Now Diabolus thought he was safe because he had captured Mansoul and garrisoned himself within the city…. He had spoiled the old law books and promoted his own vain lies. He had appointed new magistrates and set up new aldermen. He had built new strongholds and manned them with his own gang. He did all this to make himself secure in case the good Shaddai or his Son should try to invade the town.1
Much effort and vast amounts of capital have been spent attacking the symptoms of a deeply imbedded sickness in modern society. In every realm, whether political, educational, business, or religious, leadership has concentrated on methods and processes to "cure" sociological or functional ills.
Much of the argument among politicians is over the cure for the problems that plague us. But this argument is over how to treat the symptoms, not for the discovery of the cause of the disease. We have abrogated the issues of human relationships to meaningless debates over techniques, programs, and economic distribution. We have reduced the universal human search for meaning to nothing more than a "fulfilling self image." We have encoded the Darwinian "survival of the fittest" with the New Age jargon of empowerment to "be all you can be."
In biblical terms, the "disease" is sin, curable only by regeneration through the work of the Holy Spirit made possible by the love of God the Father expressed in the substitutional death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
In human terms, the "disease" is a naturalistic worldview, curable only by the embracing of a theistic worldview that acknowledges the Creator.
The clearest contrast of the worldviews can be seen in the language and perspectives commonly used to shape social mores. The radical shift in morals and ethics seen in most countries may best be understood when contrasting today's naturalistic framework with the biblical perspective.
Prior to the 16th century, the two competing worldviews were supernatural belief systems. The biblical worldview is theistic and creationist, while the Babylonian and the subsequent Persian, Asian, Greek, and Roman cosmologies are either pantheistic or polytheistic, but completely evolutionary. The early evolutionary religions either worshiped the various personifications of natural forces (polytheism) or the abstract worship of nature (pantheism).
Today, the three monotheistic religions of the world (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) are (or were) creationist at their core. All other religions, derived in some measure from the Babylonian worship of the forces of nature, are or were evolutionary. These two worldviews (belief systems) now stand at the center of reflective and deductive thought.
The naturalist believes that there is no supernatural force in existence and that man has reached the stage where he is able to direct the evolutionary development of the universe.
The creationist believes that the Creator God exists and that the creatures of that God must seek to understand the Creator's will.
The common data that both share will be interpreted in the light of the belief system (worldview, faith) that the individual holds. When we ask the questions that plague our minds--Why is the world full of evil? Why can't we all get along? Why can't we seem to get "enough"?--the answers come from our worldview.
The battle now being waged among the power centers of the world is essentially a strategic warfare guided by two entirely different belief systems. One seeks to control the affairs of men based on a naturalistic and humanistic worldview, and the other seeks to present a theistic and creationist worldview.
The war between these worldviews constitutes the basis for the opposing philosophies, religions, political, and sociological tenets and actions taken by man.
What we believe will frame our reactions, our priorities, and our expectations.
Reference
- Bunyan, J. 2001. The Holy War. New Kensington, PA: Whitaker House, 31.
* Dr. Morris is Chief Executive Officer of the Institute for Creation Research.
Cite this article: Morris III, H. 2010. The Holy War. Acts & Facts. 39 (7): 22.
