They determined the times of the Little Ice Age by conducting radiocarbon dating on recovered material from melting ice caps on Baffin Island, located in the Canadian arctic.  Gifford Miller, lead researcher and climatologist from the University of Colorado at Boulder reported that their data shows that the plants at both lower and higher elevations appeared to have frozen at the same time, indicating the cold onset was rapid.

Gifford and his team also sampled glacial lakes in Iceland where they collected sediment cores.  Studying the sediment cores, they looked for erosion patterns and were able to identify the same time periods for the Little Ice Age as they found in the radiocarbon studies from Baffin Island.

After confirming the dates for the cold spell, they looked for what may have caused the sudden and prolonged cooling.  They discovered that the cold spell coincided with volcanic eruptions, the first one occurring in 1275.  Over the next 500 years they identified four major periods of volcanic eruptions which served to keep the colder climate in tact until eruptions decreased in the nineteenth century.

It has long been known that volcanic eruptions can lower global temperatures, such as the 1991 eruption of Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines that caused a drop of 1 degree Fahrenheit.  However, eruptions such as Mt Pinatubo are, by themselves, incapable of long sustained periods of cooling, but long periods of volcanic eruptions can account for longer sustained periods of colder temperatures.

Further studies indicate that sea ice in the northern latitudes extended further south during the 500 year Little Ice Age.  One of the instances they cited occurred when the New York harbor froze over in 1780.  It was the first time in recorded history that New Yorkers were able to walk from Manhattan to Staten Island.

This study lends credence to the major biblical explanation for the Ice Age, which we believe was the result of the extensive volcanism that occurred during and after the Genesis Flood.  There would have been a huge release of aerosol particles in the atmosphere that would have lowered temperatures on a global scale.  The oceans would have been quite warm as a result of the tectonic and volcanic activity during the Flood.  The warmer oceans would have resulted in increased evaporation of ocean waters which would have resulted in increased precipitation over the continents.  The colder temperatures would result in the increased precipitation falling in the form of heavy snow and possibly ice.  The massive snowfalls resulted in the glaciers and ice sheets that covered vast areas in the northern hemisphere.  Eventually the oceans cooled, the atmospheric aerosols precipitated out of the sky allowing the land surfaces to warm back causing the ice sheets to recede to the north.

When you examine the study conducted by Gifford and his team and then extrapolate those conditions multiple times to account for the magnitude of the catastrophic events that took place at the time of the Flood, it goes a long way to verify the creationist explanation for the Ice Age.

Another facet about Gifford’s study might help explain the supposed global warming that some say started with the industrial revolution of the late 1800’s.  The end of the Little Ice Age just happens to coincide with the beginning of the onset of factories and mechanization.  Could it be that the warming of global temperatures are just as much the result of the decreased volcanic activity as it is to industrial pollution?

Once again, good science helps to confirm biblical explanations for the world around us.

Reference

Was Little Ice Age Caused By Increased Volcanism In The Middle Ages?, Red Orbit, May 10, 2012.

Noah

The story of Noah and the great Flood has been told many times, but never has it been illustrated like this. British author and illustrator, Richard Oakes, brings Noah and family to life with his intriguing depictions and beautiful landscapes. While the illustrations might be fun, the story is real and striking. After all, Noah and his family and the animals aboard the Ark were the only ones who survived. Your children will enjoy this story and also realize that God is Creator, judge and redeemer. (Preschool–Primary/Elementary) 28 pages.

Today, Mohler continues to lead this seminary, one of the most important American evangelical institutions of higher education, where he also holds a professorship in theology. Mohler is a scholar, but he is not the stereotypical academic living quietly in scholastic cloisters. He has become widely known as a perceptive observer and commentator on culture and as one of the most articulate Christian spokesmen in America today. Dr Mohler recently talked with Lael Weinberger about reclaiming the importance of Genesis in the church.

Lael Weinberger: Why is it worthwhile for us to spend time on a contentious issue like the interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis?

Dr Albert Mohler: The church’s central message is the cross and resurrection of Christ. It is the message we call the gospel, the good news of salvation to sinful humanity through the atoning work of Jesus Christ. But that message comes to us in the midst of a larger truth, without which there is no context for either affirming or understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ. And that is the entire story of God’s dealing with humanity that includes the Genesis account of how God brought the world into being. Scripture never separates the knowledge of God the Redeemer from God the Creator; almost every Christian heresy can be traced in some form to an attempt to separate God the Creator from God the Redeemer.¹ Christianity stands against that. The gospel of Jesus Christ makes no sense unless you put it in the context of the total story of God’s creative and redemptive work, from Genesis to Revelation.

LW: If evangelicals today are avoiding Genesis and deemphasizing its value, what does that say about their overall view of Scripture, God, and man?….

The scientific evidence indicates, without exception, according to the work of Spallanzani, Redi, and Pasteur, that in nature, life comes only from life (see Miller, 2012b). That evidence poses a dilemma for the naturalistic scientist. The naturalist must be able to propose a theory for the natural origin of life from non-life (i.e., abiogenesis) in order to be consistent with naturalism, and yet science indicates that life cannot arise from non-life. So, the naturalist cannot be a naturalist and still be a legitimate scientist! There is no scientific evidence which supports abiogenesis. However, the intelligent design model contends that since life comes only from life in nature, in order to be in keeping with science, there must be a supernatural explanation for the origin of life. The supernaturalist can easily be a scientist without contradicting himself.

Similarly, science reveals that nothing can last forever, since everything is deteriorating and all energy is transforming into less usable forms according to the 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics. Science reveals that nothing could spontaneously pop into or out of existence according to the 1^st Law of Thermodynamics (see Miller, 2007). Those truths come from the scientific investigation of nature, and yet naturalistic models must contend that the matter and energy of the Universe either always existed or initially popped into existence (before the alleged “Big Bang”). Once again, this proposal is against the scientific evidence….

The smart thing:  Intelligence is an immaterial property that, to an evolutionist, must be an epiphenomenon or illusion arising from particles in motion.  New Scientist asked whether intelligence – “what distinguishes humans from the myriad other species with which we share our planet” – can be explained in evolutionary terms.  The article is more a question than an answer about intelligence:

It is a key factor in everything from our anatomy to our technology. To ask why we are intelligent is to ask why we are human; it admits no discrete answer. But let’s ask it here anyway. Why are we, alone in nature, so smart?

One answer is that maybe we aren’t as smart as we think we are.  “Maybe our anthropocentric conceit prevents us from fully appreciating the intelligence of other animals, be they ants, cephalopods or cetaceans.”  This approach however, invokes one immaterial concept, conceit, to dodge another, intelligence.  It seems the article is marching in place so far.  Time for another tentative step:

So let’s rephrase the question. There is a cluster of abilities that seems unique to humans: language, tool use, culture and empathy. Other animals may have rudimentary forms of these abilities, but they do not approach humans’ sophistication and flexibility. Why not?

Again, though, language, tool use, culture and empathy are immaterial, so this approach suffers the same shortcomings.  Appeals to variations of intelligence within species doesn’t solve the problem….

If appearances change slowly and gradually like Darwin taught, then it seems unlikely that the human “races” originated at Babel as recently as the Bible indicates. And if traits are conferred to creatures by their environments performing natural selection, then why would a single environment select multiple traits in the same creature? A fascinating study recently discovered the genetic basis behind blond Solomon Islanders, and the results shed light on these issues.

The research, led by Stanford University’s Department of Genetics, zeroed in on the precise genetic differences between dark-haired and blond-haired Melanesians. They discovered that their blond hair is primarily caused by a single DNA base change that results in a single amino acid difference in an enzyme that helps build melanin—the darkly colored pigment molecule—in hair follicles.

Researchers described how the mutation likely destabilizes the enzyme, making it less efficient at its part in building melanin. The study further states that European blonds do not share that same mutation. Their blondness is conferred by an entirely different mutation.

How long does it take for dark-skinned individuals to develop blond hair? One dark-skinned British couple discovered as they marveled at their blond-haired baby that it can happen in one generation.¹

In addition, it looks like natural selection had little or nothing to do with generating or retaining the blond hair trait in Solomon Islanders. The Science study authors wrote, “Furthermore, we found no evidence for recent gene flow from Europe nor a strong signature of recent positive selection.”²….

May 17

If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.    Colossians 3:1

Unbelievers seek their happiness in things of the world.  Believers find their happiness in God.  It is contrary to the nature of faith for a believer to seek peace in his earthly enjoyments.  Our present pilgrimage is a prison, yet alas, we too commonly do this.  By this we kill our comforts and then complain they are missing.  It is folly to expect any stable peace or solid joy that does not come from Christ as the fountain.  O that Christians would learn to live with one eye on Christ crucified and the other on his coming in glory!  If everlasting joys were more in your thoughts, spiritual joys would abound more in your hearts.  No wonder you are comfortless when heaven is forgotten.  When Christians let fall their heavenly expectations but heighten their earthly desires, they are preparing themselves for fear and trouble.  Who has met with a distressed, complaining soul, where either a low expectation of heavenly blessings, or too high a hope for joy on earth is not present?  What keeps us under trouble is either we do not expect what God has promised, or we expect what he did not promise.  We are grieved at crosses, losses, wrongs of our enemies, unkind dealings of our friends, sickness, or for contempt and scorn in the world.  But who encouraged you to expect any better?  Was it prosperity, riches, credit, and friends that God called for you to believe?  Do you have any promises for these things in his Word?  If you make a promise to yourself, and then your own promise deceives you, whom should you blame for that?  We have less comfort in earthly things because we have too high an expectation from them.  Alas, when will we learn from Scripture and providence to seek far more from God, and far less from the earth?

Worldly Saints: The Puritans as They Really Were

Dr. Ryken’s presentation of the Puritan view and style of life is perceptive and accurate. He allows the Puritans to speak for themselves on topics ranging from “Church and Worship” to “Money” and “Marriage and Sex.” Worldly Saints offers a fine introduction to seventeenth-century Puritanism in its English and American contexts. The work is rich in quotations from Puritan worthies and is ideally suited to general readers who have not delved widely into Puritan literature.

Endorsements:

“Ryken’s Worldly Saints offers a fine introduction to seventeenth-century Puritanism in its English and American contexts. The work is rich in quotations from Puritan worthies and is ideally suited to general readers who have not delved widely into Puritan literature. It will also be a source of information and inspiration to those who seek a clearer understanding of the Puritan roots of American Christianity.” —Harry Stout (Yale University)

“…the typical Puritans were not wild men, fierce and freaky, religious fanatics and social extremists, but sober, conscientious, and cultured citizens, persons of principle, determined and disciplined, excelling in the domestic virtues, and with no obvious shortcomings save a tendency to run to words when saying anything important, whether to God or to man. At last the record has been put straight.” —J.I. Packer (Regent College)

“Worldly Saints provides a revealing treasury of primary and secondary evidence for understanding the Puritans, who they are, what they believed, and how they acted. This is a book of value and interest for scholars and students, clergy and laity alike.” —Roland Mushat Frye (University of Pennsylvania)

Read Through the Bible in a Year

We would like to encourage everyone with families to sit down and read the Bible together every day.  Daily Readings will provide you with a daily guide to allow you and your family to read through the entire Bible in a year.

May 17

• 1 Chron 1-3
• John 5:25-47

Reformation Study Bible (Hardback)

During the Reformation, a renewed interest in Scripture brought great light to the church and the world. In The Reformation Study Bible, general editor R.C. Sproul aims to present the light of the Reformation anew by combining an accessible translation with study notes that stand firmly in the theological tradition of the Reformation.

No other study Bible gives the reader more assistance in understanding the great doctrines and themes of the Christian faith as found in the Scriptures. Extensive notes have been researched and written by a team of more than fifty scholars, including J.I. Packer, James Boice, and Wayne Grudem.

All Christians that want to dig deeper in their study of Scripture will appreciate the Bible’s many features, including section introductions, book introductions and outlines, comments on the biblical text, theological notes, charts, in-text maps, and cross references.

The first study Bible based on the English Standard Version, The Reformation Study Bible is the perfect choice for men and women that want to study God’s word in a language they can understand.

The Reformation Study Bible: NKJV met the need for a study bible that stands firmly in the theological tradition of the Reformation. The Reformation Study Bible: ESV meets the same need, and will be especially welcomed by those who prefer the English Standard Version.

The Reformation Study Bible contains a modern restatement of Reformation truth in its comments and theological notes, writes general editor R. C. Sproul. Its purpose is to present the light of the Reformation afresh.

No other study Bible gives the reader more assistance in understanding the great doctrines and themes of the Christian faith as found in the Scriptures. Extensive notes have been researched and written by a team of more than fifty scholars, including J. I. Packer, Ed Clowney, Moisés Silva, and Roger Nicole. Among the books features are section introductions, book introductions and outlines, comments on the biblical text, theological notes, charts, in-text maps, and cross-references. This is the first study bible based on the English Standard Version, a contemporary revision (2001) that stands in the same tradition as the revered King James and American Standard versions.

“Separation of church and state!” Not a day goes by in modern America where this now famous (or infamous, depending on how you look at it) phrase by Thomas Jefferson is not used by some anti-Christian group to rid the government of the “evils” of religion.

Whether it’s a Ten Commandment’s display, a Cross at a public cemetery, or the creation/evolution education controversy, you can bet the house (and the farm and the chickens) that these five words will find their way into the discussion.

Common Wisdom Does Us In Again

Modern re-framers of the words and intentions of the Founding Fathers have convinced nearly all Americans that the Constitution forbids any religious influence (in reality, any Christian influence) on Federal, State, or local government, and any mention, display, or acknowledgement of Christianity in any public, government-connected fashion.

Let me borrow Daniel Dreisbach’s words regarding the twisted way in which Jefferson’s phrase is being used today. He writes,

“The wall is the cherished emblem of a strict separationist dogma intolerant of religious influences in the public square. Federal and State courts have used the ‘wall of separation’ concept to justify censoring private religious expression…in public form; stripping public spaces of religious symbols…; denying public benefits…for religious entities; and excluding religious citizens and organizations…from full participation in civic life….” [i]

I used to be one who believed the Constitution demanded that government and religion be totally separate. Like everybody else, I simply accepted what the media and public educational system told me. But, as it turns out, what we are commonly told is not true at all.

The Original Context of These Words

You may be surprised to know (as I was) that the words “separation between church and state” do not appear in the Constitution. The words themselves were written by Thomas Jefferson on January 1, 1802 in a letter to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut.

In order to give you the full context, let me quote the letter in its entirety.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Th. Jefferson

What did Jefferson mean?

So what’s going on here? How can we understand what Jefferson actually meant when he used these words? The key lies in the context.

Jefferson’s reply to the Danbury Baptist Association came less than a year after a bitter election fight with the Federalist Party.[ii] During this campaign, he received tremendous criticism for not enacting national days of religious homage like the presidents before him did.[iii]

The Baptists’ letter itself was actually a plea for help. They were concerned that their religious liberty would be slighted by the Congregationalists, who were the “legally established” church in both Massachusetts and Connecticut.[iv]

The Baptists’ wrote: “What religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights….”[v] In other words, they were asking Jefferson to help them more firmly establish their religious rights in Connecticut.

His letter in reply, including his now famous words, must be understood in that context.

What Jefferson was saying was not that the First Amendment somehow totally separated religion from government (which is what we are told today), but that, because the First Amendment prevented the Federal government from interfering between the states and churches in matters of religion, he had no power to help them.

Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel wrote, “Jefferson undoubtedly meant that the First Amendment prohibited the federal Congress from enacting any law respecting an establishment of religion…. If Congress had no authority in matters of religion, then neither did the President. Religion was clearly within the jurisdiction of the church and states.”[vi]

To further demonstrate his meaning, consider the first draft of his response to the Baptists. Jefferson’s letter actually went through two revisions. In the first revision, this statement appears, “Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive [i.e., the President] authorized only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even occasional performances of devotion…”[vii] [emphasis mine]

Here Jefferson flatly states his point: because of the First Amendment he had refused, as a member of the federal government, to establish days of prayer, fasting, and religious observance.

These words were taken out and did not appear in the final draft, but they prove that he refused to help the Baptists not because religion had no place in the public square, but because he, as president and part of the federal government, did not have the authority to act, only the states did.

His statement reflected his conviction regarding the limitations of the power of the Federal government, not his desire to root out all religion from state affairs.

Did Jefferson keep religion out of state life?

If Jefferson thought religion should be kept completely out of public life, his other decisions while governing, whether at the state or federal level, should have demonstrated this conviction. The fact is, they don’t.

Jefferson “endorsed the use of federal funds to build churches and to support Christian missionaries working among the Indians.”[viii] Furthermore, as a member of the Virginia state legislature, he helped draft and enact a “Day of Fasting, Humiliation, and Prayer.”[ix] He also wrote “A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom,” and, while governor of Virginia, authorized a day of thanksgiving and prayer to “Almighty God.”[x]

And consider this: he ended his letter to the Baptists—the very letter in which he discussed the separation between church and state—with a prayer to God! “I reciprocate your kind prayers,” he wrote, “for the protection and blessing of the common father and creator of man.”

How could he possibly mean that government should be totally void of religion if he, as president, ended his letter with a prayer?

The Christian Religion Influenced the Entire Government

This theme, that religion—specifically the Christian religion—permeated life, politics, and government in the early days of the American Republic, is seen in other official documents.[xi]

The Northwest Ordinance, for example, enacted by the Congress of the Confederation in 1787[xii], contained these words: “Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind…”

Don’t let that statement go by without giving it its proper weight. The precursor to the Federal government wrote into law the absolute need for religion and morality for a successful government and nation!

Furthermore the Declaration of Independence argues that all men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” and refers to “God” in the very first sentence!

How could the Founders have intended religion to have no part in government and at the same time build religion into that government through the founding documents?

The answer: They didn’t intend for the government to be separate from the Christian religion.

Separation of Government from Christianity—No Way!

Given the actual context and meaning of Jefferson’s words, his own actions as a legislator, governor, and president, and the clear influence of the Christian religion on many of the foundational documents of the nation, it is inconceivable that Jefferson, or any of the founders, for that matter, imagined any law that would attempt to separate, not only “god” in a general sense from the government, but the God of the Bible in particular.

To the contrary, they saw the principles of the Christian religion as foundational to good government and a happy, prosperous people.

Next Article

In my next article on this subject, I want to address the ramifications of all of this. Why is it important, and what should we do about it? Will the liberals change their tune if they are convinced of the truth about Jefferson’s words? Is a truly “secular” government even possible? What is the real solution to America’s fading morality and power?

If you’re interested in learning more about this subject, here are a couple of sites/books I recommend:

The Heritage Foundation
Liberty Counsel
The American Patriot’s Bible
The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History

I read with interest your response to the Euthyphro dilemma. I was a Christian for 30 years, and am now a Pantheist. If I could attribute any one cause of my “slide” into Pantheism, I would say that it would be this dilemma. Of course, you must realize that the answer you give to the dilemma is Aquinas’ classic answer. But I’m not sure you realize the full implications of it. If goodness is attributed to God’s “nature,” then goodness can no longer be an act of God’s will. It is as though God is divided into two parts, a “willing” part that makes decisions and acts, and a “nature” which He cannot control. In a sense you are still on one horn of the dilemma. God’s personhood which wills and acts is now subject to, and therefore “lower” than God’s nature, which is immutable. Aquinas got around this by saying God’s nature is the exact same thing as God. But if God is a natural thing, why not say that God IS the universe? This is the position I eventually came around to. I believe goodness is woven into the fabric of the universe (much as you believe that goodness is woven into God’s nature) in the same way mathematics is.

CMI’s Dr Jonathan Sarfati responds:

Dear Mr K.

Thank you for writing. I presume you are referring to What is ‘good’? (Answering the Euthyphro Dilemma) I honestly can’t see how pantheism solves any problem, since this basically denies a distinction between good and evil.

A nature of a thing is the set of propositions that describe that thing, or the set of its attributes. I fail to see why it’s a problem that God’s actions are the result of His attributes such as perfect goodness, and that His commandments flow out of this.

It seems that you have equivocated on the meaning of “nature”, to go from what God’s “nature” means, correctly defined as above, to God is a “natural” thing, which means nothing supernatural….

The motives for the destruction of babies in the past may not all seem the same when compared to present day practice, and the processes from an open, public murder at a religious altar verses the sanitized and hidden slaughter in an abortion clinic may seem worlds apart, but they are not.  Ancient ritual sacrifice of babies to a demonic idol at pagan temples has been replaced by intentional “medical” murder of children at the altar of self at secular, state-sanctioned “clinics” and “medical” facilities.  Legalized abortion-on-demand is the result of rampant secularism and atheism whose propaganda has beguiled modern culture into a deadening personal autonomy that makes monsters out of every day citizens.

The Winter 2012 issue of Bible and Spade presents a number of powerful articles that address the issue of child-sacrifice in the ancient day, focusing primarily on the tophet at Carthage.  Henry Smith and our friends at Artifax magazine untangle attempts by certain scholars to reinterpret the tophet at Carthage as simply a burial ground for cremated babies and children, and not as a place of ritual sacrifice.  Mr. Smith adeptly reasons that the arguments against a tophet at Carthage will then be used to deny the biblical accounts relating such pagan sacrificial practices in the land of Canaan and Israel as outlined in OT Scripture.  John Currid and Andrew White, in separate articles help us see clearly the connection between the sacrifice of children at Carthage and Israel and our own practices today. John Roskoski provides a fascinating analysis of the account of Jephthah’s vow as related in Judges 11, challenging us to not embrace the distorted beliefs of the culture we live in, as Jephthah had apparently done, with staggering personal consequences.  The Didache and the Oxyrynchus Papyri texts bring light to our readers on the response by the early church to address the culture of death in their day.  Lastly, Paul Humber provides a helpful reminder of how evolution and its philosophical underpinnings are the ground from which the culture of death and the practice of abortion grow….