Dakotas Christian Believers Arena
Come on in and browse 
   Home      Points to Ponder 2
{There are 12 articles on this page}
1. Genome by Matt Ridley (book) pg. 21-2

“The three letter words of the genetic code are the same in every creature…The genetic code, bar a few tiny local aberrations, mostly for unexplained reasons in the ciliate protozoa, is the same in every creature. We all use exactly the same language.”

Evolutionists use this and other similarities between humans and animals to claim that all species evolved from a common ancestor. The shared genes and other organs is their evidence for this supposed process. But the err greatly because they do not take into account one major factor.

Humans and animals, with a few exceptions, must share the same environment. They have to breathe the same air, drink the same water and eat basically the same type of foods. If animals and humans were completely different, to satisfy the evolutionist demand for the theory of evolution to be untrue, then they would not be able to survive in the present natural environment, either the human or the animal world would die out.

Since evolutionists have no idea what the original conditions were when their claimed origin of life took place, it would be pretty impossible for life forms as we know them today to come into existence. Something would have to prepare the life forms for the then and current atmosphere and dietary needs.

God did that when He thought of creating everything. He put 1 atmosphere, the same one as today, in place then designed both the animal world and his two human beings to fit that environment. He made sure that they would survive without the process of adaptation.

Yes animals and humans have a lot of similar genetic structures but that is so they can survive in a common environment and such design does not provide evidence for the evolutionary theory but God’s wisdom.

2. Ibid. pg. 10

“Human beings accumulate about one hundred mutations per generation, which may not seem much given that there are more than a million codons in the human genome, but in the wrong place even a single one can be fatal.”

This quote illustrates the weakness of the evolutionary theory. As evolutionists have explained over the years the theory has no origin for these limitations found in life. Where did this boundary come from and why would the process of evolution allow it to be part of its work?

Evolutionists claim that the process of evolution is a non-thinking, non-feeling, non-knowing, non-intelligent entity which somehow brings change to life forms, who possess the very qualities it does not.

With the theory of evolution too many questions arise that are left unanswered or are given such weak responses that the solutions are laughable. In the evolutionary world, there should be no such limitations, no such thing as disease or death for the theory doesn’t make room for it nor provide any answers to their origin.

God, in the Bible, does provide answers to the existence of all these things. We know why there are limitations in the gene structure—it shuts the door on alternative ideas like evolution. We know why there are weaknesses in the genetic code and why death and disease are in existence but the secular man does not want to think about those answers because it means they have to deal with God, His Son and their eternal destination.

Nothing the evolutionist comes up with to explain what we find in life or how it got here makes any sense, for there is no reason for any of it to exist in the evolutionary world. Their ‘answers’ only brings more confusion, mystery and questions not clarity or satisfaction. The more science investigates the more we can see that evolution does not work nor does it exist {and the same goes for natural selection}.

3. The First Human by Ann Gibbons (book) pg. 144

“Three months later, on Sept. 22, 1994, the cover of Nature featured the baby molar set in the jaw like a diamond mounted in a setting from which a few other gems had fallen out—and held up like a prices ring between a man’s thumb and two fingers. The red headline underneath said simply, Earliest Hominids.”

This quote is just one example of the many instances where anthropologists construct a whole species out of a lone tooth, a lone toe bone, or a lone knuckle. Rarely do they have more to work with when they do their work.

This is the problem with the secular science world, they raise Cain when the believe uses faith to believe about the flood (and we have much more evidence to work with than anthropologists do) yet they use faith with no evidence when it benefits their work.

The theory of evolution is a theory of speculation not evidence, it is a theory of assumption not fact and it is a theory of desperation not security. They build mountains out of molehills and cannot provide any evidence to support their ideas. They have to use millions and billions of years to avoid the embarrassment of failing to produce real evidence to back their claims.

Pg. 234 backs me up as it says there: “For now, they will have to stick to the teeth and jaw fragments for direct comparisons between these early hominids…if we had skeletons…” The evolutionist has nothing.

4. Ibid. pg. 194-5

“He was walking along an ancient streambed when he saw something sticking out of the red dirt on the ground at his feet. He looked closer and saw teeth…he saw a bony ball sticking out of the red dirt. It was the head of a left thigh bone…he also drew a sketch of the site in his journal, noting that the fossils came from a layer of sediment that was at the base of the Lukeino formation, below a layer of basalt dated to 5.65 million years by Hill’s team. Therefore, about 6 million years, he noted.”

This is one of the problems with anthropology. They think that a fossil on the surface of the earth actually dates back 6 million years and they had to do no work. Meanwhile 100 miles down the road an archaeological team, digging in the same dirt, has to dig 30-100 ft. into the depth of the earth just to go back a few thousand years.

Yes the anthropologist claims that the grounds shift pushing up ancient rock to the surface but the problem with that is, in all the archaeological digs in the world over the past 200 or so years has never come up with any evidence for that claim. The archaeologists must have been lucky and missed those spots even though their digs can cover acres of ground.

The other problem here in those quoted words is that the anthropologist assumes that what he finds comes from the same species of animal or from the same human. The construct these discoveries based upon their own ideas and have nothing to verify their results or claims that it is a new species or even human.

These are all conclusions based upon a modern man’s biased perspective who immediately claims the discovery for evolution without being able to verify anything about the fragments found or how they really go together. Nor can they proof that evolution was responsible.

5. The Beginning of All Things by Hans Kung (book) pg. 137

“We still do not know for certain how life first arose from the inanimate. We do not know for certain what precise events introduced biogenesis. But we do know one thing: however this transition to life is explained in detail, it rests on biochemical regularities…’

This is secular science being honest. It doesn’t know much about the past. In fact, science and scientists cannot prove what you had to eat for breakfast last week let alone what activities filled your day. It can surmise, speculate, assume but it cannot prove the past. It is too limited which disqualifies secular science from being an authority or final determiner.

We do know how life arose and it was not from the inanimate. It was from God’s will and power. We do know the precise events which introduced biogenesis and they are revealed to us in Genesis 1 and 2. We do not need men and women working thousands of years removed from the event to tell us how things went in the beginning, we have the only eye-witness telling us how they exactly went.

Science can be useful to Christians, if they let it and they do it the right way. It is not a tool to talk about origins for that is something outside the scope of that field. It is a tool to discover what God has done when He created everything and to see how things went wrong when Adam sinned.

We can use science to figure out the causes of disease and discover their cure. We can use science to see how plants and trees work, how our bodies operate and on it goes but at no time does this ability promote science to the final authority of life. It is too fallible and corrupt to be anything more than what it is—a simple tool to investigate things on earth, in the sea and in space.

Secular science is operated by men and women who are deceived, fallible, and easily influenced as their desires and agendas are not the same as God’s. If there is a conflict between science and the Bible, then it is science that is wrong. The same for archaeology; when it disagrees with the Bible then the archaeology made the error.

The other sciences, like astronomy, physics and so on, all fall into the same category. They are not supreme beings but imperfect tools run by imperfect and unredeemed people.

6. Tell el-Hamman run by Dr. Steven Collins (dig site)


“As is now widely accepted, Tall el-Hammam remains a logical candidate for biblical Sodom based on a detailed analysis of the relevant biblical and historical materials regarding the chronology and location of the city”

Why is an archaeological dig and website placed among these books and articles Simply because it demonstrates that Christians or those who claim to be one do go wrong and go against the Bible.

For about 10 seasons now Dr. Collins has been trumpeting the Tell el-Hamman site as Sodom even though everything he finds contradicts the Bible when it talks about Sodom and Gomorrah. The archaeologist in charge continues to find artifact after artifact through archaeological era after archaeological era which should have been a clue that he is digging in the wrong place for the city of Sodom (which has been found in a more desolate area, one that reflects the Biblical teachings on the city).

But he doesn’t care and he doesn’t care that he is leading other believers and non-believers down the wrong path. That is a dangerous thing to do and no matter how much one informs him of his error, he continues in his arrogance, re-interpreting the Biblical passages to fit his desires.

The Christian has to be careful and they need to make sure they are right before announcing to the world they have something no one else has found for their testimony, their reputation is on the line and bad errors can raise stumbling blocks to Christ amongst the unbelieving world. It happens with the Noah’s ark debacle continuously.

If the Christian realizes he or she has made a mistake they should be humble about it and correct it; not continue to follow the wrong path, mistaking the correction as ‘persecution’. The wrong kind of pride cannot enter into the Christian’s process for that will leave a bigger more devastating mark on others than if the Christian humbly admits a mistake and changes his tune.

Also, the believer needs to be aware of the fact that if their work contradicts the Bible, then it is not the Bible that is in error and they need to find out where their mistakes lie. Believers follow God and His word, not change it to fit their own desires. The world is watching and if the Christian doesn’t believe or follow God and His word, how can they expect the non-believer to do so?

7. The Search for Noah’s Flood By Ronald S. Hendel; Editor, H. S. (2004; 2004). BR 19:03. Biblical Archaeology Society.

“Biblical scholars will tell you that the Flood Story in Genesis 6–9 (actually stories in the plural, since there are two versions woven together in these chapters) derives most directly not from an actual event, but from earlier stories. The earlier stories are from ancient Mesopotamia, best known from the Gilgamesh Epic (Standard Babylonian version, c. 1100 B.C.E.) and the Atrahasis Epic (Old Babylonian, c. 1700 B.C.E.).”

Christians really need to be wary when scholars, archaeologists and others accuse the Biblical authors of copying other nations. Such accusations do not have any evidence to give them credence and all these unbelieving academics have are discoveries of documents written prior to the compilation of the Bible.

We need to remember that the Bible is a work done over time and that it speaks of events that took place long before Babylonia, Sumer and Akkadia were even in existence. That means that even though there are myths recovered from the earth and are older than the Bible it doesn’t mean it they were first written.

The Bible traces the timeline quite thoroughly and it shows that there has been a continuous line of God’s people who knew of these events long before the secular civilizations did. Since Noah and his sons re-started the world’s population they told all their descendants what they experienced and as these descendants drifted from God, their re-telling of the story was altered and changed to reflect their growing unbelief

Noah lived 350 years after the flood and Shem lived 500 years thus the original account was told for a long time after the event. If academics believe in oral tradition as they claim then the Biblical account preceded the secular written accounts by a very long time. Who knows, maybe Noah, or his family actually wrote down what they went through and the secular versions were copies of those writings.

Either way, the Biblical authors did not have to copy the secular world because they possibly had Noah’s accounts to use and they had God who was there to help them get it right. Oldest discovered does not mean original all the time.

8. Enigmatic Bible Passages: The Plain Meaning of Genesis 1:1–3 by Harry M. Orlinsky

Editor, G. E. W. (1983; 2003). Biblical Archaeologist: Volume 46. American Schools of Oriental Research.

“There is no doubt that a desire for fidelity to the Word of God is commendable. It is something that a great number of people, notably translators of the Bible, have shared through the ages. It should be pointed out, however, that although the translations of many of the passages on which scientific creationists particularly base their views may be literal, they are not necessarily accurate portrayals of the meaning of the original language”

This passage portrays the problem found in biblical work today as well as in centuries past. Everyone who learns a biblical language thinks they know what the correct word God wanted to use in certain passages. It is not uncommon to hear pastors and academics say ‘the Hebrew says…’ or ‘the Greek says…’ when they are explaining the meaning of a particular passage of the Bible.

What needs to be remembered is that God has not called anyone to change is word and make Him say something He did not. People who learn the biblical languages need to remember that they still need the Holy Spirit to direct them to the correct meaning and that they cannot change what a translation says simply because they disagree with a passage or they think they found a better meaning.

God has promised to preserve His word till the end and those believers who learn the biblical languages need to fall into step with God and make sure they are following His leading to ensure His promise is kept. The world has too many false translations and too many over-eager bible students who want to input their own fallible ideas into a text.

The Bible warns of false teachers who come and will preach their false gospel and one of the ways to lure unwary believers away is to change the word of God to support their ideas. The Jehovah Witnesses do it, the man who wrote The Message did it, Hugh Ross does it and so many others try to do it so they can justify their alternative beliefs

When one learns a biblical language they are given a responsibility to ferret out those false teachers and their deceptive practices and inform the believer of the correct way the Bible should read. They are NOT to impose their own ideas or change God’s word to fit culture or modern times.

The Christian world does not follow the secular one, It leads the way to God’s kingdom even if it means being literal and archaic.

9. Bricks Without Straw? By Charles F. Nims {Wright, G. E. (2001, c1950). Vol. 13 numbers 1-4: Biblical Archaeologist  : Volume 13 1-4. Biblical Archaeologist volume 13 numbers 1-4. (electronic ed.). Philadelphia: American Schools of Oriental Research}

“The evidence of both ancient and modern methods in the manufacture of mud brick in Egypt indicates that while brick are occasionally made without straw, this practice is far from common.”

Does archaeology prove the Bible true? The answer is ‘it depends’. It depends upon what is being discovered and how the Bible talks about it. In this case, where the Bible speaks of the harsh punishment of making bricks without straw put upon the Israelites by the Pharaoh of that time, the account is verified that bricks were and could be made without straw.

 Does it prove that the Israelites made those exact bricks? NO. There is no possible way for anyone to learn who made those bricks without straw. We content ourselves with the fact that the Bible did not mistakenly refer to a procedure that was impossible to accomplish and was true in its account. The Israelites were punished and the punishment was real and accurately recorded for the world to read about.

What is an example of archaeology proving the Bible true? We can look to the scripture Ecc. 1:9 where it says ‘Nothing is new under the sun.” Archaeology shows the truthfulness of that verse all the time. The modern world thinks it has something the ancients haven’t but when one studies the past they see that the ideas of modern inventions were present in the past.

One example—flight. They may not have been able to build airplanes but the idea of flight was present in ancient Greece and other societies. Leonardo Da Vinci is known for his drawings of a helicopter.

Another example would be sewage systems. Waste has been an issue since the beginning and it had to be disposed of to maintain the health of the ancient societies . We read how the Minoans had a sewer system as did the Romans and many other ancient civilizations as well.

The Greeks had a computer, though it was not like today’s models, they still had the idea. Archaeology is full of proof that the Bible is true and in ways does prove it so. We can look at the Patriarchs and see that their names were in use at the exact time Abraham, Isaac and Jacob lived which again verifies the accuracy of the Biblical record.

Does it mean that those people we read about in ancient manuscripts were the Patriarchs? Not necessarily and a strong doubtful but we take strength in knowing that the Bible recorded their names correctly giving us the reassurance that God did not lie, did not make a mistake and did not lead one astray.

For further reading:



Protecting Children


Over the past couple of decades this idea has wormed its way into modern society and has turned into something that the late George Carlin called –the cult of children.  For some reason, in the west children have been exalted above their parents, above other adults and placed upon a pillar where anyone who dares desecrate their bubble world are vilified and attack viciously.


I use the words ‘bubble world’ because the wrong idea of what the word ‘protect’ means has entered into many parents’ minds and they have tried to shut off the real world from entering their child’s life and spoiling their so-called innocence.


It is not a good attitude to have and in the old days this attitude was called ‘being over-protective’ and that mentality was fought as parents were hurting their child’s development.  Unfortunately, over the decades, the over-protective parents have subtlely taken over the general mindset of western culture and now this attitude is seen as the norm and any other is falsely seen as abuse or bad parenting.


This is not a good sign as the child in that type of environment is the real victim as they do not learn the lessons they need to learn to function in a grown up world.  What over-protective parents do is isolate their children from all sorts of perceived dangers, whether it is blue language or handling tools.


It doesn’t matter what it is as the child is deprived of learning how to deal with the problems they face and they are left far more vulnerable than they should be. This vulnerability actually translates into inability which will affect their own self-image or self-worth. The parent may think they are doing the right thing but the bigger and long range picture tells us that they are hurting their child instead.


The child will not deal with fear properly thus rendering them less able to handle dangerous situations as adults as their fears rise up and immobilizes them. They become targets for bullies as they are shown to be weaker members of society than they should be. They will also not be emotionally equipped to handle many aspects of life, as they were not allowed to learn from their mistakes and grow from them.


This isolation of children from supposed dangers does not help them at all but it does make parenting easier for those perceived dangers are supposedly removed from the child’s path. But isolating children is not protecting them, it is weakening and robbing them of life’s lessons they need to learn so they can grow up wise, aware, and ready.


What is the best way to protect children? First, is to teach them correctly. By isolating children they do not have the opportunity to see that it is their fears that holds them back from accomplishing great things. If they are taught how to correctly handle swearing, then they will not be embarrassed or shocked when they encounter it and less likely to over-react which would cause more problems.


Second, by showing them how to operate tools, weapons, vehicles, etc., and when to use each, their self-confidence grows and they will know how to protect themselves when someone else is acting stupidly with such items. A parent cannot be around a child 24/7 and it is irresponsible to remove such learning from their daily lives for the child’s ignorance will lead to more harm than the isolation is meant to avoid. Such over-protection creates more danger because the child does not know the right thing to do


It is wise of a parent to prepare their children for when they will be on their own equipping them to correctly handle a situation without fear instead of letting their fears dictate the outcome of a problem. How many lives would be saved if parents would take the time to show their child how to do things in dangerous situations?


Instilling the child with the correct knowledge goes along ways in protecting them and those who are around them. It also takes away their vulnerability and makes them better functioning members of a constructive society.


The Bible tells parents to ‘train up a child in what to do and they will not depart from it’ and the lessons learned from this one paraphrased verse are valuable. First, the parent is charged by God to raise their children. They are the ones who set their children on the path they should go and how equipped they will be to handle their lives. Second, What the parent teaches remains with the child for life. If they are raised weak and vulnerable then they will remain weak and vulnerable bringing less security to their children.


If they are raised wisely, and shown how to handle life and the tools that come with it, then they can pass that knowledge and strength on to their children. But it all starts with the parents and if they let fear turn them into over-protective and unwise parents then their child is doomed from the start. The parents cannot abdicate this responsibility off to the child’s teachers for their teachers may not hold to the same beliefs as the parents and use the vulnerability of the child to turn them against what the parents know is right and wrong.


The parents must prepare their children for school and teach them how to handle what comes from their school mates and their teachers so that the child can withstand the temptations and attacks presented by the academic aspect of life. I do not know how many Christian students have lost their faith in university because they were isolated from the alternative thinking that prevails in the world today.


Children need to be prepared to face the onslaught by those who do not believe, if they are not then all the isolation and over-protection went for naught. Parents need to teach their offspring how to preserve their faith instead of sending them like sheep to the slaughter.


Isolation, over-protection, and unpreparedness do not work nor does elevating children to some lofty pedestal. All such acts are wrong and anti-biblical and allows for evil to keep them from eternity with God. If the parent does not know how to prepare their child then they need to ask God for the strength and courage, plus the know how to do it. 


Children’s eternity is not a joke for we know that God hates sin, even in children as evidenced by the fact that not one child was saved at the time of Noah’s flood.  If parent’s want to protect and save their children then they need to stop following the ‘safe’ route and follow God’s.

The Use of Culture


One of the advantages of living in a different culture is that one has the opportunity to observe how other people look at life. This experience also allows one to review one’s own upbringing and compare the differences between different cultures and how they affect understanding the Bible.


For the past 40 years or so the sentence, ‘we must look at the culture of that time…’ has become a popular tool in grasping what the Bible says to the people of today. Many professors like to use the ideology of different cultures as justification to change what God has said to believers and use the altered words to allow the church to follow secular ideas and teachings.


They fail to think things through as the danger of using culture as an interpretive tool overshadows the benefits gained. Most of the time the professors and scholars only compare 2 cultures when doing exegetical work—the ancient middle Hebrew and the western ones.  The problem with this narrow focus is that most of the nations of the world do not subscribe to the western way of thinking and what is right in the west is not always correct in the other cultures and what is wrong in the west is not necessarily wrong in those same countries (and vice versa).


Cultures have developed along their own lines of thinking, sometimes invaders or visitors influence their development. They generally follow the whims and will of the nations developing their own particular idea of how their society or civilization should function. They depend upon several factors that play large roles in developing societal rules for their people to follow. There is no one human cultural way greater than another. One is not superior or inferior as they all have their pros and cons.


This makes using culture a danger when it comes to scripture reading because of its limited nature, its fallibility and its lack of being the ideal. Culture is human created not divine thus there is no ultimate standard, no one human culture that is free of sin or corruption which makes it the best choice to judge the rest by. Culture just fails as a Biblical tool.


For the believer then using human culture to interpret the perfect words of God found in the Bible is a wasted effort beyond understanding certain ancient acts—Sarah giving her maid to Abraham to bear children as one example.


At no time does ancient human culture change what God has said is His will nor do they alter His or Jesus’ commands and teachings. The Bible is not a human product and was not authored by humans. Its source is the divine which makes it and its content superior to anything humans could construct, even culture.


Thus when the Bible says that women are not to be preachers, not to teach men then the modern secular culture cannot nor is able to alter the meaning of those words to excuse a change in practice in the church or believer’s lives.  What God said 2000 years ago for His followers to abide by still applies today regardless of what the secular world or ‘enlightened believer’ thinks.


To use culture as an exegetical tool means to elevate it to above divine authority and make the latter subject to whatever human ideas permeate their present cultural norms. It also means demoting God’s word to fallibility status and allowing the idea that it can be wrong. Both acts are not correct. God’s word is the authority which governs culture and guides it in the direction it should go, not vice versa.


God’s word does allow some flexibility, for example the verse in Proverbs which states, ‘Spare he rod spoil the child.’  This verse does not mean that parents are only allowed to use a stick in punishing their children and that they are to beat the offspring until they are bleeding.


It means that the parents are to use discipline when the child does wrong. Now that verse does not eliminate correctly administered corporal punishment from being used nor does it outlaw non-corporal punishment. Other verses come into play, not culture, on how parents are to discipline their children.


This means that the parents are free to decide what punishment they will use upon their own children as long as it follows the rules God has laid out in other verses. Those rules fall under the guidelines of being fair, honest, just and leaves room for mercy and compassion The also include the disclaimer that punishment is to bring repentance, which tells the parent how far they can actually go when disciplining their children.


Culture cannot do this for all it produces are subjective ideas that eliminate God’s direction (for the most part) from the disciplinary equation.  In today’s western culture the ideology of ‘no tolerance’ has taken root and people, children, students have been reprimanded unfairly because of this mentality. ‘No tolerance’ leaves out justice, fairness, mercy, compassion and installs one set of ideas by one person or group who have rejected other forms of punishment.


What makes this method subjective is that it is not perfect nor the ideal and other people or groups have their own ideas which often disagree with the current person or group in power. The standard for punishment changes with each new group or leader that replaces the previous one. This constant change only brings chaos and confusion to the people.


This is why culture cannot be used as an exegetical tool. Its use depends upon the person or group wielding it and its definitions or results will or can change when another group or person gains dominance over the rest.  The culture of the time of Christ did not influence God’s writing of the New Testament nor did the apostle’s personal thoughts. They wrote as God directed and spread those teachings to all so that God’s followers would know how they are to live. There was no cultural time limit on those words and were meant to be followed till the end of time.


Sadly, the modern Christian has allowed the secular world to influence their thinking which has lead to the altering of God’s word in these times. False teaching has crept into the church and distorted right from wrong, truth from error and how a believer is to live. 


The Bible, Jesus, the disciples did not teach that the believer is to follow culture when seeking the truth or what God meant by certain verses. It does teach to follow the Holy Spirit but unfortunately many do not because the direction the Holy Spirit wants believers to travel is often not the one humans desire.


So just like the Israelites of the book of Judges, they see how the unbelieving world goes and follow it, leading God to say—‘why do ye call me lord, lord, when you do not do the things I say.’


Inclusive or Exclusive


One of the main arguments unbelievers have against Christianity is that they think that God’s kingdom is very exclusive.  They base this argument upon the reasoning that their rules and criteria should be used in determining who enters heaven and not God’s.


Because they do not allow God the right to manage His own realm, like they do the governments of the world, they come to false ideas about entrance into heaven.  But is God exclusive? Does He bar certain people from entering His domain when from all human appearances they should be allowed to enter?


I. Inclusiveness


If we look at the words found in some scriptures we find that God really does open the door to all. In the famous born again passage all believers use we find the word ‘whomever’ used in John 3:16 and then in verse 18 we find it used again twice.


This tells us that the path of salvation is open to all. It does not matter their age, their sex, their wealth, or lack of it, or their social standing.  The broadness of the invitation or criteria covers all of God’s human creation.


This means that people as good as the Dali Lama or as evil as Hitler have the opportunity to enter into salvation and be allowed to live in heaven when their earthly lives are done. But is it that simple?


II. Exclusiveness


The unbelievers often argue that people who live good lives should be allowed to enter God’s kingdom when they die and they get very turned off of the gospel when they are informed that people like the Dali Lama or others who do no human wrong will be excluded from entry and sent to eternal damnation.


Their anger is not justified nor is their rejection of Jesus because they ignore the criteria of God and replace it with their own standards of morality, no matter how inferior they are to God’s measure. Yes, we can say that God is exclusive because He has set the limits on who can or cannot enter into His eternal rest.


Those people who have not repented of their sins and accepted His son as their Savior will not be allowed to enter into heaven, regardless of how good a life they lived. Why? Because God has excluded one thing from entering His kingdom-- sin. He does not want any part of evil in His presence.


God’s kingdom, God’s heaven, God’s rules.  So yes, God is exclusive. Not all people , even those who claim to have preached in Jesus’ name, will enter into heaven. This is evidenced by the scriptures Mt. 7:22-24, Rev. 20:15, 21:27 and many other passages found throughout the Biblical pages.


Why won’t the Dali Lama enter God’s heaven—because he served a false religion and rejected salvation. Why won’t others of celebrity and fame enter into God’s heaven- because they did not repent of their sins and followed evil throughout their lives.


III. The Reason for This


Why does God act in this manner, shunning those who broke no human law or helped the poor etc.?  It is simple. To allow any and everyone to enter into His heaven, God makes a mockery of His son’s life and sacrifice. Jesus’ blood was shed then for no reason and served no purpose. His suffering went for not if God broadened the way to His kingdom.


The Bible would be made moot and would not need to be written as it would not matter how one lived their lives for entrance into heaven was guaranteed with the removal of exclusion. Morality and laws would mean nothing and anarchy would reign on earth and people maimed and killed for the sport of it because the value of morality and the law was destroyed by the removal of the exclusionary clause.


IV. Conclusion


God has reasons for His rules and actions and if people were honest enough to look beyond the surface they would see some of the reasons behind such implementation. Life as we know it would not exist if God did not exclude sin and sinners from His plan of salvation and His kingdom.