January 2012

Evidence backs young Earth

January 30 2012 by Tam Hutchinson Jr., North Wilkesboro, N.C.

I read with great interest the article by David Roach entitled “Pastors unconvinced about evolution, split on earth’s age,” in the Jan. 21, 2012 edition of the Biblical Recorder.
The author did a good job of recording the facts and giving statistical analyses.
Some of the pastors’ answers in the article seem to indicate a conflict in their minds.
My purpose is to encourage readers who are confused by conflicting messages about the Bible. 
Suppose one chooses to believe the Bible is correct as written. Does the Bible indicate a recent creation – within the past 10,000 years? Yes it does. 
Luke 3:34-38 gives the ancestry of Jesus from Adam (about 2,000 years – Genesis 5:3-32 and 11:10-26, except for Cainan) to Abraham (around 2,000 B.C). That means God created Adam around 4,000 B.C, which was about 6,000 years ago. Also, the Ten Commandments affirm that creation took six days (Exodus 20:11).
Does the physical evidence also support a recent creation? Yes, it does.
There are only enough people on the earth for a few thousand years of existence.
The R.A.T.E. Project has consistently shown that there is enough helium (a byproduct of nuclear decomposition) remaining in Zircon crystals for only about 6,000 years of diffusion.
Dinosaur remains that still have blood cells in their bones have been found on the north shore of Alaska. Blood cells can only last 5,000 to 10,000 years in those conditions.
If one can show that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, there is not enough time for macro evolution from one kind of thing to another.
In conclusion, if one takes the position that the Bible is correct as written; the evidence does seem to support that position very well.
Tam Hutchinson Jr.
1/30/2012 2:45:59 PM by Tam Hutchinson Jr., North Wilkesboro, N.C. | with 0 comments

Being liked shouldn’t be a priority

January 17 2012 by Jack Marshburn, Tar Landing Baptist Church, Jacksonville, N.C.

According to a guest column in the December 10 BR, if we change our name from Southern Baptist Convention, and if we cease being known for our opposition to immoral practices like homosexuality, and if we avoid any common ground that may be shared by some in political circles, then more people will like us.
Is that so?
Where in the book of Acts do we see the believers laboring to get people to like them? I do not mean that they were trying to be disliked but that being liked was not their priority.
In Acts 5:13-14, Luke gives us interesting insight into the early church. “None of the rest dared join them, but the people held them in high esteem. And more than ever believers were added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women,” Acts 5:13-14 (ESV). While many would not dare be associated with the church, many others were getting saved!
If only we were more interested in what the Scriptures say rather than the pollsters.
The author refers to the supposed stigma of the word “Southern.” However true that may be, if we change our name we will not change our past. Did the Apostle Paul seek to conceal his past as a persecutor of the Christians? No. Instead, he used that to speak of God’s grace and mercy (Acts 22; 26; 1 Timothy 1:12-15; 1 Corinthians 15:8-10).
I was present in 1995 when the formal apology was made. That was the right thing to do – to publicly acknowledge the wrong in the beginning of our convention. That was a matter of integrity. Changing our name in an attempt to camouflage our past seems deceitful.
Well, what about “Baptist,” will we delete it also? For whatever reason, some churches no longer wish to be identified as a Baptist congregation. As a convention are we so ashamed of our Baptist heritage that we will abandon the name? I hope not.
Brothers and sisters, there is something far more offensive than the words “Southern Baptist.” It is the truth of the gospel. Oswald Chambers is reported to have said, “There is nothing attractive about the gospel to the natural man. The only man who finds the gospel attractive is the man who is convicted of sin.”
The concern I have is not about the changing of a name. What bothers me is the reasoning I am hearing. The December 10 article sounded very seeker sensitive and focused on man.
The author claimed that a name change will “inject the body with a new energy.” Apparently, he believes that but I do not.
The Holy Spirit is the one who empowers the Church. Hanging out a different shingle never will.
Jack Marshburn
Tar Landing Baptist Church, Jacksonville, N.C.
1/17/2012 3:57:21 PM by Jack Marshburn, Tar Landing Baptist Church, Jacksonville, N.C. | with 0 comments

Why change name?

January 16 2012 by Doug Ewing, Belmont, N.C.

Why change? In the December 24 edition of the Biblical Recorder, Erin Roach reports that the MAJORITY have a favorable impression of Southern Baptists while only 40 percent are unfavorable.
Why should we have to change the name for those that don’t like us? Is it the name or the doctrine? Jonathan Merritt wrote in the December 10 issue, “What’s in a name?” 
I don’t believe it’s the region, but our doctrine. They say we are pushy. That has nothing to do with a name. I have witnessed in Ohio, South Dakota, Arizona, Colorado, Washington, Alaska, Maine and Vermont.
Some folks in Colorado cried when we left. People in some states want us back. 
No time did they mention anything negative about us as Southern Baptist. 
Do we need to change “Northern Tissue” because it is regional?
I have even heard people say we need to drop the name Baptist. I believe those 40 percent don’t like us because we are evangelistic. 
Old Vance Havner said we shouldn’t change our doctrine to suit the world.
I have a suggestion for a name change: SCBC, Still Confused Baptist Convention.
Doug Ewing
Belmont, N.C.

1/16/2012 2:41:53 PM by Doug Ewing, Belmont, N.C. | with 1 comments