“But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth”
2 Thessalonians 2:13

There are three things here which deserve special attention. First, the fact that we are expressly told that God’s elect are “chosen to salvation”: Language could not be more explicit. How summarily do these words dispose of the sophistries and equivocations of all who would make election refer to nothing but external privileges or rank in service! It is to “salvation” itself that God has chosen us. Second, we are warned here that election unto salvation does not disregard the use of appropriate means: salvation is reached through “sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth” It is not true that because God has chosen a certain one to salvation that he will be saved willy-nilly, whether he believes or not: nowhere do the Scriptures so represent it. The same God who “chose unto salvation”, decreed that His purpose should be realized through the work of the spirit and belief of the truth. Third, that God has chosen us unto salvation is a profound cause for fervent praise. Note how strongly the apostle express this - “we are bound to give thanks always to God for you. brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation”, etc. Instead of shrinking back in horror from the doctrine of predestination, the believer, when he sees this blessed truth as it is unfolded in the Word, discovers a ground for gratitude and thanksgiving such as nothing else affords, save the unspeakable gift of the Redeemer Himself.

Romans 1:1Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures.

Here is another affirmation from Paul declaring his inspired status: when he writes “gospel of God,” the “of” is genitive, describing possession. He is basically saying that he has been called to God’s Gospel, not just the Gospel about God (as in, what he has received was not given by men but by divine revelation).

Exodus 31:15-17 15′(A)For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a (B)sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD; (C)whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death. 16′So the sons of Israel shall observe the sabbath, to celebrate the sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.’ 17″(D)It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; (E)for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed.”

Literal 6 days. The end.

One is the dichotomy of God’s word and work–as if His word would differ with reality.

“To rely on Scripture—God’s word, rather than science—God’s work, seems foolish.”

Isaiah 40:8 - The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever.

Numbers 23:19 - God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

Either the Bible is wrong or [your] science is wrong, tertium non datur. You could, of course, dispute the literal nature of Genesis, but that’s a different discussion.

“My limited knowledge of science in general limits me from arguing many of your specific points, but your debunking of several evolution experiments and evidences (Darwin, Miller, Haeckel, etc.) falls flat when examined alongside Scripture.”

The truth or lack thereof behind evolution experiments (you must mean abiogenesis) and evidences has no bearing on scripture’s.

“You’re shooting down researched explanations in favor of mythic literature.”

The Bible is “mythic” literature? Indeed it is the most unique myth I’ve ever seen. This is a common tactic to associate the Bible with pagan literature in hopes that some will believe it to be the same. It is not; but since you’ve made the positive claim, maybe you can support it.

“These creations date, according to Scripture, approximately 4000 B.C.

Now let’s compare that biblical timeline to a scientific one.”

Be careful: you already admitted to having a certain ignorance about these scientific matters…

“We have proof, hard proof (we’re talking fossil hard), which places the dinosaur at 68-million years ago.”

I’m assuming you’re not aware of the assumptions (unfounded assumptions) behind current dating methods? You must not know of the circular reasoning behind all these dates evolutionists so love to cite. Would you like some links? You see, the fossils tell us nothing but that a creature once existed. We have to make certain assumptions about the conditions surrounding that creature’s existence.

“So, rather than embracing a text that seems to clearly rely on allegory and that has been scientifically disproved (you still have to convince me otherwise), why not loosen the adherence to Scripture in favor of a more flexible view of God?”

The perceived allegorical nature must come from your a priori bias. For you see, the rest of the Bible takes Genesis literally. Why not a more flexible God? Like I said, the rest of the Bible takes God at His literal word on creation (and the rest of Genesis, which, consequently, would dissolve without a literal Genesis 1).

It has not been scientifically disproven. Would you like some helpful links?

“After all, even the most ardent atheist will sometimes buckle and ponder the beauty of a twilight sky, an expansive canyon, or the vastness of the sea, finding himself or herself in a position of attributing such immense beauty to the strength and glory of a God.”

That would be a semi-atheist/agnostic. An “ardent” atheist would never do such a thing.

“To dispel the amassed knowledge of physicists, biologists, astrophysicists, etc. as “propaganda” is downright uncalled for.”

Well, what would you call determined brainwashing? I’d call it propaganda. And actually, there are many physicists, biologists, astrophysicists, etc. who agree with our view…

“These findings do nothing if not further the divine mystery of God. With mystery comes complexity. And complexity only makes God look greater.”

What a sad God we would have, then, if the greatest part about Him was some sort of esoteric existence. Fortunately our God loves us so much that He humbled Himself, came to earth in our flesh, and died on the cross so that all who believed in Him would be able to live with Him forever.

To say the science community is hell-bent on disproving a creator, simply to disprove it, is preposterous. Science seeks to satisfy the most basic of human inquiries, the metaphysical questions that plague each individual at some point in life—“Why are we here?” “Who put us here?” “Who makes the best bagels in Northern New Jersey?”

I highly doubt scientists are fueled by malice. They aren’t rubbing their knuckles and devising diabolical plans intended to send believers burning their holy books. In fact,

[in] a 1997 survey in the science journal Nature, 40 percent of U.S. scientists said they believe in God—not just a creator, but a God to whom one can pray in expectation of an answer. That is the same percentage of scientists who were believers when the survey was taken 80 years earlier. (National Geographic News, October 18th 2004)

Another, more recent, source claims even better statistics in favor of belief amongst scientists. A survey conducted by Rice University in 2005 found only 38 percent of natural scientists do not believe in God.

My limited knowledge of science in general limits me from arguing many of your specific points, but your debunking of several evolution experiments and evidences (Darwin, Miller, Haeckel, etc.) falls flat when examined alongside Scripture. To find flaw in these and other evolutionary theories and not in Biblical “evidence” is simply unfair. You’re shooting down researched explanations in favor of mythic literature.

Even my naïve understanding of both the Bible and science can reach some pretty obvious conclusions. Relying on Scripture, on the chronology it supplies us with, God created animals on Thursday and Friday (the Fifth and Sixth Days).

And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (Gen 1:21)

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (Gen 1:25)

These creations date, according to Scripture, approximately 4000 B.C.

Now let’s compare that biblical timeline to a scientific one. I’ll choose a subject that would be sure to entertain a fifth grader: Tyrannosaurus Rex. We have proof, hard proof (we’re talking fossil hard), which places the dinosaur at 68-million years ago. (Boyle, MSNBC Technology & Science, April 12th 2007) How do you reconcile such a clear-cut disparity? What’s the math on that? Someone calculate 68,000,000,000 minus 4,000 for me.

So, rather than embracing a text that seems to clearly rely on allegory and that has been scientifically disproved (you still have to convince me otherwise), why not loosen the adherence to Scripture in favor of a more flexible view of God? After all, even the most ardent atheist will sometimes buckle and ponder the beauty of a twilight sky, an expansive canyon, or the vastness of the sea, finding himself or herself in a position of attributing such immense beauty to the strength and glory of a God.

To many scientists, their discoveries may not be that different from religious revelations. Science advancements may even draw scientists closer to religion.

“Even as science progresses in its reductionist fashion, moving towards deeper, simpler, and more elegant understandings of particles and forces, there will still remain a ‘why’ at the end as to why the ultimate rules are the way they are,” said Ted Sargent, a nanotechnology expert at the University of Toronto.

“This is where many people will find God, and the fact of having a final unanswerable ‘why’ will not go away, even if the ‘why’ gets more and more fundamental as we progress,” he said. (National Geographic News, October 18th 2004)

To rely on Scripture—God’s word, rather than science—God’s work, seems foolish. To dispel the amassed knowledge of physicists, biologists, astrophysicists, etc. as “propaganda” is downright uncalled for. These findings do nothing if not further the divine mystery of God. With mystery comes complexity. And complexity only makes God look greater.

To quote that tongue-wagging genius, Mr. Einstein: “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”