Archive for June, 2017

I’m studying Ps. 33 this morning, and I want to share with you from just one word in this section an important insight about the vitality of praise and worship for the believer in Jesus Christ.  But first, please read Ps. 33:1-4:

Sing for joy in the Lord, O you righteous ones;
Praise is becoming to the upright.
Give thanks to the Lord with the lyre;
Sing praises to Him with a harp of ten strings.
Sing to Him a new song;
Play skillfully with a shout of joy.
For the word of the Lord is upright,
And all His work is done in faithfulness.

Throughout my walk with the Lord since about 1980, He has used praise and worship greatly in my growth in Him.  I greatly appreciate that He puts a song in my heart when I wake up in the morning, and I always benefit supremely from that song – and especially “new” songs.

Also throughout the years, a certain song or two ministers greatly to me during different seasons that I’m in.  I believe this is likely what David had in mind when he wrote in v.3, “Sing to Him a new song.”

This “new” song goes beyond merely singing a song which has just come out; it goes beyond chronology to a decisive moment or quality in time.

There is a “sound” from the new song that resonates in our hearts, and more importantly, the truth it brings from the Word of God (v.4) has transforming power for us.

Here is why the “new” song is so important for us: the Hebrew word translated “new” means “fresh; to rebuild; to renew; to repair.”

Those descriptions are things we all need, and so often, each day.  And therein lies the power and the vitality of praise and worship: God intends to use it for us in a way that brings us renewal, in a way that rebuilds our spirit.

He wants to use praise and worship to bring a freshness to our relationship with Him, and to repair the things in our lives that need repairing.

And now we can understand the purpose of David’s opening exhortation to “sing for joy in the LORD,” and for why he says that “praise is becoming (better, “fitting”) to the upright” (v.1b).

Friend, do you engage in praise and worship as part of a regular lifestyle, so that God can use this powerful tool to do in you what He desires to do in you – to refresh you, renew you, rebuild you and repair you?


Read Full Post »

Far too many evolutionists and atheists openly depart from intellectual and academic honesty, only to reveal their true motives in holding to their worldviews.  I will show — from their own words from this brief blog — that with such people, their worldview is not intellectual, but moral.

They simply do not want anyone to have authority over them; indeed, they love their sin more than they love God (John 3:19; 5:42; 7:7; cf. Rom. 1:18-23, 28-32).

Even a cursory study of evolutionist and atheistic writings bears this view out.  Instead of arguing their points on merits alone, they constantly resort to ad hominem attacks against Bible believing Christians.

In fact, many of these writers are quite open about why they hold to an evolutionary worldview.

For example, one woman, grossly ignorant of what Scripture really teaches, writes, “It is wonderful not to have to cower before a vengeful deity, who threatens us with eternal damnation if we do not abide by his rules.”[1]

Aldous Huxley argued,

I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning: consequently I assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption…For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation.  The liberation we desired was…liberation from a certain system of morality.  We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.[2]

In another profoundly ignorant comment of what Scripture actually teaches, Bertrand Russell wrote, “The worst feature of the Christian religion is its attitude toward sex.”  The title of his book says it all: Why I Am Not a Christian.[3]

A plethora of similar statements can be read in recent books from evolutionary atheists Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Peter Singer and Steven Pinker.

Bioethicist Peter Singer invokes Darwinism to make the claim that there is no essential difference between people and animals.  As such, animals should be given the same rights that people have.

He argues that since man is the product of evolution, and not the special creation by God, then the entire structure of Judeo-Christian morality is discredited.

As a consequence, abortion, euthanasia and infanticide all become permissible and in some cases, desirable.[4]

Another atheist and evolutionist, Steven Pinker, advocates openly that women should be able to kill their newborn children.

After a teenage girl gave birth to her baby in a bathroom during her high school prom — and promptly dumped the baby in the trash — Pinker wrote an article in the New York Times in support of her actions.

He wrote that evolution has enabled us to have “a capacity for neonaticide [that] is built into the biological design of our parental emotions.”[5]

Moreover, he added that many cultural practices are “designed to distance people’s emotions from a newborn” so that the child can be killed without too many qualms.

In his book The Blank Slate, Pinker complains that the problem with humanity is not enough morality, but too much of it.[6]

This is the fruit and disgusting, logical outcome of evolutionary philosophy.

Such Neanderthal views (pun intended) are merely right out of the playbook of one of the most wicked philosophers of modern times — Friedrich Nietzsche – who fancied himself an “immoralist.”

Nietzsche is famous for his writing on “the death of God” — not so much that He actually “died” – but that man justly killed Him in order to win for himself the freedom to make his own morality.

And what would that look like? Nietzsche answers that question with his famous “will to power” statement: the strong (read evolution) get to rule over the weak, no matter what the cost.

By removing God from life, there is no more morality from above — only that which those in power legislate. Thus, all appeals to dignity, compassion and equality no longer apply.

The entire purpose of this is to remove human guilt, enabling us to live beyone “good and evil,” which requires a remaking of morality, what he calls “transvaluation.”[7]

This playing and twisting of words is quite popular in postmodern writing and philosophy: no moral absolutes.

[1] Karen Armstrong, A History of God: The 4,000-Year Old Quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (New York: Ballantine Books, 1993), 378.

[2] Aldous Huxley, Confessions of a Professed Atheist, Report, June 1996.

[3] Bertrand Russel, Why I Am Not a Christian (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1957), 26.

[4] Peter Singer, A Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution, and Cooperation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000).

[5] Steven Pinker, “Why They Kill Their Newborns,” New York Times, November 2, 1997.

[6] Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (New York: Viking, 2002), 269.

[7] Quoted from Dinesh D’Souza in What’s So Great About Christianity (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2007), 268.  These themes D’Souza writes about are advanced in Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power (New York: Vintage, 1968); see especially 129, 136.

Read Full Post »