Doctrine Of Security

The Doctrine Of The Security Of The Believer

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, April 20, 2026 (Donate)

The doctrine of the “security of the believer” deals with whether a true Christian can truly fall away and be lost. For those who do not know, there is debate over this position between the Calvinistic side and the Arminian side.

Going deeper in theological topics; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

Both the Calvinist and Arminian traditions both agree with the necessity of perseverance in faith and holiness and both would say they are saved by faith through grace alone in Jesus Christ. However, they understand perseverance differently and thereby, reach different conclusions about its certainty. In other words, both hold to a form of security, but it really comes down to eternal security vs. conditional security. Let me take some time to explain each position.

Calvinist Understanding Of Security

The Calvinists teach what is commonly called the “perseverance of the saints.” This view holds that all who are truly saved by God will certainly continue in faith until the end and be saved.

Salvation rests entirely on God’s eternal decree, Christ’s completed atonement, and the Spirit’s work (1 Corinthians 12:3). Because election, the Calvinistic view, is unconditional and grace is irresistible, the believer’s final salvation cannot fail.

Baptist Commentator and Paster Dr. John Gill was Calvinistic; Image Public Domain

So, the Calvinist argues that Christ’s righteousness is imputed once for all, and the covenant of grace is unbreakable. Thus, true believers may fall into sin temporarily, but they will never finally fall away from their salvation because God preserves them.

The Calvinist also argues that salvation is based in God’s unchanging character and promises, not human effort. Perseverance, therefore, is both a gift and a necessity: believers will persevere because God ensures it. At the same time, the visible marks of perseverance, such as obedience and continued faith, are evidence of genuine salvation.

Famed Great Awakening Evangelist George Whitfield was Calvinist; Image Public Domain

A key nuance in the Calvinist view is the distinction between true believers and mere “professors”. Those who appear to fall away were never truly saved or regenerate. Perseverance is not merely optional; it is the inevitable outcome of genuine conversion to Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Assurance, then, is grounded in God’s promises, though it is confirmed by a life of faith and fruit.

Common Verses Used In The Calvinistic Approach (NKJV)

1. John 10:28–29
“And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. “My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand.

2. Romans 8:29–30
For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

3. Romans 8:38–39
For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

4. Philippians 1:6
Being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;

5. 1 Peter 1:3–5
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

In short, the Calvinistic position is: Because a person is saved, they will persevere and their security is certain. Thus, it is an eternal security from the moment of salvation.

Arminian Understanding Of Security

Arminians agree that salvation is by grace through faith but deny that final salvation is unconditionally guaranteed.

In Arminianism, believers are truly regenerated and justified, yet they retain the capacity to fall from God’s saving grace through persistent unbelief (AKA willful sin). Salvation is “on going”, not mechanically secured. God is faithful and provides sufficient grace to persevere, but He does not override human freedom according to the Arminian. Thus, perseverance is conditional upon continued faith.

Brothers John Wesley (founder of Methodism and his theology later influenced Wesleyanism) and Charles Wesley (famed Hymn writer) were Arminians; Image Public Domain

Popular Arminian Charles Wesley in his hymns often stress strong assurance coupled with earnest warnings. He celebrated the believer’s present security in Christ while urging vigilance, repentance, and holiness—to persevere. This reflects a pastoral tension: assurance is real, but it is not absolute in the sense of being impossible to lose in the Arminian position.

The Arminian holds that believers can have assurance and confidence in God’s keeping power, yet he acknowledges biblical warnings about falling away. So there is a strong emphasis in Arminian churches to abide in Christ as the condition for continued salvation.

A central nuance in the Arminian view is the distinction between God’s faithfulness and human responsibility. God will not fail the believer, but the believer may choose to fail and depart. Apostasy is seen as a real, though not inevitable, possibility. Assurance is therefore dynamic, living faith rather than an irreversible decree.

Common Verses Used In The Arminian Approach

1. Hebrews 6:4–6
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.

2. Hebrews 10:26–27
For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.

3. 2 Peter 2:20–21
For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them.

4. Galatians 5:4
You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

5. John 15:5–7
“I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. “If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you.

In short, the Arminian position is: If the person perseveres that person remains saved, but their security is uncertain until they persevered until to the end—then Christ’s righteousness is imputed to them. Thus, it is a conditional security that began at the moment of salvation.

Key Differences And Shared Elements

This writing is just an introduction to the subject—many books and responses have been put forth by both sides of this debate. For instance, both sides have discussions on the verses that each list above and their takes on each (and many more; these were just a few starter verses!).

Then the debate dives into issues of, “Is one a type of works-based salvation to keep or regain your salvation?”, “Can a person regain salvation after is it lost?’, and so much more. These points are not for discussion here, but can be found in many other treatises on security in Arminian and Calvinistic literature. Of course, I want to encourage you to study what the Bible says and look at the context of these positions.

Nevertheless, both traditions affirm that salvation is by grace and that true believers must continue in faith. Both warn against mere outward profession and should be growing in their sanctification to mimic Christ with a transformed life (i.e., put on the new man per Colossians 3:10).

Final Remarks

The major difference lies in the certainty of final perseverance. Calvinists argue that perseverance is guaranteed by God’s sovereign grace and eternal decree (eternal security); Arminians argue that perseverance is enabled by grace but not guaranteed, since human freedom remains operative (conditional security).

So the question in the debate really boils down to, “is the security of the believer certain or uncertain?” And that topic has been a major factor that helped split churches for 500 years. I want to encourage you so go to your family and local church to see what their stance is and why biblically.[1]

□

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist defending 6-day creation and opposing evolution since 1998. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.  

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children.

Mr. Hodge earned a Bachelor and Master of Science degrees from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC). Then he taught at SIUC for a couple of years as a Visiting Instructor teaching all levels of undergraduate engineering and running a materials lab and a CAD lab. He did research on advanced ceramic materials to develop a new method of production of titanium diboride with a grant from Lockheed Martin. He worked as a Test Engineer for Caterpillar, Inc., prior to entering full-time ministry.

His love of science was coupled with a love of history, philosophy, and theology. For about one year of his life, Bodie was editing and updating a theological, historical, and scientific dictionary/encyclopedia for AI use and training. Mr. Hodge has over 25 years of experience in writing, speaking and researching in these fields.

 

---

[1] I know what I believe on this subject but have tried to write this so that those being introduced to and are just learning about the debate can have an honest assessment of the basics of the positions and where they differ. Thus I’ve tried to keep my personal beliefs out of the subject on this one.

Abiogenesis—The Chemical Evolution Miracle?

Featured Article: A Perfect God, Genesis, and...War?

Abiogenesis—The Chemical Evolution Miracle?

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, April 16, 2026 (Donate)

In atheistic, materialistic religions, life must come from non-life. They cannot have God create life, since they don’t believe in God and deny that a spiritual God even exists.

So, for life to be here, the atheist must have life accidentally or randomly come from non-life. This is called “abiogenesis” or “chemical evolution”. I have often lectured on this subject. 

The discussion of Abiogenesis is thought provoking; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

What Is Abiogenesis Specifically?

Abiogenesis is the idea that life arose naturally and randomly from non-living matter through purely chemical and physical processes, without any need for our Creator. In secular humanistic origins models (atheism is a form secular humanism), it is often proposed that billions of years ago, simple chemicals in a “primordial soup” gradually formed more complex molecules, eventually producing the first self-replicating cell.

This concept is a foundational necessity to naturalistic evolution because secularists and atheists attempt to explain how life could begin without God. The problem is that this is pure speculation and merely an arbitrary story. Abiogenesis has never been observed and never been repeated. So, keep in mind that the idea of abiogenesis is not science.

Abiogenesis is not a scientific view, but a religious one. Image requested by Bodie Hodge (Chat GPT)

Naturally from a biblical creation perspective, abiogenesis is rejected for both scientific and theological reasons. Let’s look at some of these reasons.

It Conflicts With The Biblical Account Of Creation

Scripture teaches that life was created directly by God. “Then God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind’… and it was so” (Genesis 1:24, NKJV). Humans are uniquely created in God’s image: “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being” (Genesis 2:7, NKJV).

In this framework, life originates from God’s creative act during Creation Week, not from non-living matter organizing itself. Because God disagrees with chemical evolution, this enough to refute the idea of abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis Violates The Law Of Biogenesis

The Law of Biogenesis states that life comes only from pre-existing life. This principle is well-established through scientific observation and experimentation (for example, the work of Louis Pasteur). To go against it, is a blatant denial of good science.

No experiment has ever demonstrated life arising spontaneously from non-life. Despite decades of research, scientists and researchers have not observed even the simplest living cell forming naturally from chemicals. Even when they design (using intelligence) experiments to do so, they have all failed to make life. From this perspective, abiogenesis or chemical evolution is in stark contradiction with this principle law of biology.

The Law of Biogenesis; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

The Problem Of Homochirality

Living systems use molecules with a specific handedness (this is called “chirality”)—right-handed or left-handed (as if is looking in a mirror). For example, amino acids in life are almost exclusively left-handed. Thus, life utilizes homochirality or uniform chirality because it uses virtually all left-handed amino acids.

Having right-handed amino acids are usually lethal. They are used in venom for instance. Although some are popping up for unique specified purposes.[1]

Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

However, natural chemical processes produce a mixture of left- and right-handed molecules. Not only is chemical evolution not even close to being observed, but adherents who push abiogenesis ideas struggle to explain how life could arise with the left-handed uniformity which is required for biological function.

The Origin Of Genetic Information Remains Unexplained

Chemical evolution requires not just chemicals, but organized information. DNA functions like a coded instruction set that directs cellular processes. From a creationist viewpoint, information is best explained by the God of the Bible, not unguided processes. There is no known natural mechanism that can produce the kind of specified, complex, functional information found in living and growing organisms from purely random chemistry.

The Instability Of Proposed Early Environments

Many abiogenesis models depend on specific conditions (such as a carefully balanced atmosphere or protected environments), but these conditions are often unrealistic or mutually incompatible. For example, the chemicals needed to form life can also destroy each other under the same conditions.

Water, which is necessary for life, also breaks down many of the molecules needed to build it—Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith once a book (The Creation Of Life; A Cybernetic Approach To Evolution) specifically on this very subject in 1970 and the water problem is still a crucial devastation to chemical evolution after all these years.[2]

Chemical Evolution Cannot Produce The Complexity Of Life

Even the simplest cell is extraordinarily complex, containing DNA, RNA, proteins, and molecular machines working together in a coordinated system. DNA itself carries vast amounts of specified information, comparable to of an advanced language or code.

Random chemical reactions do not generate meaningful, information-rich systems. Efforts like the Miller-Urey experiment produced some amino acids under controlled conditions, but they did not come close to forming living cells or the information systems required for life. Let’s discuss the Miller-Urey experiment for a moment because many think this was a good stepping stone to make life. But it wasn’t.

Miller-Urey Experiment Failed

The Miller-Urey experiment (1953) did not come close to producing life and actually highlights major problems for abiogenesis.

First, the experiment produced only a few simple amino acids, not life. Amino acids are merely building blocks of proteins, and proteins themselves are only one component of a living cell. A functioning cell requires complex systems including DNA, RNA, membranes, replication ability, and coordinated molecular machinery. The experiment never produced these higher levels of organization, let alone a self-replicating organism.

Second, the amino acids formed were a mixture of left-handed and right-handed (racemic) molecules. Living organisms use almost exclusively left-handed amino acids. This uniformity, again called homochirality, is essential for biological function. The experiment did not solve this problem and instead showed that natural processes produce the wrong kind of mixture for life.

Miller-Urey experiment replica in a classroom; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

Third, the experimental conditions were unrealistic. The apparatus used a carefully controlled environment with a strongly reducing atmosphere (methane, ammonia, hydrogen), which many origin-of-life researchers (evolutionists themselves) now reject as representative of their proposal of what the early earth would have been like in their view. In addition, the system included a trap to remove products from the reaction chamber so they would not be destroyed by the ongoing electrical sparks. Without this intelligent intervention, the same energy source that formed the amino acids would also break them down.

Fourth, the experiment required deliberate design and guidance. Scientists selected the gases, controlled the temperature, applied energy, and protected the products. This demonstrates that intelligence was necessary even to produce simple molecules, which undermines the idea that unguided natural processes could generate life. It simply defeated the purpose of the experiment!

Lastly, the experiment did not address the origin of information. Even if amino acids form, they must be arranged into specific sequences to produce functional proteins, and those proteins must be encoded by DNA. The Miller-Urey experiment provided no mechanism for generating this kind of specified, functional information.

The Miller-Urey experiment shows that while simple organic molecules can be formed under controlled conditions, it fails to demonstrate any realistic pathway to life or living systems.

Lack Of Major Observational Or Experimental Advances Since Miller-Urey

Despite advances in chemistry and molecular biology, no experiment has successfully demonstrated a plausible pathway from non-life to life. And I’ll go one step further, each of these experiments require intelligent people to design them in an attempt to make life.

Even if they were to succeed, they are only copying what God has already made by studying the blueprints of life using their God-given intellect. This seems to go against the stated purpose of no intelligence was involved (i.e., no God) to make life.

To do the experiment properly would be to let chemical be natural, without design, or prompting. It defeats the purpose of letting researchers manipulate conditions in highly controlled laboratories. Yet even then, they still fail to produce anything remotely close to life. When understood, abiogenesis remains a speculative assumption that violates the laws of science.

Conclusion

Abiogenesis—chemical evolution—is the hypothesis that life arose from non-life through natural processes, but it fails scientifically and biblically. It contradicts Scripture and the Law of Biogenesis. But every aspect of life arising naturally on its own in accidental or random fashion is more of a hoped miracle than a reality.

Biblically, life is the result of God’s direct creation, consistent with the testimony of the 66 books of Scripture.

□

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist defending 6-day creation and opposing evolution since 1998. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.  

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children.

Mr. Hodge earned a Bachelor and Master of Science degrees from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC). Then he taught at SIUC for a couple of years as a Visiting Instructor teaching all levels of undergraduate engineering and running a materials lab and a CAD lab. He did research on advanced ceramic materials to develop a new method of production of titanium diboride with a grant from Lockheed Martin. He worked as a Test Engineer for Caterpillar, Inc., prior to entering full-time ministry.

His love of science was coupled with a love of history, philosophy, and theology. For about one year of his life, Bodie was editing and updating a theological, historical, and scientific dictionary/encyclopedia for AI use and training. Mr. Hodge has over 25 years of experience in writing, speaking and researching in these fields.

---

[1] Sarah Everts, Medical Mystery: Mirror Images of Amino Acids Provide Clues to Schizophrenia, Stroke and Lobster Sex, Scientific American, Vol. 308 No. 5 (May 2013), p. 78.

[2] A. E. Wilder-Smith, The Creation Of Life; A Cybernetic Approach To Evolution, H. Shaw Publishers, Wheaton, IL., 1970.

Too Many Theories?

Too Many Theories?

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, April 15, 2026 (Donate)

Letter, unedited:

I have been visiting your website pretty regularly for about a year. I am amazed by the time and energy you put in attempting to refute common scientific facts. Over the last year I have read no less than three contrived theories dealing with the speed of light and how gravity can explain a 6000 year old universe. If I understand you correctly, light was faster, created already on its way or we are sitting in a gravity well causing a time dilation.

It appears that you skew science to fit into what you think is true. It seems that the body of evidence for evolutionary biology is at a minimum overwhelming. The evidence agrees with all the observations from the different sects of science. Molecular biology confirms that DNA is the building blocks of life. Quantum physics explains the interactions of particles and justifies changes (mutations) within DNA. Archeology illustrates the layering of the fossil record exactly as we would expect, but you guys don’t want to see or believe what is.

J.P., U.S.

Response:

DNA; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

Thank you for contacting the ministry. Please see my comments below and note that they are said with sincerity and respect.

I have been visiting your website pretty regularly for about a year.

Thanks, I hope it has been challenging you.

I am amazed by the time and energy you put in attempting to refute common scientific facts.

The reason some people say this is usually that they fail to understand the difference between a “fact” and an “interpretation of a fact”. For example, a fact would be that a cow has DNA. A [false] interpretation is that “the cow evolved from a microbe a long time ago when no one was there to observe the process because it has DNA.”

Over the last year I have read no less than three contrived theories dealing with the speed of light and how gravity can explain a 6000 year old universe. If I understand you correctly, light was faster, created already on its way or we are sitting in a gravity well causing a time dilation.

Scientific thought thrives on competing models, even models that respect the 6,000 year age of the earth. So, I’m not certain why this would bother you. It seems strange that of the “no less than three” models, only one of the three models that were listed is given much credence on the website. Perhaps you have confused this with things that you have read elsewhere.

But on the subject of distant starlight, those who often ask this question are rarely aware that in a big bang, they also have a light travel-time problem (Horizon Problem).[1] The visible universe is estimated at about 46 billion light years across, based on the cosmic light horizon. Yet the universe is only supposed to be about 13–15 billion years old. So, how could distant starlight exchange in such a short time in a uniformitarian framework to make a uniform temperature in the universe[2]?

The Horizon Problem in physics means there is a light-travel time problem in the big bang scenario (and other long age models) and I oppose big bang modes and stand on the biblical model; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

Starting from the Bible, there are several potential solutions to the problem.

1.     Speed of Light decay (e.g., researched by Mr. Barry Setterfield): Most creationists reject this now, but we encourage researchers to keep working on it. It ends up with too many problems with all other contestants of the universe changing but the evidence of this is lacking. Furthermore, as people really researched the speed of light over the past three centuries, it really wasn’t changing as previously thought but has remained largely the same. Though the CDK model has problems, even some secular physicists have appealed to a changing speed of light to ameliorate problems with their own models.

2.     Light in Transit (most reject this as well): This is the idea that the starlight was already in transit when God created the stars. However, stars blow up into supernovas like SN 1987a, etc. and none of this would be real, but merely starlight made to appear like a star and a supernova, etc. This seems far too deceptive, so most creationists have rejected this idea. 

3.     Relativistic models:

a.     Dr. Russell Humphreys (White Hole Cosmology based on God stretching the heavens. According to Einstein, if you stretch the fabric of space, you get a time change. Many passages mention this: Job 26:7, Isaiah 40:22, Zechariah 12:1, etc. This model works well with distant objects but things closer to our galaxy, it doesn’t seem to work well.[3]

b.     Dr. John Hartnett: Similar to Humphreys’ relativistic model with a bit more miraculous attributed to it during creation week.[4] He also has a model where he utilizes Carmellian Physics. But this model actually assumes Dr. Jason Lisle’s model [below] to work it out. Dr. Lisle first submitted this in the peer review years ago.[5] 

4.     Lisle-Einstein Synchrony Convention Model or ASC (Anisotropic Synchrony Convention): This is based on an alternative convention that is position based physics (think time zones) as opposed to velocity-based physics. Einstein left open both options but did most of his work on velocity based, and so have most physicists since him. 

Dr. Jason Lisle built on this position-based physics and the one direction speed of light which cannot be known and it solves distant starlight. Einstein pointed out that time is not constant in the universe, so our simple equation [Speed = Distance X Time] is not so simple anymore. But this model is based on something quite “simple”. Think of it like this:  You leave on a plane in New York at 1 PM and you land in L.A. at 1 PM. But you might say, “The flight took about 5 hours when you rode on the plane”. 

If you ride a massless light beam time goes to zero and it is an instantaneous trip according to general relativity; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

Here is the difference: according to Einstein, when you approach the speed of light time goes to zero. So, if you rode on top of a light beam from a star that was billions of light years away to earth, it took no time for you to get here. So that 5 hour flight was a “no hour” flight for light. Based on this convention-based model, light left distant stars and arrived on earth in no time and this fulfills God’s statement that these lights were to give light on the earth in Genesis 1:14. Of course, the physics is more complicated than this, but this analogy should give you an idea of how the model works.[6] 

5.     Miraculous/Future models (we would leave open miracles or future models as well.) 

Of course there are other models. Although the question of distance has been argued for many years, few today argue along the lines of distance being the only reason for alleged long ages: 

1. Parallax (Earth is on one side of sun; view stars. Then when earth is on the other side of the sun; view stars – it makes a very small triangle and we can calculate the distances. This is called parallax.
2. Red Shift: Some stars are so far away that the triangle of parallax does not solve it. So then we move to “red shift” to calculate the distance. Not as accurate but seems to do the job. Some objects, like many quasars, do not work properly with red shift. But these are assumed to be accurate for long distances.

The actual relevant equation is:

ds = c x dt

Here, c is the speed of light, which is constant in vacuum (with respect to any observer) according to relativity, ds represents distance, and dt represents time. Many fail to realize that the flow of time is not constant in the universe but can change due to different circumstances, such as velocity frame dilation or the presence of a gravitational field.

When the fabric of space is stretched, the differential for time must also change, as c is constant. Interesting that God often stated that He stretched or stretches out the heavens: Job 26:7, Isaiah 40:22, Isaiah 44:24, Zechariah 12:1, Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 45:12, Isaiah 48:13, Isaiah 51:13, and Jeremiah 10:12.

The relativistic models are working with this concept. Interestingly, the secular models often appeal to inflation of the universe as a conjecture to try to solve their starlight problem. It is puzzling why we get criticized for discussing the stretching of space, when secular scientists do the same thing.

Then there is cosmological time zone conventions, which uses an entirely different perspective from the time dilation models. And this solves distant starlight.

But as biblical Christians, we also leave open the possibility for miraculous events, considering this was done during Creation Week. God can create stars on Day 4 and have the light arrive at earth using miraculous means. This is not to be confused with light-created-in-transit, which we reject, as the light we would see if such an idea were true would not actually be from a star and God is not deceptive in any way and God saying these things were to put light on the earth would not necessarily be true.

It appears that you skew science to fit into what you think is true.

Many creationists would argue the same about evolutionists. However, the concepts of “science” and “truth” are really only meaningful in a biblical creation worldview. Apart from the biblical God, what would be the objective basis for such things? Jesus even said:

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6, NKJV).

Science, which came out of a Christian worldview, is an excellent methodology that confirms the Bible’s teachings. For example, the Law of Biogenesis says that life comes from life. We expect this, since all animals today are descended from the originals which were created by God. It is the same with humans.

Law of Biogenesis; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

My life came from my parents, who in turn came from their parents, back to the first parents, Adam and Eve (Hebrews 7:9-10). Eve’s life came from Adam, and Adam’s came from God, who is the ultimate life-giving source.

In an evolutionary worldview, life ultimately arose from non-life. This has never been repeated and violates the Law of Biogenesis.

It seems that the body of evidence for evolutionary biology is at a minimum overwhelming.

Such as? Besides, all evidence is interpreted in light of a worldview. It’s hardly surprising that evolutionists think that the evidence supports their position, and creationists think the evidence confirms creation. So, the real question is, “which worldview can make sense of science at all?” We have shown that only the Bible can.

The evidence agrees with all the observations from the different sects of science.

Evidence doesn’t agree or disagree or make conclusions. You are falsely giving human qualities to things that don’t have them. This is called the fallacy of reification. People interpret facts and observations as evidence. Such inanimate things simply can’t do that.

Molecular biology confirms that DNA is the building blocks of life.

DNA does contain information that generates the proteins of organisms and is essential to life. I fail, however, to see how this necessarily supports molecules-to-man evolution. This is what is expected from an intelligent Creator God.

Quantum physics explains the interactions of particles and justifies changes (mutations) within DNA.

We agree that quantum physics explains the interactions of (subatomic) particles, but what does that have to do with errors in the copies of the DNA during the replication process at the molecular level? Since mutations are allegedly random (outside of programmed mutations which is a design features in some critters), they cannot generate the information necessary to drive particles-to-people evolution.

Archeology illustrates the layering of the fossil record exactly as we would expect, but you guys don’t want to see or believe what is.

Since archaeology is the study of the remains/artifacts of peoples and their culture, then are you agreeing with the ministry that people have been around throughout the duration of time that the fossil layers have been laid down? Perhaps you mean that geologists illustrate your point, though the fossil record is not as “supportive” of evolution as many seem to think. In fact, creation geologists see quite well that the fossil record (layering and all) is excellent evidence for the worldwide Flood of Noah’s day. Geological layers don’t speak for themselves.

I encourage you to carefully consider the implications of the position you are espousing. Life has never been observed to come from non-life; no one has ever observed millions of years of progress; no one has even observed a single-celled organism, such as a protozoa, evolve into a zebra. When you realize how bankrupt the view of molecules-to-man evolution is, consider the claims in the Bible. An encouraging passage is Jesus’s statement about the joy among angels when people accept His free gift of salvation and repent:

“Likewise, I say to you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents” (Luke 15:10).

It doesn’t matter how many steps in the wrong direction you have taken, it is only one step back to receive Christ as Lord of your life.

With kindness, God bless.

Bodie

□

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist defending 6-day creation and opposing evolution since 1998. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.  

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children.

Mr. Hodge earned a Bachelor and Master of Science degrees from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC). Then he taught at SIUC for a couple of years as a Visiting Instructor teaching all levels of undergraduate engineering and running a materials lab and a CAD lab. He did research on advanced ceramic materials to develop a new method of production of titanium diboride with a grant from Lockheed Martin. He worked as a Test Engineer for Caterpillar, Inc., prior to entering full-time ministry.

His love of science was coupled with a love of history, philosophy, and theology. For about one year of his life, Bodie was editing and updating a theological, historical, and scientific dictionary/encyclopedia for AI use and training. Mr. Hodge has over 25 years of experience in writing, speaking and researching in these fields. Originally at Answers in Genesis; Edited; Republished by permission.

---

[1] Light Travel Time: a problem for the big bang, Robert Newton, September 1, 2003, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v25/n4/light-travel-time.

[2] Some may appeal to an ad hoc solution such as “inflation” where the universe rapidly expands for no reason, then suddenly slows for no reason, but this still doesn’t solve the Horizon problem. 

[3] See Dr. Humphreys’ book Starlight and Time for more details.

[4] See A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem, Dr. John Hartnett, TJ 17(2):98-102, 2003.

[5] Hartnett’s was presented at the ICC  in 2008 (International Creation on Creationism) see: Starlight, Time, and the New Physics in the 2008 Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism, Ed. Dr. Andrew Snelling, 2008.

[6] For more see: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n1/distant-starlight  (Distant Starlight: Anisotropic Synchrony Convention) and the technical journal article: ASC – A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/ anisotropic-synchrony-convention

Intelligibility Doctrines [That Are Commonly Borrowed]

Intelligibility Doctrines [That Are Commonly Borrowed]

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, April 14, 2026 (Donate)

God has all knowledge (omniscience). God is the truth (John 14:6) and God is also the absolute standard of moral goodness. God created and upholds or sustains the existence of all things.

These are basic Christian concepts that actually shape the way we think and why man is even in a position to be able to think and reason. We are made in the image of an all-knowing God of truth, thus we are able to process knowledge and use logic to seek and understand the truth.

These things are what allow us to be intelligible. This is why we can have personal abstract communication and understand poetry, songs, record history, develop stories and be creative. God is the ultimate precondition for intelligibility to be possible. Let’s consider a few doctrinal concepts that are based in Scripture.

Intelligibility doctrines flow God and His Word and are graciously revealed to man; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

Intelligibility Doctrines

Truth
Truth is grounded in God’s nature and His Word. Scripture identifies God as the ultimate standard of truth, not man’s opinion or shifting culture. Jesus declared, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6, NKJV), showing that truth is personal and embodied in Christ. God’s Word is likewise truth: “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth” (John 17:17, NKJV). Since God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), truth is absolute, consistent, and unchanging. Thus, all claims to truth must be measured against Scripture, which serves as the final authority.

Morality (Absolute)
Absolute morality flows from God’s unchanging nature. “For I am the Lord, I do not change” (Malachi 3:6, NKJV). This is in the context of God’s character. His moral law reflects His holiness and is revealed in Scripture, such as the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). Moral standards are not culturally invented but divinely established by God Himself in His revealed Word. “Be holy, for I am holy” (1 Peter 1:16, NKJV).

Without God, morality becomes subjective; with God, right and wrong are fixed because God is the one who defines what is right and what is wrong. Sin (whether by omission or commission) is defined as violation of God’s law (1 John 3:4), confirming morality is absolute, not relative. The sin of omission is not being or doing what God requires and the sin of commission is doing what God forbids.

Logic
Logical reasoning reflects the orderly and rational nature of God. “For God is not the author of confusion but of peace” (1 Corinthians 14:33, NKJV). The laws of logic (non-contradiction, identity) mirror God’s consistency and faithfulness. “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8, NKJV). Since God’s Word does not contradict itself, logic is grounded in His nature. Human reasoning is reliable when it aligns with God’s revealed truth (Isaiah 1:18). But due to sin, man errs and often commits fallacies (being illogical) and needs to be corrected based on God’s revealed Word.

Knowledge
Knowledge originates with God, who is omniscient. “Known to God from eternity are all His works” (Acts 15:18, NKJV). True knowledge begins with reverence for Him: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7, NKJV). Human understanding is limited and dependent, but God reveals truth through Scripture and creation. “In Him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:3, NKJV). Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; His understanding is infinite (Psalm 147:5, NKJV). Thus, knowledge is possible because God has made Himself known.

When God made Adam and Eve, they were preprogrammed with perfect knowledge—not infinite knowledge, but what was sufficient for their needs as creation of God with tasks given by God. When they sinned, this affect how we use and learn knowledge.

Honor
Honor is based in recognizing God-given authority and worth. Scripture commands, “Honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:12, NKJV) and “Honor all people” (1 Peter 2:17, NKJV). Ultimately, honor is due to God: “You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power” (Revelation 4:11, NKJV). Honor reflects submission to God’s order and acknowledgment of His image in others.

Respect
Respect comes from the reality that all people are made in God’s image. “So God created man in His own image” (Genesis 1:27, NKJV). Because of this, individuals are to be treated with care and fairness. “Therefore whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them” (Matthew 7:12, NKJV). Respect is not based on personal merit but on God’s design and command. One can’t helps be remember the second greatest commandment—to love other as yourself. This is arguably greatest form of respect in action.

Dignity
Human dignity is predicated on being made in God’s image. Genesis 1:26–27 reveals that mankind, in spiritual ways, uniquely reflects God’s attributes and nature. This gives inherent and eternal worth to every person, regardless of status. We are made in the image of an eternal God after all.

Even after the Fall, this dignity remains (Genesis 9:6). Scripture affirms God’s care for humanity: “What is man that You are mindful of him… You have crowned him with glory and honor” (Psalm 8:4–5, NKJV). Dignity is therefore intrinsic and God-given.

Dignity, honor, and respect all work closely with loving one another and thinking morally, truthfully ,and logically about them.

Uniformity of Nature
The uniformity of nature depends on God’s faithful sustaining of creation. “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer… shall not cease” (Genesis 8:22, NKJV).

This promise ensures regularity in the natural world. God upholds all things: “In Him all things consist” (Colossians 1:17, NKJV). Because God is consistent, creation operates in predictable ways, making science and observation possible. Without God’s continual governance, uniformity would have no foundation.

Because God upholds nature (and the universe as a whole) in particular, predictable ways, this is what makes science methodology possible. We can observe and repeat experiments with great precision. And it allows us to make prediction based on this—not prophetic by any means, but scientific prediction (i.e., will it rain tomorrow based on our current observable data and repeated experiments by which we used previous weather data to develop our models).

A logical God upholds all things in a uniform way just as He promised in Genesis 8:22; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

Borrowed By The World

From a strictly materialistic worldview (atheism, naturalism, secular humanism), these concepts have no ultimate foundation—they can only be described, not justified.

If reality is only matter, energy, time, and chance, then truth reduces to brain states shaped by survival, not correspondence to an objective standard. There is no reason to assume our thoughts reliably track reality rather than merely aid survival. Yet materialists still depend on truth as if it is objective.

Absolute morality cannot exist in a purely material world. If humans are the result of unguided processes, moral values are products of evolution or social agreement. What is called “right” or “wrong” becomes preference or utility, not binding truth. At best, morality becomes consensus, which could then change at any moment. Relative morality becomes a decay or a cancels that destroys relationships, institutions, and cultures quickly.

Logic presents a major difficulty. The laws of logic are immaterial, universal, and invariant. In a materialistic system, everything is physical and changing, so there is no clear basis for universal, unchanging logical laws. Yet reasoning itself depends on them!

Knowledge also becomes uncertain. If the human mind is the unintended product of survival processes, there is no guarantee it produces true beliefs (or more precisely justified true beliefs). Knowledge collapses into probability or usefulness, not certainty.

Honor, respect, and dignity lose any objective grounding. If humans are simply advanced animals, there is no inherent worth beyond function or societal assignment. Concepts like “human rights” become inventions, not realities. They may be useful for temporary social stability, but they are not binding in any ultimate sense.

Finally, uniformity of nature—the assumption that the future will resemble the past—cannot be proven in a materialistic framework. It is an assumption, not a necessity. Science depends on this consistency, yet materialism cannot explain why nature should behave uniformly rather than randomly. In simplicity, doing science would be impossible since the laws of nature could change at any moment.  

In practice, secular systems borrow these concepts because they are necessary for reasoning, ethics, and science. Though not discussed, other religious systems around the world also borrow these concepts from the Bible—usually unwittingly. Nevertheless, within a strictly materialistic worldview, they are ultimately unjustified assumptions. They function, but lack a sufficient foundation or ultimate basis to explain why they should exist or be universally binding.

□

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist defending 6-day creation and opposing evolution since 1998. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.  

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children.

Mr. Hodge earned a Bachelor and Master of Science degrees from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC). Then he taught at SIUC for a couple of years as a Visiting Instructor teaching all levels of undergraduate engineering and running a materials lab and a CAD lab. He did research on advanced ceramic materials to develop a new method of production of titanium diboride with a grant from Lockheed Martin. He worked as a Test Engineer for Caterpillar, Inc., prior to entering full-time ministry.

His love of science was coupled with a love of history, philosophy, and theology. For about one year of his life, Bodie was editing and updating a theological, historical, and scientific dictionary/encyclopedia for AI use and training. Mr. Hodge has over 25 years of experience in writing, speaking and researching in these fields.