God's Mercy and Justice

Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

Culture WarExistence of GodNature of GodNature of God

The inspired writers of the Bible recorded a remarkable amount of material about two characteristics of God: mercy and justice. These two qualities, at first glance, might seem contradictory. Can a gracious, merciful God punish people?

First, observe a portion of the biblical record of God’s mercy. Just after the children of Israel crossed the Red Sea, Moses led them in a song of praise to God, which included this verse: “You in Your mercy have led forth the people whom You have redeemed; You have guided them in Your strength to Your holy habitation” (Exodus 15:13, emp. added). It was not long after this that God gave the Israelites instructions to build the Ark of the Covenant, the lid of which was called the mercy seat. The mercy seat was made of pure gold, and was the place where God communicated with Moses (Exodus 25:22; 30:6). The Greek word used to name the mercy seat is hilasterion (Hebrews 9:5), a word that also is used to designate Jesus (Romans 3:25; McCord, 128[17]:527). In a sense, Jesus is the “mercy seat” for Christians—His merciful sacrifice and eternal presence allow us to communicate with the Father (see 1 John 2:1; Hebrews 7:27), and through Christ we receive God’s mercy (Isaiah 53:4-6; 1 Timothy 1:2; 1 Peter 1:3).

When revealing the Ten Commandments to Moses, God Himself proclaimed both His divine mercy and justice:

You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth, you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love me and keep My commandments (Exodus 20:4-7).

Just as God’s mercy continues to exist, the justice of God likewise is not limited to the long ago. God is still serious about people serving Him, and about the consequences for people who choose not to serve Him. It is fascinating and startling to study the numerous passages where God’s vengeance is under consideration. For example, Hebrews 10:30 records: “For we know Him who said, ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord. And again, ‘The Lord will judge His people.’ ” In Romans 12:19, Paul wrote: “Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord.” Our perfect God cannot allow sin to go unpunished (see Matthew 25:41; 2 Peter 2:9). God always has been just—He punished Adam, for example, because sin has consequences (Genesis 2:17). Norman L. Bales observed of God’s punishing Adam: “Had He not done so, our relationship with Him would be as unpredictable as the relationship the ancient pagan people imagined they had with their numerous deities” (1989, p. 33). We can depend on God’s system of ethics because God has never treated the righteous and the wicked in the same way (p. 34).

Many sincerely ask: “How could a merciful God allow souls to be eternally lost?” Some people conclude that mercy and justice must be mutually exclusive characteristics of God, and, consequently, God never could exercise justice or wrath on anyone, because His mercy prevails. Their picture of God is skewed, because they picture Him as akin to a benevolent, grandfather who constantly gives generous gifts, but is extremely hesitant to discipline. In God’s dealings with humans, both mercy and justice are present, with the two characteristics balancing each other.

If God is truly good (and He is), then He cannot tolerate or overlook evil. He did not overlook the sin of Adam (Genesis 3:17-19), Cain (Genesis 4:11-13), Saul (1 Samuel 15:26), or David (2 Samuel 12:8-10), and He certainly will not overlook sin in the modern world. However, God has mercifully provided a way for sinners to escape His wrath: He sacrificed His spotless, sinless Son. Christ was the only One Who was qualified to be a sacrifice for sin, and because He never sinned, His pure blood can wash away our sins (Revelation 1:5; Hebrews 13:20), allowing us to stand justified before God on the Day of Judgment (Titus 3:7; Hebrews 10:19). However, we must take the necessary steps to appropriate that blood to our souls (Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 2:12).

The justice and mercy of God have never contradicted each other. In fact, our perfect Creator balances the two qualities masterfully. If that were not true, the psalmist would not have been able to proclaim, “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne; Mercy and truth go before Your face” (Psalm 89:14, emp. added).

REFERENCES

Bales, Norman L. (1989), How Do I Know I’m Saved?: A Study of God’s Grace (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate)

McCord, Hugo (1987), “The Mercy Seat,” Gospel Advocate, 128:527, September 3

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.

Polygamy and the Quran

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Culture WarIslam and Other World ReligionsIslamIslamMuhammadPolygamyPolygamyQuran

Those people who have modeled their thinking after New Testament Christianity are, to say the least, a bit surprised (if not shocked and appalled) to learn that the religion of Islam countenances polygamy. But the Christian mind must realize that Muhammad’s Islam arose out of Arabia in the sixth and seventh centuries A.D. The Arab culture was well-known for the practice of polygamy, in which the men were allowed to have as many wives as they desired. The Quran addressed this social circumstance by placing a limitation on the number of wives a man could have. The wording of the pronouncement is in a surah titled “Women”: “And if ye fear that ye will not deal fairly by the orphans, marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only) or (the captives) that your right hands possess” (Surah 4:3).

Setting aside the issue of why Muhammad himself was exempt from this limitation (Surah 33:50—see Miller, “Muhammad’s Polygamy,” 2004), the divine origin of the Quran is discredited on the basis of its stance on polygamy. In the first place, for all practical purposes, the Quran authorizes a man to have as many wives as he chooses, since its teaching on divorce contradicts its teaching on marriage. Unlike the New Testament, which confines permission to divorce on the sole grounds of sexual unfaithfulness (Matthew 19:9), the Quran authorizes divorce for any reason (e.g., Surah 2:226-232,241; 33:4,49; 58:2-4; 65:1-7). If a man can divorce his wife for any reason, then the “command” that limits a man to four wives is effectively meaningless—merely restricting a man to four legal wives at a time. Theoretically, a man could have an unlimited number of wives—all with the approval of God!

In the second place, Jesus declared in no uncertain terms that “whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9, emp. added). Jesus gave one, and only one, reason for divorce in God’s sight. In fact, even the Old Testament affirmed that God “hates divorce” (Malachi 2:16). The teaching of the Bible on divorce is a higher, stricter, nobler standard than the one advocated by the Quran. The two books, in fact, contradict each other on this point.

In the third place, why does the Quran stipulate the number “four”? Why not three or five wives? The number four would appear to be an arbitrary number with no significance—at least, none is given. Though the passage in question indicates the criterion of a man’s ability to do justice to those he marries, there is no reason to specify the number four, since men would vary a great deal in the number of women that they would have the ability to manage fairly.

The answer may be seen in the influence of the contemporaneous Jewish population of Arabia. Sixth century Arabia was a tribal oriented society that relied heavily on oral communication in social interactions. Muhammad would have been the recipient of considerable information conveyed orally by his Jewish, and even Christian, contemporaries. Many tales, fables, and rabbinical traditions undoubtedly circulated among the Jewish tribes of Arabia. The Jews themselves probably were lacking in book-learning, having been separated from the mainstream of Jewish thought and intellectual development in their migration to the Arabian peninsula. The evidence demonstrates that the author of the Quran borrowed extensively from Jewish and other sources. The ancient Talmudic record (Arbah Turim, Ev. Hazaer, 1) stated: “A man may marry many wives, for Rabba saith it is lawful to do so, if he can provide for them. Nevertheless, the wise men have given good advice, that a man should not marry more than four wives” (see Rodwell, 1950, p. 411; Tisdall, 1905, pp. 129-130). The similarity with the wording of the Quran is too striking to be coincidental. It can be argued quite convincingly that the magic number of four was drawn from currently circulating Jewish teaching.

REFERENCES

Miller, Dave (2004), “Muhammad’s Polygamy,” https://apologeticspress.org/articles/2219.

Rodwell, J.M., trans. (1950 reprint), The Koran (London: J.M. Dent and Sons).

Tisdall, W. St. Clair (1905), The Original Sources of the Quran (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge).

---

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.

 

The Homosexual Hubbub

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Bulletin ArticlesCulture WarIn The NewsHomosexualityHomosexuality

The rapidity with which homosexual activists are successfully pressuring the nation to extend legal marital status for same sex couples is staggering. Town mayors in American cities from California to New York have taken it upon themselves to issue marriage licenses for homosexual partners (“Bloomberg…,” 2004; “Politicians…,” 2004). These developments were inevitable in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s historically and constitutionally unprecedented elimination of state sodomy laws (Lawrence…, 2003). The high court’s decision was a reversal of its 1986 decision that upheld State sodomy laws and reinforced the historic stance that homosexuality is not a constitutional right.

The social engineers of “political correctness” have been working overtime for more than 40 years to restructure public morality. The American Psychiatric Association deleted homosexuality from its official nomenclature of mental disorders, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1973 (see “Gay and Lesbian…,” 2002). The American Psychological Association followed suit in 1975 (Herek, 2002). The Founding Fathers of these United States would be incredulous, incensed, and outraged. They understood that acceptance of homosexuality would undermine and erode the moral foundations of civilization.

Sodomy, the longtime historical term for same-sex relations, was treated as a criminal offense in all of the original thirteen colonies, and eventually every one of the fifty states (see Robinson, 2003; “Sodomy Laws…,” 2003). Severe penalties were invoked for those who engaged in homosexuality. In fact, few Americans are even aware that the penalty for homosexuality in several states was death—including New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and South Carolina (Barton, 2000, pp. 306,482). Most people nowadays would be shocked to learn that Thomas Jefferson advocated emasculation as the penalty for homosexuality in his home state of Virginia, and even authored a bill to that effect (1903, 1:226-227).

Where did the Founding Fathers and early American citizenry derive their views on homosexuality? The historically unequivocal answer is—the Bible. “Traditional” (i.e., biblical) marriage in this country has always been between a man and a woman. In the words of Jesus: “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” (Matthew 19:4-5, emp. added). He was merely quoting the statement made by God regarding His creation of the first man and woman (Genesis 1:27; 2:24). God created Adam and Eve—not Adam and Steve, or Eve and Ellen.

In the greater scheme of human history, as civilizations have proceeded down the usual pathway of moral deterioration and eventual demise, the acceptance of same sex relations has typically triggered the final stages of impending social implosion. America is being brought to the very brink of moral destruction. It would appear that the warning issued by God to Israel regarding its own ability to sustain their national existence in the Promised Land is equally apropos for America:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination…. Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants. You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations…lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you (Leviticus 18:22-28, emp. added).

Unless something is done to stop the moral degeneration, America would do well to prepare for the inevitable Divine expulsion.

REFERENCES

Barton, David (2000), Original Intent (Aledo, TX: Wallbuilder Press), third edition.

“Bloomberg Backs Gay Civil Unions” (2004), The Washington Times, [On-line], URL: http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040307-114408-3980r.htm.

“Gay and Lesbian Issues,” (2002), American Psychiatric Association Public Information, [On-line], URL: http://www.psych.org/public_info/homose-1.cfm.

Herek, Gregory (2002), “Facts about Homosexuality and Mental Health,” [On-line], URL: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html.

Jefferson, Thomas (1903), Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Albert Bergh (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association).

Lawrence et al. v. Texas (2003), [On-line], URL: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-102.

“Politicians Fear Backlash from Gay ‘Marriage’ ” (2004), The Washington Times, [On-line], URL: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040222-122715-6305r.htm.

Robinson, B.A. (2003), “Criminalizing Same-Sex Behavior,” [On-line], URL: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_laws1.htm.

“Sodomy Laws in the United States” (2003), [On-line], URL: http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/usa.htm.

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.

Truth about our Creator Video 28 min

https://video.wvbs.org/video/searching-for-truth-about-the-creator/ 

 

Spirituality in America–Only "Three Inches Deep"

Kyle Butt, D.Min.

Bulletin Articles

In 1999, George Gallup Jr. and D. Michael Lindsay produced a book titled Surveying the Religious Landscape. The book was a compilation of religious polls taken from the last seven decades of American culture. In the 171 pages comprising the book, several interesting, encouraging, and somewhat surprising statistics appear. For instance, in surveying belief in God or some type of Higher Power, “a total of 95% of the public in 1947 said they believed in God; 96% hold this belief today” (1999, p. 2). An amazing 96 out of every 100 Americans believe in some type of God. Also, when asked about the importance of religion in their lives, 87% of the American people polled in 1998 said that religion was very important or fairly important (p. 10). In fact, after compiling several of the surveys, the authors concluded: “Americans outshine most other industrialized nations in religious fervor” (p. 119). On the heels of that statement, one survey done showed that 84% of the Americans questioned believed that Jesus Christ is God or the Son of God, while only 46% of those in Great Britain believed the same (p. 123). Furthermore, in 1998, 80% of Americans polled said that they believed the Bible was the actual or inspired Word of God. Such statistics show that Americans, by in large, at least mentally accept the importance of religion, God, and Jesus Christ.

 

When questions pertaining to ethical issues were posed, however, the results of Americans’ religious fervor did not necessarily match their professed beliefs. For instance, when young adults ages 18-29 were asked if they believed premarital sex to be wrong, only 1 in 4 said they considered it to be wrong (p. 98). That means, 75 out of every 100 young adults in the United States do not think that premarital sex is wrong! When this question was posed to the American population: “Do you think it is wrong for unmarried couples to bear children out of wedlock, or not?”, 50% of those polled said they did not think it was wrong (p. 127).

Here we come to the dissonance between Americans’ beliefs about God and the Bible, and their implementation of those beliefs into their lives. The Bible clearly and repeatedly states that premarital sex is wrong. Hebrews 13:4 states: “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10). The Bible further states that before children are born, a person should be properly married (1 Timothy 5:14). Sexual intercourse before, or outside of, a proper marriage relationship is condemned time and again (Matthew 19:9).

Why is it, then, that the majority of American people believe in God and the Bible, yet do not put the teachings of the Bible into their lives? Gallup and Lindsay had this to say:

Gallup research would indicate that the greatest chink in the bulwark of American religion is the lack of spiritual practices and disciplines actively exercised by religious adherents. Consider, for instance, the following statistic: 93% of Americans have a copy of the Bible or other Scriptures in their household, yet only 42% of the nation can name even five of the Ten Commandments. Spirituality in America may be three thousand miles wide, but it remains only three inches deep (p. 45, emp. added).

Oh, how haunting the words of Christ will be to many of those Americans who believe in God, believe the Bible is His Word, and believe that Jesus is His Son: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven” (Matthew 7:21, emp. added).

REFERENCES

Gallup, George Jr. and D. Michael Lindsay (1999), Surveying the Religious Landscape: Trends in U.S. Beliefs (Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse Publishing).

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.

BIBLE

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1029160206415009 

Eternity

https://www.facebook.com/reel/939948945797983 

So Jesus Video

https://www.facebook.com/reel/2242699842935616 

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

 

The "Little Grand Canyon"

Kyle Butt, D.Min.

Creation vs. EvolutionGeology

The eruption of Mt. Saint Helens on May 18, 1980, was one of the most-watched geological catastrophes of all time. During the initial eruption, “the mountain released the energy equivalent of 20 million tons of TNT. The total energy output during the nine-hour eruption on May 18 was equivalent to 440 million tons of TNT, approximately 30,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs” (Morris and Austin, 2003, p. 28). This certainly would classify as a major explosion, to say the least. And yet, as huge as this particular eruption was, it paled in comparison to many other volcanic eruptions. For instance, Morris and Austin note that the “last big explosion at Yellowstone, for example, was over 2,000 times the explosive power of Mount St. Helens” (p. 12).

The full extent of what scientists learned from the 1980 eruption has yet to be measured, but certain geological features caused by the explosion have made Earth scientists take a closer look at their interpretations of current geological features. For instance, for many decades, the majority of the scientific community has looked to the Grand Canyon as an example of a geologic feature that was formed over multiplied millions of years. According to the popular mantra that “the present is the key to the past,” geologists have suggested that the Colorado River carved out the canyon slowly but surely. The Grand Canyon National Park website has this to say about the formation of the Canyon: “Grand Canyon is an erosional feature that owes its existence to the Colorado River. Of equal importance are the forces of erosion that have shaped and continue to shape the canyon today. These include running water from rain, snowmelt, and tributary streams which enter the canyon throughout its length” (“Geological Story”). Nothing is mentioned concerning a possible catastrophic origin of the canyon.

The effects of Mount St. Helens, however, have cast some serious doubt on the long-held uniformitarian theory that the Grand Canyon must have been slowly carved over millions of years. Before the eruption, Spirit Lake (the lake close to Mount St. Helens) drained into the Toutle River. The upper river, however, was buried by up to 600 feet of debris from the eruption, which blocked the lake’s usual drainage site. For two full years, Spirit Lake was unable to drain into the Toutle River. Then, on March 19, 1982, a small eruption around the summit of Mount St. Helens caused a mudflow that was 20 miles long. The mudflow pooled behind the debris dam, and sent mud flowing furiously over the west end of the big steam pit. The flow quickly cut a canyon that was 140 feet deep. “The canyon produced by the mud has been called ‘The Little Grand Canyon’ because it appears to be a one-fortieth scale model of the Grand Canyon” (Morris and Austin, 2003, pp. 74-75).

If the eruption of Mount St. Helens could initiate a situation in which a canyon one-fortieth the size of the Grand Canyon was formed in one day, and the eruption of Mount St. Helens was by no means the largest ever (dwarfed by the last eruption measured at Yellowstone, which produced 2,000 times the explosive power), then what would a person expect to happen when the “fountains of the deep” were broken up and the entire world was covered by water as in Noah’s Flood? Surely, the evidence from Mount St. Helens shows that catastrophic origins of geological features like the Grand Canyon are a possibility. The ideology of those who refuse to acknowledge the Flood’s geological force is discussed in 2 Peter 3:5-6: “For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water” (emp. added).

REFERENCES

Morris, John and Steven A. Austin (2003), Footprints in the Ash: The Explosive Story of Mount St. Helens (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

“The Geological Story of the Grand Canyon,” [On-line], URL: http://www.grand.canyon.national-park.com/info.htm.

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.