Cause and Effect 8 min video

What Caused the Universe  8 min video

Just click and paste the link below  in the address bar :

https://vimeo.com/432953061

Wayne

Verbally Inspired

This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1999

AP Content :: Scripturally Speaking

The Holy Scriptures—Verbally Inspired
by Wayne Jackson, M.A.

In logic, there is a principle called the Law of the Excluded Middle. Simply stated, it is this: a thing must either be, or not be, the case. A line is either straight, or it is not. There is no middle position. Applied to the Bible, one therefore might declare: The Scriptures are either inspired of God, or they are not inspired of God. If the writings of the Bible are not inspired of God, then they are the mere productions of men, and as such would merit no religious respect; in fact, in view of their exalted claims, they would merit only contempt.
Paul, an apostle of Christ, wrote: “Every scripture is inspired of God, and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). The Bible asserts its own inspiration—of this there is no doubt. But to what extent does the sacred volume claim inspiration? This is a question that has perplexed many.

SOME POPULAR, BUT FALSE THEORIES

Some have suggested that the Bible is “inspired” only in the sense that other great literary productions are inspired. That is, they all are simply the results of natural genius, characteristic of men of unusual ability. Such a notion must be rejected immediately since: (a) it makes liars of the biblical writers who claimed the Holy Spirit as the ultimate source of their documents (2 Samuel 23:2; Acts 1:16); and (b) it leaves unexplained the mystery of why modern man, with his accumulated learning, has not been able to produce a comparable volume that has the capacity to make the Bible obsolete.

Others have claimed that only certain portions of the Scriptures are inspired of God. We often hear it said, for example, that those sections of the Bible that deal with faith and morals are inspired, but that other areas, particularly those accounts which contain certain miraculous elements, are merely the productions of good—but superstitious and fallible—men. Again, though, such a concept is not consistent with the declarations of the divine writers. They extended inspiration to every area of the Scriptures, even emphasizing, in many instances, those very sections that modernists dub as non-historical, mythical, etc. See, for example: Matthew 12:39-40; 19:4ff.; Luke 4:27; John 3:14-15.

Too, the allegation has been made that the Bible is inspired in “sense,” but not in “sentence.” By that, it is meant that in some sense the Scriptures are of divine origin, but that the very words of the Holy Book are not to be construed as inspired. Such a view is nonsensical. If the words of the sacred narrative are not inspired, pray tell what is inspired? Is the binding? The paper? The ink? The truth is, if the words of the Bible are not inspired of God, then the Bible contains no inspiration at all!

VERBAL INSPIRATION

What do we mean when we speak of the “verbal inspiration” of the Holy Scriptures? Frank E. Gaebelein has suggested that a sound view of inspiration holds that “the original documents of the Bible were written by men, who, though permitted the exercise of their own personalities and literary talents, yet wrote under the control and guidance of the Spirit of God, the result being in every word of the original documents a perfect and errorless recording of the exact message which God desired to give to man” (1950, p. 9). In his classic work, Theopneustia—The Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, L. Glaussen, professor of systematic theology, Oratoire, Geneva, defined inspiration as “that inexplicable power which the Divine Spirit put forth of old on the authors of holy Scripture, in order to their guidance even in the employment of the words they used, and to preserve them alike from all error and from all omission” (n.d., p. 34).

Let us take a closer look at 2 Timothy 3:16. The Greek text says: pasa graphe theopneustos—“all scripture [is] God-breathed.” Something within this context is said to be “God-breathed.” What is it? All Scripture. The term “scripture” [graphe] denotes that which is written. But it is the words of the biblical text that are written; hence, the very words of the Bible are God-breathed! No one can appeal to 2 Timothy 3:16 as an evidence of Bible inspiration without, at the same time, introducing the concept of verbal inspiration. The truth is, the doctrine of the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures is abundantly claimed throughout the sacred canon. Consider the following examples.

More than 3,800 times in the Old Testament, the claim is made that the Scriptures are the word [or words] of God. For instance, “And Jehovah said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book...” (Exodus 17:14). David declared: “The Spirit of Jehovah spake by me, and his word was upon my tongue” (2 Samuel 23:2). God instructed the prophet Jeremiah, “Behold, I have put my words in your mouth” (Jeremiah 1:9). The Scriptures are exalted as the Word of God some 175 times in Psalm 119 alone!


Jesus Christ certainly endorsed the concept of verbal inspiration. He affirmed that neither “one jot nor one tittle” would pass away from the law “until all things be accomplished” (Matthew 5:17-18). The jot was the smallest Hebrew letter, and the tittle was a tiny projection on certain Hebrew characters. Professor A.B. Bruce has noted: “Jesus expresses here in the strongest manner His conviction that the whole Old Testament is a Divine revelation, and that therefore every minute precept has religious significance...” (1956, 1:104). The Lord frequently made arguments based upon the text of the Old Testament, wherein He stressed very precise grammatical points. His argument for the resurrection from the dead in Matthew 22:32 depends upon the present tense form of a verb—“I am [not “was”] the God of Abraham....”

Within the same context, Christ quoted Psalm 110:1, showing that David, speaking in the Spirit, said, “The Lord said unto my Lord...” (Matthew 22:41ff.). Again, the emphasis is on a single word. Jesus (affirming His own deity) asked the Pharisees why David referred to his own descendant, the promised Messiah, as Lord. Not recognizing the dual nature of the Messiah (i.e., as man, He was David’s seed; as deity, He was David’s Lord), they were unable to answer. But had Christ not believed in the inspired words of the Old Testament, He could hardly have reasoned as He did (see also John 10:30ff.).


Christ promised His apostles that the words of their gospel declaration would be given them. He told them: “But when they deliver you up, be not anxious how or what you shall speak; for it shall be given you in that hour what you shall speak” (Matthew 10:19). And, note Luke’s parallel that they were not to “meditate beforehand” how to answer their antagonists (Luke 21:14). That has to involve their very words!


It is quite clear that the penmen of Scripture were conscious of the fact that they were recording the words of God. Paul wrote: “I received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you” (1 Corinthians 11:23). Again, “This we say unto you by the word of the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 4:15). “When you received from us the word of the message, even the word of God, you accepted it not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God, which also works in you that believe” (1 Thessalonians 2:13). When Philip preached in Samaria, those people to whom he spoke had heard “the word of God” (Acts 8:14).


In a remarkable passage, Paul asked: “For who among men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of the man, which is in him?” He means this: you cannot know what is in my mind until I, by my words, reveal to you what I am thinking. That is the apostle’s illustration. Here is his point. “Even so the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God...which things [i.e., the things of God] we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual words” (1 Corinthians 2:11-13). There is not a more comprehensive statement of verbal inspiration to be found anywhere in the holy writings. The mind of God has been made known by means of the inspired words of those representatives whom He chose for that noble task.



The biblical writers considered one another’s productions to be inspired of God. In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul writes: “For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. And, The laborer is worthy of his hire.” In this passage, the apostle has combined Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7, and classified them both as “scripture.” Similarly, Peter refers to Paul’s epistles as “scripture” in 2 Peter 3:15-16.
MECHANICAL DICTATION—A STRAW MAN

Whenever you hear someone accusing advocates of verbal inspiration of believing in “mechanical dictation,” most likely you are dealing with a theological liberal! The notion of “mechanical dictation” [i.e., that the Bible writers were only dictaphones or typewriters, hence, their cultural and personality factors did not enter into their works] is not taught by many conservative Bible scholars. Certainly, Paul’s writings differ in style from those of John, etc. But that does not negate the fact that after God used the individual writers of Scripture, in the final process, only the exact words that He wanted in the text appeared there!

HAS TRANSMISSION DESTROYED INSPIRATION?

“But suppose,” someone wonders, “the Bible was verbally inspired initially. Hasn’t the transmission of the text across the centuries caused a corruption of the original documents, so that verbal inspiration has been virtually destroyed?” No, not at all. The text of the Bible—both Old and New Testaments—has been preserved in a remarkable fashion. For example, after years of scientific research in connection with the text of the Old Testament, professor Robert Dick Wilson, who was thoroughly acquainted with forty-five languages, stated that “we are scientifically certain that we have substantially the same text that was in the possession of Christ and the apostles...” (1929, p. 8, emp. added). Evidence for the textual reliability of the New Testament is no less impressive. Scholars are now in possession of some 5,378 Greek manuscripts (in part or in whole) of the New Testament, and some of these date to the early part of the second century A.D. It has been estimated that textual variations concern only about 1/1000th part of the entire text (see Gregory, 1907, p. 528). Transmission, therefore, has not destroyed verbal inspiration.

DOES TRANSLATION AFFECT INSPIRATION?

Since the Holy Scriptures originally were penned in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and since then have been translated into many languages, some are concerned that the translation process has destroyed the Bible’s initial inspiration. But there is no need for concern over this matter so long as accurate translation is effected. When a word is translated precisely from one language into another, the same thought or idea is conveyed; thus, the same message is received.

That translation need not affect inspiration is evinced by an appeal to the New Testament itself. In the 3rd-2nd centuries B.C., the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek. This version, which was begun in Alexandria, Egypt, is known as the Septuagint. Note this interesting fact: Jesus Christ Himself, and His inspired New Testament writers, frequently quoted from the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament Scriptures! For example, in Matthew 22:32, Christ quoted from the Septuagint (Exodus 3:6), and of that passage said: “Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God?” (22:31). The translation from Hebrew to Greek did not alter the fact that the message was the Word of God!

It also might be observed in this connection that scholars generally agree that the Septuagint is not as reliable a translation as is the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Yet in spite of this, the New Testament frequently quotes it. However, as one author observed: “The writers of the New Testament appear to have been so careful to give the true sense of the Old Testament, that they forsook the Septuagint version whenever it did not give that sense...” (Horne, 1841, 1:312). The fact is, when a New Testament writer was quoting from the Greek Old Testament, the Holy Spirit sometimes led him to slightly alter the phraseology to give a more accurate sense. Thus, inspiration was still preserved though a less-than-perfect translation was being used.

CONCLUSION

The Scriptures are the verbally inspired Word of God. This view has been entertained by reverent students of the Holy Writings for multiplied centuries. Fritz Rienecker noted that the Jewish “rabbinical teaching was that the Spirit of God rested on and in the prophets and spoke through them so that their words did not come from themselves, but from the mouth of God and they spoke and wrote in the Holy Spirit. The early church was in entire agreement with this view” (1980, 2:301).

Let us therefore exalt the Holy Scriptures as the living Word of God (Hebrews 4:12), and acknowledge them as the only authoritative source of religious guidance.

REFERENCES

Bruce, A.B. (1956), Expositor’s New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Gaebelein, Frank E. (1950), The Meaning of Inspiration (Chicago, IL: Inter-Varsity).

Glaussen, L. (no date), Theopneustia—The Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures (Chicago, IL: Moody).

Gregory, C.R. (1907), Canon and Text of the New Testament (New York: Scribners).

Horne, Thomas H. (1842), An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures (Philadelplhia, PA: Whetham & Son).

Rienecker, Fritz (1980), A Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Wilson, Robert Dick (1929), A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament (New York: Harper & Brothers).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally published in Reason & Revelation, December 1982, 2[12]:49-51.

Coal Basket +

The Bible and the Coal Basket

The story is told of an old man who lived on a farm in the mountains
of eastern Kentucky with his young grandson. Each morning,
Grandpa was up early sitting at the kitchen table reading from his old
worn-out Bible. His grandson, who wanted to be just like him,
tried to imitate him in any way he could.

One day the grandson asked, "Papa, I try to read the Bible just
like you but I don't understand it, and what I do understand
I forget as soon as I close the book. What good does reading
the Bible do?" The Grandfather quietly turned from putting coal
in the stove and said, "Take this coal basket down to the river
and bring back a basket of water."

The boy did as he was told, even though all the water leaked out
before he could get back to the house. The grandfather laughed
and said, "You will have to move a little faster next time," and
sent him back to the river with the basket to try again. This time
the boy ran faster, but again the basket was empty before he
returned home.

Out of breath, he told his grandfather that it was "impossible to
carry water in a basket," and he went to get a bucket instead.
The old man said, "I don't want a bucket of water; I want a basket
of water. You can do this. You're just not trying hard enough," and
he went out the door to watch the boy try again.

At this point, the boy knew it was impossible, but he wanted to
show his grandfather that even if he ran as fast as he could, the
water would leakout before he got far at all. The boy scooped the
water and ran hard, but when he reached his grandfather the basket
was again empty.

Out of breath, he said, "See Papa, it's useless!" "So you think
it is useless?" The old man said, "Look at the basket." The boy
looked at the basket and for the first time he realized that the
basket looked different. Instead of a dirty old coal basket, it
was clean.

"Son, that's what happens when you read the Bible. You might not
understand or remember everything, but when you read it, it will
change you from the inside out. That is the work of God in our
lives. To change us from the inside out and to slowly transform
us into the image of His son.

Take time to read a portion of God's word each day."

Dating +

Old Earth Dating Methods!

New Findings Show Flaws In Old-Earth Dating Methods
by Kyle Butt, M.A.


For decades the general population has been informed that numerous “scientific” evidences prove beyond all doubt that the age of the Earth should be measured in billions of years instead of thousands. We have been told that dating methods, such as the rates of decay of radioactive elements, force an honest observer to an old-Earth conclusion. The problems with this “evidence” are many (see DeYoung, 2005). One of the most glaring problems with such reasoning is that it is based on assumptions that have proven to be incorrect.

For instance, in order for the old-Earth clocks that are based on radioactive elements to be accurate, it must be taken as a fact that the decay rates of the elements are constant, and have been for the last several “billion years” (not that there ever really has been such time). For years, that assumption has been shown to have serious problems (DeYoung), and recent findings have made that assumption even more glaringly false.

On August 23, Dan Stober wrote an article for the Stanford Report titled “The Strange Case of Solar Flares and Radioactive Elements.” He reported on findings from researchers at Stanford and Purdue universities that suggest that the decay rates of radioactive elements can vary based on the activity of solar flares. The implications of such a discovery are profound.

 As Stober wrote: “The story begins, in a sense, in classrooms around the world, where students are taught that the rate of decay of a specific radioactive material is a constant. This concept is relied upon, for example, when anthropologists use carbon-14 to date ancient artifacts” (2010, emp. added). Stober’s implication is that if the decay rates are not constant, as we have been taught by the evolutionary community for decades, then their dating methods cannot be reliable, since they “rely” on a constant rate of decay.

Stober further commented that the constant-rate-of-decay assumption “was challenged” by Ephraim Fischbach, a Purdue researcher, who found disagreement in measured decay rates of certain radioactive isotopes, “odd for supposed physical constants” (Stober, 2010). 

What was more, upon assessing further data, researchers noticed seasonal decay rate differences in certain isotopes, “the decay rate was ever so slightly faster in winter than in summer” (2010). Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics Peter Sturrock stated: “Everyone thought it must be due to experimental mistakes, because we’re all brought up to believe that decay rates are constant” (2010).

Further research, however, suggested that the information was not an experimental mistake. In December of 2006, Jere Jenkins, a nuclear engineer at Purdue University, noticed that the decay rate of manganese-54 dropped slightly just before and during a solar flare. Jenkins and Fischbach argue that this variation in decay rates is caused by interaction between solar neutrinos and the radioactive elements being observed. Stober quoted Fischbach as saying that all the evidence assessed by Sturrock, Fischbach, and Jenkins “points toward a conclusion that the sun is ‘communicating’ with radioactive isotopes on Earth” (2010).

Strober admitted that no one knows how neutrinos could possibly ‘communicate’ with radioactive elements on Earth. Fischbach acknowledged that “it doesn’t make any sense according to conventional ideas.” Sturrock stated, “It’s an effect that no one yet understands…. But that’s what the evidence points to. 

It’s a challenge for the physicists and a challenge for the solar people too.” More than that, though, it is a challenge for the dogmatic evolutionists who insist that their deep-time dating methods are accurate. This latest research brings to light the glaring flaw of such dating methods, showing that the core assumptions are not only questionable, they are verifiably false.

The suggestion that decay rates may be affected by neutrinos is nothing new. The TalkOrigins Web site cites a reference to Henry Morris mentioning the possibility as early as 1974 and Davis Young discussing it in 1988 (“Claim CD004,” 2004). The responses given by TalkOrigins do not include the new data from the latest research, and cannot dismiss the fact that the rates of radioactive elements are measurably variable, even though the neutrino interaction with them is little understood (2004). Since we can prove that certain radioactive elements have a rate that varies in the winter or summer, or during solar flares, then the assumption that decay rates are constant cannot honestly be maintained.

CONCLUSION
It has long been taught in classrooms across the world that the constancy of radioactive decay rates is a core assumption upon which old-Earth conclusions are based. Yet this assumption has been proven false, based on the fact that decay rates have been shown to vary.

 This information, according to scientists from Purdue and Stanford, goes against what has been “taught in classrooms” and against “what we’re all brought up to believe.” Does our society never tire of discovering that the “evidence” for old-Earth assumptions continues to disintegrate as more data is assessed? 

How long will it be, and how many more core evolutionary assumptions must be debunked, before those who insist on an Earth measured in billions of years acquiesce to the truth of a young Earth measured in thousands of years? Once again we see accurate scientific evidence in complete agreement with a straightforward reading of biblical history (Butt, 2002).

REFERENCES
Butt, Kyle (2002), “The Bible Says the Earth is Young,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1757.

“Claim CD004,” (2004), http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD004.html.

DeYoung, Don (2005), Thousands...Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

Stober, David (2010), “The Strange Case of Solar Flares and Radioactive Elements,” http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2010/08/23/the-strange-case-of-solar-flares-and-radioactive-elements/.

Lessons+

A Lesson well Learned!

AP Content :: Scripturally Speaking

A Lesson From the Sophists
by Caleb Colley, M.L.A.


The ancient Sophists occupied the period in Greek philosophical history just after the physical philosophers had posited various explanations concerning the substance of the material world (ca. 450 B.C. [Kahn, 2005]). Sophists are often dismissed as charlatans or hypocrites, and to some degree this charge is just. Our purpose here, however, is not to evaluate the Sophists’ project, but rather to learn a lesson from the circumstance in which the Sophists found themselves and from the major question they posed. As the answer to this question highlights the value of special revelation, it is relevant to Christian apologetics.

The earliest Greek philosophers (e.g., Thales, Anaximander, Democritus, etc.), had focused primarily on developing accounts of physical reality, asking “Of what is the world made?” However, social and political unrest demanded that philosophers move beyond the merely physical questions (i.e., questions about substance) in order to address spiritual and ethical issues. The traditional Greek religion, with its accompanying supernatural explanations for the phenomenal world, were being questioned. Likewise, traditional laws were being questioned (see Rogers, 1923, p. 45). As all citizens in Athens had the opportunity to participate directly as legislators, those who wanted to advance in politics desired special training in rhetoric for the purpose of learning to persuade audiences in the legal/political realm. The Sophists occupied themselves as teachers of rhetoric, among other topics. Consider the following summary:

The basis [of the Sophists’] work was apt to be rhetorical, but with the abler Sophists, this was broadened out to cover the field of an all-round and liberal culture. Any knowledge that was available of the workings of the human mind, of literature, history, language, or grammar, of the principles underlying the dialectic of argument, of the nature of virtue and justice, was clearly appropriate to the end in view.... Now all this seems innocent enough.... In reality, however, there were some grounds for...suspicion. On the practical side, merely, there always was a danger lest the Sophistic skill be prostituted to unsocial ends.... Apart, however, from such chances for abuse, which no doubt were often taken advantage of, there was a more fundamental reason for the popular distrust. The habit of unrestricted inquiry and discussion which was crystallized by the Sophistic movement, the free play of the mind over all subjects that interest men, meant the overthrow of much in the existing civilization.... (Rogers, pp. 42-43).

While some of the Sophists had high ideals (e.g., Protagoras [see Plato, 1997, pp. 746-790]), nonetheless the legacy of the Sophists is that of a general ethical relativism.

Greek culture was at a crossroads. At issue was whether the traditions of previous generations of society would be maintained, or the desires of each present individual would be accepted as his own standard. Should the individual or society take prominence? The Sophists, exposing at times the lack of rational support for tradition, essentially offered the solution of “Every man for himself.” In so doing, they posed the following philosophical question: Is man the measure of all things (as modern secular humanists allege; see Colley, 2007), or is there some external, objective standard to guide human action? Some philosophers, such as Socrates, were rightly concerned that any solution whatever be subjected to the test of human reason, and that the solution be applied to all humanity. Yet, even a Platonic solution, such as that presented in the Republic, has aspects that are unsatisfactory to many (especially its communistic aspects [Plato, 1997, pp. 971-1223]).

This quandary is ancient, yet bears a strikingly current application. Our present culture is largely divided concerning the validity of divine authority and religious tradition. At least two lessons present themselves for the Christian apologist. The first, general lesson to be learned from this Greek predicament is that man needs divine guidance in order to flourish (Jeremiah 10:23). Anytime man rejects an objective standard concerning what is good, relativism threatens. “Someone who holds that nothing is simply good, but only good for someone or from a certain point of view, holds a relativist view of goodness,” and has invited revolution, as did the Greeks (Craig, 2005, p. 894). Yet, even a universally accepted standard, if not grounded in objective truth, is not desirable (it could happen to be philosophical pessimism, Nazism, etc.).

It is interesting to note that within a few generations of the Sophists, the greatest theophony Jesus Christ would appear, providing the way to human fulfillment and peace in the fullness of time (see John 10:10; 14:6; Galatians 4:4). The Greek-speaking world would be influenced heavily by Christianity, and many philosophers throughout the centuries would come to appreciate Christian principles, even developing philosophical systems involving biblical teaching (see Rogers, pp. 185ff.).

The second, specific lesson to be learned from the Greek situation during the Sophistical age is that Christianity provides grounds for perfect balance between emphasis upon the individual person and deference to his community. The individual is uniquely responsible for his own obedience and righteous lifestyle (Acts 2:40; 2 Timothy 2:15; Hebrews 11:6; Jude 21-23). The individual’s own rationality is central, but not for the purpose of originating religious truth. Rather, the individual uses his rationality to examine evidence for the validity of revealed truth, and to apply revelation properly. At the same time, he is divinely situated in the church, a community of believers who bear each others’ burdens (Philippians 2:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:3; 1 John 4:7), exercise godly discipline (2 Thessalonians 3:6; 1 Peter 5:5), and appeal to a single standard for conduct (2 Samuel 22:31; Romans 10:13-17; Colossians 3:17). Christianity is not designed in such a way that its adherents exercise faith in isolation. No one Christian is more valuable or more important than another (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11).

CONCLUSION
The Bible contains the answers to philosophical questions—even those asked by the ancients. The Sophists indirectly raised the question of the degree to which such a source should be consulted when philosophers develop ethical and metaphysical arguments. To defend the affirmative answer is the task of the Christian apologist, who considers philosophy in light of divine revelation in order to develop the most effective response.

REFERENCES
Colley, Caleb (2007), “Secular Humanism and Evolution,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3336.

Craig, Edward (2005), “Relativism,” in The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward Craig (New York: Routledge).

Kahn, Charles H. (2005), “Sophists,” in The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward Craig (New York: Routledge).

Rogers, Arthur Kenyon (1923), A Student’s History of Philosophy (New York: Macmillan).

Plato (1997), Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett).





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright ©  Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Shame +

Fool Me Twice, Shame on Me

Fool Me Twice, Shame on Me
by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


Evolutionists are notorious for speaking authoritatively, decisively, and vehemently on the alleged “proof” of evolution. Yet, time and time again, through the years, evidence has forced evolutionists to recant their assertions, correct their premature conclusions, and alter the very claims that they formerly insisted proved their case and disproved God and the Bible account of creation.

The arguments for evolution advanced during the infamous Scopes trial have been repudiated by evolutionists themselves. Indeed, from Darwin forward, evolutionary theory has manifested a precarious, century-plus-long history of modification, alteration, abandonment, correction, and endless speculation.

 From so-called “vestigial organs,” peppered moths, and Haeckel’s alleged embryonic recapitulation to Neanderthal, Java, Nebraska, and Piltdown man—all debunked decades ago. About the time their half-baked conjuring filters down to the school textbooks where their ideas are implanted into young minds as fact, the evolutionists already have changed their minds and are advocating alternate conclusions with the same certainty and fervor with which they advanced their now discredited views. And this process has been repeating itself for over a century!

There’s an old saying: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” An honest person with reasonable intelligence cannot be fooled forever. Sooner or later he will shake his head and conclude that what is touted as “science” is, in fact, superstition.


What is asserted as “certain” is, in reality, merely speculation. And what is promoted as “fact” is actually simple bias and personal opinion. If, after 150 years of ongoing efforts by the scientific intelligentsia to validate the theory of evolution, the proof continues to go wanting, hasn’t the time come to abandon the notion as hopelessly, inherently, and irrevocably flawed?

Hasn’t the time come to return to the only sane, plausible, scientifically harmonious explanation for the existence of the Universe and everything within it? “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 53:1).

The fact remains that “[t]he heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands” (Psalm 19:1, NASB). “For He commanded and they were created” (Psalm 148:5). “Know that the Lord, He is God; It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves” (Psalm 100:3). “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Choose +

"ONE MUST CHOOSE"

Reasoning About Fideism
by Caleb Colley, B.A., B.S.


Apologetics is the “reasoned defense of the Christian religion. Christianity is a faith, to be sure; but there are reasons for this faith. Faith is not to be confused with reason; but neither is it to be separated from it” (Sproul, et al., 1984, p. 13).

 However, some suggest that if there are reasons, there is no room for faith, and that religion must be founded solely on faith, absent of reason. “One must choose,” fideists say, “between a religion of faith and a religion of reason; one cannot have both” (Sproul, et al., p. 13). Geisler and Brooks noted:

Fideism holds that the only way we can know anything about God is by faith. Truth is subjective and personal, so we can believe it but not prove it. There are no rational proofs or empirical evidence that can lead us to knowledge of God. We must simply believe that what He has said in His Word and done in our lives is true. Ultimately, as the old hymn says, “You ask me how I know He lives; He lives within my heart” (1990, p. 267).

This is the fallacy of fideism. “You commit this fallacy when you say...that one must ‘just accept it by faith’” (Hoover, 1975, p. 2).

Often, even religionists insist that the correct basis for belief in God, Christ, or the inspiration of the Bible, must be devoid of reason. They say it’s alright for us to believe in the metaphysical, but we had better not argue for the validity of our claims by using evidence and reaching reasonable conclusions from such evidence.

 Some who profess Christianity express a fideistic conviction when they say things such as, “I don’t need evidence that God exists. I just believe it.” Christian apologist Dick Sztanyo wrote: “Most modern ideas of faith are fideistic, since they deny or denigrate the role of reason in Christianity.... The agnostic says, ‘I do not, and cannot know, whether God exists.’ The fideist merely adds, ‘but I accept it by faith’” (1996, pp. 9-10).

Michael Martin gave a fitting summary of the doctrinal implications of this approach: “A Christian could maintain that I am correct to argue that it is irrational to believe that Christian doctrines are true but nevertheless affirm that he or she will continue to believe despite all the counter-evidence and arguments” (1991, p. 224).

 If Christians are unwilling to argue rationally the validity of their faith, then, the atheist rightly insists, they are forced to discard artificially the reasoned arguments of those who are antagonistic to Christianity.

MAY FIDEISM BE TRUE?

Fideism defeats itself from the outset, because it uses reason to imply that we should not use reason in matters of religion. Geisler articulated this contradiction:

[E]ither a fideist offers a justification for his belief or else he does not. If he does not, then as an unjustified belief it has no rightful claim to knowledge (since human knowledge is justified belief). On the other hand, if the fideist offers a justificiation for his belief—as indeed the whole argument for fideism would seem to be—then he is no longer a fideist, since he has an argument or justification for holding his belief in fideism. In short, either fideism is not a rightful claimant to truth or else it is self-defeating. But in neither case can it be established to be true (1976, pp. 63-64).

Still, it is necessary to consider the specific charge of fideism, that religion is exclusively a matter of faith, and never human reason.

As it attacks the pillars of Christianity, fideism strikes at the very foundation of knowledge itself. Fideism logically reduces to experientialism, the concept of a suprarational comprehension (Gray, 2005, p. 108). A subjective, “better-felt-than-told” experience becomes the foundation for all belief; we cannot know the truth unless we have “experienced” it in some way.

Again, in this construct, reason has nothing to do with knowledge, comprehension, or application of truth. Gray summarized this particular problem with fideism: “If it works for me, it is true.... In fideism, the heart has primacy” (pp. 108,118). The belief that all Jews should be eliminated from the planet “worked” for Hitler in his heart, but was his heartfelt belief true? Obviously, fideism leaves us without hope for knowing absolute truth.

Consider that the principle that reason precludes belief is an unreasonable rule, one which is applied nowhere other than in the debate concerning God and religion. In the legal arena, for example, witnesses provide evidence which leads unbiased judges and juries to ascertain the facts. The presence of reliable evidence that points to the conclusion that suspect Smith murdered Jones, for example, causes jurors to develop faith in the fact that Smith did commit murder.

 The jurors do not quibble, “How can we believe that Smith murdered Jones on the basis of the evidence that proves Smith murdered Jones?” In every practical and theoretical arena, we consider evidence to be valuable because it allows us, as rational individuals, to use our reasoning skills and reach appropriate conclusions. Why should we view questions related to religion in a totally different light?

In the light of the devastating problems with fideism, why might a person become a fideist? Many are attracted to fideism because they sense the fact that human reason alone cannot save (see Geisler, 1976, p. 47). Or, one may choose fideism out of a desire to emphasize the personal, practical aspects of Christianity instead of the “nuts and bolts” of doctrine.

 Fideists frequently emphasize the personal factor of religion, avoid an exalted view of human reason, and call people to faith in Christ (see Boa and Bowman, 2001, p. 444). Regardless of these positive conceptions of fideism, we must ask whether the Bible teaches that human reason has nothing to do with faith in God and salvation.

SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE AGAINST FIDEISM

It is true that the Christian religion and the plan of salvation is the product of God and not human reasoning (2 Peter 1:20-21; cf. Thompson, 2003b). This does not imply, however, that God requires people to believe in Him without providing them with adequate evidence for His existence, or that God does not require people to use their rational capabilities.

The natural order demands that the rational person must conclude that a Creator caused nature to come into existence (see Thompson, 2003a, pp. 67-154). The intelligent design evident in the Universe imposes upon our thinking the existence of a Designer. As Gray explained, “The fideistic posture denies that one can gain an understanding of the reality of God from nature alone through an objective investigation of empirical fact. At the least, one could not demonstrate how one arrived at this understanding according to publicly accepted canons of discursive reasoning” (2005, p. 109, emp. added).

There is an abundance of scriptural evidence supporting the position that right religion is founded upon the use of reasoning from the natural order. The prophet Isaiah recorded these words: “‘Come now, and let us reason together,’ says the Lord” (Isaiah 1:18, emp. added). The psalmist contended, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork” (Psalm 19:1).

Paul explained this point in greater detail: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse...” (Romans 1:20). God demands that people use their powers of reasoning to come to know Him (see 2 Thessalonians 1:8).

Jesus upheld the significance of reasoning and intelligent, critical thinking. On one occasion, a Pharisaical lawyer asked Jesus, “‘Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?’ Jesus said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind’” (Matthew 22:36-37, emp. added). The mind operates in the realm of rationality.

As humans dedicate their minds to the Lord’s service, they will reason concerning the evidence for their convictions. In the Parable of the Sower, Jesus claimed that people must understand the Gospel in order to accept and apply it (Matthew 13:19). We cannot fulfill our responsibility to worship “in truth,” without first analyzing and reasoning about the biblical doctrines related to worship (John 4:24).

Furthermore, Jesus participated in rational argumentation. Hoover noted:

You could never say that Jesus avoided argument. He engaged in skilled disputation with his opponents, confuting them on such matters as paying tribute to Caesar (Mt. 22:21), the authority of John the Baptist (Mt. 21:24), the resurrection and the afterlife (Mt. 12:18-27), and the relation between David and the Messiah (Lk. 20:41-44). Even though Jesus often accused his opponents of intellectual dishonesty (Jn. 9:41), he seldom shunned a discussion with a serious and honest opponent. On one occasion, when he found such an opponent, he said, “You are not far from the kingdom of God” (1975, p. 3-4, parenthetical items in orig.).

Our Lord rejected the notion that faith and reason are mutually exclusive. If we subscribe to fideism, we do so without divine authority (Colossians 3:17).

Peter emphasized the necessity of “giving a reason”: “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15). The fideist would have Christians respond to inquiries concerning the hope that lies within us by saying, “There is no reason. Reason has nothing to do with it. I simply believe it because I have chosen to do so.” In the New Testament, we find numerous accounts of reasoned defenses of the Christian religion (see Acts 2; 4; 7; 22; etc.).

Peter’s admonition to “give a reason” stands alongside other New Testament passages which teach the necessity of a reasoned approach to Christianity: “Test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21, emp. added). “I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say” (1 Corinthians 10:14). “And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment (Philippians 1:9, emp. added).

 Paul prayed that the Ephesian brethren would have “the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling...” (Ephesians 1:17-18, emp. added).

We could spend much space considering scriptural illustrations of the need for human reason in the process of obedience. Concerning the example of Elijah and the prophets of Baal, Sproul and his colleagues noted:

God Himself provides evidence for the claim that He is the true God, displaying His divine credentials openly. Elijah stood on Mount Carmel and put the question before the people: “How long will you go limping with two different opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him” (1 Kings 18:21 RSV).

 Elijah stood in the breach between two mutually exclusive truth claims. He did not ask for an arbitrary decision or an existential leap into the abyss of subjectivity. He called for a decision based on evidence.... The fire that fell from heaven not only consumed the altars of Baal, but reduced the false claims of Baal to ashes (p. 18, parenthetical item in orig.).

God gave Gideon a sign to demonstrate the authenticity and authority of His commands (Judges 6:30-40). God gave signs to Moses that demonstrated that Moses spoke on behalf of the Creator (Exodus 4-5). In the New Testament, Jesus healed the paralytic in order that those present might believe that He had authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:1-11). In John’s gospel account, Jesus explained the importance of evidence in His ministry:

If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true. There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true. You have sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. Yet I do not receive testimony from man, but I say these things that you may be saved. He was the burning and shining lamp, and you were willing for a time to rejoice in his light. But I have a greater witness than John’s; for the works which the Father has given Me to finish—the very works that I do—bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent me (John 5:31-36).

Therefore, “By divine example and divine command apologetics is a mandate God gives to His people. If God Himself provides evidence for what He declares to be truth it is calumnous [sic] to repudiate the value of evidence. If God commands us to do the work of apologetics it is disobedience to refuse the task” (Sproul, et al., 1984, p. 20).

 The notion of “blind faith” is completely foreign to the Bible (see Miller, 2003). To deny the proper role of evidence is to stand against not only common sense, but the Scriptures. Noted Christian apologist Thomas B. Warren observed: “The very way the Bible is written demands the recognition and honoring of logic and/or the law of rationality. The Holy Spirit guided the writing of sixty-six books, all of which must be considered and fitted together logically by the correct use of man’s powers of reason” (1982, p. 2).

 If we believe the Bible, then we must conclude that God expects human beings to use their reasoning powers in order to come into a right relationship with Him. We must agree that God reveals evidence in the natural realm, and that we must deal reasonably with that evidence (see Estabrook and Thompson, 2001).

According to the Bible, there is no way to live a life of faith without trusting in the Word of God. According to the Bible, knowledge always precedes faith. Consider Warren’s logical examination of this issue:

The Bible makes clear that men must know the truth in order to be saved (John 8:32). The Bible also makes clear that men are to “walk by faith and not by sight” (II Cor. 5:7). But it must be noted that these two passages do not contradict one another. Rather, handling the two passages correctly (reasoning correctly about them) leads one to the conclusion (in the light of Romans 10:17, which says that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God) that, in so far as salvation is concerned, knowledge and faith are inextricably related.

 One cannot have the faith which God requires as a prerequisite to salvation without knowing what the word of God teaches. There is one and only one way of demonstrating that one has faith: obedience to the word of God.... [F]aith must be preceded by knowledge of the word of God! (1982, pp. 116-117, emp. and parenthetical items in orig.).

If biblical faith, and therefore salvation, are contingent upon a reasoned knowledge of God (which is available through general and special revelation), then a person cannot be both a fideist and a Christian.

CONCLUSION

There are good reasons for belief in God, the divinity of Jesus, and the inspiration of the Bible (see Thompson, 2003a; Warren, 1972; Butt and Lyons, 2006; Thompson, 2003b). As Sztanyo concluded, “any concept of faith that severs it from its objective, epistemological bases (i.e., its foundation of knowledge) is at variance with biblical teaching” (1996, p. 10, emp. and parenthetical item in orig.).

It is impossible for a person, absent of God’s revelation, to reason his way into a right relationship with God. No one ever will “think up” his own ticket to heaven (Romans 10:13-14; cf. Ephesians 2:8-9,14). For the plan of salvation, we look to the inspired Word of God (see Lyons and Butt, 2004), which appeals to human rationality. Miller summarized:

The proof in our day is no less conclusive, nor is it any less compelling. While it is not within the purview of this brief article to prove such...the following tenets are provable: (1) we can know (not merely think, hope, or wish) that God exists (Romans 1:19-20); (2) we can know that the Bible is the verbally inspired Word of God, and intended to be comprehended in much the same way that any written human communication is to be understood; (3) we can know that one day we will stand before God in judgment and give account for whether we have studied the Bible, learned what to do to be saved, and obeyed those instructions; and (4) we can know that we know (1 John 2:3) (Miller, 2003, emp. and parenthetical items in orig.).

The God Who created us expects us to base our beliefs and actions upon nothing save rational principles. If we are fair with the Scriptures, we will find that the truth which makes us free is understandable and reasonable (John 8:32). The Christian life is one of faith based on reason (see Miller, 2002).

REFERENCES

Boa, Kenneth and Robert M. Bowman, Jr. (2001), Faith Has Its Reasons: An Integrative Approach to Defending Christianity (Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress).

Butt, Kyle and Eric Lyons (2006), Behold! The Lamb of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Estabrook, Jim, and Bert Thompson (2001), “Will Those Who Have Never Heard the Gospel Be Lost?,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/469.

Geisler, Norman L. (1999), Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Geisler, Norman (1976), Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Geisler, Norman L. and Ronald M. Brooks (1990), When Skeptics Ask (Wheaton, IL: Victor).

Gray, Phillip A. (2005), Training Manual for Cultural Combat: Apologetics and Preaching for the Postmodern Mind (Altamonte Springs, FL: Advantage).

Hoover, Arlie J. (1975), Fallacies of Unbelief (Abilene, TX: Biblical Research Press).

Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2004), “Taking Possession of What God Gives: A Case Study in Salvation,” [On-lone], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2546.

Martin, Michael (1991), The Case Against Christianity (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press).

Miller, Dave (2002), “Christianity is Rational,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1975.

Miller, Dave (2003), “Blind Faith,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1963.

Sproul, R.C., John Gerstner, Arthur Lindsley (1984), Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Academie Books).

Sztanyo, Dick (1996), Faith and Reason (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Thompson, Bert (2003a), The Case for the Existence of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Thompson, Bert (2003b), In Defense of the Bible’s Inspiration (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Warren, Thomas B. (1972), Have Atheists Proved There Is No God? (Ramer, TN: National Christian Press).

Warren, Thomas B. (1982), Logic and the Bible (Ramer, TN: National Christian Press).

Copyright ©  Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Authority +

THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE #1

James W. Boyd

There is not anything in service to God for which we do not need His authority. Peter said that God has “given all things that pertain to life and godliness.” I wish all of my brethren believed that. The denominational world never has believed it.

        If ever there was a time when Christians need to say what we believe and why we believe it, this is the day. I say this not with a tone of despair, but with justified and genuine concern, and even more as a challenge, that it is strange that among people who have been a part of efforts to restore the faith revealed in the New Testament, that we need some straight talk about Biblical authority, the necessity for it, and its nature.

        Denominations have never accepted the Bible as authority as the Bible demands. At best, they have accepted the Bible alongside their creeds, disciplines, manuals, edicts of councils, conferences, prayer books, feelings, human traditions, later day revelations, etc. But it is increasingly apparent that a renewed emphasis for the need of Biblical authority exists among brethren. Too many have adopted too much of the denominational attitude and outlook toward religious authority.

SHALL WE PUT IT ASIDE? 

        What if I should come before you to preach, but I put the Bible aside? What could I say? Would I even have a place to start or a place to go with any lesson worthy of the identification of a Gospel sermon? Would there be any authoritative basis for anything I could preach?

But this is what the religious world has done and in the place of the Bible there is a drumbeat of worthless theologies, philosophies, human opinions, politics, social reform, and as often as not, propaganda that is anti-Bible even though it is called preaching the Bible; and, coming from the mouths of those egotists who profess themselves to be superior in everything.

        While many brethren are unwilling to go that far, just yet, there is too much of what I note among brethren that consists of “how to” pep talks, religious fiction, testimonials, and a page from the emotion-stirring “holy rollers.” We have been setting the Bible aside, not all at once, but bit by bit. We have acted, in too many instances, like the Bible is a loose-leaf notebook and we are removing pages one by one.

        Some have even declared Genesis one through eleven to be a myth, the flood possibly nothing more than a local flood, even distorting the plan of salvation as if it was “grace alone.”

One of the areas where some brethren are guilty of departing from Biblical authority is in the work of the church. Some years ago some arose to deny work(s) that the Bible does not authorize, but now more and more we see churches involved in activities such as recreation, physical exercise classes, entertainment, social events, ball games, gymnasiums, secular education, until one cannot tell the difference between the Lord’s church and the denominations with their perverted attitudes toward the church.

 Many others have, for all practical purposes, silenced any teaching regarding dancing, social drinking, immodest dress, smoking, etc. because too many of the members are guilty, and preachers and elders prefer to please the people.

 False doctrines are taught on marriage, divorce, and remarriage, such as is taught in colleges, promoted in workshops, and in written materials. A few continue, but most “disregard what the Bible teaches and think it acceptable to present themselves as if they are of the drug, rock-and-roll sub-culture.

 Who is not aware of the contentions over the direct operation of the Holy Spirit many have adopted? Yes, bit by bit, even some who claim to be New Testament Christians are tearing out verse after verse, page after page, of the Word of God.

        I ask where is the real difference between tearing up the Bible bit by bit, and throwing it away abruptly altogether? In fact, the only difference might be, the former is more deceptive and subtle, but both efforts accomplish the same disastrous results. One is blatant, and easily detected. The other is sly, gradual, and goes without notice unless one is very attentive.

LIBERALISM / MODERNISM  

        The most pressing issue facing those who believe the Bible today is the vicious attack of Liberalism and Modernism. Even now we are hearing some of our “scholars” in Bible departments talking about how the threat of liberalism has passed, and now the area of danger is what these liberal professors call “the reactionary right wing.” This is to remove attention from their own sordid digression and departure from the truth.

 We have to make a choice to either respect the Bible as the Word of God and the all-sufficient authority of it, or launch into a “do your own thing” imitation of the failures of denominationalism. Some are already promoting the latter even as they deny they are doing it. The very nature of the Bible demands you take it all, or nothing. The Bible is not a religious supermarket where you can take what you want and leave out what you do not want.

Unless we are so proud, egotistical, blind, naïve, and digressive, we cannot deny the existence of the digressive attitudes and activities that have invaded the Lord’s people in recent decades, primarily through the avenue of the Bible departments of the colleges, the sophisticated and know-it-all professors, the compromising administrations, the ecumenical lectureships, the literature of compromise often promoted for the sake of making money but used in Bible classes, and the continued willingness of those who say they are faithful but who keep using, promoting, and endorsing the very people who are leading the church away from the Bible.

 Toleration of this liberal trend will sweep away much of the Lord’s church, if not in our day (and we believe in our day), surely in the generation that follows because it is designed and intended to “up date, make relevant, change, revise, alter, restructure” the church for modern times.

GOD’S WORD 

        All we know and believe is on the basis of evidence, and that evidence is in Scripture. God has spoken and revealed His Will. The Bible is that revelation. When any person gets to the point that “thus saith the Lord” is not the standard, and when he thinks there is no necessity for Biblical authority, then nothing is left.

 When any people become more concerned with reactions, what denominational people may think, how popular and prosperous something may be, then the way of apostasy is already paved and greased. To many today, in a cowardly and sinister pretense of piety, prefer “peace” at the sacrifice of truth.

 Many times, and we have seen it, what ought to be the first and dominant consideration in matters pertaining to the church and the truth, is neglected altogether in favor of assuring acceptance and favor among certain ones, often among the “big names,” the wealthy, socially elite, and worldly minded, numbers-conscious promoters.

 Time and again, instead of seeking Biblical authority for what is said or done, we hear the statement, “I don’t see anything wrong with this or that.” Just because somebody may not see any harm in something does not mean that God’s authority is supporting it. Our question should be, “What does the Bible teach?” When we respect the Bible as divine authority, this is what we will be asking.

There are commandments from God that rest entirely upon His authority for which we may not see the reason behind it. It may not be something that appeases our senses of ethics or morality.

 But it is commanded of us, and because of the sovereignty of God we are accountable to obey. When God speaks, man is to hear and heed. We must have the attitude of Samuel when he said, “Speak Lord, for thy servant heareth” (1 Samuel 3:9). We cannot know what God desires unless we hear His Word. When we are not following His directions, we are going the wrong way. Man’s ways are never superior to His.

GOD IS AUTHORITY  

        Jesus said, “All authority is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matt. 28:18). He not only possesses all authority, He is authority. What He taught is that which the Holy Spirit reminded the Lord’s apostles (John 14, 15, 16). What they taught was the will of the Lord. What they taught is now embodied in the all-sufficient, authoritative, inerrant, verbally inspired, infallible Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
        We want to turn our attention to the nature of the authority of the Bible which will occupy the rest of this lesson and the second part as well. We approach our study in full realization that the acceptance of the Scriptures is to accept Christ, and to reject the Scriptures is to reject Christ. The authority of Christ is the Bible.

SUPREME

        God’s authority is SUPREME authority. In Ephesians 1:20-23, Paul was writing of what God had done, “Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come, and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.”

 Again, Colossians 1:18, “And he is the head of the body, the church; who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead: that in all things he might have the preeminence.” Our Lord is this authority because He is Deity, and as Deity in the flesh, He lived a sinless life. “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth” (1 Peter 1:22). His authority is the religious “supreme court.” One can appeal no higher. There is no other. 

        There was a time for Israel when the law that God gave through Moses was the authority. But that law has served its purpose, been fulfilled, and taken out of the way (Matt. 5:17-18; Gal. 3:23-25; Col. 2:14). No man can set aside God’s law except Deity. The Lord Jesus accomplished what that law was designed to introduce. “The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17).

        Jesus said, “My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work” (John 4:34). “I can of mine own self do nothing; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me” (John 5:30).

        There is no council, pope, conference, convention, lectureship, preacher, editor, so-called scholar, school Bible department, perverted Bible, civil government, eldership, social organization, fraternal order, or any such thing that can alter, surpass, overshadow, revise, or in any way change the authority of Jesus Christ.

SUFFICIENT 

        God’s authority is SUFFICIENT. It is not partial nor incomplete. None can say, “Here is something we can do in service to God for which we need no divine authority.” One of the reasons there have been so many innovations, digressions, and introductions of false ideas into “Christianity” is because some have thought the authority of Christ was lacking in some way and they have supplied what they think the Lord overlooked. How many times have men engaged in something for which there was no Biblical authority and then cried, “Where does the Bible forbid it?” That is not the right question.

        When we do what we do “in the name of” Christ, as we are taught to do (Col. 3:17), we must ask, “Where does the Bible authorize it?” Doing something on the basis that the Bible does not specifically forbid it is to assert the insufficiency of the authority of Christ.

 On this mistaken notion many brethren have gone into the playground church business, secular education, entertainment, use of mechanical instruments, and anything else somebody might want. There is not anything in service to God for which we do not need His authority. Peter said that God has “given all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3). I wish all of my brethren believed that. The denominational world never has believed it.

UNIVERSAL

        God’s authority is UNIVERSAL. His Gospel is to be preached to every creature in all the world (Mark 16:15; Matt. 28:19). The faith of Christ is not a family religion as was the Patriarchal system. Nor is it a national religion as was Judaism. Regardless of where people may dwell, those of every nation that fear Him and do His will are acceptable (Acts 10:34-35).

What some of our own people need to learn is that the Gospel that saves the poor, also saves the rich. The Gospel that saves the young, saves the old. This concept of making the Gospel relevant to the ghetto, or adapting it to the nuclear scientists, or making it fit the singles group, or this divorced group, or this youth group, or this senior citizens group, is to miss one of the important characteristics of the authority of Christ. The truth is just as binding on this generation as the past generation, or the next generation. “The word of the Lord endureth forever” (1 Peter 1:25).

There is no Gospel for the north and a Gospel for the south. There is no truth while at home and something different away from home on vacation. There is not one truth for one nation and another truth for a different nation. What the Lord teaches me, He teaches you. Some of our “learned” brethren need to learn that basic fundamental.

        While there are passages directed toward women, some toward men, some toward the young, toward parents, preachers, elders, sinners, saints, His authority, His truth, His saving plan does not vary from place to place. It is universal in scope.
     
                2720 S Chancery St.
                McMinnville, TN 37110
               

Flying +

"Flying Dragon" Bones and Dinosaur Fossils

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Evolutionary scientists claim humans and dinosaurs could not possibly have co-existed. They insist that dinosaurs lived millions of years before humans arrived on the scene.

Yet the available historical and physical evidence proves that dinosaurs and humans lived together only a few thousand years ago (see Lyons and Butt, 2008).

 One proof of this fact is the abundance of “dragon legends.” These legends, from all over the world, describe creatures that match many of the dinosaurs and flying reptiles in the fossil record (pp. 13-45).

The evolutionary attempts to explain away the similarities between dinosaurs and the creatures historically labeled as “dragons” fail completely. For example, in the Zhucheng, China area, over 50 metric tons of fossils have been collected, with thousands more fossils still in the ground (Cha, 2010).

 Dinosaur fossils are so plentiful that paleontologist Xu Xing said they “can even be found in some farmers’ private courtyard areas next to their houses” (2010). Local residents have been “digging up ‘flying dragon’ bones for use in medicinal concoctions for generations” (2010, emp. added). Residents have long associated the dinosaur fossils with the ancient creatures known as “flying dragons.”

It is no mere coincidence that descriptions of dinosaurs and flying reptiles match the ancient descriptions of dragons. As Daniel Cohen stated: “No creature that ever lived looked more like dragons than dinosaurs. Like the dragons, dinosaurs were huge reptiles....

 It sounds as though the dragon legend could have begun with dinosaurs” (1975, pp. 104,106). The Bible clearly states that God created all creatures, both flying reptiles and dinosaurs, as well as humans, on days five and six of Creation. The repeated references to dinosaur fossils being connected to dragon legends adds historic evidence to the convincing case that dinosaurs and humans co-existed in the past and were not separated by millions of years.

REFERENCES

Cha, Ariana (2010), “China Spends Billions to Study Dinosaur Fossils at Sites of Major Discoveries,” The Washington Post, January 26, [On-line], URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/25/AR2010012503035_pf.html.

Cohen, Daniel (1975), The Greatest Monsters in the World (New York: Dodd, Mead, & Company).

Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2008), The Dinosaur Delusion (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

---

Copyright ©  Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.