How Does God Deliver Us?

Posted on by metroupe

“Call upon me in the day of trouble, I will deliver you and you shall glorify me.”
Psalm 50:15

In meditating upon this verse I asked myself, “how does God deliver us?” This led me to think about the nature of our troubles and I came up with this attempt to help me understand the kinds of trouble I face and how Jesus helps me.

Concerning trouble (and deliverance from it) I would suggest that there are three things to consider. There are probably other ways of looking at this, but this was helpful to me. To help illustrate this, let me give an example from the story of David and Goliath:

  • The cause(s) of trouble: Goliath and the Philistine army.
  • The trouble itself: we will suffer painful injuries.
  • The results of the trouble: we will die and our people will be enslaved.

I think that God delivers us from the days of trouble in many different ways. I have come up with these 9 that have been a rebuke to my anxious unbelief. In some of these I use the concept of the cause of trouble and the trouble itself loosely and interchangeably because they are so often connected.

1. He gives us a different view of the trouble. He teaches us what the real trouble is. Sometimes after the fact we find that we were mistaken. Jesus teaches us this when He says that the fear and anxiety associated with lack of food or clothing can help us to learn that our lives are more than food and the body more than clothing. Sometimes the problem is “us.” Sometimes we are the cause of our problems with our sin and carelessness. We would like to escape the consequences without escaping our waywardness. But God delivers us by chastening us for our good.

We could further illustrate this by thinking of a scared child who is learning to swim. The child is crying and afraid, reluctant to get into the water, even in his mother’s arms. The child has a fear of drowning. We might say that this is the trouble for them. Although drowning is possible, in his mother’s arms there is little danger of this. The real problem is the fear of the water and not knowing how to swim. Through the tears the mother grabs the child (against his will!) and teaches him to swim and overcome his fear of the water.

2. He destroys the cause of the trouble Himself. At the Red Sea the children of Israel were faced with death and slaughter at the hands of pharaoh’s army. The Lord parted the Red Sea and destroyed the king of Egypt. At Jericho God interceded and miraculously brought down the walls of the city. The Lord sent and angel to deliver Peter from prison, and many times provided bread and water in the desert. When Hezekiah was threatened with siege and defeat at the hands of the king of Assyria, God sent an angel to kill 185,000 men and sent Sennacherib away (2 Kings 19:35).

3. He uses us and He uses our own efforts to overcome and destroy the trouble. We must trust first and call upon the Lord. Our own efforts won’t be enough to deliver us without God’s help. Yet often the Lord uses our efforts to overcome the trouble. It was the stone from David’s sling that brought down the giant, and the boy’s hand gripped the sword that severed Goliath’s head. Noah and his family were saved from the flood by they boat that he and his sons had built.

4. He causes our enemies (or trouble) to destroy themselves. Several times we read this kind of language in the book of proverbs: Proverbs 26:27, “Whoever digs a pit will fall into it, And he who rolls a stone will have it roll back on him.” God brings victory through Gideon by driving the Midianites to destroy themselves (Judges 7). Several times when the Pharisees came questioning Jesus because of their jealousy, He returned a question that they could not answer. Their own jealousy put them to shame.

5. He helps us to understand and endure the trouble, and sometimes prevents the effects. We experience this when we “endure” temptation without giving in (James 1:12). In Jesus’ parable of the houses built on the rock and the sand, the storm comes upon both (Matt 7). Yet there is a very different outcome. Joseph is not saved from the experience of slavery or imprisonment, but allowed to endure and at the end even to understand God’s gracious purpose (Genesis 50:20).

6. He sends someone or something to help us through the trouble. In the midst of drought and famine, God provides for Elijah by sending Ravens with food, and later the widow of Zarephath (I Kings 17:4 and 9). Daniel is not spared from the Lion’s den, but an angel is sent to spare him from their teeth (Dan 6:22). When Paul is in prison, Onesiphorus comes to refresh him (2 Tim 1:16). And how many of us have received an unexpected check when we have prayed for the Lord to provide for us?

7. He does not remove the trouble but prevents the consequences from coming upon us. A deadly viper bites Paul, but he is unaffected by the venom (Acts 28:3). God does not spare Meshach, Shadrach, and Abednego from the anger of the king, the trial and questioning, neither the shame of condemnation nor the furnace. But He spares them from the fire and honors them and Himself in the end.

8. He allows the consequences to come upon us to show us that He is our greatest treasure. God is going to judge the wickedness of the Jews, and He is going to use the military muscle of the Chaldeans to do it. Habakkuk is faced with the coming invasion that will be a judgment on the nation of Israel and lay waste her economy. Yet God gives grace and He is able to pray, “Though the fig tree may not blossom, Nor fruit be on the vines; Though the labor of the olive may fail, and the fields yield no food; Though the flock may be cut off from the fold, And there be no herd in the stalls—Yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will joy in the God of my salvation (Hab. 3:17-18). In like manner when David is deprived of his royal palace, running from Absalom, and living in a desert wasteland, he prays, “O God, You are my God; early will I seek You; My soul thirsts for You; My flesh longs for You in a dry and thirsty land where there is no water (psalm 63:1).” In this case something else was keeping us from really seeing that God is our greatest possession.

9. He uses the trouble at hand to end all of our troubles and take us to heaven. To some this may not sound like deliverance at all. But it is. Sometimes in our day of trouble we may die. But God’s ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. In Romans chapter eight Paul says, “Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.” What are “all these things?” “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written: ‘For Your sake we are killed all day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.’ Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. (Romans 8:35-27)” We become conquerors because we continue to trust and serve Him through the trials, and our enemies cannot touch our real security.

One amazing thought is that the death of Jesus as our ultimate deliverance involves many of these methods to bring us ultimate deliverance from our sin.

When I think of the different ways that God has delivered His people from trouble, and that He has promised to deliver me when I call upon Him, I am ashamed that I struggle with so much anxiety. May God help us to trust His promises.

Perhaps you can think of some other ways that God delivers us. I would love to hear about them.

The Famous British Preacher C.H. Spurgeon preached a sermon from this passage called “Robinson Crusoe’s Text” Download it

Mutations and Evolution, it Doesn’t Add Up

Posted on by metroupe

DNA
I am just a community college student, but I like to actually think when I am in class. And recently in my human physiology class, we were studying DNA replication and the whole issue of mutations. My professor, Steve Langjahr (one of the best teachers I have ever had) mentioned that sometimes mutations can be beneficial. The result: benefit to the genetics of the species in particular and the gene pool in general. He did admit that this was rare, but said that it was possible. This is of course the operating assumption of evolution. The mechanism that makes natural selection possible is beneficial mutations. This got me to thinking about mutations and the scientific basis for evolution. It sounds plausible on the surface, but when I really started thinking about it, this idea seemed very unscientific to me. Here are a few things that came into my mind:

1. When it comes to mutations and heritability (the ability to pass the mutation, good or bad to your offspring) there are 2 kinds of cells. There are sex cells, which are found in the ovaries and testes-these produce cells capable of sexual reproduction. And there are somatic cells, which are pretty much everything else. The only cells that are involved in sexual reproduction, from a genetic standpoint, are your sex cells. So any other mutations, even though they may conceivably be beneficial, will not harm or benefit your offspring genetically, because they do not pass on to your children unless they affect your gonads. Practically speaking, unless the mutation affects your sperm or ova, it will not help evolution. This takes the vast majority of all possible mutations out of the game of natural selection. Additionally not all mutations of sex cells are passed along to all offspring. Some are recessive.

2. The vast majority of mutations that are translated into protein production are either neutral (because they are in an incodon, aportion of the DNA that is “cut out”) , harmful or even lethal. Whether the mutation is a substitution, insertion, or deletion of a base in the DNA sequence, most mutations that register a noticeable effect are deleterious to the organism. In fact, it is hard to find substantive instances of beneficial mutations that do not simply involve variety within a species. On the web plenty of table pounding evolutionists can point to all kinds of bacteria and yeast that learned to do circus tricks in a petry dish. But this is a far cry from an organism morphing into another organism, and a far cry from showing examples in nature. I read one example on the web of a man who offered as evidence of beneficial mutations, a report that a frame shift DNA mutation produced a new enzyme that worked 1% as efficiently as the normal enzymes. It could just be me, but that doesn’t sound like forward progress. A few examples of the harmful mutations include cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, and sickle cell anemia. This is a real serious problem for evolution, scientifically it is the exact opposite of what evolutionists postulate.

3. For a mutation to “move” evolution along, it must be so helpful that it increases a creature’s chances of survival. It is plain by examining ourselves or many other animals that we can live just fine without many of the supposed adaptations that have “evolved” to make us what we are. Examples: Eyebrows, fingernails, tastebuds, etc. We can live just fine without a spleen, or tonsils. You get the idea. The theory says that the mutations involved in natural selection are so beneficial that they give me survival advantage to the mutant above those around it. Everyone else dies off while the mutant survives.

4. To support evolution, a mutation must not only be beneficial, but it must be heritable (as above #1) and increase the likelihood of reproduction. Let’s say that I had a son who was born with a helpful mutation such enhanced night vision. This would only make a difference if it resulted in my son being more likely to reproduce than his classmates, who would eventually die off because they were unfit. Furthermore, he would have to find a female that he would be able to reproduce with. Some mutations are so radical that they would prevent sexual reproduction unless your mate had the identical mutation (think of donkeys and horses, chickens and falcons can’t reproduce either). Furthermore, as it is, not all “fully evolved” creatures are able to reproduce because of hostile conditions. (e.g. dear competing for a mate, the vast majority of crocodile eggs do not hatch and produce an adult crocodile who reproduces). From a plausibility stand point, here is what bothers me. If a mutation was so small and gradual that it allowed for reproduction it is unlikely that it would have such massive survival value that it would promote natural selection. On the other hand, if a mutation was so radical as to be of great survival benefit it is likely to prevent sexual reproduction.

5. Statistical probability. Admittedly evolutionary biologists have a hard time coming up with anything but imaginary examples of beneficial mutations to support the theory. They can show how existing variety within a species can benefit an organism, a la the black butterflies in the smog, or the drug resistant bacteria. But coming up with mutations that account for a change from one species to another, let alone one genus to another is a tougher row to hoe. This should cause some sleepless nights, especially in light of:
a. The current rate of mutations is more than ever in history because of an increased amount of mutagens in the environment. There are more mutations and more chances of mutations than previously because there are more causes of mutations.
b. Increased population. Let’s think of humans. There are about 6 billion of us on the earth now, more than ever before. Much more than ever before. The rate of reproduction is millions of times greater than it ever has been in the long history of anthropology. The amount of DNA transcription and replication that occurs in one year now, would have taken thousands or millions of years in the past. The mathematical conditions that would need to exist for random mutations to produce benefits are all around us.
c. Medical science has preserved lives and extended our life span more than we have ever seen. Additionally, medicine has enabled people that would not have been able to survive and reproduce to do just that.
The situation is a prime biological stage to demonstrate evolution through mutation. We are more likely than ever to see mutations, and for mutated people to survive and reproduce.

So what has this produced for us? It hasn’t produced any evolution, and it hasn’t lead evolutionary biologists to write a new playbook. To suggest that evolution is unscientific is a form of flat-earth techno-blasphemy. I thought that one of the tenets of science was falsifiability? I thought that we are supposed to change our views when information becomes more clear, or the evidence points in a different direction. I don’t believe in evolution because I am a Christian, and I believe that God made all things in 6 days and all very good. But I admit that what I believe is not pure science, it is a philosophy, it is faith. Though I believe it is a faith with scientific support, that is another discussion. Sadly, many biologists won’t admit the same…namely that this idea is a philosophy and not science. One of the prime evidences of this is that some won’t allow it to be disproved by the facts.

 

Photo used by permission AJ Cann. Some Rights Reserved