Home » Monday: Worship the Creator    


Monday: Worship the Creator — 23 Comments

  1. We worship the Creator because it has much to do with life, for He is the source of our life. When we worship God, it means we are taking the side of God in the cosmic conflict. This call to worship the Creator becomes necessary amidst the din of false worship, nature worship, materialism, the replacement of God with science, the theory of evolution and a false Sabbath. The first angel’s message calls for a return to the authentic, biblical and primitive godliness. By worshiping the Lord as Creator, we acknowledge our dependence upon Him for existence and for our future hope.

  2. I went looking for Swift Parrots early on Sabbath morning. Swifties, as we call them, are rare and our best guess is that their numbers are in the 100s. Unusual for a parrot, they are migratory. They breed in Tasmania in the summer, and then fly across Bass Strait to the mainland and fly up towards Queensland where it is warm in Winter. They are very dependent on Eucalypt flowers for their food and most of these Eucalypts are old-growth forest trees. These forests are under threat through land clearing and urban sprawl.

    A fellow birdwatcher asked me for some help in doing something to protect these forests and as a consequence the Swift Parrots. Now I am not an activist of the sort that chains myself naked to trees, but I am passionate about enjoying and protecting God's creation. I have supplied this lady with photographs of Swift Parrots as she is involved in an art installation highlighting the plight of our birds. It is not a big thing on my part but it is something I can do to show that my brand of Christianity worships a creator.

    It is easy to do lip service to God the creator, but if all we do is argue about creation without showing we love and care for God's creation all our words fall on deaf ears. I often take visitors, many of them atheist or agnostic on the walking tracks around Avondale University to show them where birds are found. Just showing that we care and sharing that care with others is, I believe, an act of worship.

    Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. Matt 10:29 KJV

    We worship a God who counts sparrows!

  3. How does one explain that a chunk of a fossil tree is crossing different layers (aged differently) of the Grand Canyon? What about the thousands of microorganisms found in the same (aged differently) layers of rocks? What's wrong, the aging data, or the origin process?

  4. I see God as the author depicts, the Creator so awesome and powerful my heart is drawn to respectfully worship Him only. It is a feeling that pulls me closer to the One who sees even the sparrow fall. No, we should not govern our lives by feelings, rather by principle. However, when it comes to feelings towards our mighty Creator, love towards Him, seeing Him as our Creator so powerful, and the splendour of His creations, it gives me warm and fuzzy feeling, or if you prefer, raises my serotonin levels.

    "For God is working in you, giving you the desire and the power to do what pleases him."
    Philippians 2:13. NLT.

    The reality of that text, and todays lesson, as also given by today's bloggers, is further illuminated by the 1st step towards Christ, which is a step we can use over and over again to retain a loving relationship with Christ.

    "Nature and revelation alike testify of God's love. Our Father in heaven is the source of life, of wisdom, and of joy. Look at the wonderful and beautiful things of nature. Think of their marvelous adaptation to the needs and happiness, not only of man, but of all living creatures. The sunshine and the rain, that gladden and refresh the earth, the hills and seas and plains, all speak to us of the Creator's love. It is God who supplies the daily needs of all His creatures. In the beautiful words of the psalmist—
    "The eyes of all wait upon Thee;And Thou givest them their meat in due season.Thou openest Thine hand,And satisfiest the desire of every living thing." Psalm 145:15, 16." Steps to Christ, page 9

  5. Pets can't understand the concept of pointing. It always makes me smile if I stick my index finger out and say, "Go get your ball", every time the cute fuzzy canine face will sniff my finger. Matters not how urgently I shake it and raise my voice, saying, "No, over THERE, over THERE". Dog just licks my finger and wags tail harder and looks up into my face with an expression like, "What? What?"

    Paul's letter to the Romans starts with his own meditation on how creation is related to worship. It blessed me to read Romans 1:18-32 in this context. He starts by saying God's nature is very clearly discerned by studying, or even just observing, nature (v. 19-20). Then Paul explains how people have chosen to take the jaw-dropping awesomeness of God as revealed in nature and refuse to go the next step...worship (vv. 21-25). Instead of it humbling them, instead of creation pointing them naturally to their Creator, so many people act like a silly pup....sniffing the pointing finger, worshiping the creation instead of the Creator (Rom. 1:25). And as I keep reading, it's an "aha" for me to hear what Paul says next...that sins like jealousy and fighting and gossip all stem from this ignorance or stubbornness (vv. 26-32).

    I think of all the ways I may admire and worship all kinds of created things, especially in OTHER people - beauty, intelligence, talent, accomplishments, friendships, influence - instead of seeing how all those things point me to God. They don't belong to other people, they belong to God. If I am looking at other people and I begin "worshiping" them, I am in danger of unthankfulness, getting caught up in what other people think of me, envy, and so much more. It's a slope of blindness Satan encourages us to slide down. He doesn't care if we are worshiping self or worshiping other people, as long as we're not worshiping God.

    I love Mark Finley's lesson about the sun. God is immense! His power is limitless! If we zoom our scope out of the massive universe back down to the tiniest speck, we find God there too! The astounding detail and variety! A farmer from Jericho, Vermont, USA, named Wilson Bentley (1865-1931), was the first person to photograph a snow crystal. He made a staggering discovery. In over 5,000 snow crystals, he never found 2 the same!

    If God cares so much about the uniqueness of something that is probably the most transient thing we can think of....a snowflake....how much more has God created us all, personally and uniquely, to bring glory to Him. God values us so very much! Each one of us is uniquely important and precious to Him. God's tenderness is limitless. I want to be like the little songbirds visiting our feeders right now in this chartreuse spring; they sit in front of the seeds pouring out of the holes but they can't stop singing. They take a seed and sing some more.

    My life goes on in endless song
    Above earth's lamentations,...
    Since Christ is Lord of heaven and earth
    How can I keep from singing?

  6. I am thankful that Jesus died for scientists also. As a Christian, and a scientist, I believe in the creation story. I am thrilled to read how we sometimes use the work of scientists to explain the vastness of God's universe and to teach spiritual lessons. Not all science is bad, and so too are not all scientists. This morning, I am impressed to write a couple lines in support of Christian scientists.

    • I believe God created the subject matter of true science! Adam and Eve were the first scientists as they explored God's creation. And if you will check out all the major scientific discoveries of the last several centuries, you will see that most were discovered by God-fearing scientists. A few references: Creation scientists and other specialists of interest, Creation Scientist Profiles, Bible-believing Scientists of the Past. More at our Creation and Science Resources page. (That page has suffered some neglect. So if you run into something that doesn't look right or work correctly, please let us know.)

      In our age the currently accepted "scientific" paradigm explicitly leaves no room for God. It is called scientific naturalism. Those who accept that false paradigm and study origins are bound to come to false conclusions and are thus engaging in "science falsely so-called," whether they know it or not.

      In my younger days, I learned that real science deals with conclusions based on observation and that these observations could be reliably replicated in a laboratory setting. In that kind of science, beliefs about how the universe came about don't generally play a part. However, even in such practical science, believers in creation sometimes have an edge in that they will test hypotheses that believers in the current paradigm automatically rule out.

    • Yes, I agree with Inge. Historically, many of the greatest discoverers (who have made some of the most significant contributions to the scientific body of knowledge) were devout believers in God who believed that the study of the world we live in will reveal the God who created it. Their purpose in study was to know God and make Him known. Unfortunately, modernity has ushered in loud atheistic voices in the scientific community who drown out the voices of true science. It is always encouraging to me to hear that there are Christian scientists like yourself who are carrying out the true scientific inquiry. Thanks!

  7. Good morning. Since this week's lesson mentions the topic of adoration, I wanted to know a point of view regarding the special dates that are celebrated in many parts of the world (Children's Day, Father's Day, the mother who is at the doors, etc.) and that are echoed in the cults or meetings on Saturdays. What are the dangers and/or extremes that we must take care of? Or if we should remove them outright? Thanks in advance, and blessings.

  8. We do not need to invent a new form of science in order to worship the Creator. Geology and astronomy showing the world is millions of years old is just as glorious as short-age variety. The new James Webb telescope reveals an awesome and majestic cosmos. Let's remember that any knowledge of the natural world shows us an awesome God, and there is no need to disparage it.

    • You're so right, Jordan, that "We do not need to invent a new form of science in order to worship the Creator."

      The classic form of observational science practiced by the likes of Galileo, Blaise Pascal, "father of microscopy," Antony von Leeuwenhoek, founder of bacteriology and protozoology, advancer of parasitology, and more, Sir William Herschel, founder of modern Stellar Astronomy, Michael Faraday, inventor of the electric motor, among other things, Raymond Damadian, the inventor of the MRI... I could go on for pages, of course. These scientists and many more all believed in the biblical creation account.

      No, we do not need any "new form of science" that pre-supposes that life on this planet is millions of years old.

      I'm not sure what you mean by "Geology and astronomy showing the world is millions of years old." I've not seen anyone on this blog suggest that this universe was created at the same time as this planet. Seventh-day Adventists do not believe that, because the books of Job and Revelation clearly imply created beings before this planet and its first humans were created. Of course, I agree that geology and astronomy reveal a "glorious Creator."

      The Genesis account is not clear on when the matter (rocks, etc.) of this planet was created. It just says that God created the planet. When Genesis begins, this planet is "without form and void" and without inhabitants. Then God personally organizes the matter He created into the beauty of His finished creation which He pronounced as "very good."

      I wonder, though, whether you mean to suggest that life on this planet is "millions of years old"?

      • As I mentioned, we do not to guess at these things. The fossil record and stratigraphy show us animal life has been here a long time. We give praise to God for the Creation, which means the world as we see it.

        • Ah, so you appear to favor the "new form of science" that presupposes vast ages before humans came on the scene!

          Rather than debating the scientific merits of your statement re the fossil record and stratigraphy (interpretations depend on presuppositions, and yes, some of these presuppositions are guesswork), I just want to point out that the "long time," as in "millions of years" comes with the baggage of evolutionary "development" and death long before humans came on the scene. Thus it is in direct conflict with Scripture (not just the Genesis account, but the statements of Christ and the apostles who referenced Genesis as history). If the evolutionary scenario involves any god at all, it is not the magnificent Creator God of the Bible who personally formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breath of life.

          I cannot see anything "glorious" in a scenario of evolutionary development through death and destruction, compared to the biblical account of creation by divine fiat and personal creation of the first humans. In the millions-of-years scenario, man develops from slime and has no purpose other than to be fit enough to survive, whereas in the biblical story, the first man is the son of God, and his purpose is to reflect the character of God!

          The lesson author says it well, not just in this day's lesson but in others as well!

          Something else to consider is this: The core value of God's government is self-renouncing love. By contrast, the core value, if one can abstract that from evolutionary philosophy, is a self-interested drive to survive. The contrast could not be more stark.

          But then, you haven't said much about what you believe, other than "millions of years" - which comes with a lot of baggage. If I have misunderstood your position, please elaborate. (I realize there are multiple attempts to marry the biblical account with evolutionary philosophy.)

          • Some see it the way you have described. I will not respond to the points you have made, as many others already have done so on sites such as "Answers to Answers in Genesis" or "Evangelicals for Evolutionary Creation," both on Facebook. . I no inherent conflict between the Genesis Creation story and the best of modern science. Consider the possibility that Genesis describes the most recent creation, in which God made Adam and Eve and appointed them to be caretakers of the garden. Or that Genesis is a sacred story that contains many truths, about who and why, but is not a literal description of how and when God made all things. Whichever interpretation, we can be assured that science and religion do not inherently conflict, and we should not teach people that they do. Instead, we can encourage our youth and others to think about ways in which they might be harmonized without disparaging one or the other.

            • Since our blog is supposed to be conversation in a digital medium, not receiving a response to points I made is not very satisfying. I confined my reply to harmonizing a creation model with the biblical text aspect, since our blog is about discussing the biblical text, and I would really appreciate a reply to the points I made. The bottom line is that, if we believe the Bible to be Holy-Spirit-inspired, nothing else matters when our creation scenario does not line up with Scripture - whether or not Genesis 1 - 11 are literal.

              I wish you were a little more specific regarding what you believe. I am aware of various models of "Evolutionary Creation." I just ran across a Youtube video last night of some exchanges between Jason Lisle and Hugh Ross. I rather enjoyed it because Jason said many of the things I would have liked to say to Hugh Ross when years ago I read one of his books which I had bought on the understanding that He believed in biblical creation. Ha! My introduction to "evolutionary creationism" was not very satisfying because Ross's arguments were not challenging, but rather faulty. Like Dr. Lisle, I found him making statements that were just plain wrong.
              The video I watched was on "Discerning Truth: Dialog on the Age of the Earth - Part 1."
              I like Lisle's approach because it is logical and unpretentious. I highly recommend this video and others by him to you and our other readers. His approach is very easy to understand in spite of the fact that he has "PhD" after his name.

              You list other possible alternative "creation" scenarios that attempt to harmonize with Genesis, but they are too many to discuss in one comment. If you'll watch the video and get back to us with your reaction, we can continue the discussion. I'm also open to discussing other interpretations - one at a time.

            • You wrote,

              Consider the possibility that Genesis describes the most recent creation

              That suggests previous creations, and I would like to know more about how you visualize previous creations coming about and being destroyed before Genesis. What is the implication about the character of God in multiple creations and their destruction?

  9. Inge, you raise so many points, and expect me respond to them all. I wish you could trust that I am telling you the truth when I say I cannot get to them all. My best friend just died, and I am trying to organize his memorial service. My daughter's ballet performance takes to the stage for rehearsals three or four times a week. In addition, I teach two classes a week, so with prep time and office hours, it's much more. Etc etc.
    If you want to focus on one idea, and not try to hit the side of the barn, I can join you.

    • Thank you for your response, Jordan. Yes, I trust that you are telling the truth about not being able to "get to them all." So sorry to hear that your best friend died! May the hope of the resurrection give you comfort.

      I confess your reply struck me as a bit amusing because I thought *you* were trying "to hit the side of the barn." Maybe we can both do our best to narrow our focus a bit.

  10. I will try to respond to your points, although it may be a little random than you hope for.

    You state, "if we believe the Bible to be Holy-Spirit-inspired, nothing else matters when our creation scenario does not line up with Scripture - whether or not Genesis 1 - 11 are literal."

    If we believe the Bible to be Holy-Spirit inspired, we should expect that it is adapted to various audience and cultures over a thousand years or more. The same principle applies to later readers. At the very least ,we should be very cautious trying to line up the interpretations of others and judging them against our own. They too may be illumined by the Spirit to interpret the text for their own time and. culture. On the issue of the Genesis, there has been a large variety of interpretations over 2,000 years. Therefore, "lining up " with Scripture is itself problematic, as in, who speaks for scripture?

    • Thanks for the reply!

      From my point of view, you make a good case for discussing how a view of creation lines up with Scripture, even if Genesis is not a literal account. That's where I was trying to get.

      The first issue that comes up is whether it is possible to understand accurately what God is saying to us in Scripture. You seem quite sure that science speaks clearly enough, so there's no "guess work."

      Do you believe that the Bible speaks at least with equal clarity as does science? (From my point of view, the Bible speaks with greater clarity than science.)

      You have made two suggestions re the biblical account:

      1) Consider the possibility that Genesis describes the most recent creation, in which God made Adam and Eve and appointed them to be caretakers of the garden.
      2) Or that Genesis is a sacred story that contains many truths, about who and why, but is not a literal description of how and when God made all things.

      I hope by focusing on 1), we are aiming for a smaller target than "the side of the barn."
      In the writings of the Apostle Paul, we read that death is the consequence of sin. If there were "creations" before the one recorded in our Bibles, there was necessarily death and destruction before sin. Wouldn't that mean that the Apostle Paul was wrong in his several references to death being the consequence of sin? I don't see how we can have it both ways.

      • Both science and scripture--"two books," as the saying goes--speak of nature, but they give us different information. When we put the two together, we have a more complete picture of creation.

        You bring up Paul's writings, in which death is the consequence of sin. There has been 2,000 years of discussion whether this can involve animal death, but most evangelicals would say it refers to human death only, as you probably know. See Ron Osborne's book, "Death before the Fall."

        • Thanks, Jordan. I agree with your first paragraph, but it is apparent that we interpret both science and Scripture from differing perspectives,

          You imply that when the Bible speaks of death as a consequence of sin, it only applies to human death. One interpretation suggests there was no death of "living souls" (nephesh chayyah) before the Fall. The biblical text refers to vertebrate animals as "nephesh chayyah," which is the Hebrew term that can be translated ‘living soul,' as it usually is in the KJV. Most such animals have a certain level of self-awareness, intelligence and capacity to suffer. (Think of your dog!) That would possibly leave other living things subject to death. After all, God gave plants to Adam and Eve to eat.

          Normally we like to have conversations in which we exchange our ideas (however we got them) rather than leaving the burden of the argument to another article or book. But I will make an exception in this case and refer to some of the argumetns in Ronald Osborn's book.

          Do you accept, as Osborn does, that God created predators that not only hunt and eat prey, but also kill wantonly? Essentially, Osborn addresses the problem of evil and makes God responsible. When he references the biblical text, he neglects to read Isaiah 11:7 and Isaiah 65:25 in which the prophet reveals that in the renewed earth, there will be no predation, but "they shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain." Most interpreters see that as the earth being restored to its Edenic state.

          The Apostle Paul suggests that the whole creation "groans" (Rom. 8:20–22) because of the Fall and looks forward to deliverance. So it looks to me that, according to the Bible, the whole creation underwent a profound change at the Fall. And death resulting from sin does not refer only human death.

          I also see that the Bible describes death as an intruder and an enemy. This would appear to preclude death before the Fall. (By contrast believers in origin by evolution see death as natural and necessary to the functioning and evolutionary development of life on this planet.)

          Osborn seems to consider only two possibilities for the changes in creation - either God did it, or man did it. He appears to ignore the third option - that a super-intelligent being created to minister next to the throne of God is perfectly capable of genetic modification and has likely been doing that ever since he took over dominion of this planet. (John 12:31, John 14:30, John 16:11)

          There is one thing (and maybe more) in which I agree with Osborn, and that is that God valued freedom. He values freedom because only in freedom is self-denying love possible. Love cannot be forced. And, again, that's why God, to be true to His character, had to let the results of evil play out on this planet where the man and woman who were given "dominion" of this planet ceded it to a usurper who later took their place in the heavenly councils. (Job 1:6)

          I disagree fundamentally with blaming God for the existence of evil. I believe that evil originated in the heart of Lucifer without any reason or excuse. In order to be transparent with His created beings in the universe, God had to allow the problem of evil to play out, so that in the end, all created beings would realize that God is good and just. A non-Adventist man who gave his heart to the Lord four years ago and has studied intensively ever since just recently began to attend our church. On a recent Sabbath he provided the summary I just gave to explain why God allows bad things to happen in this world. It is sad to see people brought up in a culture that is suffused with the "great controversy" world view still blame God for the problem of evil.

  11. May I recommend Creation Ministries International who publish the "Creation" magazine? I believe God has raised up this group of dedicated creation scientists for such a time as this. You can get their weekly email and find them on creation.com. In 1978, there were few resources for Christians who wanted to defend their beliefs in Biblical creation. This group of people have gone from strength to strength and I have been so blessed by their ministry.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>