For decades, Apologetics Press has documented the dangers of evolutionary thinking being widespread in a society² and in the Church.³ Indeed, it seems clear that belief in theistic evolution can have a tendency to erode one’s confidence in a straightforward reading of the biblical text, which could affect one’s eternal destiny.⁴ GALLUP polls have revealed that young Earth creationists tend to be more “religious.”⁵ 
“[T]he most religious Americans are most likely to be [young Earth—JM] creationists.”⁶ Young Earth creationists, for example, are 42% more likely than theistic evolutionists to attend worship services faithfully.⁷ Does belief in theistic evolution actually lead to forsaking the worship assemblies? Are the coupling of the two circumstances a result of a separate underlying factor? It is uncertain. However, since the free gift of salvation is contingent upon obedience to God’s instructions (Hebrews 5:9), if it is the case that a person is less likely to obey God’s commands if he accepts theistic evolution, then one’s belief with regard to evolution would become an important decision.

A poll by Pew Research Center, titled “Views about Human Evolution,”⁸ further highlighted that young Earth creationists are undeniably more likely to be zealous and faithful to the Word of God. The poll found that among theists in the U.S. (over 85% of whom would self-classify as Christian),⁹ creationists, compared to theistic evolutionists, are much more likely to:

• believe that their Scripture is the Word of God—and, as such, believe that it should be taken literally;
• look to their religion to determine right and wrong [62% of theistic evolutionists look to science, philosophy, and “common sense” over Scripture];
• consider religion to be very important in their lives;
• pray regularly;
• participate in prayer/Scripture study groups;
• regularly read Scripture;
• believe in absolute morality [65% of theistic evolutionists believe the situation determines right and wrong in many cases, rather than Scripture].

Such results are concerning, to say the least. Why does there appear to be a connection between less zeal for religion and theistic evolution? Is it the case that theistic evolution leads such individuals to become less religious in these ways? Or is it the case that such individuals were already less religious and, subsequently, more easily accepted theistic evolution? Neither option would bode well for theistic evolutionary implications.

Is the connection merely a coincidence that should be disregarded? That suggestion seems unlikely, considering that (1) the trend holds through every one of the categories studied by the pollsters and (2) such a result of theistic evolutionary thinking would be predicted to occur. After all, if a person feels he cannot trust what the Bible says about our origin, why would he study it? Why would he trust it when it tells us about right and wrong? Why would he take it seriously when it says to worship, pray, and study Scripture regularly? If he has accepted evolution, which has naturalistic (as opposed to supernaturalistic) implications, is he more or less likely to view God as being at work in the world today—answering prayers, for instance?

When seeing such statistics that speak to the spiritual state of many of those who have accepted theistic evolution, should it be surprising if they are much more likely than are creationists to ultimately leave their faith behind? After all, faith comes from hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17) and the statistics reveal that theistic evolutionists are less interested in studying God’s Word—which will cause their faith to crumble over time. Such statistics highlight the importance of continuing to refute evolution, both biblically and scientifically, and emphasizing the many evidences for biblical Creation.

Endnotes

¹ Cf. Jeff Miller (2020), “Latest Stats on Creationists and Evolutionists in the U.S.,” Reason & Revelation, 40[7]:80-83.

² E.g., Kyle Butt (2008), “Implications of Atheism [Parts 1-2],” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/implications-of-atheism-part-i-911/.

³ E.g., Eric Lyons (2008), “Why Address the Age of the Earth?” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/why-address-the-age-of-the-earth-2507/; Kyle Butt (2010), “A Soul’s Salvation Could Hinge On the Earth’s Age,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/a-souls-salvation-could-hinge-on-the-earths-age-3792/; Dave Miller (2004), “The Implications of Rejecting the Literal Days of Genesis 1,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/the-implications-of-rejecting-the-literal-days-of-genesis-1-1200/; Jeff Miller (2022), “Should Christians Accept Evolution and an Old Earth to Win Converts?” Reason & Revelation, 42[4]:38-44.

⁴ Jeff Miller (2012), “Literal Creationists Holding Their Ground in the Polls,” Reason & Revelation, 32[9]:94.

⁵ While being “religious” does not necessarily mean that a person is right with God (Romans 10:2-3), living one’s life in complete submission to Christ and His will (i.e., living the Christian faith/religion) is a requirement by God (Romans 1:5; 16:26; Acts 6:7; Matthew 6:33; Matthew 16:24; etc.).

⁶ Frank Newport (2012), “In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins,” GALLUP Politics, June 1, http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx, emp. added.

⁷ Megan Brenan (2019), “40% of Americans Believe in Creationism,” Gallup News On-line, July 26, https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creationism.aspx. 

⁸ “Views about Human Evolution” (2014), Pew Research Center, http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/views-about-human-evolution/.

⁹ “Religious Landscape Study” (2014), Pew Research Center, http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/.

The post More Concerning Stats on the Apparent Effect of Theistic Evolution appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Proverbs 30:24-28 mentions four tiny, exceedingly wise animals. The King James Bible called the last one “spider,” but the Amplified version called it “lizard.” These two species are unrelated and totally different. Which of the Bible translations renders the last animal right as compared to the Hebrew word?

A:

Sometimes the meaning of a Bible word can be difficult to pinpoint, especially when it is used only one time and particularly if it refers to a specie of animal. The Hebrew lacked specificity on such technical distinctions. The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) used the word kalaboteis¹ which classical scholars Liddell and Scott identify as equivalent to askalaboteis defined as the “spotted lizard, gecko.”² The current most popular Hebrew lexicon also identifies the creature as a type of lizard, specifically, the gecko.³ The Septuagint used the same Greek word in Leviticus 11:30 for a different Hebrew word (anacah) which is also identified as a gecko.⁴ Most English translations have “lizard” rather than “spider,” including the ASV, ESV, NASB, NIV, RSV, and NRSV. The important thing to focus on is the meaning intended by the context—which is stated in verse 24: “There are four things which are little on the earth, but they are exceedingly wise.” That’s the point the inspired writer is making.

Endnotes

¹ Edwin Hatch and Henry Redpath (1897), A Concordance to the Septuagint (Oxford: The Clarendon Press), 2:712.

² Henry Liddell and Robert Scott (1940), A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: The Clarendon Press), pp. 256,865.

³ L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, M.E.J. Richardson, & J.J. Stamm (1994-2000), The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: E.J. Brill, electronic ed.), p. 1338.

⁴ Ibid., p. 73.

The post Q&A: Spider or Lizard? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Jesus was never married and did not have to deal with the temptations that come with marriage. There are many other things He did not encounter while on Earth. How could Jesus be tempted in all ways like we are?

A:

In Hebrews 4:15, the Bible discusses Jesus and says: “For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.” While this statement is very clear, sometimes we go through temptations in this life that seem to be wholly different from anything Jesus experienced. Jesus never had to deal with the IRS. While Jesus was on Earth, He never dealt with a rebellious child who was addicted to drugs. Jesus was not bombarded by pornography as He walked the streets of Palestine like we are today when we check our email or innocently search the Internet for information. How were Jesus’ temptations the same as ours?

As we look for answers to this question, we realize that each of us sometimes thinks we are dealing with something that nobody has ever experienced. The Bible, however, explains: “No temptation has overtaken you except such that is common to man” (1 Corinthians 10:13). The Bible further clarifies this idea when it elaborates more about the sin we are tempted to commit. In 1 John 2:15-16, we read: “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world.” This text tells us that there are three basic categories into which all sins fall. Every temptation that any person has ever experienced was a temptation to sin through the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, or the pride of life.

It is no accident that during the temptations of Jesus, Satan presented the Savior with three opportunities to sin. First, Satan tempted Jesus to turn stones into bread after Jesus had been fasting for 40 days. Satan attempted to get Jesus to give into the “lust of the flesh” and use His powers to alleviate His hunger (Matthew 4:3). Satan then tempted Jesus to prove that He was the Son of God by throwing Himself off the pinnacle of the Temple (Matthew 4:4-7). Satan appealed to the pride of life by daring Jesus to prove Who He really was. Of course, Jesus countered with Scripture and did not fall into the sin of pride. Finally, Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and “their glory” (Matthew 4:8). The Enemy promised that he would give these kingdoms to Jesus if Jesus would simply fall down and worship Satan. By presenting the kingdoms and their glory to Christ, Satan attempted to cause Jesus to fall into the lust of the eyes and covetously desire what He did not yet have. Once again, Jesus resisted the temptation. Thus, we see that Satan’s onslaught on the Lord with his temptations designed to appeal to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life summed up the Enemy’s entire repertoire of temptation.

We see this same categorization of sin in the tragic story of Adam and Eve’s fall. When Satan approached Eve in an effort to tempt her to sin, she took a closer look at the forbidden fruit. Genesis 3:6 says, “So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate.” Notice that “good for food” would appeal to the lust of the flesh, “pleasant to the eyes” would appeal to the lust of the eyes, and “desirable to make one wise” would appeal to the pride of life. Satan still bakes his poisonous dishes with the same three ingredients.

With this understanding of sin, we can now apply what we know to Jesus’ temptations. The Bible does not say that Jesus experienced every situation that we have experienced. He never drove in a car and had to deal with being cut off by a reckless driver. He was not tempted to overeat ice cream. And He had no babies of His own that cried incessantly and kept Him up till the wee hours of the morning. All of these situations, however, have three things in common. Each temptation presented to people in those situations involves the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, or the pride of life.

This relationship between temptations and situations can be illustrated in this way. One time a father and son were walking through a music store looking at the different instruments. For some reason, the son had been having trouble at school with some bullies and the father was telling him that Jesus understood all about his problems, since Jesus was tempted in all ways like we are. The son was incredulous. He did not see how Jesus had ever experienced what he was dealing with. Just then, the pair walked by a piano. The father directed the son’s attention to the piano and asked him, “Do you think every song in the world has been played on that piano?” The boy quickly answered that such would be impossible. The father then walked over to the piano and methodically tapped every key, causing each to ring out its individual note. He then asked his son, “Has every key on this piano been played?” The son then understood the point. Even though every song in the world could never be played on a single piano (situations), every key on the piano could be played (temptations).

While Jesus might never have been in the exact same situation that you or I find ourselves in, we can know that the temptations He experienced that involved the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life were the exact same temptations we experience.

The post Tempted in ALL Ways Like We Are? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Many young Christians have come to the conclusion that faith and science are incompatible. Yet they see the mostly helpful role science plays in the world they inhabit—in medicine, personal technology, travel, care of the natural world, and other areas. What’s more, science seems accessible in a way that the church does not; science appears to welcome questions and skepticism, while matters of faith seem impenetrable.¹

He further noted that the research showed that 29% of 18-29 year-olds said that churches “are out of step with the scientific world we live in, while one-quarter (25 percent) described Christianity as anti-science.”² He related the story of a Catholic man named Mike who became an atheist. Mike said: “It was tenth grade. I started learning about evolution. It felt like my first window into the real world. To be honest, I think that learning about science was the straw that broke the camel’s back. I knew from church that I couldn’t believe in both science and God, so that was it. I didn’t believe in God anymore.”³ Kinnaman summarized the research by saying: “Issues of science are one of the significant points of disconnection between the next generation and Christianity.”⁴

At Apologetics Press, we have known for over four decades that this is the case. We have listened to countless, heartbroken parents tell us how their faithful Christian children abandoned their faith in God for the more “honest, intellectual” approach presented by modern atheistic science. In truth, this tragic problem is one of the primary reasons Apologetics Press exists. Furthermore, this issue should cause every church leader, elder, preacher, parent, grandparent, and church member to ask themselves what can be done. Let’s look at several ways to approach the situation.

1. Recognize the Need to Teach on the Subject

Many people in the Lord’s Church grew up without being challenged by questions about how science and the Bible interact. Because of this, they do not recognize the fact that young people in the Church today are bombarded with information on a regular basis that demands that Christianity and science stand at opposite ends of the truth spectrum. The simple question that needs to be asked by every congregation of the Church is: What are we doing to help our young people understand the relationship between science, the Bible, and Christianity? What classes are scheduled to deal with the subject? What curriculum materials have we diligently assessed to be the most robust to deal with the issues? What special seminars or video series have we used (or plan to use) to help our youth through this very serious challenge to their faith? If the answers to these questions are, “nothing, very little, not much, and we don’t know,” then there is a good chance that many of the young people of that congregation will have trouble with their faith because of this unanswered challenge.

2. Teach the Truth: Science and the Bible are Compatible

The primary sentiment expressed by young Christians who leave the faith based on “science” is that science and the Bible cannot both be true. This is a false statement designed by Satan to force our young people to make a choice that should never be made. You can quickly see how sinister this approach is by comparing it to other false dilemmas.

• Do you want to be a thinking intellectual or do you want to be a Christian?
• Do you want to care about people and their rights, or do you want to be anti-choice on the abortion question?
• Do you want to love and be kind to people, or do you want to teach that God only saves those who believe in Jesus? 

Each of these ideas is presented as if only one can be true. When addressing the question of science and the Bible, we discover that real science and a proper understanding of the Bible always agree with each other. Dr. Michael Houts, who holds a Ph.D. from MIT and works for NASA, has written an excellent article on this subject titled: “True Science is the Christian’s Friend.”⁵ While most young people are taught by secular education institutions that science and the Bible are incompatible, they have not been equipped with the truth that shows this idea to be false. An honest look at real science will always increase faith in the Bible.

3. Not All “Science” is Equal

The quote David Kinnaman included from Mike, the atheist, gives us insight into the real conflict. He stated that he started learning about evolution in 10^th grade and that is when he realized that “learning about science was the straw that broke the camel’s back.” He equated evolution with science. Unfortunately he was not given the truth about the aspects of evolution that are  unscientific.⁶ Often the information that young people are being told is real science, is nothing of the sort. It is our job as Christians to show our youth the difference and give them the tools to distinguish between truth and error. We should be determined to send our young people into the world knowing that they must “test all things” and “hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). We cannot let them leave our congregations being so naïve as to think that everything an atheistic professor calls “science” is true science. There is a vast difference between legitimate science and false theories such as organic evolution, abiogenesis, and the inflationary Big Bang model.

4. Does Modern Science “Welcome Questions and Skepticism”?

Many of the young people who left Christianity in Barna’s research did so because they believed that “science appears to welcome questions and skepticism, while matters of faith seem impenetrable.” It is imperative that we show our young people the truth about this false idea. The brand of atheistic, evolutionary science that is taught in most educational systems today in no way welcomes honest inquiry. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Young people need to be shown the truth that all scientific discoveries and research that even mention the idea of intelligent design are rejected immediately.⁷ Valid scientific research that calls into question the billions-of-years timeframe of modern geology is dismissed. Scientific discoveries that disprove the Big Bang model are “cancelled” quickly.⁸

In 2007, the world’s leading atheist—Antony Flew—published a book in cooperation with Roy Varghese titled: There Is a God: How The World’s Most Notorious Atheist Became a Believer. Flew noted several times in the book that his life’s mantra was to “follow the argument wherever it leads.” He further confessed: “I reached the conclusion about the nonexistence of God much too quickly, much too easily, and for what later seemed to me the wrong reasons.”⁹ Flew proceeded in the book to document all the philosophical and modern scientific findings that drove him to the conclusion: “I have followed the argument where it has led me. And it has led me to accept the existence of a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being.”¹⁰ How do you think the atheistic, “scientific” community accepted Dr. Flew’s conclusion? In the preface of the book, Roy Varghese discussed the responses of those in the scientific community who once lauded Flew as a champion. He wrote: “Curiously, the response to the AP story from Flew’s fellow atheists verged on hysteria…. Inane insults and juvenile caricatures were common in the freethinking blogosphere…. The advocates of tolerance were not themselves very tolerant. And, apparently, religious zealots don’t have a monopoly on dogmatism, incivility, fanaticism, and paranoia.”¹¹ Our young people need to know that the modern atheistic, “scientific” community is extremely welcoming and open to questions, as long as you arrive at exactly and only the conclusions that they have decided are “scientific.”¹²

5. They Will Have to Make a Choice

While our young people will never have to choose between real science and the Bible, they will have to make a choice. In today’s secular culture, the majority of educators, professors, politicians, and world leaders believe and teach falsely about the Bible and science. The vast majority of university professors are openly atheistic and many have made it their personal goal to destroy the Christian faith in their young students. Young people will be forced to decide if they love the truth more than error, and if they are willing to stand for the truth even when such a stand will cost them something. The modern geological community has adopted a billions-of-years time frame that does not rest on robust science. If a young person wants to be a geologist today, he or she will be pressured to adopt this same time frame, in spite of real, scientific evidence that militates against it. If young people do not toe the modern “scientific” party line, they may find that universities and jobs that offer geology degrees and opportunities will not even let them into their programs. Ultimately, our young people will have to choose between believing the truth, and sacrificing the truth because they want something more, such as recognition, acceptance, academic advancement, or to be viewed as part of the intellectual elite.

The New Testament gives us an excellent example of this dilemma. In the book of John, the author presents many evidences that prove that Jesus is the Son of God. The miracles He performed and the prophecies He fulfilled verified the truth of His claims. So convincing were these evidences that the text says, “Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him” (John 12:42). Their “belief,” however, was of little value to them. The text continues, “but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God” (John 12:42-43).

Our young people will be faced with a choice: not the choice between science and the Bible. The choice is between truth and error. Have we given them the foundation that adequately prepares them to stand for the truth when the rest of the world pressures them to believe a lie? As Jesus bluntly put it: “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, therefore it hates you” (John 15:18-19). Let us not be so naïve as to think that Satan has infiltrated politics, sports, business, and most media outlets but somehow has left modern “science” alone.

Endnotes

¹ David Kinnaman (2011), You Lost Me. Why Young Christians Are Leaving the Church…and Rethinking Faith (Grand Rapids: Baker), pp. 92-93.

² Ibid., p. 136.

³ Ibid., p. 138.

⁴ Ibid., p. 132.

⁵ Mike Houts (2011), “True Science is the Christian’s Friend,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/true-science-is-the-christians-friend-3572/.

⁶ Mike Houts (2007), “Evolution is Religion, Not Science,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/evolution-is-religionnot-science-part-i-2299/.

⁷ Kyle Butt (2008), “The Catch-22 of Peer-Reviewed Journals,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/the-catch-22-of-peer-reviewed-journals-2508/.

⁸ “An Open Letter to the Scientific Community,” https://www.plasma-universe.com/an-open-letter-to-the-scientific-community/.

⁹ Antony Flew and Roy Varghese (2007), There Is a God: How The World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: Harper Collins), pp. 12-13.

¹⁰ Ibid., p. 155.

¹¹ Ibid., p. viii.

¹² Kyle Butt, “Freethought: Not so Free After All,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/freethought-not-so-free-after-all-926/.

The post Young People Leave the Faith Because They Believe Christianity is ANTI-Science appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Why did God wait approximately 20 years after the Church was established to begin writing the New Testament? Why such a long span of time?

A:

Normally when we discuss the penning of the New Testament, we do so in view of the fact that God inspired men to write about Jesus and His will for the Church within only about 20-65 years of the Savior’s death and resurrection. Perhaps even more impressive is the abundant amount of evidence for the New Testament’s first-century origin. Due to the volume of ancient manuscripts, versions, and citations of the New Testament documents, even many liberal scholars have conceded the fact that the New Testament must have been completed by the end of the first century. Whereas the extant copies of Plato, Thucydides, Herodotus, Tacitus, and many others are separated from the time these men wrote by 1,000 years, manuscript evidence for the New Testament reaches as far back as the early second century, which has led most scholars to rightly conclude that the New Testament is, indeed, a first-century production.¹ As Irwin H. Linton concluded regarding the gospel accounts: “A fact known to all who have given any study at all to this subject is that these books were quoted, listed, catalogued, harmonized, cited as authority by different writers, Christian and Pagan, right back to the time of the apostles.”²

Still, some wonder why God chose to wait approximately 20 years to begin writing the New Testament. Why didn’t the first-century apostles and prophets begin penning the New Testament as soon as the Church was established?

The simple, straightforward answer is that we cannot say for sure why God waited two decades to begin penning the New Testament. [NOTE: Conservative scholars generally agree that the earliest written New Testament documents, including Galatians and 1 and 2 Thessalonians, were likely written between A.D. 48-52.] We could ask any number of things regarding why God did or did not do something: Why did God wait some 2,500 years after Creation and some 1,000 years after the Flood to write a perfect, inspired account of these events? Why did God only spend 11 chapters in the Bible telling us about the first, approximately 2,000 years of human history, and 1,178 chapters telling us about the next 2,000? Why did God discontinue special, written revelation for over 400 years (between Malachi and the New Testament)? There are many questions, even specific ones about the makeup of God’s written revelation, that we would like to know about that He simply has not specifically revealed to us.

Having made that disclaimer, we can suggest a few logical reasons why God waited to inspire first-century apostles and prophets to pen the New Testament. First, the early Church had the treasure of the Gospel “in earthen vessels” (2 Corinthians 4:7). That is, the apostles were miraculously guided by the Spirit in what they taught (Galatians 1:12; 1 Corinthians 2:10-16). The Spirit of God guided them “into all Truth” (John 16:13). Also, those on whom the apostles chose to lay their hands in the early churches received the miraculous, spiritual gifts of prophecy, knowledge, wisdom, etc. (Acts 8:14-17; 1 Corinthians 12:1-11). Even though the Church was without the inspired writings of Paul, Peter, John, etc. for a few years, God did not leave them without direction and guidance. In a sense, they had “walking, living New Testaments.” When the miraculous-age ended (1 Corinthians 13:8-10),³ however, the Church would need some type of continual guidance. Thus, during the miraculous age, God inspired the apostles and prophets to put in permanent form His perfect and complete revelation to guide the Church until Jesus’ return (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Second, it was necessary for God to wait a few years to write the New Testament, and not pen it immediately following the Church’s establishment, because the books and letters that make up the New Testament were originally written for specific audiences and for specific purposes (though they are applicable to all Christians). For example, the epistles that Paul wrote to the church at Corinth could not have been written until there was a church at Corinth. If the church at Corinth was not established until the apostle Paul’s second missionary journey (ca. A.D. 49-52), then Paul obviously wrote to the Christians in Corinth after this time. Furthermore, since in 1 Corinthians Paul dealt with specific problems that had arisen in the church at Corinth (e.g, division, immorality, etc.), he could not have explicitly addressed these matters in detail until after they had come to pass. Thus, there was a need for time (i.e., a few years) to pass before the New Testament documents were penned.

Although some may be bothered by the fact that God waited approximately 20 years to begin penning the New Testament through His inspired writers, we can rest assured that He had good reasons for this relatively brief postponement. Admittedly, God did not explicitly indicate why He delayed putting His last will and testament in written form. Yet, logical reasons exist—most notably, the fact that the documents that make up the New Testament were written to specific peoples and for specific purposes.

Endnotes

¹ Cf. F.F. Bruce (1953), The New Testament Documents—Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), fourth edition; Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix (1986), A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago, IL: Moody), revised edition; Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett (2001), The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House).

² Irwin H. Linton (1943), A Lawyer Examines the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), sixth edition, p. 39.

³ Cf. Dave Miller (2003), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation—Extended Version,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1399.

The post Why So Long for the New Testament to be Written? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

In the latter part of 2020, Newsweek magazine³ reported a survey conducted by a Florida-based, non-profit organization called Ligonier Ministries.⁴ Though the sample size was not the largest in the world (3,002), it was still at least three times greater than the average political poll (500-1,000).⁵ Furthermore, 630 of those surveyed were self-described evangelicals. What did the survey show? No doubt, the most surprising part of the poll for many Christians was that 52% of those surveyed indicated that “Jesus was a great teacher, but he was not God.” What’s more, another 12% were unsure. Only 37% of the Americans surveyed “strongly” or “somewhat” agreed that Jesus was God.

If this poll even remotely reflects the beliefs of the approximate 330 million Americans, Christians must seriously reflect more on God’s saving Gospel—on the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). To be saved, we must come to learn Who Jesus is (Matthew 11:29), and we must come to believe Who He is (John 8:24; cf. 8:48-59—the Great “I Am”). While on Earth, did Jesus not ask pointed questions to various ones about His nature?

• “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” (Matthew 16:13).
• “What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?” (Matthew 22:41).
• “Do you believe in the Son of God?” (John 9:35).
• “Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Arise, take up your bed and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins…” (Mark 2:9-10; cf. 2:7).

If we care about lost souls and pleasing God (1 Thessalonians 1:6-8), we must prepare ourselves to tell our friends, neighbors, and co-workers Who Jesus is. He was not a created angelic being, and He was not merely a “great teacher”—and certainly not an imperfect “great teacher.” He was not merely a man! As the Scriptures revealed in the Old Testament (Isaiah 9:6; 7:14; cf. Matthew 1:23), so the Scriptures revealed in the New Testament (in many ways⁶): Jesus is Divine. He was and is God⁷—one Personality of the Godhead.⁸

“Christ Jesus, Who being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:5-7). Yes, our holy God lovingly stepped out of the splendors of heaven and humbled Himself so that He might make sinful man holy and acceptable before God (1 Peter 1:15-19).

Friends, in addition to offering evidence for the existence of God and the inspiration of the Bible, nothing is more important nor more fundamental than learning the biblical Truth regarding the nature of Jesus. Let’s take the opportunities that God gives us to immerse ourselves in these truths, and let’s teach the many non-believing, precious souls around us (and abroad!) the soul-saving truths of Who Jesus is and what He has done for us.

[We hope that the Apologetics Press website, study Bible, books, journals, tracts, and videos will be helpful in your studies and evangelistic efforts.]

Endnotes

¹ For a discussion on why every Christian should be involved in apologetics, see Eric Lyons (2021), “Preparing to Give an Answer: God’s Defense Recipe in 1 Peter 3:15,” Reason & Revelation, 41[5]:49-58, May, https://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1344.

² For a plethora of material on these subject matters and many more, visit apologeticspress.org. You may especially want to visit the “Doctrinal Matters” section of our site and check out the various topics under which a number of articles are listed.

³ Benjamin Fearnow (2020), “52 Percent of Americans Say Jesus Isn’t God but Was a Great Teacher, Survey Says,” Newsweek, https://www.newsweek.com/52-percent-americans-say-jesus-isnt-not-god-was-great-teacher-survey-says-1528617.

⁴ See “A Majority Of Americans Think Jesus Is A Great Teacher Yet Reject His Claims To Be God,” Cision PR Newswire, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/a-majority-of-americans-think-jesus-is-a-great-teacher-yet-reject-his-claims-to-be-god-301119281.html. See also “The State of Theology” at thestateoftheology.com.

⁵ See National Council on Public Polls, http://www.ncpp.org/?q=node/6.

⁶ John 1:1-15,14; 10:30-38; 20:28; Romans 9:5; Colossians 1:16; Philippians 2:5-11; etc.

⁷ See the “Deity of Christ” section of the Apologetics Press website (apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10). Cf. Kyle Butt & Eric Lyons (2006), Behold! The Lamb of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

⁸ See Kyle Butt (2015), “The Trinity,” Reason & Revelation, 35[10]:109-119, October, apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1203.

The post Prepare Yourself to Talk About the Godhood of Jesus appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Probably in no other country in the world has a people been brought to such a low ebb of morality or become so completely lost to all semblance of rational humanity as in the series of famines which swept over Egypt during the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries, under Mohammedan rule.¹

Cats, dogs, and horses were extremely expensive, women abandoned their jewels as worthless, and desperate people resorted to cannibalism—even selling human flesh in the market place. Babies were kidnapped for food, if not eaten by their own parents. Even the graves were ransacked for food.² Savagery and moral degradation were the order of the day.

A famine in 1069 in England was so severe that peasants, no longer able to find dogs and horses to eat, sold themselves into slavery in hopes of being fed by the master.³ In 1314, a famine in England brought such misery and suffering that bodies lined the roadsides, everything imaginable was eaten (including dogs, cats, horses, and babies), and when new felons were cast into prison, starving inmates would tear them to pieces for food.⁴ France was plagued with devastating famines from the Middle Ages to the Revolution resulting in the death of millions. Staple fare included grass, roots, white clay, and exhumed bodies. The potato famines of Ireland in 1822 and again in 1845 resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands.⁵

“The pages of India’s history are black with the blotches of famine.”⁶ From 1770 to 1900, 22 famines resulted in the death of 15 million. Likewise, China has been particularly susceptible to famine, with 45 million dying during four famines from 1810 to 1849. Russian peasants died by the thousands in famines of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.⁷ During the 20th century, some 70 million people died from famines worldwide, including 30 million dying in China in the 1958 famine. Several famines afflicted the Soviet Union, including the Holodomor, a famine inflicted on Ukraine in 1932-33 by Stalin. Famine disaster struck both China and Bengal during World War II, while more recent famines include the Biafran famine in the 1960s, the disaster in Cambodia in the 1970s, the Ethiopian famine of 1984, and the North Korean famine of the 1990s.

Americans can hardly even contemplate the possibility that America could ever be subjected to such conditions. Yet, the Bible teaches that when people reject God and His Word, they set themselves up for disaster. In contrast to these shocking accounts of a lack of minimal sustenance to maintain human life, consider the far more catastrophic effect of a famine of spiritual sustenance: the Word of God. When any civilization lacks access and attachment to God’s thinking and God’s directives, a truly severe famine will ensue. This dearth will, in turn, merit a corresponding physical famine. As God declared to the population of Amos’ day:

“Behold, the days are coming,” says the Lord God, “That I will send a famine on the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD. They shall wander from sea to sea, and from north to east; they shall run to and fro, seeking the word of the LORD, but shall not find it” (Amos 8:11-12).

This description bears a striking similarity to the conditions now plaguing America. While Americans wallow in their plenty, a vast plague of spiritual starvation has swept across the land. Hear the words of God through Jeremiah warning another nation 2,700 years ago:

The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it…. “Thus says the LORD: ‘Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and devising a plan against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good’” (Jeremiah 18:7-12).

And hear the words of God through Moses to another nation 3,500 years ago: “I will heap disasters on them; I will spend My arrows upon them. They shall be wasted with hunger, devoured by pestilence and bitter destruction” (Deuteronomy 32:23-24). We must ask this sobering question: Will America’s spiritual famine facilitate national disaster?

Endnotes

The post America's Famine appeared first on Apologetics Press.

“I heard a preacher on television say he can ‘prophesy’ using his trumpet. Is that possible?”

A:

An example of this activity is seen on the charismatic website New Zealand Prophetic Network in an article that asserts the following:

Holy Spirit ministry functions through many and varied means. One of the not so common today is that of musicians prophesying on their instruments: that is, the ability to play prophetically on their instruments in such a way as to release the anointing to the people…. This is the realm where musicians can play prophetically, whereby the anointed tune—even a new tune—can actually enable the Holy Spirit to interpret the feeling and/or message of the tune to our hearts. As we listen intently while the musician plays (can be singular or plural), we “pick-up” the heartbeat of God, and the theme of that heart beat is interpreted to us in the realm of our understanding. When that happens we can experience deep peace, joy, inspiration, even tears, as the Holy Spirit speaks. Yet no words have been spoken; only the playing of an anointed tune on an instrument.¹

Those who make this claim seek justification for the practice in 1 Chronicles 25:1 which reads: “Moreover David and the captains of the army separated for the service some of the sons of Asaph, of Heman, and of Jeduthun, who should prophesy with harps, stringed instruments, and cymbals.” However, this claim is a misconception based on a faulty exegesis of the text. Even on the face of it, a trumpet or other mechanical instrument cannot “prophesy” since the word “prophesy” in Hebrew refers to speaking, i.e., articulating meaningful concepts via oral or written words.² The only way a musical instrument can convey specific meanings is if it is used as a signaling device with a prearranged, mutually understood meaning attached to a specific tune or tones. Historically, armies have used trumpets and bugles to sound a particular movement by the troops—whether “charge,” “retreat,” “call to quarters,” etc. But the instrument itself has no intellectual content, meaning, or message inherent in the sound it is capable of making. Paul made this very point when he chided the Corinthian Christians for their failure to make certain that their tongue-speaking and prophesying was comprehended by the assembly. Noting that instruments are “without life,” even they must make sounds that are understood by those intended to be the recipients of the pre-decided message being conveyed (1 Corinthians 14:7).

When the Bible speaks of “prophesying with harps, etc.,” it is not suggesting that a harp can prophesy. Rather, the grammar of the passage makes clear that the prophesying is done by the human prophet who, in turn, is merely accompanied by the instrument. The word “with” in the NKJV flags this fact.³ It is made even clearer by a quick consideration of other English translations:

So why accompany a prophet’s message from God with musical instruments? History does not answer this question definitively. However, consider a couple of possibilities that do not contradict other plainly established biblical realities. First, perhaps the instruments were intended to capture the attention of the Israelites, who would have constituted a large assembled crowd, in an effort to announce the commencement of the proclamation of the prophet’s divine message. This circumstance would have been analogous to court musicians who herald the arrival of the king or queen—a “fanfare”—defined as “a short ceremonial tune or flourish played on brass instruments, typically to introduce something or someone important.”⁴ Second, since prophetic messages throughout the Old Testament are typically couched in standard Hebrew metrical verse, perhaps the instrumental accompaniment was intended to reinforce the rhythmic nature of Hebrew poetry. The Bible does not inform us as to the activities of scores of prophets that we know ministered to Israel by prophesying. Keep in mind that the predictive element of our English word “prophesy” is secondary and sometimes even nonexistent in Hebrew prophecy. The majority of Hebrew prophecy was simply inspired preaching in which the prophet instructed, rebuked, corrected, and challenged his hearers with regard to their misbehavior/misconduct. In such a case, the prophets were something like the roving minstrels of the Middle Ages who traveled around the countryside and from town-to-town conveying messages via poetry accompanied by their strumming on a lute.⁵ In this way, Hebrew prophets would have permeated Israelite society on a daily basis, reminding the people of their spiritual and moral responsibility to conform every day to God’s will. This very scenario seems to be what we find in 1 Samuel 10:5.⁶

In any case, when a televangelist in our day claims to “prophesy” simply by playing a tune on a trumpet or other instrument, he does so without biblical precedent for such claims. After all, instruments are “without life.”

Endnotes

The post Prophesying With Instruments? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[Editor’s Note: The following article was written by A.P. auxiliary staff writer, Kevin Cain, who holds degrees from Freed-Hardeman University (B.S., M.Min.) and the Doctor of Jurisprudence from South Texas College of Law. A former Briefing Attorney of The First Court of Appeals, his current practice focuses on litigation at the trial and appellate levels in both State and Federal Courts.]

We took her to Bible class. We took her to worship services regularly. We took her to countless youth events, trips, and activities. She was baptized at camp when she was 14. I thought we did everything right before she left for college. We did what the preachers and elders said we should do when it comes to raising our sweet daughter. And yet, when she left home for higher education, she left the church about the same time. She does not attend worship services or Bible class. She is not involved with any other Christians or on-campus Christian organizations. She is not in contact with any of her old church friends. She’s gone, and it breaks my heart every day. Where did we go wrong?

Too many parents have lived a similar experience. If it only happened once, it would be a tragedy. But when we see it happen time and time again, it is an epidemic. The obvious question is “why?” Why are so many of our young people leaving for college and leaving the church at the same time? What are we missing? What did we fail to teach them? What went wrong?

There are countless theories as to why this epidemic continues. People speculate they are leaving because the church is too conservative; the music is boring; the preacher uses too much Scripture; the church is outdated on its views of marriage and women’s roles; the parents were too strict; the church building is outdated; or the youth minister didn’t connect with my child on a personal level. Theories and opinions abound, but what is missing are facts and objective answers. Parents and elders are looking for answers—why are they leaving and what can be done?

First, are the statistics as bad as we have heard? The short answer is “yes.” Campus Renewal out of Austin, Texas estimates that between 60% to 80% of Christian denominational students leaving for college also leave their faith behind as well.¹ Another study by respected pollster George Barna involved interviews with 22,000 adults and over 2,000 teenagers in 25 separate surveys (hereinafter the “Barna Study”). The purpose of this survey was not only to determine how many young people were leaving religion, but also to find out why. This survey among “conservative” evangelicals concluded that two-thirds of young people give up on religion when they head for college.² While these are general studies outside the churches of Christ, these numbers are nevertheless alarming. While the numbers at the congregation you attend may be better, any statistic above 0% is worrisome.

So, who do we blame? When things go this wrong on this scale, we like to blame the elders, the youth minister, the preacher, the church (as a whole), global warming, or pretty much anyone but ourselves. If we can point the finger at someone else before they point the finger at us, we don’t have to feel too bad about these alarming numbers. Right?

Interestingly, the Barna Study delves deep (and I mean deep) into analyzing why these young people are leaving religion behind. For example, the Barna Study determined that of all the 20-something evangelicals who attended church regularly but no longer do so now:

• 95% attended church regularly during elementary and middle school.
• 55% attended church regularly during high school
• 11% were still going to church during college³

From those stats, we see that only 11% of those who have left the church did so during college years. Almost 90% of them were lost already in middle school and high school—before going to college. About 40% are leaving the church during elementary and middle school. This shocked me when I first read it. We are not losing most of our young people when they leave for college and have to face the world alone for the first time. Most of them are checking out (mentally if not physically as well) in junior high and high school. We are losing them earlier than we might have thought.

The Barna Study goes on to make an interesting comparison between those who regularly attended Bible class and those who did not regularly attend Bible class. Compared to those who grew up not attending Bible class, students who regularly attend Bible class are:

• more likely NOT to believe all accounts/stories in the Bible are true or accurate;
• more likely to doubt the Bible because it is written by men and has errors in the translating;
• more likely to accept that gay marriage and abortion should be legal;
• much more likely to believe that God used evolution to change one kind of animal into another;
• more likely NOT to believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old;
• more likely to believe dinosaurs died before people were on the planet; and
• more likely to believe that good people don’t need to go to church.⁴

These statistics appear to be upside down. How could it be that a person who grew up attending Bible school is less likely to believe in basic Bible principles as compared to a person who did not regularly go to Bible class? That simply doesn’t make sense. I’ll admit; I had to read these results several times before I finally concluded that I was not misreading or misunderstanding all this. Are we doing something wrong or missing something in our traditional Bible class curricula?

What we begin to see from these important findings in the Barna Study is a significant correlation between believing in the creation account and whether they will remain faithful to God or whether they will come back to the church. There is a direct tie between what they believe about Genesis and their attitude toward Christianity.

The conclusion here is painfully obvious: If the authority of God’s Word is undermined in Genesis, this leads to a slippery slope of unbelief about the whole of the Bible. If we as teachers, parents, preachers, and elders have been chipping away at the accuracy and reliability of the events in the first eleven chapters in Genesis (or we ignore cultural attacks on Genesis 1-11), if we really cannot rely on these events as being historically accurate, why should we believe in the accuracy of the details of the life of Joseph in Genesis 37-50? Why should we believe the accuracy of Moses delivering Israel from slavery in the book of Exodus? Why believe the account of David and Goliath? How could we believe in the miracles of Elijah and Elisha? Why should we even believe the prophecies of Jesus? Ultimately, why believe the Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John if we cannot rely on the accuracy of Genesis 1-11? Our kids are smart enough to know that when we compromise in one area of the Bible (like Genesis 1-11), we can hypocritically compromise wherever we want. The damage has been done, and for most of our young people, it depends on how they view the foundation and the very beginning of the Bible and the Creation account.

The Barna Study also looked into the beliefs of young adults who said they plan to return some day (like when they have kids of their own) versus those who never plan to return.⁵

Those who have left and never plan to return have serious doubts about the accuracy of the Bible, especially when it comes to Creation. In those early formative years, they were clearly left with questions and reservations about the reliability of God’s word and the Creation account in particular. And now, after years of doubting the first chapters of Genesis and years after a constant bombardment of evolution in school (and pretty much everywhere) and increasing compromises by religious institutions regarding Creation, they find themselves gone with no thought of ever returning.

In 1859, Darwin published On the Origin of Species and 12 years later The Descent of Man.⁶ In these two volumes, he made popular the idea that single-celled organisms changed through the process of evolution into ape-like creatures and eventually into humans.⁷ In response, many of the religious institutions in England, and eventually across the United Kingdom and Europe, began to adopt Darwin’s ideas.⁸ They reinterpreted the Genesis account of Creation and proposed views such as “theistic evolution.”⁹ They compromised what they had always taught (God created the world in one literal week) and tried to engender scientific credibility by claiming that God worked through evolution to create the world. To see the long-term effect of this compromise, just look at the superficial state of religion in Europe today. It can be summed up by looking at the beautiful cathedrals and places of worship throughout that continent—amazing museums filled with architectural works, but lacking in the work of the Lord.

The damage was done, and the slope was more than just a little slippery. This thinking and rationale of making compromises in the Creation account sent a very clear message to everyone, especially to the upcoming younger generations. It was now acceptable to use man’s ideas to re-interpret the Bible, rather than to use the Bible to judge man’s ideas. God set up a system where He laid out His divine perspective on how man should view the world (Psalm 32:8). God made man (Genesis 1:27). Therefore, man should listen to God, the Creator (Deuteronomy 28:1-2). When man started listening to sources outside of God, a spiritual perspective would encourage man to judge those worldly ideas by God’s standard to see if they are sound and righteous (Acts 17:11; 1 John 4:1). But now, young people see organized religion doing something altogether different. Now they see church leaders conforming and changing God’s Word to fit alleged scientific theories and notions, rather than an accurate view of the physical world that corresponds perfectly with the Bible—a divine source these young people once believed was the “truth.”

Here is the rational next step that signals the beginning of the end for so many young people. “If I can’t trust the Bible in the earthly things, why should I trust it in the spiritual things?” That is a fair question. If you answer that you cannot trust the Bible in either arena, then what good is God’s Word? And that is the conclusion that many young people are reaching. In contrast, if you are struggling and want to compromise and believe the Bible may not be scientifically accurate but it is still relevant for spiritual matters, then think about what message that sends. Under this perspective, if a young person has questions about how to feel about God or think about his fellow man, then you go to the church for answers. If you have questions about facts and reality, you go to school and ask your science teacher. This practice of trying to harmonize Creation with evolution (often called “theistic evolution”) has created an environment where the church has basically disconnected the Bible from the “real world.”

The first chip to fall—and where the slippery slope begins—is the belief that the Earth is billions of years old. The battleground is not necessarily evolution, as there are many evolutionists who still believe in God, and there are many who do not believe in God and also do not subscribe to the theory of evolution. The major attack on biblical authority today starts with the attack on the first verse in the Bible, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).

Notice the growing level of disbelief in the statistics below as they bottom out on the subject of the age of the Earth.

• 77% believe in Noah’s ark and the global flood
• 75% believe in Adam and Eve in the garden
• 62% believe Abraham fathered Isaac when he was 100 years old
• 60% believe in the Tower of Babel
• ONLY 20% believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old¹⁰

The number one area of disbelief among young people who are leaving religion and their faith behind is the age of the Earth. This is where we are losing them. This is where the line in the sand has been drawn.

For those surveyed who did not believe in the accuracy of the Bible, the Barna Study asked the reasons why they did not believe the Bible events are accurate:

• 24% said they were written by men.
• 18% said the Bible was not translated correctly.
• 15% said the Bible contradicts itself.
• 14% said science shows the world is old.
• 11% said the Bible contains errors.
• 7% said there’s so much suffering in the world.
• 4% said Christians do not live by the Bible
• 4% said evolution proves the Bible is wrong.¹¹

Interestingly, 82% of those who said they did not believe all the accounts in the Bible are true and accurate did so because of doubts about the authority of the Bible. This is the problem and a significant reason why they are leaving.

This should come as no surprise to the Bible student who knows through inspiration what people will be like in times like this.

Knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God (2 Peter 3:3-5).

In this period of time where scoffers and critics will ridicule faithful Christians for anticipating the return of Christ, notice that these same people will deny the Creation account. And from a sinful, strategic perspective, it makes sense. If you can get them to doubt the first historical act of God in the Bible (God made the world in six days), getting them to doubt the rest of the Bible will be easy work.

This is not to say that there are not other factors at work and relevant causes of this dilemma. However, it seems clear that basic beliefs about the first few chapters of Genesis are a significant part of the problem as to why so many young people leave the church.

The Solution

The problem is devastating, the numbers are heartbreaking, and the cause of all this is discouraging. So, what can be done? Is the point of all this just to scare us and make us feel bad, or is there something we can do? The good news is there are answers and solutions, but it will take hard work to right this ship.

Rewrite Our Curriculum

This is not to say that we have not been doing a good job of teaching our children about the Old Testament, Christ, the Church, and salvation. However, we may be under-emphasizing or overlooking a critical component in a balanced spiritual course of study—APOLOGETICS. We need more classes on apologetics, especially on fundamental questions on the existence of God and the first eleven chapters of Genesis, especially the historical reality of the Creation account. Please do not be prideful and say, “We’ve been doing this for years” or “I’ve spent years developing these lessons.” That work should not be overlooked and is genuinely appreciated. However, it is time to take a fresh perspective on what we are teaching in light of these alarming statistics. Greater emphasis on apologetics and the historical reality of the Creation account is needed in our classes.

Start Younger

We need to be teaching apologetics at younger ages. And yes, this obviously includes our high school and junior high students, but also our elementary and even pre-school children. “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6).

Apologetics Press offers a variety of resources to help you instruct and instill within our young people a belief and love for God, His word, and His creation. There is the “Learn to Read” series that uses the theme of “God created everything” to help children begin to read. My personal favorite is Dogs, Frogs, and Hogs. These books contain simple phrases like “God made dogs.” Like the early readers we were introduced to in public school, these books take simple phrases and concepts, mingle them with God’s creative power, and engrain them into precious minds who need to know God.

There is also an “Early Reader” series that uses more words and somewhat more sophisticated topics to impress on slightly older children the complexity and beauty of God’s creation. The little boys I read to love God Made Insects. The girls tend to like God Made Puppies. There is something for everyone here. The level of information increases when you move to the “Advanced Reader” series. These include titles like Copies of God’s Design, Human Body, and Migrating Animals. As your children grow in their reading skills and in their ability to process information, these readers follow them all along the way emphasizing over and over again the reality that God made it all.

As your kids get even older, there are books that mature with them while tackling more difficult concepts. Dinosaurs Unleashed is one of the best sellers at Apologetics Press, and the kids love it. The art-work is amazing, but the message is invaluable—God made everything, and that includes dinosaurs. There are other books for this stage in life, like How Do You Know God is Real? and Wonders of God’s Creation. One of my personal, creative favorites is the Dinosaur Field Journal. This is a great resource for the adventurer inside our sweet children.

As they reach their teenage years, there are other excellent books that challenge our young people to question what they are hearing in the world and to be secure in their faith. These include The Dinosaur Delusion, Truth Be Told: Exposing the Myth of Evolution, Always Be Ready, Out With Doubt, A Matter of Fact, and Reasons to Believe.

Finally, every student leaving for college should be equipped with the Defending the Faith Study Bible from Apologetics Press. This Bible is filled with resources designed to arm our teens and college aged youth (and older people like me) with information to combat the atheistic assumptions and difficult questions that so many young people face in school and among their friends.  This Bible has helps and resources throughout that include:

• Scores of special sections that cover topics such as God’s existence, science and the Bible, God’s justice and hell, defending the Bible’s position on prayer, theistic evolution, and the Bible and slavery.
• Comments written and produced by faithful members of the Lord’s Church.
• Thorough and complete refutations of alleged Bible contradictions and discrepancies.
• A litany of positive evidences for the inspiration of the Bible, such as documented archaeological discoveries, comparisons of modern scientific findings with the biblical text, and historical evidence that validates the predictive prophecies of the Bible.
• Biblical answers to some of life’s most profound questions such as: Why did God create people? Why do good people suffer? How will it all end?

And the good news is that while there are many books and resources highlighted in this article, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Apologetics Press has countless volumes of books, readers, magazines, and other sources to help fortify your children’s faith and assist moms and dads in reaching one of the greatest goals in their lives—see their children remain faithful to God. Please take advantage of these resources.

More Teachers Willing To Step Up

If we are going to have more classes on apologetics, we will obviously need more teachers willing to tackle these classes. We not only need teachers to step up in Bible class, but also parents to get more involved in teaching and reinforcing apologetics at home. Unfortunately, we tend to think of apologetics as somewhat of a specialized discipline where only experts (like the staff at AP) can effectively teach this material. I’ll be the first to admit that the folks at Apologetics Press are outstanding teachers and preachers, especially in the area of apologetics. They have unique knowledge and talents that make them exceptionally qualified and true blessings in the church. I get it.

However, you probably don’t know much about how to treat Type 2 Diabetes or Reye’s Syndrome. Nevertheless, I am confident that if your child was diagnosed with one of these conditions, it would not take you long to become an expert in this arena. Your child’s physical condition would require you to learn a considerable amount of complicated medical information, but you would master it, because your child’s life is worth it.

We need to get just as serious and motivated when it comes to the spiritual welfare of our children. Yes, I know, apologetics can seem a little complex and will require some study and effort on our part, but it is worth it. Our children are leaving the church in alarming numbers, and a significant reason why is because of how they view the first few chapters of the Bible. The world is constantly attacking the Bible, and especially the Creation account. We need to get prepared, and we need to prepare our children. They are worth it.

History, Not Stories

I know this will sound like nitpicky semantics, but please stop calling historical events in the Bible “stories.” It is not that this is in any way inaccurate. But when our children hear the word “stories,” they think of everything from Winnie the Pooh to Harry Potter. The term “stories” can imply that the information to be revealed may not be entirely accurate. When we talk in class about the “story of Creation,” our children may be equating this in their minds with the fiction in story books we read to them about talking bears and flying superheroes. Let’s start talking about the Creation “account” rather than a story. Let’s refer to the Flood as an “event” or a “historical reality” rather than a story. We can do better to impress on our children that what happened in the Bible (especially in the first 11 chapters) is just as real as when men landed on the moon, when George Washington was our first president, and when Shakespeare wrote Hamlet. Let’s get real with our teaching.

What Is Not the Solution

To the surprise of many, one interesting thing gleaned from the Barna Study is that young people largely are not leaving religion because the worship and singing is not cool enough. To look at some churches who subscribe to the “Sister Act” theory of church retention, one could easily conclude that young people are leaving the church because worship services just aren’t exciting enough. Some have the mindset that if we just make our worship and singing culturally relevant, the young people will flood back into the pews and stay with us. The statistics simply do not support this assumption.

Becoming “culturally cool” may have an immediate short-term impact on enthusiasm and attendance, but it is just a Band-Aid for a much deeper disease. While contemporary music and a concert environment is popular these days in many worship services, it is not the problem. The Barna Study made clear that the primary problem driving young people away is not “cool” worship services, but their rejection of belief in basic Bible teachings. We don’t need gimmicks, entertaining concerts, and light shows in worship. We simply need the preaching of God’s Word.

Are there other things that can be done to help address this problem of young people leaving the Church? Absolutely. Pray for them every day that God would bless and protect them as they increase in wisdom and stature and in favor with man, and especially in favor with God. Remove hypocrisy from the lives of elders and parents who interact with these young people. Be consistent with your kids in terms of emphasizing the importance of spiritual matters over everything (including sports and academics). Keep your kids involved in church and spiritual activities, and surrounded by godly influences. These are all helpful and worth consideration. But at the core of this problem is whether our kids believe the first few chapters of Genesis. No more excuses. No more compromises. It is time to take a stand and proclaim: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth,” and after six days, God saw that it was very good.

ENDNOTES

The post Why Are We Losing Them When They Leave For College? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

The question “Where did God come from?” (or “What caused God?”) assumes that God had a cause. However, by definition, an eternal spirit (“the everlasting God”) cannot logically have a cause. Asking about God’s cause (or origin) is as incoherent as asking “Why matter is eternal?” Matter is not eternal. Matter is no more an eternal essence without a cause than God is a physical being with a cause. Asking “where did God come from?” is like asking “when did eternity start?” By definition, eternity never began. Eternity, by definition, is without beginning and end. By definition, so is God.

Consider that in nature, matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed. Scientists refer to this observed fact as the First Law of Thermodynamics. Evolutionists allege that the Universe began with the explosion of a ball of matter 13 to 14 billion years ago, yet they never have provided a reasonable explanation for the cause of the “original” ball of matter. Evolutionist David Shiga made an attempt a few years ago in an issue of New Scientist magazine in his cover story, “The Beginning: What Triggered the Big Bang.” Interestingly, in the last line of the article, Shiga admitted: “[T]he quest to understand the origin of the universe seems destined to continue until we can answer a deeper question: why is there anything at all instead of nothing?”¹ The fact is, a logical, naturalistic explanation for the origin of the “original” ball of matter that supposedly led to the Universe does not exist. It cannot exist so long as the First Law of Thermodynamics is true (that matter and energy cannot create themselves).

Since the physical Universe exists, and yet it could not have created itself, then the Universe is either eternal, or else some thing or some One outside of the Universe must have created it. Relatively few scientists propose that the Universe is eternal. In fact, there would be no point in attempting to explain the “beginning” of the Universe (with a Big Bang, for example) if scientists believed it has always existed. What’s more, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that matter and energy become less usable over time, has led scientists to conclude that the Universe has not always existed; that is, it is not eternal.²

So why don’t the laws of thermodynamics or the law of causality³ apply to God? Because these scientific laws, like all scientific laws, apply to what we find and study in nature. Again, by definition, God is not natural and thus logically is not subject to the laws of nature.

In short, if matter is not eternal, and it cannot create itself, then the only logical conclusion is that some thing or some One outside of nature (i.e., supernatural) caused the material Universe and everything in it. Christians call this Someone, “the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth” (Isaiah 40:28).

Endnotes

The post Where Did God Come From? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

More troubling than even these tactics is the seemingly widespread acceptance of the idea that a mere accusation constitutes adequate proof of guilt. The longstanding, bedrock adage of “innocent until proven guilty” has fallen by the wayside in the minds of many. Many individuals appear so deluded by their political and moral ideology that they have literally come to redefine the meaning and nature of “justice,” “fairness,” and “impartiality.” They have jettisoned any sense of what it means to be dispassionate, emotionless, and evenhanded in assessing truth. Indeed, if an accusation is accompanied by the presence of tears, the accusation becomes more credible and the likelihood of its veracity becomes certain. Tears carry more weight than truth. “Due process” is defined as giving a hearing to the accusation and then accepting it at face value as true.

The concept of “presumed innocent until proven guilty”¹ is inherent in just law and self-evidently true. The accuser has the obligation to prove the accusation beyond a reasonable doubt. In the 1895 U.S. Supreme Court case Coffin vs. United States, writing the opinion of the Court, Justice White included the following observation:

Ammianus Marcellinus relates an anecdote of the Emperor Julian which illustrates the enforcement of this principle in the Roman law. Numerius, the Governor of Narbonensis, was on trial before the emperor, and, contrary to the usage in criminal cases, the trial was public. Numerius contented himself with denying his guilt, and there was not sufficient proof against him. His adversary, Delphidius, “a passionate man,” seeing that the failure of the accusation was inevitable, could not restrain himself, and exclaimed, “Oh, illustrious Caesar, if it is sufficient to deny, what hereafter will become of the guilty?” to which Julian replied, “If it suffices to accuse, what will become of the innocent?”²

The American Founders agreed with this assessment of the presumption of innocence and often quoted the highly respected English jurist William Blackstone on the matter: “all presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously, for the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”³

Apart from the legal system that has characterized American civilization from the beginning, the Bible speaks definitively regarding presumption of innocence. Indeed, the notion of “innocent until proven guilty” is inherent in the nature of God. Giving credence to an accusation without proof is evidence of blind prejudice and irrational human emotion rather than logic and reason. One wonders if those women who are quick to believe an unsubstantiated accusation made against a public official would react the same way if their own teenage sons were the recipients of similar allegations.

The bedrock truth that undergirded God’s law for Israel regarding criminal behavior centered on the presence of multiple witnesses:

Whoever kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the testimony of witnesses; but one witness is not sufficient testimony against a person for the death penalty (Numbers 35:30).

Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness (Deuteronomy 17:6).

These verses are adamant in their insistence that no one should be convicted on the basis of a single witness. This principle is carried over into church law in the New Testament (Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19; Hebrews 10:28; Revelation 11:3; Cf. Matthew 26:60; John 5:31; 10:37).

It is important to understand that the minimum two witnesses did not refer to a single witness who passes along his observations to another individual who then acts as a second witness. Rather, these verses require two or more independent witnesses, i.e., they were personal eye-witnesses to the alleged event. Nor do these verses justify bringing forward multiple witnesses to separate incidents (“me too”). The fact that a bank robber robs three separate banks on different occasions does not qualify a single witness from each bank robbery to serve as the “two or more witnesses.” There must be two or more eyewitnesses to the same event. God was so adamant on this point that He prescribed harsh penalties for violations of it:

One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established. If a false witness rises against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing, then both men in the controversy shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who serve in those days. And the judges shall make careful inquiry, and indeed, if the witness is a false witness, who has testified falsely against his brother, then you shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother; so you shall put away the evil from among you. And those who remain shall hear and fear, and hereafter they shall not again commit such evil among you (Deuteronomy 19:15-20).

One wonders if this legislation were in effect in America today, would we have so many accusers speaking out without adequate evidence. Indeed, God declared: “Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and righteous, for I will not acquit the wicked” (Exodus 23:7).

Under the Law of Moses, a woman subjected to sexual assault was under obligation to scream so that she could be rescued by those nearby. Otherwise, she was a consensual participant. The only exception to this requirement was if the sexual assault occurred in a secluded place (outside of town) where no witnesses or rescuers were available or able to come to her aid (Deuteronomy 22:22-27).

Also under the Old Law, Cities of Refuge were established to facilitate a person’s avoiding vengeance implemented by the kinfolk of the person he may have killed. He was permitted to flee to the city where he would be protected until guilt or innocence could be established. Hence, he was innocent until proven guilty. If he was assumed guilty at the outset, there would have been no reason to provide a city of refuge to determine otherwise.

Observe that with the advancement of scientific criminology, specifically the discoveries pertaining to DNA evidence, many convicted individuals have been exonerated. Oftentimes, they were originally convicted solely on the testimony of a single witness—a circumstance that violates God’s directives for ascertaining guilt. If God’s thinking had been employed, the innocent individual never would have been convicted in the first place.

But these principles imply that those guilty of heinous crimes will occasionally, perhaps even often, be allowed to go free. Nevertheless, in God’s sight, accusing and convicting an innocent person is a great miscarriage of justice. Recall the words of Blackstone and Emperor Caesar Julian: “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”; “If it suffices to accuse, what will become of the innocent?”

ENDNOTES

The post Presumption of Innocence appeared first on Apologetics Press.

To the Christian, truth is paramount. Everything about our God is truth, including His Spirit, His Son, His Word, His judgments, etc. (1 John 5:6; John 14:6; Psalm 19:9; 119:142,160). And the Christian’s pursuit is one of truth (John 8:31-36). The only “agenda” a Christian should have is whatever God’s “agenda” is (i.e., whatever the truthful, omniscient Creator and Savior wants us to be and do, which includes owning up to our mistakes; Luke 18:9-14; Acts 26:20).

When human beings do not acknowledge God and His truthful standard for their lives, deceit eventually rules the day, even though it is often peddled as “truth.” One glaring example of such deceitfulness is seen every day in America in the 21^st century: repeated accusations that the Bible is full of discrepancies. Outspoken critics of the Bible’s supernatural inspiration continue to claim certain Bible passages are contradictory, even though time and again many have heard and seen the passages explained in a clear, logical, and biblically consistent manner. Some skeptics have been in numerous public debates where they made allegations against the Bible writers that were truthfully and logically answered. Yet, the same skeptics continue to repeat the same unproven allegations against the Bible writers in future debates, articles, and books.

FACT: skeptics have sought to undermine confidence in the credibility, historicity, and authenticity of the Bible for 2,000 years. Yet, those who have been “set for the defense of the Gospel” (Philippians 1:17) have successfully answered every challenge with careful analysis of the text of the Bible and demonstrated that the charge was unfounded. The Bible has been shown over and over again to possess the attributes and characteristics of a supernatural production. No alleged discrepancy has gone unanswered. Convincing explanations exist for every allegation ever made.

Why would skeptics continue to cite “contradictory” Bible passages, which at the very least they would have to admit are unproven allegations? It would seem for the same reason many in today’s mainstream media continually press certain stories: the end justifies the means. They care more about their own agendas than the truth.

May God help us always to be truthful with ourselves, our God, and our fellow man.

The post Christians, Bible Critics, and Truth appeared first on Apologetics Press.

On September 14, 2018 Hurricane Florence made landfall just south of Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina. Like most hurricanes throughout history, this one left death and destruction in its wake. As shocking and heart-rending as such natural phenomena may seem, many other natural disasters have occurred in human history that exceed Florence, Harvey, Katrina, and even the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami in their toll of death and destruction. For example, throughout China’s history, extensive flooding has occurred countless times as a result of the mighty 3,000-mile-long Hwang Ho River. Several of the most terrible floods, with their ensuing famines, have been responsible for the deaths of more than a million people at a time. The southern levee of the river failed in Hunan Province in 1887, affecting a 50,000 square mile area.¹ More than two million people died from drowning, starvation, or the epidemics that followed.²

In reality, such events have occurred repetitiously throughout the history of the world, and continue to do so—constantly: hurricanes, cyclones, earthquakes, tornados, floods, tsunamis, droughts, and volcano eruptions. In fact, natural disasters kill one million people around the world each decade, and leave millions more homeless, according to the United Nation’s International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction.³

This circumstance inevitably elicits the pressing question: “WHY?” “Why would God allow such suffering and loss of life, inflicted on countless numbers of seemingly innocent people?” Regarding Florence, a five-year-old boy asked: “‘Daddy, where is God during the hurricane?’”⁴ Indeed, the number one argument marshaled by atheists to advocate their disbelief in God is the presence of widespread, seemingly purposeless suffering. They insist that if an infinite Being existed, He would exercise His perfect compassion and His omnipotence to prevent human suffering.⁵ Even for many people who do not embrace formal atheism, the fact that God apparently seems willing to allow misery and suffering to run rampant in the world, elicits a gamut of reactions—from perplexity and puzzlement to anger and resentment.

THE BIBLE HAS THE ANSWERS

But the Bible provides the perfect explanations for such occurrences. Its handling of the subject is logical, sufficient, and definitive. It sets forth the fact that God created the world to be the most appropriate, suitable environment in which humans are enabled to make their own decisions concerning their ultimate destiny (Genesis 1:27; Ecclesiastes 12:13-14). We humans have been provided with the ideal environment in which we may freely accept or reject God’s will for our lives. Natural disasters and nature’s destructive forces are the result of specific conditions that are necessary to God’s providing humanity with this ideal environment.

God is not blameworthy for having created such a world, since He had a morally justifiable reason for having done so. Human existence on Earth was not intended to be permanent. Rather, the Creator intended life on Earth to serve as a temporary interval of time for the development of one’s spirit. Life on Earth is a probationary period in which people are given the opportunity to attend to their spiritual condition as it relates to God’s will for living. Among other purposes, natural disasters provide people with conclusive evidence that life on Earth is brief and uncertain. God has even harnessed natural calamities for the purpose of punishing wickedness.⁶

Christians understand that no matter how catastrophic, tragic, or disastrous an event may be, it fits into the overall framework of soul-making—preparation for one’s departure from life into eternity. Likewise, the Christian knows that although the great pain and suffering caused by natural disasters may be unpleasant, and may test one’s mettle; nevertheless, such suffering is not intrinsically evil. Nor is it a reflection on the existence of an omnibenevolent God. The only intrinsic evil is violation of God’s will. What is required of all accountable persons is obedience to God’s revealed Word (given in the Bible)—even amid pain, suffering, sickness, disease, death, and, yes, hurricanes.

[NOTE: For further study on this thorny issue, see Thomas Warren (1972), Have Atheists Proved There Is No God? available at https://warrenapologetics.org/bookstore/have-atheists-proved-there-is-no-god and AP’s book Why People Suffer available at http://www.apologeticspress.org/store/Product.aspx?pid=247.]

ENDNOTES

¹ “Hwang Ho” (2004), LoveToKnow 1911 Online Encyclopedia, http://32.1911encyclopedia.org/H/HW/HWANG_HO.htm.

² “Huang He, or Hwang Ho” (2004), Britannica Student Encyclopedia, http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article?tocId=9274966.

³ “Disasters: A Deadly and Costly Toll Around the World” (1997), FEMA News, http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/stats.pdf.

⁴ Bruce Ashford (2018), “‘Daddy, where is God during the hurricane?’” Fox News, September 16, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/09/15/daddy-where-is-god-during-hurricane.html.

⁵ E.g., Roy Jackson (2001), “The Problem of Evil,” The Philosopher’s Magazine Online, http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/rel_six.htm; Jeffery Lowder (2004), “Logical Arguments From Evil,” Internet Infidels, http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/evil-logical.html.

⁶ See Dave Miller (2005), “Is America’s Iniquity Full?” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/305.

The post Where Was God During Hurricane Florence? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: A.P. auxiliary writer Robert Veil, Jr. formerly served as a district attorney for the Washington County State’s Attorney’s Office (Maryland), and previously maintained an active private law practice. He currently preaches in Martinsburg, West Virginia.]

Here’s a quote from the U.S. Supreme Court which may surprise you: “Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament? Where are benevolence, the love of truth, sobriety, and industry, so powerfully and irresistibly inculcated as in the sacred volume?”¹ That statement, part of the official records of the nation’s highest court, was made by Justice Joseph Story, appointed by President James Madison in 1811. Known as the “Father of American Jurisprudence,” Story had earlier written, “Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as is not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.”²

The interesting backstory to this Supreme Court case involves the death of Stephen Girard in 1831. At that time, Girard was the richest man in America. In his will, he provided for the establishment of Girard College in Philadelphia, PA. But the will was challenged by his familial heirs, who argued that it was void because by excluding scholarly instructors from the various sects, it was adverse to the principles of Christianity. The argument was eloquently presented by Daniel Webster, Esq., but was ultimately rejected by the Supreme Court. Interestingly, while the Court agreed with Webster that Christianity is part of the common law of Pennsylvania, it went on to recognize that support for Christianity is so natural and desirable that it is generally intended and presumed in our legal documents. Statements in a will which could conceivably be understood as opposed to Christianity will not be so interpreted without clear and plain evidence to that effect. In other words, if it is possible to interpret the will in agreement with the principles of Christianity, it must be so interpreted, and allowed to stand.

I find this case fascinating because it provides insight into the mindset of our Founding Fathers, including the Supreme Court in its early days. They not only recognized the principles of Christianity as part of and consistent with the common law, they found it unusual or unthinkable that anyone would question this. They saw it as harmful that documents such as wills should be interpreted otherwise. Justice Story agreed with Daniel Webster as to the honorable and necessary role of Christianity in our nation’s legal system. But he went on to affirm that such recognition is to be presumed as natural and obvious. In 1844, these Founding Fathers and statesmen would not have dreamed of questioning or denying the critical place of Christianity in our laws.

Story’s recognition that Christianity was deeply valuable to society, and that “it ought to receive encouragement from the state” would seem odd or unthinkable to many modern observers. The prevailing view of so many today is that church and state should somehow be “separated” and our country would get along quite well without the principles of Christianity. But that’s not the way the Founding Fathers saw it. They recognized Christianity as part of the common law, critical to our nation’s health and strength. They knew that the principles taught by Christ in the New Testament make for a prosperous and successful land.

Those who deny these truths are like the man who expects fruit from the tree after cutting away its roots. He destroys that which made the tree strong, and which gives it its nourishment and productivity, then demands that it produce as it did before. He cannot understand why the tree appears to be weak and sickly, struggling to match its former glory.

The roots of America’s strength run deeply into the Word of God. The eternal principles of truth and honesty, fair dealing, charity and integrity, sobriety and industry, mutual respect and good will form a bedrock upon which all great civilizations are built.  To the extent that we honor and respect such godly principles, we can look for His protection and blessings. And as surely as we cut off and turn away from them, we need not expect the fruit of His divine approval.

ENDNOTES

The post Cutting the Roots—But Still Expecting Fruit appeared first on Apologetics Press.

All human beings of accountable age and mind have sinned by violating God’s commands (Romans 3:9ff.,23; 1 John 3:4). Sin condemns a person to an eternal hell—there are no exceptions (Matthew 10:28; et al.). The only way a person can escape the consequences of his sin is to be forgiven by God.

But the nature of deity is such that God cannot merely wave aside sin and forgive. To do so would literally violate His infinitely holy, righteous/just nature. So God had to formulate a plan by which He could forgive human sin in harmony with His divinity. The one and only suitable means of atonement (“propitiation”—Romans 3:25; 1 John 2:2) was for God to come in person in the flesh and offer Himself for our sins. He did so through the person of Jesus Christ—God in the flesh. This incredible sacrifice/scheme of redemption is what the Gospel is all about: it is the Gospel—the good news that Jesus opened a way for humans to be forgiven.

However, that tremendous plan of salvation requires an obedient faith response (Romans 1:5; 16:26). That response consists of hearing and understanding the Gospel (Acts 8:30-32; Romans 10:17), believing that Gospel and the One Who offers it (John 8:24; Hebrews 11:6), repenting of sin (Acts 2:38; Luke 13:3), orally confessing the deity of Christ (Romans 10:9-10), and being immersed in water to contact the blood of Christ in order for sin to be cleansed (Romans 6:3-4; Acts 22:16).

In view of these plain biblical truths, it clearly follows that all persons who do not contact the blood of Christ cannot be forgiven by God. God is, in fact, powerless to forgive them. It would be completely contrary to His nature—and therefore ungodlike—for Him to try to forgive a person on some other basis than the blood of Christ. But the only way to contact the blood of Christ is to obey the Gospel (Romans 2:5-9). Those who do not obey the Gospel will be lost eternally in hell (2 Thessalonians 1:8; 1 Peter 4:17). It unmistakably and logically follows that God cannot and will not forgive anyone who has not been immersed into Christ—since they have not contacted the blood of Christ, the one and only means of atonement. We are forced to conclude that no one can be saved who does not hear the Gospel and obey it (Acts 4:12). If a person can be saved without hearing and obeying the Gospel, then Jesus did not need to come to Earth and die for sin.

With these facts in mind, the issue now shifts to a different question: Is God fair for condemning to hell all those who do not come into contact with the Gospel? The Bible offers a clear response. First, all human beings can and must come to the conclusion that God exists based on the readily available evidence of the incredible Creation that reflects the presence of the Creator. After all, “He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness” (Acts 14:17). Indeed, “[t]he heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4). “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).

This knowledge should motivate all persons to seek Him, as Paul explained to the Athenians: “that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:27). In seeking Him, they will come into contact with Christianity and the Bible: “those who seek me diligently will find me” (Proverbs 8:17; cf. Matthew 7:7-8). For those persons who possess an honest, noble, and good heart (Luke 8:15), examination of the Bible will cause them to conclude that it is the only book on the planet that possesses the attributes of divine inspiration (John 7:17). Hence, they will learn about the Gospel and the need to obey.

Second, the Bible also teaches that all persons on the planet who have a heart that is receptive to the truth will have access to that truth via the providence of God. God will make certain (without performing any miracles) that they come into contact with His Word. When God spoke to Paul while in the city of Corinth and stated, “I have many people in this city” (Acts 18:10), He meant that there were individuals who would be receptive to the divine message once they encountered that message. Hence, Paul was God’s instrumentality for reaching those potential converts (cf. Acts 10:4ff.; 16:9ff.). World evangelism, i.e., announcing the Gospel to the world, is an ongoing task for the Church. All Christians who are yielded to the will of God, willing to be used in His service, will have opportunities to influence people with the truth. God’s purposes will not be thwarted. In His unfathomable providential dealings in the world, God can interface receptive hearts with those who will introduce them to the good news (Acts 8:30; 10:24ff.; Colossians 1:23). (The Internet has only enhanced this accessibility to the Gospel even further.) He will see to it that receptive hearts are contacted.

Third, observe that all those who will not accept the truth, even if presented to them, need not be confronted with that truth, since God knows they would reject it. So the question, “What about those who never hear the Gospel?” suggests that there are innocent, honest people who would accept the truth if they heard it, but never get a chance to hear it. No such people actually exist. All those who will accept God’s truth will be given an opportunity to accept it via God’s providence and their own honest searching (Matthew 7:7-8). All those who never hear the Gospel would not have accepted it anyway.

A fourth and final observation pertains to the fact that the Bible plainly teaches that the vast majority of humanity throughout the 6,000+ years of world history have not desired the truth and would not have received it if presented to them (Matthew 7:13-14; Luke 13:23-24; 1 Corinthians 1:26; 1 Peter 3:20). Hence, the task of getting the Gospel to those who will receive it is considerably reduced in magnitude. Indeed, the multi-pronged combination of avenues through which efforts are made to reach the lost, including missionaries, printed materials, word of mouth, radio/TV, Internet, et al., are such that those whose hearts are receptive will have the opportunity to access the truth.

The nature of God is such that He must allow all human beings to act as free will agents and make their own choices regarding their eternal destiny. Hence, He will not interfere with their will. Nevertheless, He has done everything He can possibly do to enable mankind to access the Gospel message so that all can be forgiven of sin and live with Him forever. After all, God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” and He “is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9).

The post What About Those Who Never Hear the Gospel? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[Editor’s Note: We are frequently asked at Apologetics Press why the AP Defending the Faith Study Bible is not a red-letter edition. Though there is nothing inherently wrong with having a red-letter Bible, putting Jesus’ words in red letters is a rather modern, man-made idea. The ancient manuscripts of the New Testament do not have red letters in them for all of Jesus’ words. A person should be careful not to assume that red-letter Bibles have all of (and only) Jesus’ direct quotations printed in red. Judgment calls must be made by publishers as to which words they put in red and which words they don’t. The simple fact is, whatever color publishers make the words of Jesus and the Bible writers, all of them deserve our utmost respect because all of them come from God. As the psalmist proclaimed: “The entirety of Your word is truth, and every one of your righteous judgments endures forever” (Psalm 119:160).]

Occasionally, Christians will make the statement that “Jesus’ words are more important than the words of the Bible writers.” Allegedly, the words of Christ deserve greater attention, allegiance, and admiration than the inspired words of Paul, Peter, James, and every other Bible writer. Some even go so far as to say, “Jesus’ teachings must be obeyed, while the teachings of the Bible writers could be overlooked.” After all, Jesus is the Son of God (Acts 9:20). He died for our sins (1 Corinthians 15:3). He saves us (Luke 19:10). The Bible writers were merely men—fallible men who made numerous mistakes in their lives, and whose salvation, like ours, comes only through Jesus Christ (John 14:6). So why should we consider their teachings on par with the teachings of Christ?

It clearly needs to be established that no one is equal to God. The Creator and Sustainer of the Universe is infinite in all of His glorious attributes. He alone is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. The Son of God is the only accountable person never to sin (Hebrews 4:15). It has always been wrong to attempt to put men, even Bible writers, on par with God (cf. Genesis 3:5; Ezekiel 28:1-8). Only the wicked try to elevate themselves to the status of deity. King Herod, for example, flirted with self-deification—and died in a horrific manner as a result (Acts 12:21-23). This incident stands in stark contrast to the reaction of a Bible writer, Paul, when the heathen at Lystra attempted to worship him. Rather than accept worship that is reserved only for God (Matthew 4:10), Paul and Barnabas refused it and rebuked those who attempted such worship (Acts 14:8-18).

Jesus, as God in the flesh (John 1:1-5,14,17), rightly accepted (and still accepts) His followers’ worship (John 9:35-38; Luke 24:52; Revelation 5:8-14). However, the fact that the words of the Bible writers deserve the same level of attention and allegiance as the words of Christ has nothing to do with attempting to put weak, finite, sinful humanity on par with God. To say that all of the words of the Bible deserve our utmost respect and attention is actually in harmony with what the Bible itself teaches.

First, the only reason we have the words of Christ is because God used men to write them down. Jesus did not write the gospel accounts; Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all wrote about the life and teachings of Christ years after His death, resurrection, and ascension back into heaven. The apostle Paul also quoted Jesus occasionally (2 Corinthians 12:9; 1 Timothy 5:18; Acts 20:35; 22:7-21). To say that the words of Christ deserve man’s ultimate respect, while the words of the Bible writers warrant less appreciation, is to ignore the fact that God gave us the teachings of Christ through inspired men (Galatians 1:12; 1 Thessalonians 2:12; John 17:20).

Second, at times in the gospel accounts there is no clear way to know for sure if the Bible writers were quoting Jesus or simply narrating the inspired story. As commentator Leon Morris concluded:

All are agreed that from time to time in the Gospel [of John—EL] we have the meditations of the [e]vangelist, but it is difficult to know where they begin and end. In the first century there were no devices like quotation marks to show the precise limits of quoted speech. The result is that we are always left to the probabilities and we must work out for ourselves where a speech or quotation ends.¹

For example, we cannot say for sure if John 3:16—arguably the most frequently quoted Bible verse in the world—is a direct quotation of Jesus or a comment by John. The great thing is, we do not have to know this in order to know the teachings of God. Whether John 3:16 is a direct quote from Jesus ornot, it is from God, and thus divinely authoritative.

Third, consider also the fact that Jesus quoted from the Old Testament numerous times throughout His ministry. He quoted from Deuteronomy (6:13,16; 8:3) when tempted by Satan in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-11). When the conniving Pharisees asked Jesus a question about divorce (Matthew 19:1-10), the master Teacher directed their attention to God’s plan for marriage as recorded in the first book of the Bible (Genesis 1:27; 2:24; 5:2). When dying on the cross (Matthew 27:46), Jesus quoted from Psalm 22:1. Genesis, Deuteronomy, and the book of Psalms did not become authoritative when Jesus quoted from them; they were already authoritative, because they came from God. After quoting from the relatively obscure words in Psalm 82:6, Jesus said, “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). That is, it is impossible for Scripture to be annulled, for its authority to be denied, or its truth to be withstood.² “It cannot be emptied of its force by being shown to be erroneous.”³ Why? Because it was the authoritative, inspired, inerrant Word of God, even before Jesus quoted from it.

Indeed, the fact thatJesus quoted extensively from the Old Testament, appealing to it as the authoritative “Word of God” (Mark 7:13; John 10:35), is further proof that all of the Scriptures—not just the words Jesus spoke while on Earth—deserve our utmost respect. It is illogical and without biblical backing to suggest that the “Word of God” (whether the book of Genesis or the book of James) is somehow inferior to the “words of the Son of God.”⁴

Fourth, Jesus and the Bible writers even referred to narrational comments, and not just direct quotations from God, as being God’s Word. For example, when Jesus reminded His hypocritical hearers of God’s original design in marriage (Genesis 1-2), He quoted from Moses in Genesis 2:24. Yet Jesus explained that “He [God] who made them at the beginning…said” the words (Matthew 19:4-5). How could God have “said” this statement when Moses was not directly quoting God? Answer: If it is in Scripture, it is “God’s Word” (i.e., it was given by inspiration of God). When the writer of Hebrews quoted from the words of the psalmist (95:7-11), where nothing was said about this psalm being inspired by God, the Hebrews writer noted that these words were from “the Holy Spirit” (Hebrews 3:7-11). Why? Because the Holy Spirit guided the psalmist in what he wrote.

To treat the words of Moses, Paul, Peter, and other inspired penmen as “second class” Scripture is equivalent to saying that “God’s Word is not as important as God’s Word.” The fact is, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16). Paul quoted from Jesus and the God-inspired prophet Moses when writing to Timothy and elevated both as “Scripture” (1 Timothy 5:18; cf. 2 Peter 3:15-16). Therefore, whether we are reading a direct quotation from God the Father (Matthew 3:17), or a statement made by God the Son, or a truth revealed by God the Spirit through one of His inspired spokesmen or penmen (1 Corinthians 2:10-16; 2 Peter 1:20-21), all of Scripture should be respected and rightly divided (2 Timothy 2:15). “I love Your commandments more than gold, yes, than fine gold!… Consider how I love Your precepts… My heart stands in awe of Your word. I rejoice in Your word as one who finds great treasure… I love your law… My soul keeps Your testimonies, and I love them exceedingly” (Psalm 119:127,159-163,165,167).

Endnotes

¹ Leon Morris (1995), The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), revised edition, p. 202, emp. added.

² See Benjamin Warfield (1970 reprint), The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian & Reformed), pp. 138-140.

³ Morris, p. 468.

⁴ Since Jesus fulfilled the Old Law (Matthew 5:17), taking “it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross,” God’s people have been amenable to the New Law (Colossians 1:14; Hebrews 8:7-13). Regardless of what law man is under, however, it is still proper to acknowledge that all Scripture should be respected because it is all God’s Word.

The post Are Jesus' Words More Important Than the Bible Writers'? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

For example, composed by David in the 10^th century B.C., Psalm 22 is unquestionably a messianic psalm—literally packed with minute details that forecast the death of the Messiah. In verse 18, the psalmist quotes Him as making the simple statement: “They divide My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots.” All four of the inspired New Testament evangelists of the first century A.D. allude to these incidental details that they report in connection with Jesus hanging on the cross (Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:23-24).

While commentators typically report that Roman law awarded the victim’s clothes as spoils for the Roman executioners,³ others question the historicity of such a claim.⁴ In any case, the soldiers that attended the cross consisted of a quaternion—four soldiers.⁵ Matthew and Luke state very simply that these soldiers divided His clothes and cast lots for them, with Luke adding “to determine what every man should take.” These “garments” (merei) likely included a head-dress, sandals, girdle, and outer garment.⁶ Apparently, according to John 19:23, the soldiers were able to decide ownership of these four clothing articles without gambling. If they were able to agree on consignment of the four articles—one clothes item for each soldier—why did they also cast lots? It is John who provides the added clarification:

Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments and made four parts, to each soldier a part, and also the tunic. Now the tunic was without seam, woven from the top in one piece. They said therefore among themselves, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be,” that the Scripture might be fulfilled which says: “They divided My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots.” Therefore the soldiers did these things (John 19:23-24).

The tunic was indivisible and unique from the other clothes, and very likely more valuable. It stood alone as seamless and would need to be awarded to a single soldier only, rather than being ripped into four pieces. Hence, they agreed to gamble in order to decide ownership of the tunic.

Observe carefully that these four unnamed Roman military men, who just happened to be assigned crucifixion duty that day, and just happened to have charge of the condemned Jesus of Nazareth (who happened that day to wear a seamless tunic), were operating solely out of their own impulses. They were not Jews. They undoubtedly had no familiarity whatsoever with Jewish Scripture. They were not controlled by any external source. No unseen or mysterious force took charge of their minds, no disciple whispered in their ears to cause them to robotically or artificially fulfill a prophecy. Yet, with uncanny precision, words written by King David a millennium earlier came to stunning fruition—words that on the surface might seem to contradict each other: the clothes were to be divided into separate parts, yet lots would be cast over the clothes. Roman soldiers unwittingly fulfilled the predictions of ancient Scripture in what to them were no more than mere casual, insignificant actions associated with the execution of their military duty, in tandem with their covetous desire to profit from their victim by acquiring His material goods.

But that’s not all. The layers of complexity and sophistication of the doctrine of inspiration, like the layers of an onion, can be peeled back to reveal additional marvels. John informs us that the item of clothing, which necessitated the Roman soldiers’ need to resort to gambling to decide ownership, was “without seam, woven from the top in one piece.” Why mention this piece of minutia? What significance could possibly be associated with such a seemingly trivial detail? To gain insight into a possible explanation, one must dig deeper into Bible teaching. Since the Bible was authored by Deity, it naturally possesses a depth uncharacteristic of human writers. It reflects indication that its Author was unhampered by the passing of time or the inability to foresee or orchestrate future events. Such qualities are commensurate with the nature of divinity.

In 1500 B.C., God imparted the Law of Moses to the Israelites as the covenant requirements that would guide the nation of Israel through its national existence. This law included provision for the High Priest, the first being Aaron, the brother of Moses, commissioned by God Himself (Exodus 28). On the Day of Atonement (yom kippur), he alone entered the Holy of Holies within the Tabernacle/Temple to make atonement for himself and all the people (Leviticus 16). Bible typology—another bona fide proof of Bible inspiration—portrays Jesus as our High Priest (Hebrews 3:1; 4:14; 9:11; et al.). Very uniquely and critically, Jesus performs for Christians parallel functions to the High Priest that absolutely must be performed if we are to be permitted to be saved to live eternally with Deity in heaven.

Among the articles of clothing stipulated by God for the High Priest was the skillfully woven “tunic of fine linen thread” (Exodus 28:39). According to Josephus, this clothing item was seamless:

Now this vesture was not composed of two pieces, nor was it sewed together upon the shoulders and the sides, but it was one long vestment so woven as to have an aperture for the neck; not an oblique one, but parted all along the breast and the back.⁷

Coincidental? Perhaps. Nevertheless, John went out of his way to flag the point. And the Roman soldiers gambled for the seamless tunic of the Messiah—a tunic that subtly signaled His redemptive role as the one to make atonement for the world in the very act of dying on the cross. The handling of the clothes of Jesus Christ on the occasion of His crucifixion demonstrates the inspiration of the Bible and the divine origin of the Christian religion.

ENDNOTES

¹ H.C. Leupold (1969 reprint), Exposition of the Psalms (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), p. 8; cf. Gleason Archer (1974), A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody Press), p. 440.

² Albert Barnes (1847), Notes on the Old Testament: Psalms (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005 reprint), pp. 193ff.

³ E.g., Charles Erdman (1922), The Gospel of John (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press), p.161; J.W. McGarvey (no date), The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: Standard), p. 725.

⁴ E.g., Alfred Edersheim (1915), The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (New York: Longmans, Green, & Co.), 2:591-592.

⁵ William Davis (1870), Dictionary of the Bible, ed. H.B. Hackett (New York: Hurd & Houghton), 3:2651.

⁶ A.T. Robertson (1916), The Divinity of Christ (New York: Fleming H. Revel), p. 147.

⁷ Flavius Josephus (1974 reprint), The Works of Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, trans. by William Whiston (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), 3.7.4:203.

The post Bible Inspiration: The Crucifixion Clothes appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Silva and his evolutionary colleagues subscribe to the notion that “science” only allows natural, observable, experimental phenomena²—no supernatural realm with a God Who miraculously created the Universe allowed. The problem with such thinking, as we have noted elsewhere,³ is that it is impossible to explain the Universe without resorting to supernatural activity—and even many naturalists acknowledge that fact.⁴ The origin of the laws of science, the matter/energy of the Universe, life, and genetic information, for example, have no rational explanations from a purely naturalistic perspective. They require a supernatural Cause.⁵ So Silva and any other naturalists who agree with him in their belief that science should only allow for natural phenomena must inevitably contradict their own position when attempting to explain several characteristics of the Universe.

Bottom line: if the scientific evidence demands the existence of a supernatural Creator, why would scientists define science in such a way that a Designer/Creator is precluded? And further, why would acknowledging that the evidence points to an intelligent Designer of the Universe “endanger” children? There are certainly answers to those questions—but it is certain that they are not rational answers, because they cannot be, according to the evidence. “For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God” (Hebrews 3:4).

Endnotes

¹ Heslley Machado Silva (2017), “Intelligent Design Endangers Education,” Science, 357[6354]:880.

² Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (1998), National Academy of Sciences (Washington, DC: National Academy Press).

³ Jeff Miller (2012), “The Atheistic Naturalist’s Self-Contradiction,” Reason & Revelation, 31[5]:53.

⁴ Jeff Miller (2017), “Atheists’ Design Admissions,” Reason & Revelation, 37[12]:134-143.

⁵ Jeff Miller (2017), Science vs. Evolution (Apologetics Press: Montgomery, AL), revised and expanded.

Suggested Resources

The post “Only Science” Should be Taught in Science Classrooms appeared first on Apologetics Press.

As just one example, consider: if one is a naturalist, he must believe that at some point(s) in the past, life arose from non-living substances (that is, the spontaneous generation of life occurred). Many scientific experiments have been conducted over the centuries testing the hypothesis that spontaneous generation could occur, and every one of them has resulted in the same conclusion: in nature, life only comes from life. No matter what scientists have tried to do in a laboratory to make non-living material come to life, it still remains non-living.³ If one is rational and follows the evidence to its logical conclusion, he will conclude that in the Universe (in nature), life cannot come about from non-life. If, however, he cannot stomach the evidence, and chooses instead to irrationally believe that life can come from non-life in spite of the evidence, he is holding to a blind faith in so doing. There is not one example from nature in which life has been shown to come from non-life.

If life only comes from previously existing life in the Universe, then whence came the original life? It must have originated from a supernatural Source—Someone outside of the Universe. Indeed, it is God Who “gives to all life, breath, and all things” (Acts 17:25).⁴

Endnotes

¹ Lionel Ruby (1960), Logic: An Introduction (Chicago, IL: J.B. Lippincott), pp. 130-131.

² Cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1; Acts 17:11; John 8:32; John 10:37; Dave Miller (2003),  “Blind Faith,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=444.

³ Jeff Miller (2012), “The Law of Biogenesis [Part 1],” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-5,9-11.

⁴ For more information, see Jeff Miller (2013), “Unlike Naturalists, You Creationists Have a Blind Faith,” Reason & Revelation, 33[7]:76-83.

Suggested Resources

The post Evolutionists Have a Blind Faith appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Although as a Christian I have far more (eternally) important reasons for wanting the Bible read increasingly more around the world (cf. Romans 10:17), the fact is, any rational person, even unbelievers, should be in favor of Bible reading. After all, the Bible is the most well-preserved, ancient work in history. Its composition is diverse—from the laws of Moses, to the poetry of Job, to the letters of Paul. What’s more, it’s the greatest selling, most widely distributed piece of literature in world history. Indeed, even atheists should promote Bible reading!

Endnotes

¹ Laura Lambert (2017), “It’s a Disgrace That Children Don’t Read the Bible, Says Atheist Melvyn Bragg,” Daily Mail, Oct. 3, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4946152/It-s-disgrace-children-don-t-read-Bible-says-Bragg.html.

² Ibid.

The post An Unlikely Ally in the Promotion of Bible Reading appeared first on Apologetics Press.