God Is On Facebook

I know, He doesn't have a profile with "Work and Education", "Philosophy", "Arts and Entertainment" interests, etc. He doesn't have a friends list or photo albums; but He definitely IS on Facebook.

When Christian friends share their hopes, concerns, blessings, problems, questions, and opinions on Facebook -- whenever the Bible is quoted or referenced, then God's viewpoint is heard. Sometimes it is a doctrinal issue that is discussed, and obviously God's Word must predominate. But it can be ANY kind of situation that comes our way along life's journey, and there is always something in God's Word to provide guidance and a foundation for understanding and dealing with the situation.

God's Word itself claims that it is relevant for all kinds of things:

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)

"...the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:15-17)

"For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." (Romans 15:4)

"Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. And take ... the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." (Ephesians 6:13, 17)

"I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation." (Psalm 119:99)

I have found that when there are discussions (yes, even arguments) on Facebook, it is often just one opinion vs. another opinion. And when I feel the urge to offer my opinion, I think, "Why should they listen to me? I'm just another opinion. I'm not an authority." Then my mind turns to The Authority, The Creator, The Lord of Lords and King of Kings (MY Lord, my Creator, and my Authority), the One that challenged Job with questions like these --

"Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements?" (Job 38:4-5)
"Who has put wisdom in the mind? Or who has given understanding to the heart?" (Job 38:36)
"Does the hawk fly by your wisdom, and spread its wings toward the south? Does the eagle mount up at your command, and make its nest on high?" (Job 39:26-27)

-- and many others in chapters 38 and 39 of Job.

And so I quote the Bible, and let God interject His opinion into the conversation. And I encourage others to do the same, and many do, without my encouragement.

And so, God is on Facebook.

When I Disappear

(updated by recent events)

If you find that I, and many other Bible-believing Christians, have disappeared from the earth, leaving behind all our earthly possessions, even the clothes we wear, you will wonder what has happened. What has happened is the Rapture (snatching away) of believers that the Bible has predicted. Believers that have died will be resurrected and joined by those alive, all receiving in an instant new bodies like the resurrection body of Jesus, meeting Jesus in the air and going to heaven with Him. 

1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 -- “For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep [dead]. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.” 

1 Corinthians 15:51-53 -- “Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed -- 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.” 

We believe this will happen shortly before God pours out His wrath to judge the earth, because the Bible says: 

1 Thessalonians 5:9-10 -- “For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 who died for us, that whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with Him.“ 

Those resurrected and raptured will include all those that trust that the death of Jesus Christ on the cross is entirely sufficient to pay for all their sins, not relying on anything that they do; not those that call themselves 'Christian', but follow the traditions of men rather than the Word of God, the Bible. Some time later (perhaps a few weeks), a leader in Europe will come to prominence and "confirm a covenant" with Israel for seven years, bringing peace to the world.

Notice that the Bible says "confirm" (or strengthen), not "make" a covenant.  Recently, President Trump brokered peace agreements between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and between Israel and Bahrain that many believe will soon lead to a more complete agreement.  So now (or soon) we have a covenant that can be confirmed or strengthened. 

This leader will be welcomed as the Messiah by many so-called 'Christian' leaders, and as the Mahdi by Muslim leaders, but the Bible says he is the Antichrist (false Messiah) and also calls him “the beast”, and the Bible calls the leader of the 'Christian' world that endorses him the “false prophet”. The real Messiah (Jesus Christ) will not come to the earth until after the seven years. In the middle of the seven years, the Antichrist will break his covenant with Israel, and world calamities will increase greatly as never before, as God judges the earth. The Antichrist will do miraculous things, but he is controlled by Satan, not God. It will be far better to trust the real Jesus and die (but have eternal life after resurrection) than to worship the image of the Antichrist or to accept the mark that the Antichrist will require: 

Revelation 13:15-17 -- “He was granted power to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak and cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed. 16 He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, 17 and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”  

In recent years, the technologies for such a "mark" have been developed, but are not yet combined into the "mark".  One is the technology of digital currency, which is absolutely resistant to counterfeiting, but is not yet required to replace traditional currency.  The other is the technology of ID tagging (embedded chips), which absolutely prevents identity theft.  The embedded chips need a source of energy to recharge their tiny batteries.  The chip inventor decided that the energy would come from changes in body temperature.  The inventor's research showed that the best places for this are the right hand and the forehead.

Revelation 14:9b-11 -- “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." 

Revelation 20:4b -- “Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.” 

As Jesus said in Matthew 10:28 -- “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” 

Call on the name of Jesus (the name means savior) for salvation: 

Romans 10:13 -- “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” 

Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that [grace] not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.” 

If you read this before the Rapture, trust Jesus now to save you. If you have questions, see http://www.GotQuestions.org .

Science and the Bible

A Christian friend asked me, "What are the boundaries between all science theories and the Bible? As a Christian, to me, the Bible is the truth. So what position and conclusion do we give to these theories?"

That's an interesting question, and I'll try to answer it here.

A Christian scientist (not the cult that calls themslves that) realizes that he is examining God's creation. The facts never contradict the Bible, but give glory to God. It is the theories that are sometimes the problem. When the theories are based on non-biblical principles, the Christian should doubt them. So we must know what is the basis for the theories and put biblical principles first.

In my blog, Thinking Outside the Box, I said "Evolutionists don't want to think outside the box of materialism." They like the definition of science as "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world", because materialists believe that everything is material, and that science explains everything.

But there is a broader definition of science: "a study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws". Science actually includes immaterial things like information, and abstract mathematical concepts.

And Christians know that there is a spiritual realm that is part of God's creation, but beyond the reach of science. And of course, God is also beyond the reach of science, because He exists outside of His creation. Yet He can reach inside His creation to communicate with His creatures and to intervene in our affairs. The epitome of that was when He made himself a human body in the womb of a virgin, and putting aside His power and glory for a while, indwelt that body as Jesus.

So Christians see science as an incomplete study of God's creation -- we can study some parts in enough detail that we can partly understand and thus enjoy and use.

We realize that science doesn't explain everything. We don't even claim that it potentially could explain everything, given enough time for study. We realize that there are things outside the scope of science, even important things that our Creator has revealed to us.

The Bereans were commended for comparing the apostle Paul's preaching to the Scriptures, to check whether they should believe what he said (Acts 17:10-11). And Christians today should also check Bible teachers against the Bible. Likewise, Christians should check scientific ideas against God's Word, knowing that science is incomplete and developed by fallible men, but the Bible was inspired by God. In fact, scientific theories should also be checked against scientific facts, because some theories are inspired by political or philosophical agendas.

Thinking Outside the Box

Synopsis
First, I'll explain how, I think, the expression "thinking outside the box" originated.  Then I'll give two examples of how great strides in math / science / engineering were accomplished by "thinking outside the box".  But the most important point that I want to make is that evolutionists are stuck inside the box of materialism because they are afraid to think outside the box.  I discuss a vibrating string as an example of the limitations of materialism.  Outside the box of materialism (but not outside science) is information theory, and in particular, the structured information of design.  Here, the evolutionists are "out of their element".

The Puzzle
I think that the expression "thinking outside the box" was inspired by the following puzzle.  You are presented with an array of nine spots arranged as shown below on the left, and are challenged to draw a sequence of four connected straight lines such that they will pass over all of the spots, touching each spot only once.  The lines must be connected end-to-end, and are allowed to cross over each other, for example, as shown on the right.


It was reported that the puzzle is difficult for most people because they mentally think of the array of nine spots as defining a square area as depicted in the next diagram, and they assume that the puzzle operates within this area.


The puzzle does not require the lines to stay inside this assumed 'box'.  Adding this restriction prevents a solution, because the puzzle solution must go "outside the box", as shown next.


Science and mathematics have grown by "thinking outside the box".

Imaginary Numbers
For example, it was once thought that it was meaningless to speak of the square root of a negative number.  It could be proved, for example, that the square root of minus one, if it had a value, could not equal any known numeric value.  But if we IMAGINE that it had a value -- call this value 'i' (for Imaginary) -- then, logically, we could compute the square root of any other negative number.  The square root of -9 would equal the square root of 9 (that is, 3) times i.  So 3i would be an "imaginary" number, while 4 is a "real" number.

But then it was reasoned that we could think of these out-of-the-box numbers as newly discovered numbers rather than "imaginary" numbers.  We could even add "real" and "imaginary" numbers to create "complex" numbers.  It all made sense (it didn't lead to contradictions), and it opened up a new world of mathematical discovery.  At first, it appeared that this branch of mathematics was an abstract, theoretical-only world unrelated to the physical world; but scientists and engineers found that it could precisely describe the behaviour of resonant electronic circuits.  Our modern electronic devices could not be designed without the aid of this out-of-the-box mathematics.

Finite Numbers
I'll give one more example from mathematics and engineering, but I'll keep it extremely simple.  We are all familiar with doing arithmetic with integers (whole numbers), and we know that we have an infinite supply of integers, because no matter how large an integer we might be given, we can always add one to it and get a larger integer.  Wouldn't it be weird if we had a finite supply of numbers, and no matter what arithmetic operation (add, subtract, multiply, or divide) we did with any two of them, the result would be found in our finite supply of numbers?  Well, mathemeticians have discovered how to construct a finite set (of any size) of 'numbers' with associated arithmetic operations that operate like this.  (They are called finite fields, a kind of finite algebras.  Math geeks, see http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Ring.html)  The arithmetic is weird, but easy to learn to do in most cases.

Like the "imaginary" numbers, these weird systems of arithmetic seem like mathematical toys or games that bear no resemblance or relationship to the real world.  Why don't we stick to normal math that describes how the real world operates?  But engineers have used this weird math to construct codes used to detect and correct errors that occur in the communication or storage of digital data.  For example, CDs and DVDs would not function without Reed-Solomon error-correction codes, which are based on these "finite fields".

The Box of Materialism
Evolutionists don't want to think outside the box of materialism.  One of the definitions of science (from dictionary.com), is "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation", which limits the scope of science to the material world.

Of course, evolutionists have a problem with the "observation" part, because nobody has observed genetic changes from one kind of creature to a completely different kind (such as dog to horse, rather than dog to another kind of dog).  So they mostly content themselves with inferring (by theory) past events from current observations.

And of course, evolutionists also have a problem with the "experimentation" part, because a true experiment requires control over the conditions of the experiment.  Their experiments only show things such as that one can breed flies just like one can breed dogs, not major changes of kind.  Even by broadening the concept of experiment so that "predictions" can be made and tested regarding past events fails.  For example, evolution predicts that there should be millions of intermediate forms ("missing links"), but none are found.

But the evolutionist argues, and rightly so, that the creationist also has similar problems with the "observation" and "experimentation" parts of the definition of science, and thus feels that he is on a 'level playing field' with his game of 'my story is more plausible than your story'.  (He considers this story-telling to be "science", but if it weren't based on a theological / philosophical battle, it would be called "science fiction" instead.)

But the evolutionist thinks that the "physical or material world" part of the definition of science works to his advantage, because it rules out the supernatural, which is the essential part of the creationist's "theory".  And, after all, his main objective is to rule out God.  But is it honest to 'win' an argument by virtue of a definition?

Vibrating String Example
Consider, for example, the vibration of a guitar string.  If we know certain characteristics of the string, we can apply the laws of physics by means of a branch of mathematics called differential calculus to determine how the string will vibrate, and the nature of the sound that it will produce.  We need to know:

(1) the weight (such as ounces per foot) of the string
(2) the tension (such as pounds of force) of the string
(3) the length (between fixed points: a fret and the bridge) of the string

These, which can all be measured, suffice to compute the 'steady state' vibration of the string.  To determine the initial 'transient' component of the vibration that quickly fades before settling into the 'steady state', we would also need to know if the string were plucked or struck, and where on the string.  To know the intial amplitude and how quickly the vibration will fade, we would also need to know how hard the string was plucked or struck, and other details.

So by observing (measuring) a guitar string, we can use science to predict precisely what will happen when we pluck the string.  But what if we are not in control?

First, we have a 'future' problem.  We might observe the string vibrating and make a prediction, only to find that the guitarist (the one in control) stops the vibration, without our permission, before our prediction can be fulfilled.

Second, we have a 'past' problem.  If our observation of the string began after the 'transient' component of the vibration has faded, we will have insufficient data to determine when the vibration started, and we will be unable to determine if it were plucked or struck, or were given its inital energy some other way.

Note that our problem, essentially, is not that the guitarist is a material object too complex for us to analyze, but rather that the guitarist has a mind outside of the scope of our observation and control.  If the guitarist were a robot, our problem would be difficult, but not impossible.

So what do we learn from this vibrating string parable?

We realize that the size and age of the material world makes nearly all of it beyond the scope of our observation and control.  And science that is limited by definition to apply only to the material world is, by definition, limited in its application.  Defining this box does not prove that there is nothing outside the box.  If there is a Creator outside the box who is ultimately in control, and if you want to be the one in control, you may be inclined to hide inside your box, but you can't make God go away.

A Broader Definition of Science
Dictionary.com gives a broader definition of science, one that precedes the definition that we quoted earlier: "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences."  So more generally, science is not limited to material things, but anything that can be studied "systematically" such that it can be explained in terms of "the operation of general laws".  For greater clarity, "mathematical sciences" is mentioned, indicating that there should be sufficient precision that the language and methods of mathematics can be applied.

So what is immaterial that can be included in this broader definition of science?  Information is immaterial, and is studied systematically and operates in accordance with specific laws with sufficient precision so that the language and methods of mathematics are applied.  This area of science consists of information theory and related theories of formal languages, algorithms, etc., and the corresponding applied science consists of the technologies of information storage, communication, and processing.

In a previous blog, ALL Things, I made the case that the material world consists of four interrelated elements: matter, energy, space, and time.  Then in a later blog, Is Encoded Information an Essential Part of the Universe?, I made the case that encoded information is an optional fifth element, not required by the laws of physics, but nonetheless present where (and only where) life is present.  The reason why information is found only where life is found is that the design paradigm of life is chemistry guided by DNA information, as I explained in the blog, Life is more than chemistry.  Without the guiding information, chemistry can only make inorganic molecules.  DNA information is needed to make organic molecules, which are much larger and more complex.  (Some simple molecules such as certain amino acids are traditionally classified as 'organic' if they are used as components of large organic molecules, but that is like listing raw iron as a machine part, along with the nuts, bolts, and cotter pins.)

Information Outside the Box
Before the functions of DNA and RNA, and the genetic code were discovered, evolutionists could take advantage of the mystery of genetics to tell imaginative stories of how evolution might operate.  But these discoveries irreversibly brought information theory into the scientific arena of the creationism / evolutionism debate.  Just as someone caught in a lie feels forced to tell new lies or to modify the first lie to maintain credibilty, the evolutionists felt compelled to change their story; and just as a gang of liars are not likely to agree except on their innocence, the evolutionists don't agree except that God is not involved.

Some evolutionists insist that there is no information in DNA and RNA, as though closing their eyes will make the information bogeyman go away.  Some insist that information theory is not a valid science (because information is not material).  Some claim that information can come from nothing, or from randomness (which is zero information according to information theory), attempting to prove this by equating patterns and information.  And some claim that new information can be generated by random re-arrangements of scraps of information, as though it were possible that if you scrambled parts of the Koran long enough, you might end up with the Bible.  Even those that admit that information always originates from intelligence deny that God is a plausible source of that intelligence, but prefer an "extraterrestrial" source, replacing the question "How did life information originate on earth?" with the question "How did life information originate on planet X?"  (Do I need to explain the fallacy of that logic?)

So the evolutionists that dare to wander outside the box of materialism either flounder like someone diving into water without learning to swim first, or they retreat to the more comfortable zone of materialism.

But that is only the beginning of the problems for the materialists.  The information in DNA is not just information, but more specificly, DESIGN information.  And here the evolutionists are completely lost in an unfamiliar world.  Most of the contributors to the science of intelligent design have a background in the applied science of engineering, because this is familiar territory that they understand.

Structured Information (Top-Down Design) Outside the Box
The key to understanding the evolutionary problem is that design information is structured information.  Let me give a simple example to make this clear.  In a book, whether fiction or nonfiction, letters are arranged to make words, words arranged to make phrases, phrases arranged to make clauses, clauses arranged to make sentences, sentences arranged to make paragraphs, and paragraphs arranged to make make chapters.  Does any author start with letters and play with different sequences to make words, etc., finally making chapters?  No, the author starts with an array of related concepts, and starts at some high level of organization and works downward, finally working out the details of how best to arrange a sentence and how to spell the words.  Rarely does the author accomplish the final work in one pass, but each revision starts with a new concept at some level and works downward.

Does a designer start with an assortment of parts, like a box of legos, and wonder what he might do with them?  No, he starts with a concept, such as using suction to remove household dirt, and designs a vaccuum cleaner "top down", as designers like to say.  He may begin with a simple set of features, and add features such as exchangeable attachments, but additions and revisions are always "top down".  For example, when he decides that he needs a hose to connect attachments to the vaccuum pump, he first determines its desired properties (lightweight, flexible, does not collapse like a fire hose, etc.) and then works out the details, such as using a wire coil to keep the hose from collapsing.

Unlike the book example, a design typically mixes different technologies.  For example, the engineer needs to choose appropriate materials, and so depends on experts in metallurgy, plastics, etc.  Or he needs a motor, and orders one meeting his specications designed by a specialist.

Living things, even single-celled organisms, are likewise complex designs, systems made of subsystems that are made of sub-subsystems, etc.  And they mix mechanical, chemical, electrical, communication, etc. 'technologies' to acheive coordinated purposes.

So, the evolutionist, in re-telling his story to adapt to the undeniable presence of design, imagines that accidental genetic changes can modify designs to make new designs.  But experienced designers recognize this as "bottom-up" design: that is, a foolish, unworkable strategy.  Fiddling with the details never makes a truly new design; it only 'tunes up' or adjusts a design.

For example, the first television sets had about a dozen adjustment knobs in front, which was dangerous, because people that had no clue about the internal technology would fiddle with them with disasterous results.  It took a while for the engineers to design automatic adjustment mechanisms to replace all of those knobs except for the channel selector and the volume control.  But note that a billion adjustment knobs on the television will never suffice to make it function like a cell phone or a vaccuum cleaner.

Complex systems generally require many automatic adjustment mechanisms.  And that is exactly what scientists observe in biology.  Genetic adjustment (adaptation) is just one category of these mechanisms.  So species are designed to adapt to environmental changes, and we can influence the process by breeding (outside intelligence).  But breeding dogs to make horses takes a leap of imagination, and supposing that inorganic matter can turn into human beings with no outside intelligence in something less than an eternity takes a enormous leap of faith.

So if and when evolutionists dare to wander outside the box of materialism, they are likely to discover that evolution is a religion, after all, not a science.  That is, if they are willing to be honest with themselves.

God's Unilateral Agreement

The Bible is divided into two major parts called the Old Testament and the New Testament. "Testament" and "Covenant" are two English words that are used to translate the Hebrew "beriyth" and the Greek "diatheke" as used in the Bible. Both words are used to refer to a solemn or legally binding contract or treaty.

In the time of Abraham, a covenant between men was often solemnized by a ceremony whereby an animal was cut in half and both parties walked between the pieces of flesh, signifying "so let it be done to me if I do not keep this covenant". But when God made a covenant with Abraham (in Genesis 15:7-21) to give to his descendants the "Promised Land" (called "The Land of Israel" until the Romans renamed it "Palestine"), the ceremony was remarkably changed. After "a deep sleep fell upon Abram" (verse 12), "there appeared a smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between those pieces" (verse 17), signifying the presence of God certifying the contract. Since sleeping Abraham (then called Abram) did not also walk between the pieces, this signified that the covenant was unilateral -- God took full responsibility for keeping His promise to Abraham and his descendants.

However, God's covenant through Moses with His chosen people concerning the Law, repeated in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, was a bi-lateral covenant, because the people promised "All that the LORD has said we will do, and be obedient" (Exodus 24:7 and elsewhere), and because curses were promised if His people broke the covenant, and blessings promised if they kept it.

Central to the Old Testament covenants was the sacrifice of animals, signifying the debt of mankind toward God for his sin, which was only symbolically paid by the animal sacrifices. The most solemn of these sacrifices occurred each year at Passover, which foretold the true sacrifice, the actual payment, to come.

In the New Testament, we read of a day when Jesus celebrated a modified Passover ceremony with His disciples. It was modified because He ended the ceremony before the third cup, and because the ceremony was given new meaning while fulfilling the old meaning. Jesus Himself was the Passover Lamb that the cup signified; and hours later, He was sacrificed on a cross. Jesus gave the first cup (Luke 22:17) to His disciples, saying "Take this and divide it among yourselves", but didn't partake Himself, saying "I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." At the second cup (Luke 22:20), Jesus said "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you." Since then, Christians repeat an abbreviated form of that Passover ceremony that we now call Communion or The Lord's Supper.

The sacrifice of Christ on the cross fulfilled the old covenants and introduced a new covenant because His actual and effective sacrifice ended the need for symbolic sacrifices. The apostle Paul called it the 'covenant confirmed by God in Christ' (Galatians 3:17), and 'a better covenant' (Hebrews 7:22, 8:6, 9:15, and 12:24). Paul also explains that when the prophesy of Jeremiah (31:31-34) is fulfilled, this covenant will be embraced by a rejuvenated nation of Israel.

The new covenant is also unilateral, because Jesus Christ has paid the price in full, and we bring nothing. God says that "...all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags". (Isa 64:6) There are many Bible passages that make it clear that our righteous obedience of God's laws contributes nothing to the salvation that Christ freely offers to us. A few verses are:

Gal 2:16
...a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

Rom 4:4-5
4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.
5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness

Rom 11:6
...if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace...

Eph 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

If our righteousness is insufficient, then how can we settle our debt of sin with God, and escape condemnation? We need to "declare bankruptcy", by confessing our sin and accepting the free gift of Christ's sacrifice, His payment for our sin:

1 John 1:9-10
9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

John 3:16-19
16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

(The name "Jesus" means "Savior", so believing in His name means that you trust His ability to save you.) There is no other way:

Acts 4:12
Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.

John 14:6
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

It doesn't take a lot of faith; a genuine faith is sufficient to begin, and God will cause your faith to grow. A man once told Jesus "Lord, I believe", and then, doubting himself, added "help my unbelief". (Mark 9:24) Ephesians 2:8, quoted above, indicates that even faith is a gift of God.

Rather than righteousness saving us, it is God's saving of us that leads to righteousness, because God's Spirit works in us to change us, and God's love motivates us to please Him:

Titus 3:5
not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit

Eph 2:10
For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

Phil 2:13
for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

There are also many verses that indicate that 'works' that result from God's work of renewal in us, demonstrate to others that we truly know God, such as:

Titus 1:16
They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him

(All verses quoted from the New King James version)

So, we start by confessing our sins, which implies a desire to stop sinning; but God, while He helps us to stop sinning, does not make our success at not sinning part of His covenant. He knows we are unable to keep such a requirement. Our righteousness, however much it was, was insufficient in the first place, and it makes no sense to add it afterward. Any righteousness we achieve afterward is by availing ourselves of His help, so how can we claim any credit for that?

It is truly comforting to know that our right standing with God rests securely on His unilateral agreement and promise to us, motivated by His unconditional love for us.

When in trouble, we may reach up as a child to grasp His hand; but His hand is too big for us. Instead, He reaches down and holds us -- and that is far more secure.

For more on trusting God, click here.

Dawkins' Confession

I found this video showing Gary DeMar of The American Vision discussing Richard Dawkins' new book, The Greatest Show on Earth:



DeMar points out some interesting quotes from Dawkins' book which I have reproduced below, and will comment on each.

Many churches, and even parachurch organizations, each have a 'statement of faith', or 'confession of faith' whereby they define their core beliefs. It seems that in the beginning of his book, Dawkins gives his 'confession of faith', beginning with:

"It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips..."

Notice that he speaks of cousins, not brothers, because brothers, mothers, and fathers are not to be found. He continues:

"Evolution is a fact, and [my book The Greatest Show on Earth] will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it..."

Speaking of evolution as a fact doesn't sound, at first, like a statement of faith, but given his admission of lack of evidence (quoted later), it seems that what he really means by this is that he believes so fervently in evolution that it seems like a fact to him. Thinking of my own faith, I know the feeling.

He also promises that his book will demonstrate the 'fact' of evolution, but no real demonstration of this is possible. There is experimental demonstration, where one sets up initial conditions, controls, and measurements on real physical objects, living or not. But the evolution that relates man to turnips is an interpretation of the past, and no part of it has been experimentally demonstrated in modern times. Parenthetically --

We perhaps may need, at this point, to explain to some readers the distinction between macro-evolution, also called goo-to-you evolution, and micro-evolution, the kind that when guided by man breeds cats to get more kinds of cats, but never dogs, and breeds dogs to get more kinds of dogs, but never cats. Creationists believe in micro-evolution, and that's not debated here. The relevance here is that experimental demonstrations have been applied to micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution, which remains in the realm of story-telling.

There is also logical demonstration, which in its most reliable form is a formal proof. But the lack of evidence, which Dawkins admits to, precludes logical demonstration of macro-evolution.

His statement "No reputable scientist disputes it" is a tautology in disguise. There are many reputable scientists that dispute evolution, but to evolutionists like Dawkins, that defines them as not reputable.

As though to illustrate the fervency of Dawkins' faith, the next quote sounds like an enthusiastic description of a miracle:

"The universe could so easily have remained lifeless and simple -- just physics and chemistry, just the scattered dust of the cosmic explosion that gave birth to time and space. The fact that it did not -- the fact that life evolved literally out of nothing -- is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice. And even that is not the end of the matter. Not only did evolution happen: it eventually led to beings capable of comprehending the process by which they comprehend it."

His phrase "lifeless and simple" is similar to Genesis 1:2, where the earth is described as "formless and empty" before God gives it form and fills it with life; but in Dawkins' account, God gets no credit.

His description of dust giving "birth to time and space" contradicts physics as we now know it. According to modern physics, matter cannot exists separately from time and space, and vice versa.

Again he uses the word 'fact' to refer to his interpretation of facts. But I would agree that the idea that "life evolved literally out of nothing" is staggering -- so much so that one would be mad to believe it.

If you still doubt that Dawkins' words are a 'confession of faith', read this quote:

"We have no evidence about what the first step on making life was, but we do know the kind of step it must have been. It must have been whatever it took to get natural selection started."

In other words, Dawkins knows that there must have been an event when life began, there must have a 'first cause' that caused it to begin, and he knows that he has no evidence of how it began. He is unwilling to believe that God was that cause, so he resorts to a tautology: "It must have been whatever it took".

Given the huge amount of information and artful design that we now observe in all living things, requiring enormous intelligence, I'd say it must have been God -- it took God to get natural selection started. And by God's account, He created various kinds of living things, so natural selection started on some collection of kinds, rather than one kind of life. And the experimental evidence is that even when we give natural selection an extra push, and the advantage of our intelligence, we can't change cats into dogs, or vice versa, let alone turning turnips into chimpanzees.

I think my faith fits the evidence better.

Comparing Technologies

I heard that Wolfram Alpha was finally available, and I wanted to try it out. Wolfram Alpha is designed to be more than a search engine -- it's an answer engine. A search engine tries to find Web documents that contain information you want. But Wolfram Alpha will try to calculate an answer for you from data that it can access.

For example, if you want to know the "weight of the earth in pounds", it figures that (1) by "weight" you really meant mass, (2) the earth mass is available in a table of data about the planets of the solar system (although in metric units), (3) a table of conversion factors is available, and (4) a formula for converting units is available. Moreover, it has the 'smarts' to know that this is the data needed to get the answer, and it knows how to find and combine the details to get the answer.

Now, what problem would I use to try out this new answer engine? Well, I recall reading that DNA is an incredibly dense data storage and retrieval system, but I didn't have any number for the data density in, say, bytes per pound. So, I tried to get the number from Wolfram Alpha. But "DNA in pounds" was not precise enough. How much DNA? Just one 'base pair' (one unit of the chain), or an entire chromosome? And if a chromosome, which kind? (because they have different lengths)

DNA is a chain of information units called nucleotides. The chain is shaped like a twisted ladder, with each rung a pair of nucleotides that encodes two bits of information. There are four kinds of the nucleotides, so I began by asking for the mass of each kind, using their chemical names:

adenine mass in pounds: 4.9468*10^-25 lb
guanine mass in pounds: 5.53252*10^-25 lb
thymine mass in pounds: 4.51683*10^-25 lb
cytosine mass in pounds: 4.06729*10^-25 lb

I also needed the mass of the 'backbone' unit, for the 'sides' of the ladder:

deoxyribose mass in pounds: 4.45458*10^-25 lb

Then, assuming that the four nucleotide types are used equally, I could now compute the data density of DNA:

1.084547*10²⁴ bytes per pound
(That's about a one followed by 24 zeros.)

Now, what man-made data storage and retrieval system could I compare this to? I have an 8 GB thumb drive that weighs a quarter of an ounce, which may not be the most dense, but it's denser than a DVD or a hard drive. I calculated it's data density to be:

5.5*10¹¹ bytes per pound

That means that DNA is about two trillion times more dense than the thumb drive. That is, the data capacity of a quarter of an ounce of DNA is equal to about two trillion 8 GB thumb drives! Engineers would love to be able to design a data storage and retrieval system with the density of DNA, but they don't know how.

Yet there are atheistic scientists that believe that mindless evolution accidentally created DNA millions of years ago. I have two reactions to this evolutionary belief:

First, as an engineer, I feel insulted that people actually think that a random process can out-do what none of my engineering colleagues can accomplish.

Second, it is clear to me that I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

Life is more than chemistry

In my retirement, I have been studying organic chemistry and how life works. Since I spent 43 years before I retired designing computers and related hardware and software for communicating information, it is natural for me to think of computer hardware and software as analogies to illustrate the general principles of how life works. In the following, I'll explain some of the essentials of life from this point of view, while trying to keep it simple.

Living things are made of more than chemical components, just as a computer is more than hardware. A computer is 'dead' if it doesn't have software -- the information that tells it how to function. Likewise, living things of all kinds -- even bacteria -- need internally stored information to function. So life is made of chemistry and information, just as a computer is made of hardware and software.

Life's information is stored mostly in DNA, and some information in similar structures. There is a mechanism for reading the DNA, interpreting the information to construct proteins and even to control the process. Even the proteins of the reading and controlling mechanisms are constructed from the DNA information. This is like having a CD with all the data needed to construct a computer, including the CD reader, and including the information for making the construction tools and how to use these tools.

In multicellular life, such as animals, the DNA information is actually stored in EACH cell. Imagine a computer where all the information for making and using the computer is stored in each small component (integrated circuit) of the computer!

There is also a mechanism for copying the DNA information onto new DNA media. This is used to make duplicate cells. Again, the DNA includes information for making and controlling the copying mechanism. This is like having a CD copier that can make duplicate CDs.

For all the various forms of sexual reproduction, a more robust copying process is used, one that can merge information from two configurations of the design. This allows a species to adapt to its current environment. The closest that modern computer designs come to this kind of functionality is the kind of redundant design used for computers used in satellite and military applications. These computers are made with many spare components and switches arranged so that if one component fails, a replacement component can be switched in.

But life lacks one function that computers have. CD readers would not be useful unless we have CD writers for putting information on the CDs -- else there would be no information for the CD readers to read. But nowhere in any life-form is there any mechanism for writing (recording) information in the DNA!

In fact, it is not possible by any chemistry to create the information in the DNA, as this would violate information theory. Likewise, it is not possible to design any hardware to create information on CDs. It is possible to design hardware to generate bit patterns (I've done a lot of that), but there is no more information in the patterns than the small amount of information used to make the hardware.

So modern scientists observe that life is full of information, but have no scientific way to explain how the information got there. To understand this conundrum better, imagine the following scenario:

Suppose that a global atomic war destroys most of society, and the survivors struggle to rebuild modern civilization. Apparently all the computers are destroyed, and no one can be found that knows how to design or build a computer 'from scratch'. Then someone discovers a computer manufacturing plant. It has computer-controlled robotic machines that operate and control the entire manufacturing process, turning sand (raw silicon) and various metals and plastics into complete, working computers, and even more robotic manufacturing machines if selected. There are even generators for making the necessary electricity from simple fuel.

The happy discoverers study this autonomous manufacturing plant carefully. They find that all the software is stored on CDs, and there are lots of CD readers and copiers and the facilities for making more CD readers and copiers. But there are no CD writers, nor data for how to make them, not even on paper. The existing software has the flexibility of making different kinds and configurations of computers, but since there are no longer any computer designers alive, there is no hope of making newer computer designs.

As I said, modern scientists have observed that life is full of information, but have no scientific way to explain how the information got there. Now Darwin didn't understand this problem, because he didn't understand anything about how the cell works, let alone that DNA existed. (Cellular life is still not completely understood.) Since Darwin, as the theory of evolution itself evolved, the problem (actually, very many problems) of how to get from non-life to life gradually became more apparent. I have discussed the chemical impossibilities of making life from non-life in other blogs, but here we discuss only the information source problem.

The atheists and humanists saw in Darwin's theory the potential for ruling out God as the source of all things scientific. As more knowledge and understanding of DNA was gained, a mechanism for each species to genetically adapt to changing enviroment became better understood. This mechanism, now known as micro-evolution, has been shown to use selection of existing DNA or loss of genetic information, but never creation of new genetic information. But it is not the same as macro-evolution.

Micro-evolution is a science, but macro-evolution is a theory -- that one species can change into another. The one is like learning how to train an athlete so that he can break world records. The other is like assuming that since records are continually broken, athletes will eventually be able to leap across oceans, given enough time. (You CAN go continually higher even though there is a limit: Stand 16 inches below a ceiling, then move twice as close repeatedly: 8 inches, then 4, 2, 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 ...)

But the problem of the origin of genetic information is a more obvious problem -- so much so that many scientists with little or no religious inclinations have turned to the investigation of "intelligent design" as a way to solve this problem without admitting to the existence of God. Some see "intelligent design" as evidence of a supernatural intelligence (God), but others look for the information source as coming from alien life - from another planet somewhere. But these people haven''t solved the problem -- they have only moved it to another planet. They 'solve' the problem of how life origninated on earth by creating another problem: How did life originate on Planet X?

The problem is that people don't want to believe in a Creator-God, because it is clear that He may rightly define the rules and demand something of us. It is our nature to want to be free and unrestrained. But God will not leave us alone. He reveals Himself by the marvels of His creation. (Would those discoverers of that self-replicating computer-controlled machinery ever think for a moment that it was not designed by intelligent minds?) And furthermore, He has given us His Word, the Bible. Unlike all histories of human origin, that boast of human achievements while glossing over the failures, this one includes all the failures, and more. This Word not only records the past, but includes predictions of the future that have been observed to be accurate. I could go on with more examples, but the point is that God's 'fingerprints' are on His Word as well as His creation. So, as the Bible says, we are "without excuse" for ignoring God:

... what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature --have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Romans 1:19-20, from New International Version)

Restraining Evil

I was studying 2 Thessalonians 2:1-9 lately. In the New Kings James Version, it reads:

Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders.

Using Greek resources as a guide, I constructed the following rough translation of 2 Thess. 2:6-9, mostly following the word order of the original Greek, and including various inferences of the Greek words:

6 And now you know [perceive, understand] what holds [holds back, holds accountable] that he may be revealed in [this] his time [due season, opportunity].

7 For the mystery [as of a secret society] already works [is effective, is evident] of [that] iniquity [lawlessness], only he who holds [holds back, holds accountable] [will do so] now [henceforth] out of the way [midst, among them] is done [he is taken].

8 And then [at that time] shall be revealed that wicked [lawless] one whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the Spirit of his mouth and [alse, even] shall destroy [do away with, bring to nothing] with the brightness [appearing] of his coming [presence].

9 [Even him] who is [the one] coming after [the manner of] the working [operation] of Satan with all [manner or means of] power [miracle-working, mighty wonderful work] and signs [tokens of the supernatural, miracles] and lying [false] wonders.

Biblical scholars identify the "man of sin" and the "lawless one" as the Antichrist, and identify "He who now restrains" as the Holy Spirit. Since the subject of the passage is "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ", the "taken out of the way" of verse 7 is a reference to the "rapture" described in 1 Thess. 4:13:18. The explanation is that the Holy Spirit is in all believers, so that when the believers are taken way by Christ, the Holy Spirit thus is also taken away.

The Holy Spirit was given to the apostles by Jesus (John 20:22) and first given to other believers at Pentacost (Acts 2) and ever since. The epistle of Paul to the Romans makea clear that only true believers have the Spirit, because in Romans 8:9, last part of the verse, it says "Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His." (NKJV), and in Romans 8:16 it explains "The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God." (NKJV) The fact that the Holy Spirit confirms salvation is also taught in 2 Corinthians 1:22 ".. [God] who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee." (NKJV)

My observation is that since the Holy Spirit restrains (or holds back, or holds accountable) the working of lawlessness and the appearing of the lawless one, He does this restraining through the believers that He indwells. When I think about this, I envision the Christians as a bunch of people pushing back on a wall that is about to collapse, threatening to cause an entire building to collapse. At the rapture, Christ snatches them away, and the building collapses. Perhaps this is how the US will fall as a world power and cease to have a role in Tribulation prophecy.

The lesson here is that we believers should be diligent to restrain, or at least hold accountable, all forms of iniquity where we can exercise any impact. In particular, in this election season, we should be voting against any charismatic, lawless deceiver who could be the lawless ONE.

Fluorescence -- Getting Pumped Up

At the close of the Sunday message, I was praying (as I often do) that the message would bless and empower all those that heard it. As I prayed, the Holy Spirit (our prayer Assistant) gave me an analogy that I want to pass on.

I prayed that the power of the message would "fluoresce" in the hearts of the listeners, confident that God would understand what I meant by this.

When a material fluoresces, light falling on the material absorbs the energy of the light, and shortly afterward the energy is released as light of another frequency. The process actually involves individual particles: A photon of light strikes an atom or molecule and "pumps" (yes, that's the technical term) it to a higher energy level. Shortly afterward, the atom or molecule "relaxes" back to a lower energy level, releasing the energy difference in the form of another photon with a different frequency (different color of light). Some energy is typically left behind as heat.

(In a fluorescent light bulb, ultraviolet light generated by the electrified gas in the tube pumps up atoms in the chemicals coating the inside of the tube, which then pass on most of the energy as visible light. The remaining energy becomes heat.)

When a message from God's Word, the Bible, is absorbed by an individual Christian listener, the power of the message "pumps" him up. When the Christian applies the message in his life, the power of the message is released into the situation where the message is applied. The application in this situation may not be recognizably of the same form as the original message (not the same 'color'), but the power is nonetheless passed on. And some good of the message is left behind in the Christian's heart (as 'warmth', at least).

Thinking about it further, I think there is a difference between the physics of fluorescence and the application of the Word. Fluorescence is limited by the law of Conservation of Energy (total energy is never increased nor diminished). But when the Holy Spirit helps us to apply His Word, it works like the loaves and fishes -- blessing is multiplied as it is dispersed.

Death, From a Heavenly Perspective

Another poem of my youth -- I imagined what death must seem like AFTER arriving in heaven.

Death
written 3/11-12/56

I still remember when I died,
With joyous expectation sighed
While they, not understanding, cried.
My wife was kneeling by my side
Alone; the others stood outside.

I told ner, "God is calling me
The second time. The first time He
Called me a worker here to be,
And now He calls me home. I'll see
Him there, and from sin's grasp be free.

Don't look so sad." She said, "But Dear,
Although to die I have no fear,
To live without you will be drear.
Of course you know I'll shed a tear."
I said, "Although you want me here,

God also wants me. I suppose
He has a reason, for He knows
It's better in that realm where woes
Are gone, and never blows
The storm of strife. The close

Of life on earth is nigh.
I'm going. Do not cry.
I'll see you soon. Good-bye."
And then I breathed the final sigh.
I'm waiting now for her to die.

Prayer in the Workplace

I've always felt that there is no area of life that is off-limits for God. So during my career as an electronics engineer, I've prayed for help with the technical stuff, not just people problems, etc. It's obvious to me that God is an engineer, too. (We're always copying his designs.) So why shouldn't he be interested in engineering matters, and know how they should be handled?

I was always taking challenges that strain my innate abilities. One area of strain is math -- I'm no mathematician, but I've had to use it, and learn it, to get the job done. Mathematicians create new mathematical knowledge, and are concerned with proofs, but not so for engineers. Engineers only use math as a tool, as needed. We are content to use unproven and approximate math -- as long as it works for us. So I've learned only a few specialized areas of math that I needed, like it or not, and only as much as needed.

God often answered my prayers for help with engineering matters, but one case stands out in my mind, so I want to tell you about it. The solution may be too complex for a general audience, but as is often the case, it is much easier to describe the problem than its solution. I think I can describe this problem in not-too-mathematical terms.

The problem involved permutations -- patterns of rearranging sequences, such as changing the sequence 1,2,3,4 to 2,4,3,1. I needed to find permutations with special properties, or else find that no such permutation existed.

Imagine that I have a cube, which has eight corners, and I have attached eight labels to the cube, one label on each corner, as follows:

The four labels on the front are red; the four at the back are green.
The four labels on the left are light; the four at the right are dark.
The four labels on the top are wide; the four at the bottom are narrow.

So every label is different. For example, there is only one wide, light red label.

So here's the problem: Can I move the labels so that I still have eight labels on the cube, one label on each corner, but arranged so that ALL of the following are true? :

Two of the red labels are on the front, and the other two are at the back.
Two of the red labels are on the left, and the other two are at the right.
Two of the red labels are on the top, and the other two are at the bottom.
All of the above should also be true for the green labels, the light labels, the dark labels, the wide labels, and the narrow labels.

Wow! That's a lot of restrictions! If you think that it is easy to find an arrangement satisfying all those restrictions, you are invited to get a cube and eight Post-It stickers and try it. But it is hard -- unless you make a computer do all the work.

So I put a computer to work trying all the permutations (changes of positions) -- and it made a list of permutations that satisfied all of the required restrictions. Problem solved.

Here is one solution to the problem, in case you think it is impossible. The letters stand for Narrow, Wide, Dark, Light, Red, and Green. Pick any one of these letters, and you can see that two are on top and two at bottom, two are on the left and two at right, and two are in front and two at back.

But that was just a warm-up exercise. What I really wanted to do was solve problems like the one just described, but bigger. You see, the cube has only three dimensions: front-back, left-right, and top-bottom. I wanted to solve the problem for larger numbers of dimensions.

If you have trouble visualizing more dimensions (who wouldn't?), here's an easy trick: Just add another cube and put it behind the first one. Now we have sixteen corners and sixteen labels, and another dimension which we can call FRONT-BACK, referring to the FRONT cube and BACK cube. And we can add another pair of attributes for the labels: paper and plastic. Initially, the labels on the FRONT cube are paper, and the labels on the BACK cube are plastic. Then we can define a similar problem that is twice as big, with four dimensions. And we can do something like that again to add another dimension, etc.

Each time another dimension is added, the problem gets twice as big in terms of the number of corners and labels. But in terms of difficulty, it gets much worse than twice as difficult. It's more like the sequence:

Find a button in a purse.
Find a button in a house.
Find a button in a town.
Find a button in a state.
Find a button in a country.
... You get the idea.

So in the first case, my computer found a solution in a few minutes. The next problem took a few hours. Then overnight for several nights. Then I started using my 'multi-processing' setup, where as many as 60 computers on the company network applied their 'spare time' (mostly overnight) for a week or more to solve the problem. I optimized the program to take advantage of symmetries, but I couldn't go as far as I wanted, because the work was growing too fast. I didn't have a million computers and a million years.

I needed real math, not a brute-force search. But I didn't know any math that would help. I didn't even know the language to be able to search for whatever specialized math might be applicable to such an odd problem. I was in need of prayer, and I had been praying.

I sometimes pray while driving. (If it weren't for my guardian angel, it would be as dangerous as using a cell phone.) I was driving home, pondering my growing problem and praying, and an idea came to me. Perhaps I could somehow merge two smaller permutations to make a larger one that worked (satisfied all the restrictions). After finding a bunch of permutations that work for say, five dimensions, I could try merging pairs of these and see if I can find one that works for six dimensions. But how do I merge them? And would this tactic work? This wasn't real math -- just guessing; but it might work.

I guessed at a merging function, and tried it. It didn't work all the time, but just by picking smaller permutations randomly and merging them, the computer could find larger permutations quicker than before -- very much quicker. Problems that took 60 computers several nights to solve now were solved by one computer in less than a second. And problems that would have needed a million computers and a million years were now solved by one computer in less than a minute.

I know I'm not that smart. I know God answers prayer. Even for weird math problems.

Faith and Sin, continued

In a previous post, I explained how faith and sin are opposites. Faith is trusting God, and sin is driven by distrusting God. I said that this explains why so many people don't have faith in God -- they don't trust God because they want to be in control of their own lives. It also explains why so many people don't realize that they are sinners -- they think living up to their own standards is good enough, and ignoring God is OK, but that's trusting themselves, not God, and that's really what sin is all about.

But I think that this understanding of faith and sin as opposites also explains the relationship between faith and works. 'Works' means doing good things, especially the sorts of things that most people would consider the opposite of sin.

I won't be quoting the Bible to support everything I say here, but if you doubt anything, just read the Bible and see for yourself. The epistle to the Romans and the epistle of James will be especially relevant.

The Bible makes it clear that works -- doing good things -- doesn't square our accounts with God, because it doesn't cancel or make up for our sins. Would you like it if I kicked you and then made up for it by giving you a car? Perhaps, but not if you already owned a fleet of thousands of cars. In any case, God, who created everything and owns everything and makes the rules, says good works can't pay for sins.

So how can we pay, and clear our debt? Well, we can't -- we're bankrupt -- it's as simple as that. But God figured out how to rescue us without cheating on his own rules. In his mercy, he sent Jesus -- Himself in human form -- the only man who was not in such debt, to pay the debt for all of us. He died in our place on the cross. But the debt is paid only to those that acknowledge and accept this free gift, not to those that ignore it and try to play by their own rules.

Accepting God's provision as sufficient is the first true step in trusting God, and it immediately makes you a Christian, an adopted son or daughter of God. This is what is called salvation, being saved, being born again. There's no turning back now.

But the next steps are often confusing for the new Christian, because of old habits. The new Christian knows he ought to please God, and generally wants to, being grateful that God forgave his sins, but being a creature of habit, finds himself sinning again. He may even doubt his salvation. He just needs to be reminded that Jesus paid for ALL his sins, even those after the event of salvation. He just needs to confess (admit) the recent sin, reconfirm that it's been paid for, and move on. It is faith (trust) continued.

But doesn't he have a 'free ticket' to sin, since it is all pre-paid? (I told you it get's confusing.) Well, if somebody said "I believe Jesus died for me" like they were magic words for getting into heaven, without really believing those words, he might think he's got a free ticket to sin, but he's just a phoney, and he's fooling himself. But if he knew he was a sinner, bankrupt on God's record-books, and accepted Jesus' death as the only sufficient and complete payment for his sins, he has true faith -- and true faith grows, expecially if nourished.

True faitb -- trusting God, not just believing he exists -- naturally causes one to not want to sin. So even if there were a 'free ticket' to sin, he doesn't want it, so it doesn't matter if he has a 'free ticket' to sin, or not. Faith causes one to not want to sin, because faith is the opposite of sin. If we trust God, we are willing to do things his way.

Love for God is a catalyst that works with faith to keep us from sin. Because God loved us so much to pay for our sins, we naturally feel like loving him back -- and that love compels us to please him. It takes a while to establish a new lifestyle, but gradually, faith and love work together, and grow together, and the believer grows closer to God.

Faith and Sin are Opposites!

Why is it that so many people don't have faith in God? Why is it that so many people don't think that they are sinners? This is how I discovered the answers to these questions.

After more than 60 years of trusting Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, it finally dawned on me that faith and sin are opposites. If you had asked me "What is the opposite of faith?", I would have said "doubt". And if you had asked me "What is the opposite of sin?", I would have said "righteousness", or "obedience". But although those answers are correct, there really is a way that faith and sin are opposites. Now that I understand how faith and sin are opposites, I think I understand why so many people don't have faith in God, and why so many people don't realize that they are sinners.

It began when I pondered the question "What is the essence of sin?" Disobedience? But why do I disobey God? (Sin may often harm other people, but it's always against God.) It's because I want my own way. It's because I want to be in control. Why is that? It's because I know for sure that I want what is best for me, but I'm not so sure that others want what is best for me. Don't you feel the same way?

If I don't know God, then I may think that not even God may want what is best for me. God might want me to do things I don't like. Have you ever felt that way? What are we feeling? We are not trusting God, isn't that what it is? So the essence of sin, the thing that makes us sin, is distrusting God.

Now let's consider the question "What is the essence of faith?" First of all, faith needs an object, just like love needs an object, doesn't it? If you love, it must be that you love somebody or something. And if you have faith, it must be that you have faith in somebody or something, even if only you are having faith in yourself. So, to be perfectly clear, the faith that I'm talking about is faith in God.

So, what is the essence of faith in God? It seems that some people think that faith in God is the same as believing in God, that is, believing that God exists. If that is so, then it must be that having faith in yourself is the same as believing that you exist. But that's silly; when people say that they have faith in themselves, they mean that they trust themselves. So the essence of faith in God is trusting God. When the Bible talks about the kind of faith that satisfies God, it explains that the Devil believes in God (he knows that God exists), but he is nevertheless doomed, because he doesn't trust God.

So, the essence of faith (in God) is trusting God, and the essence of sin (against God) is distrusting God. And just as distrusting God leads us to disobey Him, so does trusting God lead us to obey Him.

This agrees with the Bible. For example, Abraham's faith was counted as righteousness (Genesis 15:6). And "whatever is not of faith is sin." (Romans 14:23)

For some one accustomed to distrusting God, it must seem to be a huge step to begin trusting God. But Psalms 34:8 says "Taste and see that the Lord is good." And Jesus spoke of having "faith as a mustard-seed". By trusting God a little bit and finding Him trustworthy, your faith can grow. The critical point is when you stop running away from God and start seeking to know Him more. As you know Him more, you will trust Him more. And as you trust Him more, it will be natural to obey Him more.

And loving God more -- that comes naturally along the way. I know that when I was a young Christian, I heard people talking about loving God, but I realized that it was just words to me. I wondered about the reality of those words. Now, many years later, I realize that I have grown to love God -- and so intensely that I have no words to describe it.

For more on this, click here.