Sudden cardiac death from cosmic rays

What does this mean for space travel and planned colonization of Mars? Mars has no magnetic field to protect from cosmic rays.
 
“…there are studies linking cosmic rays with cardiac arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death in the general population. Our latest measurements show that cosmic rays are intensifying, with an increase of more than 18% since 2015.”
— (from spaceweather dot com)
 
 
 
 

Taking the Mark of the Beast

It appears to me that the idea of science (human perception) as final authority is the mark of the beast. The churches have accepted it, at least in principle, by accepting the scientifically-based practice of social distancing, and cancelling their meetings, as the solution to the Wuhan pandemic, rather than continuing to meet and trusting God for whatever happens. It is not a matter of trusting God to keep church members from getting sick, but trusting Him for whatever He gives.
Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. (“science?”)
Those who do not trust science as final authority will be in a position to reject the Mark, since it will be dependent on trusting science more than God, we can be sure. Those who trust science can be expected to accept the Mark, enthusiastically, whatever actual physical form it will take, if any.
Society is not learning the right lesson from the Wuhan pandemic. We are seeing lessons on how heroic people are resisting it using science and the indomitable human spirit, and no lessons of how it brings people to repentance from their sins and trust in Jesus as the propitiation for us, to make us acceptable to God.
That is not surprising, because Jesus has generally been knowingly rejected as Savior by world society. He is just presented as another example of the heroic human spirit as in the Mithras cult, or a self-improvement program.

Now, science is our savior, even for the churches. Science even is used to confirm the Bible, making science above God.

Christ keeps the Covenant for us

The New Covenant is between Christ and the Father. We are not required to keep it. We are required to be in Christ.

The late John Robbins wrote:

Tabletalk Rewrites the Covenant

March 2004
Friends,
The February 2004 issue of Tabletalk, a monthly magazine published by Ligonier Ministries, contains a lethal misrepresentation of the Covenant of Grace. In its February 18 “devotional,” we read these words:

“The book of Hebrews uses this story [of ancient Israel] as a basis for warning Christians to persevere, thereby proving that the new covenant can be broken as well [as the Mosaic could]….

“The fact that Hebrews gives real warnings and teaches that the new covenant can be broken might seem strange to those of us from a Reformed background. After all, are not the elect secure in their salvation? Surely it is not possible for the elect to lose their salvation?… How then can these warnings be real?

“The answer lies in the concept of covenant. When God makes a covenant, He makes a covenant with both believers and unbelievers, with both the elect and the reprobate…. Human beings are responsible to keep the covenant….”

Nothing could be further from the truth. First, Hebrews says that the new covenant is better than the old Mosaic covenant:

“But now he [Christ] has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as he is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises [than the Mosaic covenant]. For if the first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.”

Second, the new covenant, says Hebrews, is better because it cannot be broken:

“I will put my laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God and they shall be my people. None of them shall teach his neighbor and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them ” (Hebrews 8:10-11).

There is no possibility of these things not happening: “All shall know me.”

Third, God does not make the new covenant, the Covenant of Grace, with both the reprobate and the elect, despite what Tabletalk says. The Covenant is made with the elect only. Question 31 (and many other questions as well) of the Westminster Larger Catechism makes this perfectly clear:

“Q.31 With whom was the Covenant of Grace made?

“A. The Covenant of Grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.”

In the new and better covenant, God the Father made an agreement with God the Son, Jesus Christ. Acting as the Mediator, as the Representative and Substitute for his people, the elect, Jesus Christ fulfilled all the conditions of the Covenant of Works that Adam had failed to fulfill. Jesus procured all the blessings of salvation for his people, and that salvation he gives to them all as a free gift.

What Tabletalk is teaching is false doctrine. Tabletalk’s covenant is the basis of the Antichristian Neolegalism that is sweeping through Reformed churches. This false covenant does not recognize the role of Christ as Mediator. Instead, it requires believers to fulfil unspecified conditions of the covenant in order to keep their salvation. In this false covenant, there is no room for Christ as the Substitute for and Representative of his people, who alone met the conditions the holiness of God requires for salvation: perfection. In this false covenant there is no room for Christ as Savior. In this false covenant, the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness as the necessary and sufficient ground for salvation of sinners is denied. In this false covenant, sinners are told that they themselves must meet the conditions of salvation, the “obligations of the covenant,” and by their own “covenant faithfulness” obtain the blessings of the covenant.

If they love the brethren and the truth, the writers, editors, and publishers of Tabletalk must issue an immediate apology to their readers, and a correction and retraction for these false statements. Their failure to do so will justifiably cause many more to doubt the doctrinal soundness of Tabletalk. For three years Tabletalk gave Douglas Wilson, a proponent of Neolegalism, a platform for his views; now the magazine is giving George Grant, a featured speaker at the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (which is the primary source of Neolegalism in the PCA), a platform for his views.

When taken to task two years ago for saying in Tabletalk that Peter was the head of the church, the editor of Tabletalk refused to issue a correction or retraction to his readers. So the magazine’s record is not good.

The question we must ask is, Will Tabletalk repudiate Neolegalism and its proponents, or will it continue to teach it and to give the proponents of Neolegalism a platform?

John Robbins
The Trinity Foundation
March 4, 2004

For further reading go to Review Archives at http://www.trinityfoundation.org

Science pretends to be God

What is the difference between trusting science and trusting God? Doesn’t God use science to save us from disease? The difference is that we trust God even if He does not save us from disease.

Job 13:15 Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him:

This cartoon has many problems; mainly, that the “God” that is speaking is more like “science” than the God of the Bible.

Much of the opposition to the Biblical account of creation is due to a deeply ingrained worship of science in modern society as able to discover the mysteries of the universe. The popular conception of the universe is due to the appeal of science fiction, and the mental exercise of imagining the expansion of the human spirit into space, and church people fall for it and use the excuse of “seeing the glory of God in the stars.”

But science fiction is fiction. It is fully compatible with atheism, and is exciting to the fallen human spirit because it is an escape from the constraints imposed by God in the Bible. Science fiction is worship of a different god, and it lets us know why the Israelites had so much trouble doing what God said, and instead following the gods of the Canaanites. It’s just plain fun for the mind not renewed by the Bible.

Quantum reality

Rick Delano, with Robert Sungenis, also produced the movie “The Principle” which was about the problems with the Copernican Principle. He was my Facebook friend at one time. He blocked me when I asked him to stop saying that the Roman Catholic Church was right to have burned John Huss at the stake. He has a new movie about the crisis in modern physics.

SYNOPSIS

Almost one hundred years ago, the project to reduce the world to mathematical physics failed suddenly and completely: “One of the best-kept secrets of science,” physicist Nick Herbert writes, “is that physicists have lost their grip on reality.” The world, we are now told, emerges spontaneously, out of “nothing,” and constitutes a “multiverse,” where “anything that can happen will happen, and it will happen an infinite number of times.”

Legendary reclusive genius Wolfgang Smith demonstrates on shockingly obvious grounds the dead end at which physics has arrived, and how we can “return, at last, to the real world.”

The End of Quantum Reality introduces this extraordinary man to a contemporary audience which has, perhaps, never encountered a true philos-sophia, one as intimately at ease with the rigors of quantum physics as with the greatest schools of human wisdom.

“Wolfgang Smith broaches a vast range of subjects with a mastery that bespeaks an immense culture… It would be hard to exaggerate the importance of [his] work.”
— Jean Borella, ​​​​​​​Professor of Philosophy, ​​​​​​​University of Nancy, France
“Here is that rare person who is equally at home with Eckhart and Einstein, Heraclitus and Heisenberg!”
— Harry Oldmeadow, ​​​​​​​Professor of Philosophy, ​​​​​​​La Trobe University, Australia
“Wolfgang Smith is as important a thinker as our times boast.”
— Huston Smith, Professor of Philosophy, M.I.T., and author of The World’s Religions

//… Inner Explorations: Tell us what motivated you to write on philosophical subjects.

Wolfgang Smith: More than anything else, it was the recognition that science is a doubled-edged sword. On the one hand there is scientific truth, a bona fide knowledge of a special kind; but that knowledge is accompanied in practice by a syndrome of philosophic assumptions which are generally mistaken for scientific truths. It became clear to me, moreover, in light of the metaphysical traditions, that these scientistic beliefs (as I call them) tend to be spurious, and deleterious to our spiritual well-being. I became convinced, in fact, that the spiritual and moral decline of modern civilization–our estrangement from spiritual reality–is due in no small measure to the scientistic world-view which has been foisted upon us in the name of science. I therefore made it my business to detect and expose the principal scientistic dogmas affecting contemporary civilization.

IE: Can you give an example of a prominent scientistic belief?

WS: As a major example I would mention the Darwinian theory of evolution, which (contrary to official belief) is not in fact a scientific hypothesis corroborated by empirical facts, but a philosophic tenet masquerading in scientific garb. As one molecular biologist has put it, Darwinism is ultimately “no more and no less than the great cosmogenetic myth of the twentieth century.” The genre of scientistic myth, however, is not limited to the sphere of biology; it is to be found even in the physical domain. When it comes to psychology and the social sciences, moreover, it appears that myth actually predominates. I have explained and documented these contentions in my first book….//