Is Creation Scientifically Defensible? Video 50 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/is-creation-scientifically-defensible-5860/ 

Please click on the video above and enjoy the presentation.

 

Emotional Religion

Frank Chesser, M.S.

Culture WarDoctrinal Matters

[NOTE: The following was written by A.P. board member Frank Chesser.]

            Sin moved from the mind of Satan to the heart of Eve, destroyed her purity and innocence, soiled her soul with consequences for life, and broke the heart of God.  Sin is the soothing sound of religious error that blinds the mind and calms the heart with a false sense of security, paving the road to eternal perdition upon which the masses of the earth will travel.  Sin is a husband and father, sitting in the dark of the night, shackled with the chains of lust, as the eyes of the mind feed on pornographic images moving across the screen of modern technology.

            Sin is the subverted, seductive, insidious spirit of liberalism at war with the grace of God, defying law, eroding conviction, and driving the dagger of spiritual death into the heart of faith.  Sin is a small, helpless baby, a portrait of perfect purity, whose brief life comes to a violent and tragic end under the abusive hands of human depravity.  Sin is a perpetual stream of death that refuses to allow solace to inhabit a single moment of time.

            Sin is man’s problem.  Calvary is God’s remedy.  Obedience to the gospel is God’s means of reaching the cross and appropriating its benefits.  Since God is sovereign and His will is paramount, He alone has the right to specify the conditions that man must meet in order to enjoy redemption, provided by God’s grace and the blood of His Son.  Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that  believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16). What is baptism?  Baptism is faith refusing to be supplanted by emotion.

            God designed man with an intellect, the ability to think and reason.  The Bible addresses this aspect of man’s nature.  “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son” (Heb. 1:1-2).  This text contains four great truths:  God is; God has spoken; God spoke in the past by the prophets; God has spoken to us by His Son.

            These four truths embrace the whole of the Bible.  Hebrews quotes from or alludes to the Pentateuch, the prophets, Psalms, and Proverbs.  Jesus said He had fulfilled all things “which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me” (Luke 24:44).  The Bible in its entirety is a revelation from God.  It addresses the mind.  It speaks to man’s intellect.

            Psalm 119, the longest chapter in the Bible, presses this truth.  With few exceptions, almost every verse uses some term that describes the Word of God.  Repetitiously, the psalmist implores God to “teach” him and then uses words that pertain to the mind.  God addressed the mind of Israel with the law He heralded from Mount Sinai.  In his final sermon to Israel, Moses called upon the nation to hearken unto the statutes and judgments “which I teach you” (Deut. 4:10.

            Deuteronomy 6:4-9 is God’s prototype for securing the faith of each succeeding generation.  It entails parental discernment of God’s oneness; loving God with the whole of one’s heart or mind; storing up His word in the heart and diligent instruction until the mind of each child was fortified with divine truth.  The gospel speaks to the mind.  It must be taught (Matt. 28:19-20).  The process by which God draws man to Himself through Christ involves teaching, hearing, and learning (John 6:44-45).  Christianity is a taught religion.

            The fourfold profitability of inspiration in doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16) communicates to the mind of man, enabling him to be spiritually complete, “througly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:17).  All the principles by which God relates to man necessitates the mind being taught, instructed, and trained by divine revelation.

            Grace teaches (Titus 2:11-12).  The teaching of grace is validated by blood.  The instruction of grace in the Old Testament was ratified by the blood of animals (Heb. 9:18-22).  The tutoring of grace in the New Testament has been authenticated by the blood of Christ (Matt. 26:28).  Genesis 3:6 closed the door to fellowship and communion with God.  Genesis 3:15 opened the door with grace and faith reaching for the cross.

            Faith accesses grace and appropriates its provisions in Christ and the cross.  Saving faith is dependent for its very existence on divine revelation.  Faith needs instruction.  Only the Word of God can provide the instruction that produces faith that pleases God and leads to heaven.  “So then faith cometh by hearing, and the hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17).  Biblical faith is an act of the mind that has been taught and trained by divine revelation.

            Agape love is an act of the mind.  Jesus speaks of loving God “with all thy mind” (Matt. 22:37).  Agape love shares no kinship with emotions.  It is not dependent upon or affected by emotions. It is a commanded love that even embraces one’s enemies (Matt. 5:44).  It relies upon divine revelation for its actions.  It cannot move until it hears God speak.  “If ye love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15)  Agape love listens to the teachings of grace.  When it is fully educated on a given subject, it moves faith to obey God.  That which avails in Christ is “faith which worketh by love” (Gal. 5:6).

            Jesus summed up these truths and principles when he said, “And ye shall know the truth, and truth shall make you free” (John 8:32).  The truth is the teaching of grace.  This instruction of grace has been validated by blood.  This education of grace produces faith and activates love.  Emotions cannot know anything.  Knowledge pertains to the mind. Only the mind can discern truth—an open and receptive mind that loves truth and can perceive the truth, know the truth, obey the truth, and be liberated from the dominion of sin by the truth.

            Contemporary religion has supplanted the mind with emotion.  It is no longer a matter of “God said,” rather it is “I feel.” When the Bible is referenced, man responds by expressing his feelings about its meaning.  Human emotions have become the lens through which the Bible is viewed and the barometer by which its meaning is determined.  Emotion inheres in Christianity.  But these emotions issue from a mind that has been taught and trained by the Word of God.

            It is a divine imperative for man to love God with all his heart, soul, and mind (Matt. 22:37).  Mark and Luke add “strength.”  The soul is the depository of emotions.  Jesus uses two terms—heart and mind—for the intellect; the thinking and reasoning part of man  There is a world of difference in fleshly emotions that emanate from a man’s own self-centered will and spiritual emotions that spring from a heart that has been educated by divine revelation. 

            The religious world is drunk on distorted emotion.  Claiming angelic visitation and divine revelations, Mohammed exalted himself to the status of a prophet.  He rode across the sands of Arabia with a self-deceived mind and contorted emotions, constructing a religion with a blood-stained sword.  Affirming Mohammed to be a false prophet and shredding the Koran in an assembly of Muslims would provoke a violent display of unrestrained emotions.  Conversely, a Muslim’s denunciation of the deity of Christ and rending of the Bible in a congregation of Christians, while heard and viewed with righteous indignation, would be met with intact and controlled emotions  Only the gospel can conquer, restrain, and govern human emotions.

            Oriental mysticism is the product of mental deception and emotional deformity.  Siddhartha Gautama erected the religion of Buddhism on the sandy soil of emotion.  He abandoned his family and commenced and emotional quest for peace and enlightenment.  He rejected knowledge, paid homage at the idol of “feelings,” and formed a religion that is the antithesis of Christianity.  Hinduism can boast of no founder, date of origin, single guide book, or distinct body of doctrine. It is a self-will, emotionally driven religion that allows each devotee to function as his own god and follow the leanings of his own feelings.

            Taoism is a Chinese religion that rejects the concepts of absolute truth and goodness and views all components of the universe as enjoying some form of mystical union or oneness.

            Jainism is the religion of asceticism.  Some six centuries before Christ, Mahavira, its founder, left his family, joined a monastic order and pledged to assault his body with neglect.  He wandered nude for twelve years across central India in search of Nirvana, a state of complete mental and emotional severance from physical desire.  In the ecstasy of emotion, he claimed victory over his body and spent the last thirty years of his life preaching the ascetic manner of life.

            Confucianism is based on the humanistic philosophy of Confucius that stresses goodness, but not God, and encourages men to live together in harmony.  Shintoism is a Japanese religion that originally paid homage at the shrine of nature, but later Chinese influences broadened its scope of worship and reverence to include multiple gods, country, and the emperor.

            Sikhism is a religion of India founded by Nanak fifteen centuries after Christ.  Claiming an emotional experience in the presence of God, Nanak stressed constant repetition of the name of God, loss of individuality, and absorption into the one God.

            Catholicism is a corrupt, man-made religion that bears no semblance to New Testament Christianity.  It has supplanted God with the pope, the Bible with the catechism, truth with error, and gospel simplicity with pomp and ceremony.  Rapturous emotions compel knees to bow at the feet of the pope.  His presence is venerated, and the sound of is voice is perceived to be the voice of God.  The presence, prevalence, and perversion of Catholicism bears witness to the power of error to deceive the mind, subvert emotions, and bar the entrance of truth.

            Denominationalism and subjectivism are religious twins.  Adherents of denominationalism will seldom exchange their emotional experience for truth.  One such man was confronted with biblical teaching on baptism.  He acknowledged what Jesus said on the subject, then asserted, “I would not give up my salvation experience for a whole stack of Bibles.”  An advocate of denominationalism admitted that he could not point to a single example in the book of Acts of someone who was saved as he claimed to have been.  Thirty years after his religious “experience” he was yet so enraptured with the feeling that his “experience”  produced that he rejected the truth and declared his intention to go to the judgment with a few minutes of emotional excitement as the only evidence he could provide for his salvation.

            The church is replete with people who have ceased to drink from the biblical well in order to drink from the well of emotion.  Their minds have been conquered by the spirit of liberalism. Liberalism and emotionalism are inseparable companions.  They wear the same clothes, walk in the same shoes, breathe the same air, and live by the same heartbeat.  Emotionalism is liberalism’s lifeblood.  Sever then and both die.  “What man hath joined together let not God part asunder” is their guiding principle of life.

            Liberalism had rather feel than think.  Thinking involves the mind.  Liberalism views the mind as its enemy.  Proper mental thought about God, self, sin, and all of their related parts strips liberalism of its influence.  Liberalism is concerned about the moment, the temporal, the superficial, and squeezing all the emotional excitement it can out of each humanly devised religious experience.  The light of truth and proper thinking about truth exposes the folly of liberalism.  Liberalism shuns the light of truth and sober thinking like roaches run from the light of day. 

            Liberalism cannot comprehend controlled emotions, subservient emotions, feelings under the steady influence of a mind that has been educated in the school of divine revelation.  Man’s emotional being needs the guiding control of divine law.  A law is a rule of conduct.  A mind properly instructed by the marvelous laws, precepts, and principles of God regulates emotions and enables them to be displayed properly.  A mind vacant of the discipling power and influence of the laws and principles of the Bible means the emotional aspect of a man’s nature is virtually on its own.  There is no end to the folly that can result from ungoverned emotions.

            Liberalism possesses no appetite for the discipline offered by divine law.  Liberalism loathes law.  Its hatred for law knows no bounds.  It views law as cold, staid, rigid, callous, and legalistic.  In its consummate form, liberalism has decreed an end to law.  It has constructed a pseudo-system of grace that totally excludes law.  Having driven the stake of death through the heart of law, it stands triumphant over its grave, rejoicing over the end of prohibitions, restraints, and restrictions.  Emotions are now free to pursue their desired course of conduct.  The present apostasy of many in the church is a portrait of liberated emotions sailing on the sea of self-will.     Even a transient expression of unrestrained emotion can have devastating consequences.  God instructed Moses and Aaron to speak to the rock and water would come forth to quince the thirst of Israel.  One can discern the uncontrolled emotion in the voice of Moses as he cried, “Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock?” (Num. 20:10).  God declared their emotional reaction to the murmurings of Israel to be an act of unbelief (Num. 20:12).  So serious was this sin that it barred the entrance of Moses and Aaron into the land of Canaan.

            One of the great purposes of the Old Testament is to mold, shape, frame, and mature the mind into a state of deep reverence, soberness, contriteness, fear, and trembling at every thought of God, truth, and the ways of God in relation to self and sin.  It is a vivid portrait of the nature and traits of God with much emphasis upon the sovereignty, holiness, justice, and wrath of God.  Liberalism winces at this accentuation.  It refuses to be swayed by it.  It is so self-centered, arrogant, and defiant that it is incapable of perceiving the truth about anything external to itself.  Having been schooled in the university of emotionalism, liberalism views itself as self-sufficient and in no need of instruction from some outside source.

            Jesus Christ is the personification of love.  He is love in the purest and most complete form.  The cross bears witness to the depth of this love for every accountable being.  The love of Christ is so great it “passeth knowledge” (Eph. 3:19).  Yet, relative to impenitent sin and error, there is anger in His eyes (Mark 3:5), wrath in His heart (Rev. 6:16-17), and warnings of hell from His lips (Matt. 10:28).  The emotion of liberalism cannot abide this inspired depiction of Christ.

            The mind of liberalism is so full of itself there is no room for anything else.  Emotions reign supreme upon the throne of its heart.  Any truth inconsistent with its feelings is not allowed entrance.  In the theology of liberalism, if it feels good, it is right.  The emotions of liberalism scoff at the concept of biblical authority.  It views “book, chapter, and verse” preaching as old-fashioned and incompatible with today’s world.  It disdains the stringency in divine commands.  In liberalism’s world the warm glow of contented emotions is evidence of divine acceptance.

            Satan knows if he can so influence an individual to cease thinking right about God, thinking that is formed and shaped by the Word of God, he can then tap into his emotions and win the war with his soul.  The tragic status of the religious world and multiplied thousands in the church testifies to the success of his efforts.  Emotions that are not under the supervision of a mind that affirms “O how I love thy law! It is my meditation all the day” (Ps. 119:97) are the devil’s playground.

            No biblical subject is set forth with more simplicity and clarity than the subject of baptism; yet the Bible addresses no subject that will provoke a more intense emotional response with more swiftness than when one presses the truth on this vital subject.  Fleshly emotions immediately rise to the surface, and the offended commence to express their feelings on the subject.

            The concern of most people is not with what the Bible asserts about baptism.  It is how they feel about it.  They utilize their feelings as an emotional device to assess biblical teaching. They either accept or reject a biblical declaration based on how it relates to their feelings.  They often respond on how it relates to their feelings.  They often respond to a clear biblical statement with the proverbial “but,” followed by an expression of their feelings as to its meaning.  In all probability, there is no subject in the Bible that has been met with more “buts” than baptism.  “He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool” (Prov. 28:26).  “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Pro. 14:12).  It may seem right, look right, and feel right, but if it is not the truth of God, it will lead to spiritual death.

            Jesus firmly pressed that one must be baptized to be saved (Mark 16:16).  He put water in the new birth (John 3:5).  Inspiration avers that believers must repent and be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).  A penitent believer was commanded to be baptized so his sins could be washed away (Acts 22:16).  Baptism saves us (I Pet. 3:21) because it puts us in contact with the blood of Christ.  What is human submission to biblical baptism?  It is faith refusing to be supplanted by emotion.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

What Must Be Confessed Prior to Baptism?

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Doctrinal MattersBaptism

Q:

Must a preacher say something before he baptizes a person and, if so, what must he say?

A:

The New Testament does not prescribe any words for the preacher to opalize before he baptizes an individual. The New Testament accounts of conversion give no indication that words must be spoken prior to immersion—even as it gives no qualifications for the one doing the baptizing.1 Acts 2:38 (“in the name of Jesus Christ”) and Matthew 28:19-20 (“in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”) are not prescriptive, but strictly explanatory—not intended to be indications of any oral formula to be expressed. Each of the two passages provides explanation as to the design of baptism, i.e., water immersion has as its purpose to mark the point at which an individual receives “remission of sins” (Acts 2:38) and submits himself to the “name,” i.e., authority, of the Godhead, thus entering “into” (eis) that condition (Matthew 28:19).2

Preachers are certainly authorized to give explanation and/or teaching prior to the immersion—usually to make certain that the one being baptized clearly understands the significance of what is happening. Such clarifications can also benefit observers. Since this instruction is permissible any time prior to the baptism—whether a week, a day, or a minute before the actual immersion—anything said is simply further instruction that God approves. To summarize, the New Testament gives no instruction regarding what the preacher may or must say prior to baptizing an individual.

Observe, on the other hand, that the New Testament is very specific regarding the oral confession that a person must make prior to his or her baptism. The oral confession uttered by the Ethiopian Eunuch in some older translations (Acts 8:37) is a textual variant. Textual critics note that its historicity is undoubtedly accurate, even if not a part of the original text.3 However, two additional passages clarify the same thing: First, Paul stated that the “good confession” was made by Jesus Himself when He was arraigned before Pilate (1 Timothy 6:12-13). Mark’s account reads: “Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, ‘Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ And Jesus said, ‘I am’” (Mark 14:61-62). This claim to be the Son of God was, in fact, the legal grounds upon which the Jews accused Him before Pilate: “The Jews answered him, ‘We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God’” (John 19:7). Other verses stress the necessity of this central acknowledgement: Matthew 16:16; 27:54; Mark 5:7; Luke 2:11; John 1:49; 20:28; Philippians 2:11. Second, Paul explicitly stated in Romans 10:9-10 the fact that a person must make an oral confession (“with the mouth”) prior to baptism: “because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved” (ESV).

In each of these cases, what is being orally confessed is that the one being baptized believes in the deity of Christ. This admission is, in fact, the very heart of Christianity. Everything connected to Christ and Christianity (including the cross and atonement) rely upon and are dependent upon Christ’s person, i.e., His divinity. God took on the likeness of a human being in the flesh (Philippians 2:5-11). This explains why the Holy Spirit inspired John to write an entire Gospel account pressing that very fact. He enumerated seven “signs” by which a person could know “that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:31). That is the confession God requires. It lies at the heart of what it means to be a Christian (Matthew 16:18-20). “Christians” who actually dismiss the deity of Christ are antithetical to the entire notion of being a Christian.

Hence, the oral confession prior to baptism is not confessing one’s sins, or “confessing Jesus as my Savior,” or “confessing that I’m going to make Jesus the Lord of my life.” These are certainly things that ought to be a part of one’s conversion to Christ. They would surely be included in the confession of Matthew 10:32. Should I make Jesus the Lord of my life when I become a Christian? Certainly. Should my obedience to Him be a recognition of Him as the only One who can save me? Absolutely. But these realizations are not equivalent to the oral confession that must precede baptism that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.”

Endnotes

1 Kyle Butt (2011), “Who Can Baptize Another Person?” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/who-can-baptize-another-person-766/.

2 Dave Miller (2019), Baptism & the Greek Made Simple (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), pp. 14-20.

3 Bruce Metzger (1971), A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies), p. 360.

The Only Cure for Sin Video 5 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/the-only-cure-for-sin/ 

please click on the link above and follow the path provided.

 

God Is “A” Spirit?

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Doctrinal MattersExistence of GodNature of GodTransmission/Textual Criticis

The process of translating from one language to another is an arduous undertaking that entails consideration of a wide variety of linguistic issues. It is very often the case that the “receptor language” may not have a single word that corresponds to a word in the “parent language.” Hence, translators may include additional words in order to convey the meaning of the original—words which they may (or may not) place in italics. Italicized words are intended to flag for the English reader the fact that the translators added the words in hopes of making the meaning of the original accessible.1 Most of the time, translators do well in their attempts to translate accurately and use italics effectively. However, on occasion, their decisions can hamper comprehension.

In addition to inserting italicized words, English translations also contain words that were inserted by translators without being italicized. Again, perhaps most of the time, their decisions are well-intentioned and helpful. At other times, however, they can mislead the English reader. One such example is seen in Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well. Among His remarks to her was the declaration that “God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:24). Some translations insert the article “a” before “spirit.” This erroneous insertion of the indefinite article is unwarranted. Most English translations recognize this fact and render it accordingly.2

“God is spirit” is equivalent to comparable biblical constructions, including “God is light” (1 John 1:5) and “God is love” (1 John 4:8). In each case, we are being informed about the very nature and essence of God—not His personality.3 “Spirit,” “light,” and “love” are attributes of God. They are characteristics or qualities of His being. We humans possess a spirit and a physical body; but God is spirit. He is non-corporeal. Jesus said, “a spirit does not have flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39). Though in the eternal realm, “we will be like Him” and “we shall see Him as He is” (1 John 3:2), nevertheless, His being will most surely far surpass and transcend our spiritual, heavenly bodies (1 Corinthians 15:44,49).

The depiction of the nature and character of God in the Bible is unlike any other representation of deity by humans throughout history. The God of the Bible is not physical,4 but rather transcends the physical. As the Creator, He brought into being all that is physical when He created the Universe. Humans are created “in the image of God” (Genesis 1:27)—which refers to spiritual aspects of the divine nature. Our physical bodies are not created in His image, since He is non-physical. For Jesus to leave the spiritual realm to come to the Earth to die a physical death and shed physical blood on our behalf, a physical body had to be “prepared” (Hebrews 10:5) for Him to inhabit temporarily.

A host of descriptions of the spiritual nature of deity may be found in the Bible—though human limitations can hamper our comprehension and our ability to conceptualize fully the divine nature.  In closing, consider these two:

Blessed be Your glorious name, which is exalted above all blessing and praise! You alone are the LORD; You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and everything on it, the seas and all that is in them, and You preserve them all. The host of heaven worships You” (Nehemiah 9:5-6).

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven, whose voice then shook the earth; but now He has promised, saying, “Yet once more I shake not only the earth, but also heaven.” Now this, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of those things that are being shaken, as of things that are made, that the things which cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. For our God is a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:22-29).

Endnotes

1 For more on this thorny subject, see Jack Lewis (1991), Questions You’ve Asked About Bible Translations (Searcy, AR: Resource Publications), pp. 141-171; Walter Specht (1968), “The Use of Italics in English Versions of the New Testament,” Andrews University Studies, 6:88-109, January; John Eadie (1876), The English Bible (London: Macmillan), 2:180-285; William Wonderly (1956), “What About Italics?” Bible Translator, 7:114-116, July; F.H.A. Scrivener (1884), “On the Use of the Italic Type by the Translators, and on the Extension of their Principles by Subsequent Editors,” in The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611) (Cambridge: University Press), pp. 61-81.

2 English translations that include “a” are the ASV, AMPC, BRG, DARBY, DRA, GNV, GW, JUB, KJV, NOG, NMB, TPT, RGT, WYC, and YLC. Those that omit “a” are the AMP, CSB, CEB, CJB, CEV, DLNT, ERV, EHV, ESV, EXB, GNT, HCSB, ICB, ISV, PHILLIPS, LEB, TLB, MSG, MEV, MOUNCE, NABRE, NASB, NCV, NET, NIV, NKJV, NLV, NLT, NRSV, NTE, OJB, RSV, TLV, VOICE, and WEB.

3 Henry Alford (1980 reprint), Alford’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), 1:732.

4 It is true that the Holy Spirit utilized anthropomorphisms to accommodate Himself to the finite human mind. But the Bible is consistent in its representation of deity as a non-physical, spiritual Being Whose eternal nature preceded the creation of physical matter. God created time, matter, and space—but He Himself exists outside of time and space.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part 

 

Wrong is Always Wrong

Wayne Jackson, MA

Creation vs. EvolutionExistence of GodSecular Humanism

Sinful human beings are ever attempting to blur the distinction between “right” and “wrong.” This inclination reaches far back into antiquity. The book of Proverbs declares: “He that justifies the wicked, and he that condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination unto Jehovah” (17:15). Later, the prophet Isaiah affirmed: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20). Amos spoke of those who “turn justice to wormwood, and cast down righteousness to the earth” (Amos 5:7).

“Right” and “wrong” do exist. They are not merely “evolved inclinations” that have been humanly contrived in order to introduce a sense of order and security into society. Nor are “right” and “wrong” subjectively determined so that, practically speaking, each person functions as his own law-maker. Rather, morality is to be measured by the laws and principles of divine revelation, as made known in the inspired writings of the Bible. Ultimately, morality is grounded in the very nature of God Himself. “[A]s he who calls you is holy, be ye yourselves also holy” (1 Peter 1:15). Though such a concept is almost wholly rejected by modern society, there is ample evidence to support it.

Let us contemplate briefly some of the principles contained in Scripture that assist us in putting “right” and “wrong” things into proper focus.

1. “Wrong” is not determined by the perpetrator’s moral sensitivity to an act. A wrong act is still wrong whether or not the violator is aware of it, or whether or not he feels comfortable with the situation. Saul of Tarsus did not know that he was doing wrong when he persecuted Christianity (see Acts 23:1; 26:9; 1 Timothy 1:13), but he was violating the will of God nonetheless. Ignorance is no excuse (Acts 17:30). In modern society, for example, many have entangled themselves in adulterous “marital” relationships. Frequently it is argued that such liaisons may be sustained because the parties “did not know” the intricacies of God’s marriage law when the unions were made. The logic is fallacious. Will a similar argument eventually be offered to defend the concept of same-sex “marriages”?

2. “Right” is not established merely by what man is able to accomplish by means of his genius and/or ability. Pragmatism does not provide the criteria for ethics. One human being presumptively can take another’s life, but that does not make the act moral. Two unmarried youngsters are able to conceive a child apart from the sacred vows of matrimony, but the act is illegitimate nonetheless. “Might” does not make “right,” and autocratic decisions relating to moral matters are condemned in Scripture (see Habakkuk 1:11). Radical attempts at human genetic engineering, or cloning, may be accomplished eventually through the manipulation of genetic laws, but the achievement, in and of itself, does not license the practice as ethical. The issue must ever be: Is a procedure consistent with the principles of God’s inspired revelation?

3. “Right” and “wrong” are not determined by what is legal. In the Roman world of the Caesars, infanticide was legal, but it was not moral. In some ancient cultures, a woman was not a person; she was mere property to be abused, or disposed of, at the whim of her husband. There are few who would defend the ethics of this custom. Homosexuality is legal, but it is moral perversion (Romans 1:26-27). The destruction of human life by means of abortion has the sanction of civil law, but the practice is abominable before the eyes of the Creator (Proverbs 6:17).

4. “Right” and “wrong” are not grounded in what a majority of the population “feels” is ethical. Jesus Christ is a King; He has not implemented a democracy to determine, by majority vote, how human beings ought to live. In the first place, man never can be his own guide. “O Jehovah, I know that the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (Jeremiah 10:23). Second, fallible opinion, multiplied a thousand times, does not change wrong into right. Moses solemnly warned: “Thou shall not follow a multitude to do evil” (Exodus 23:2). It hardly is necessary to remind ourselves that the path of the majority is the way of destruction (Matthew 7:13-14).

5. “Wrong” is wrong, whether or not one is ever caught. In the isolated environment of ancient Egypt, separated from his kinsmen, Joseph might well have rationalized an illicit relationship with Potiphar’s wife on the ground that his indiscretion never would be known by his family. His reasoning, however, was: “[H]ow then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?” (Genesis 39:9). There will be a time when the “skeletons come out of the closet” and “the chickens come home to roost.” Many things that have been perpetrated in darkness will be revealed in light, and secret evils will be proclaimed from the rooftops (see Luke 12:3). Secrecy does not sanctify!

6. “Wrong” does not become right by virtue of passing time. It is certainly the case that the public’s conscience sometimes becomes dull with the passing of years, so that what once was horrifying eventually becomes commonplace. But wrong still is wrong, though a millennium passes. Eventually, there will be accountability (2 Corinthians 5:10).

May God help us to examine our practices by the illumination of His glorious Word (Psalm 119:105), and to determine “right” and “wrong” issued upon that reliable basis.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

Dying Before Baptism?

Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Doctrinal MattersBaptismSalvation

The New Testament clearly states that water baptism is necessary for salvation (see Lyons and Butt, 2004). But one of the most frequently used arguments against the necessity of baptism for salvation is the idea that “God would not do that.” The question is asked, “What if a sincere believing person is on his way to be baptized and dies right before he gets to the water? Are you telling me that God would send that person to hell just because he did not make it to the water?” At first glance, this argument may seem legitimate. Upon further investigation, however, it is easy to see that it is simply a play on emotions and in no way disproves the necessity of baptism for salvation.

The “God-would-not-do-that” argument can be used against almost any commandment in the Bible. For instance, the Bible repeatedly says that a person must believe that Jesus is the Son of God (Romans 10:11; John 8:24; et al.). Suppose, then, that a Christian had just begun to tell the story of Jesus to an older gentleman, when suddenly that gentleman has a massive heart attack and dies without getting to hear the rest of the story, and thus did not have the opportunity to believe. Should we, therefore, do away with the biblical command to believe in Jesus Christ, simply because a theoretical scenario can be concocted in which a potential convert dies moments before his compliance? To ask is to answer. Nor, with a wave of the hand, can we do away with the biblical command to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38).

Consider also the fact that the Bible plainly states that God wants all people to be saved. In 2 Peter 3:9, the inspired apostle wrote: “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” The Old Testament prophet Ezekiel was instructed by God to convey this message to the Israelites on God’s behalf: “‘As I live,’ says the Lord God, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live’” (Ezekiel 33:11). The apostle Paul told the young preacher Timothy that God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:3-4). Therefore, if a person truly and honestly wants to become a Christian by being baptized for the forgiveness of his sins as God commanded, then God (Who wants all to be saved and is watchful of each individual human) certainly would provide an opportunity for that person to obey His commandment to be baptized. If no sparrow falls to the ground apart from God’s knowledge (Matthew 10:29), and God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34), then we can be sure that His providential care will ensure that each person is given a fair opportunity to respond to His commands.

REFERENCES

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

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.