mesh. You have to choose one or the other. You can't be eclectic and choose from both.

Genesis 1 -1 is very straightforward. The question, what don't you get about it? Herbert Spencer, phenomenal scientist in the late 1800s into the early 1900s, and he basically said, all reality can be contained in five categories.

Time, force, action, space, and matter. So what's Genesis 1? In the beginning, that's time. God, that's force. Created, action, the heavens, space, and the earth, that's matter. Pretty profound verse that we're way too comfortable with.

Christianity does not begin by accepting Jesus Christ as Savior. Christianity begins in Genesis 1 -1. God created the heavens and the earth for a purpose and destiny which he himself has determined. Understanding and believing the doctrine of creation in the book of Genesis is foundational in accepting the Bible to be taken seriously when it speaks to the real world.

We can't change the beginning without impacting the rest of the story and the ending. And let's go ahead and conclude with this one. Believing in creation, and I would say, that's not an option for Christians.

In other words, for a Christian to say, I really don't believe in creation, I have to believe in some combination with evolution, that's not an option for us. The Bible makes it too clear. So let's look at some of these verses here in Genesis, or in Psalm 19, verses 1 -4.

Psalm 19, 1 -4. That first verse is such an important one, that heavens declare the glory of God. Why are the heavens there? They're for us to look at, to be marveled in them and to give God the glory.

So, believing in creation is a necessary part of worship. Secondly, it's part of his lordship. Over in Psalm chapter 24, the first two verses, The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world of those who dwell therein.

For he has founded it upon the seas and established it upon the rivers. And then, and of all this, this is to me perhaps the most significant. The third major part of believing in creation, it is a necessary part of redemption.

So please catch this. Back in 2 Corinthians chapter 4, verse 6. 2 Corinthians chapter 4, verse 6. This is what Paul writes, For God who said, let light shine out of darkness. Where's that phrase from?

That's Genesis 1 -3, part of the creation. So if we're going to arbitrarily say, I can't accept that, I'm going to start believing the Bible about Genesis 6 or 10, you have to get rid of that phrase. Paul quotes that phrase, word for word.

Let me read it again. For God who said, let light shine out of darkness, has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus. So, what am I trying to say?

Paul, when he's talking about light coming into our dark, empty hearts, i .e. salvation, references the original creation. Light coming into nothingness. So, if we say, I can't accept the literal creation, what we're doing is we're saying, Paul, you're wrong.

You shouldn't have quoted from Genesis 1 -3. What Paul is saying is, as wonderful and marvelous as the light was when it came into the void and the emptiness, even greater is the light that comes into the void and emptiness of our hearts.

So the light of creation and the light of salvation, we can't separate those two. So let's conclude with this. Compare John's identification of Christ with the light in one form of his gospel. John 1 -4, following his statement that through Christ all things were made.

With both Paul and John, darkness represents sin. When God illumines us to receive truth, it is like creation ex nihilo, for before God's creative word, there was no light in us. We were in darkness. That is some deep, deep theological stuff to contemplate.

If we accept salvation, we have to accept a literal creation. Light into the world, light into our hearts. John recognized it, Paul recognized it. We have to recognize it for the glory of God. So let's pray.

Father, we thank you for the truth of your word. We thank you for creation. We thank you that as we look at the marvelous creation around us, we see your handiwork. Help us to be more faithful worshipers and to give you the glory and the praise that you alone deserve.

In your son's name, Amen.