Ed.’s note: The author of this blog post took exception to the post of a few weeks ago by Pastor Ronnie Rogers titled “A Day Is a Day Is a Day of Course: Unless That Day Challenges Evolution!”
SBCToday asked Nina Dunton to write a response, which is below. And below that is a response from Pastor Rogers to this post. Pastor Rogers’ 2nd of this multi-part series will be posted on Wednesday.
Nina Street Dunton is a lay member of North Glencoe Baptist Church in Glencoe, Alabama. She has studied Christian apologetics for 18 years and holds a certificate in CA from Biola University, a bachelor’s degree in visual arts from Auburn University, and is a member of the board of directors of the Christian ministry Reasons To Believe.
The first time I became aware that there was confusion about the day-age view was at a speaker’s workshop in Georgia a few years ago. I was in conversation with a young Institute for Creation Research apologist who, after finding out I held this view, said, “So you believe in evolution?”
I scrunched up my nose and said, “No,” rather emphatically. In hindsight, I wish I had followed up on his reasoning that someone who held an old-earth view must necessarily believe in evolution—for they are two very different ideas.
Many people are concerned about today’s young people, the “What’s in it for me?” generation. In many ways, the designation is true, but God is always faithful to place a remnant within each generation no matter how perverse it gets. Much of the Bible tells the story of this small group of God-followers who continue to seek Him no matter what the political or social climate dictates. It is my privilege to walk alongside many of those whom God has called to be a part of this remnant.
Isaac Watts (1674-1748) is known as the “father of English hymnody,” and for good reason. The author of at least 750 hymns, Watts left behind a remarkable legacy of theologically accurate hymn texts which incite valid religious affections. “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross” and “Joy to the World” are two of the more well-known texts which immediately come to mind. However, what often escapes notice is the fact that he was a pastor who preached faithfully for decades in an area that is now a part of inner London. After his education at the Dissenting Academy of Stoke-Newington, he immediately embarked on the path of faithful service in the local church as a pastor, preacher, and yes, prolific hymnist.
written by Barbara Denman*
Listening to the Florida Baptist Worship Choir and Orchestra sing “Open Up the Heavens” at the exact location where the Times Square New Year’s Eve Ball drops, Nick heard the message God had for his ears — and heart.
The Marine asked Wes Ratliff, worship pastor at Wright Baptist Church in Fort Walton Beach, a simple question, “What are you doing?” sparking a conversation that led to eternal life.
(Ed.’s note: This blog post is part 2/2. See part 1, “Led Zeppelin, Calvinism and Words with Multiple Meanings.”)
Both sides of the Calvinism debate will use this term, but they definitely don’t use it in the same way. Most dictionaries will give the word freedom (and liberty) several definitions. The older among us may remember a Kris Kristofferson definition for freedom, which was made famous by Janis Joplin in the song “Me and Bobby McGee.” One line says: “Freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose.” I think there is some truth in those words, but they don’t provide much help in the context of our debate. However, the line shows how the word “free” can have different legitimate usages.
This whole subject of free will can get pretty technical and philosophical. (Therefore, you may wonder how someone without a Ph.D. could possibly have anything worthwhile to contribute, here, but I’ll do my best – and be brief.) Since both sides insist on their own definition for the term “free will” in choosing to receive (or reject) the gospel, it has become something of a useless term. Let me suggest a better term that helps cut through the fog. It is “the power of contrary choice.” I like this term because it is self-explanatory and doesn’t carry with it any bias toward one view or the other. I think I first heard this term used by the Calvinist John Murray.