Iceland Gives an Ice-Cold Reception to Creation

According to a Washington Post story available online by Rick Noack, the number of young people in Iceland who believe that God created the world is zero (which is also a temperature the country is familiar with). In light of the availability of Christian evidences and the failure of evolution to offer any substantial proof in favor of it, this report is astounding. According to this survey, 0% of those in Iceland (young or old) believe the very first verse of the Bible. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

One Icelander responded by saying such a figure presents the wrong picture. He argued that plenty of people still believe in God in Iceland. Really? How many people who read the first line of a book and believe it to be false would keep reading? If a history book began, “The earth is flat,” who would continue to consider anything else that appeared afterward? Why would it have any credibility elsewhere within its pages when it was so fundamentally incorrect to begin with?

Now here is a frightening thought: Only twenty years ago (about one generation) 90% of all Icelanders were religious believers; today that number has dwindled to 50%. Not much is offered in the way of a lengthy analysis; the following paragraph is the best that the article offers.

“Secularization [in Iceland] has occurred very quickly, especially among younger people,” said Bjarni Jonsson, the managing director of the Icelandic Ethical Humanist Association, an athiest non-governmental organization. “With increased education and broad-mindedness, change can occur quickly.”

The first statement above implies that young people are being taught differently than they once were. Has God been thrown out of their schools? In what form has this “increased secularization” taken place? And to what does increased education refer? Are the students going to school an extra day a week or two more hours per day? Or are they being constantly bombarded with propaganda?

One can only speculate on what is meant by broad-mindedness in this context. Isn’t it supposed to be associated with being tolerant? If belief in God creating the world has fallen to 0% in the space of twenty years, one thing can be relied upon-it had nothing to do with being broad-minded. Few evolutionists can be characterized by tolerance. They are known for ridiculing creationists and labeling anyone who deigns to disagree with them as “unscientific.” Was it this kind of broad-minded approach that reduced the number of those who believe in Genesis 1:1 to zero? How much classroom time was granted to an opposing view?

According to the article, just 20 years ago, nearly 90% of all Icelanders were believers in God; today that amount has sunk to less than 50%. The explanation offered makes little sense.

Solveig Anna Boasdottir, a professor at the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies at the University of Iceland, agreed that scientific progress had changed religious attitudes in the country.

Scientific progress in the last twenty years? What scientific progress would that be-the advent of Facebook and the various social media? All of us who have been on earth the past 20 years might well ask the question, “What scientific progress?” More particularly, what “scientific progress” came about as the result of not believing that God created the heavens and the earth? Precisely how has man been benefited by evolutionary theory in the past twenty years?

Only two pseudo-scientific things comes to mind-Lucy, which was not all she was cracked up to be and “global warming,” which has yet to have an adequate scientific basis for it. But even if both were true, how has either one helped modern man? Even if something were actually discovered that lent the theory of evolution credibility, what scientific progress would it generate? Would it cause automobiles to run more efficiently-or draw us any closer to “beaming” from one locale to another? Evolutionists have been frantically searching for proof for more than 150 years, and they have come up empty. But even if they had iron-clad evidence, who would mankind be improved?

“Global Warming” may motivate some to be hysterical, but how much taxpayer money was lost on Solindra? If the theory motivates some to develop better forms of energy, fine; motivation to do better and be better is helpful, but taxpayers should not be forced to fund fly-by-night schemes as though the planet would fade into oblivion in the next five years. However, whether creation or evolution is true will not change “global warming.” So, again, what scientific progress in the last 20 years has convinced those in Iceland that religion has no value?

The theory of evolution lacks any clear support; evolutionists cannot explain left-handed amino acids, no do they have a convincing explanation for polystrate fossils. Their dating techniques have proved to be invalid beyond a certain range, and they are constantly changing the age of the universe (from 2 to 10 billion years, to about 20, and now back to 15). Mathematics students would love to have that much leeway on problems they solve. “Your test answer is only off by 5,000,000,000. Close enough.”

The same professor previously cited commented further on the current beliefs of Icelanders. She opined

that about 40 percent of the country’s younger generation still consider themselves Christian-but none of them believe that God created the Earth. “Theories of science are broadly accepted among both the young and old. That does not necessarily affect people’s faith in God.”

How can anyone refuse to believe what one part of the Bible teaches while repudiating a different part of it? It is either true, as it claims to be, or false. If God did not create the heavens and the earth, then how do we know that He is all-powerful? And what’s the next thing to be case aside? How about the miracles? We don’t see those in operation today; so why should we believe they ever occurred? Perhaps they were just fanciful explanations for events that we cannot explain. We cannot duplicate them scientifically; so if we are going to be people of science, then the miracles cannot be taken seriously. If not, why not?

Well, say, how do we know anything in the Bible is accurate? If we have already rejected the creation of Genesis 1, then how do we know that Adam and Eve is not some sort of allegory? Maybe man invented marriage instead of God doing so, and it doesn’t really have to be between one man and one woman for life. If man actually came up with that arrangement, then the other arrangements he designed are equally valid, such as polygamy and homosexual unions. If man is the originator of the marriage concept, then no one has the right to challenge what any consenting adults want to do.

Unfortunately, no basis exists for denying any practice, period, whether the participants are adult or consenting. When Boco Haram kidnaps teenage girls to sell for sex slaves, why is that wrong? Who says we need marriage at all? Man thought it up, but man has also desired to live in fornication; so why should anyone regard marriage as superior? In fact, why is anything man decides to do right or wrong? What’s wrong with forcing women to comply? Aren’t we talking about the wonderful evolutionary idea of “the survival of the fittest”?

Now that we have destroyed Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, surely we must see how antiquated the concept of sin is in Genesis 3. The idea of sin was just created to make people feel guilty for acting out their desires. All that sin amounts to is simply a disease or an inborn propensity to do certain things. No one can seriously call homosexuality a sin, since people are born that way. Asexuals must be, also, as well as fornicators and adulterers. Thieves probably can’t help themselves, either. If God didn’t create the world, then man cannot be created in His image. Evolution cannot account for a soul or a spirit; mankind just evolved. No room for spirituality exists; it’s just sentimentality.

In Psalm 11:3, David asked the question: “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” It’s an excellent question. One of the foundations of the Bible is Genesis 1:1. Remove that and the rest of the Bible collapses-whether Icelanders realize that or not. To say that a person can still be a Christian without believing the first verse in the Bible is not only wrong-it is dangerous! It is the equivalent of saying, “I have no basis for believing in Christianity, but ‘I’m a believer anyway.’ ” A believer in what-fables?

If the Creation foundation is removed and marriage, the foundation of a stable society, is removed, we are already well down the road to an absence of any standards whatsoever. The next point of attack is to do what the Jesus Seminar did in trying to determine what Jesus actually said because, once the validity of miracles is removed, what Jesus taught becomes the next target. If the miracles cannot be considered valid because they are unscientific, then all of the evidence for Jesus being the Son of God (and thus our Savior) is gone. John included them as evidence for the reader (John 20:30-31).

John cannot be regarded as honest if he wrote of unscientific occurrences; neither can Matthew, Mark, or Luke. So if the Bible is to have any value at all, a subjective determination will have to be made as what in it might be valuable and what is irrelevant. Reaching agreement on these teachings is largely unlikely. How many are willing to accept Jesus’ condemnation of adultery and fornication (which includes homosexuality) (Matt. 15:18-20)? How many are willing to accept that these are deeds of darkness (John 3:19-21; Eph. 5:3-13)? How many are willing to acknowledge that such things are shameful? Right! Didn’t think so.

Eventually the entire Bible will be reduced to, “Love one another,” and “Don’t judge me”-although these will be entirely removed from their Biblical context. The number of believers in Iceland has fallen from 90% to 50% in just twenty years. Wait until those remaining figure out that they have no basis for their beliefs-that foundations have been destroyed. Some may continue to believe anyway, but the next generation will not be so blind. They will observe that “faith” is not based on facts and will wonder, “Why fool with it at all?” Eventually, they will notice that no foundation for mortality exists anywhere. Moral and ethics were invented by mankind and are subject to change upon the merest whim of society. That’s the reason abortion can be right in one culture and wrong in another-or why it can be legal in one century and illegal the next.

Without God as Creator, no objective standards exist. Their foundation has been destroyed. It may take another twenty years before Icelanders reap the results of what has occurred during the last two decades. But it will come to pass if people actually live their atheistic philosophy. Moral restraints fall by the wayside. Iceland’s bitterly cold rejection of the Bible will result in an extremely hot future (not a reference to global warming).

“What Do You Think of Comedy Today?”

The Sunday supplement to the newspaper, Parade, published an interview with Carol Burnett on January 24, 2016. She is worthy of the honor given to her by the Screen Actors Guild. Airing on January 30th, she received their 52nd Life Achievement Award (9). As with most interviews, several questions were asked, including one that seems fairly typical: “What do you think of comedy today?” Bill Daily, who played Major Healey on I Dream of Jeannie, was asked a similar question awhile back, and he said he did not watch most of the newer comedies. Carol commented:

A lot of it I’m not thrilled with. Some of the comedy I’ve watched on television seems to have been written by teenage boys in the locker room. And now I’m sounding like an old fogey, but look at some of the sitcoms that were brilliant—All in the Family, Mary Tyler Moore, Bob Newhart. Those hold up today, and there’s not one cheap laugh in them (8).

She described it with precision. The commercials for some of the popular sitcoms are so bad that one wonders why anyone would actually watch the program. For decades comedians proved that audiences would laugh at clean humor, but few today seem to think that wholesome and funny go together. Lines can still be written, according to Carol Burnett, that are clever “without being scatological or getting dirty” (9).

A Christian should be choosy when selecting entertainment. The biggest movie ever, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, has just become a worldwide hit without nudity and foul language. It didn’t need to appeal to the lowest element in mankind for cheap thrills. Evil characters do not need to utter a string of curse words—as if such would constitute entertainment. Every week, however, when one consults the movie guide, invariably the report is, “some nudity, some strong language.” Why? Quality entertainment can be accomplished without it; so one can only conclude that moviemakers include those scenes because they desire to do so—in which case Christians should refuse to trust them or pay money to finance them. Would Jesus take His apostles to a movie with cursing and nudity? Would He recommend or use toilet bowl “humor”? To answer, just reflect on all of the filthy language God chose to include in His Book and how many sexual jokes appear. Hmm.

Qualified to Quote

In a recent Sunday newspaper (1-17-16), a Mr. Clark of Longwood said he was outraged about what a recent Republican Representative from Virginia said concerning owning “the entire [biblical] tradition.” He goes on to ask, “The Republicans now think they own the Bible?” Well, if that is what the representative thought, that would of course be absurd. The Bible is universal. Women don’t own it; neither do men. It does not belong to the rich exclusively-nor to the poor. No political party owns it, although both have quoted from it. No country can stake a claim to it, either. It belongs to the entire world.

If Mr. Clark had left it there, probably everyone would have agreed with his wisdom, but he went on to say that the representative chastised “the President for quoting the Bible in such a manner as to justify false Democratic ideals of acceptance, compassion, and love.” Apparently, the representative thinks these are false ideals-not Mr. Clark. He does not think anyone should challenge another person quoting of the Bible.

Anyone can quote the Scriptures if they desire. Adolph Hitler could have; so could any mass murderer. No one is saying they did-only that they could have. However, who would listen to them-knowing that they violated the morality of the book they quoted? Yes, Mr. Clark, we all have the right to challenge some who quote the Bible-when they strongly advocate what is diametrically opposed to it. No one is perfect, but some have lost all moral authority.

Our President is not qualified to quote the Bible for at least two reasons. First, he is in favor of abortion, which terminates the innocent lives of children who will never make it to birth. The child in the womb is still a child (Luke 1:41, 44). Worse than that, he protects Planned Parenthood whose representatives have admitted to the gruesome practice of selling baby parts. Anyone who refuses to see the sanctity of human life is not fit to quote anything about love and compassion. Second, the President used his influence to not only uphold the sin of homosexuality (is that what Clark meant by acceptance?) but to also endorse homosexual “marriage,” which blasphemes the institution designed and defined by God. Anyone who could so misunderstand such clear Bible teachings and encourage the violation of these principles cannot be trust in any application of God’s Holy Word.

Under Attack?

A senior rabbi from the Congregation of Reform Judaism in Orlando, Steven W. Engel, takes issue with those who are saying that Christianity is “under attack” in the United States (Orlando Sentinel). He apparently thinks that two pieces of upcoming legislation aimed at protecting “pastors” are superfluous. One is the “Pastor Protection Act,” and the other is the “Right of Refusal Act” (Jan. 17, 2016). Why are they, in fact, necessary? The answer lies in last year’s Supreme Court cultural decision to legalize homosexual “marriage,” which was not based on anything reasonable such as the definition of marriage or the example of it provided by God, the author of the institution (Gen. 2:18-24).

Many, such as the rabbi (A21), think that bills such as these are totally unnecessary because the first amendment guarantees freedom of religion. The fact that we have the 14th Amendment has not prevented dozens of additional laws concerning discrimination from being passed. Were those unnecessary, also? Consider the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Despite the first amendment, laws have been passed concerning “hate speech.” Few oppose such legislation if it is precisely defined, but how much wiggle-room is there in those laws to establish political correctness rather than legitimate “hate speech”? On the very night of the Supreme Court’s decision, several people were interviewed; some of them said that now it was time to go after those who refused to perform the ceremonies. What? Yes, Christianity is under attack.

“Oh, no,” someone protests. “The Supreme Court made it clear that religious freedom would remain intact, and no one would have to perform ceremonies against their conscience.” Yes, they said that, and those assurances are good until another case comes to the Supreme Court with even more liberals on it in 5 or 10 years, and what was said in the last court case will soon be forgotten as the new decision is heralded as a great day for civil liberties. Never mind that men will be put in jail for practicing New Testament Christianity and that few will care.

Saying that Christianity is not under attack is a myopic view that ignores the past half century as secular humanism has won round after round. Engel v. Vitale restricted using prayers in public schools (1962); Murray v. Curlett resulted in Bible study being taken out of public schools (1963). Roe v. Wade (1973), without any legal precedent, made abortion legal, and those who would have been born were denied all freedoms.

The rabbi seems to indicate that only certain types of attacks are valid. He says that his people know what it means to be “under attack.” Jews were wrongfully blamed for the world’s problems, dehumanized, tattooed with numbers, burned, gassed, and otherwise put to death. Therefore, he takes umbrage that Christians would say they are under attack. But not all assaults are frontal and immediate. When Israel marched around Jericho for six days, not an arrow was fired. Was the city under siege? Yes. God had made that marching a condition of the city’s destruction. Not one resident of the city was harmed until the 7th day, but then all was lost.

A house destroyed by termites does not fall on day one, but over a period of time it is weakened, and then it collapses. It was under attack the whole time; the homeowner was not wise enough to perceive it. The enemies of Christianity have been nibbling away for a long time. How much more time will pass by until more overt persecution comes to the forefront?

A certain segment of our society has already lost all of their rights—those living in the wombs of their “mothers.” Were 6 million Jews annihilated by Hitler? Ten times that many infants have been killed since the Roe v. Wade decision! Has Mr. Engel shed any tears for them? Does he consider them to be under attack? That decision obliterated the laws of 46 states. So how did it happen? It did not come about overnight. The enemies of Christianity paved the way by exalting humanistic philosophy and denigrating Christian principles. After the decision was rendered, the attack on Christianity was stepped up.

And where does Steven W. Engel stand on that subject? Has he not read about the conflict that occurred in the womb of Rebekah, Isaac’s wife? Since there were two nations in her womb, God could not have approved of abortion for her. Surely it is not necessary to instruct a rabbi on the teaching in the Book of Genesis, is it (25:22-26)? But, according to a Reform Judaism website, they have “demonstrated a liberal approach to abortion.”

And where does the rabbi stand on homosexuality? One Reform Judaism website says: “Reform Jews are also committed to the full participation of gays and lesbians in synagogue life as well as society at large.” No. Really? Has the rabbi not read Genesis 18:20-21, where God says: “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous, I will go down now and see…”? Is he not aware that God destroyed Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim because of their homosexuality (Gen. 19: 4-5, 13)? Apparently, we Christians believe more of the Old Testament than some Jews do.

“How can they be Jews but deny what their book teaches?” one wonders. According to Wikipedia, the explanation is that Reformed Judaism regards “Jewish Law as of basically non-binding nature.” So does that mean the Ten Commandments really are, for them, the Ten Suggestions? They exhibit “great openness to external influences and progressive values.” A good translation of those words would be that they cave in to culture, much like the Sadducees of Jesus’ time. Those “modernists,” however, at least upheld the Pentateuch (although they did not regard other Old Testament books as authoritative). This rabbi and his compadres do not even respect the first five books. They apparently deny even Genesis.

Engel says that most of his Christian friends don’t believe the Bible is under attack. Could it be that his Christian friends are as liberal as he is? Are they dominated as well by the culture? Do they support abortion? Are they fine with homosexuality? If they are, it explains why they are all in agreement.

Rabbi Engel’s rationale for “going with the flow” of current culture is stated thus:

I suppose the religious leaders who used religion to oppose a woman’s right to vote, or opposed abolition, or who spoke out against integration also incorrectly thought they were under attack. Just because your ideas don’t jibe with some of the changes in society does not mean you are under attack.

First of all, the rabbi tries to equate homosexuality with a civil rights issue, which he surely knows is a false analogy, but using logical fallacies characterize those who oppose the Scriptures. Second, how many misused religion to prevent women’s and minorities’ rights? Some did, to be sure, but were they in the majority? The arguments advanced in favor of segregation, when based on Scripture, were pathetic and resoundingly refuted. If Jews and Gentiles were to be one in Christ, then so are all others. Jesus came to make all one in Him, and to argue otherwise is to miss one of the key reasons for the church to exist.

Women are also one in Christ (Gal. 3:26-29), but the right to vote is a Constitutional issue pertaining to the government of this nation; it is not a Biblical issue per se, although one might correctly cite the principle of equality. Since the rabbi believes in these principles, does he see the value of Jesus and the New Testament? One wonders on what Scriptural grounds he favors the position he holds. While he merely assumes that women voting and integration are proper, we demonstrate that such is the case by New Testament teaching. In fact, what basis does he have for anything he believes? Does he just check with his Christian friends? Is abortion acceptable if the majority approves of it? Does it become wrong if society disapproves? Are “changes in society” infallible?

It almost sounds as though the assumption is that any standards or practices from the past are wrong and that anything that changes is right. Obviously, only old fogies, traditionalists, and conservatives would fight change. Anything that wears the label progressive must be good for culture, right?

So let’s take a situation. Israel, under the faithful leadership of Joshua and the support of the nation, conquers the land that God gave to them. The people remained faithful during his days and those of his generation, but as they began to die off, the new generation “did evil in the sight of the Lord, and served the Baals” (Judges 2:11). Is this news to the rabbi? Israel actually

forsook the Lord God of their fathers, who had brought them out of the land of Egypt; and they followed other gods from among the gods of the people who were all around them, and they bowed down to them, and they provoked the Lord to anger (2:12).

Is all progress good? The people were not averse to treating God’s law “as of basically a non-binding nature.” Maybe they consulted with their Philistine “friends” and determined that their new morality and worship was all right. Just because older Jewish ideas didn’t jibe with newer cultural norms didn’t prove the old ways were under attack. The truth is that because they turned away from God, He quit protecting them, and they came under physical attack.

Later, after the kingdom split, Jeroboam introduced some innovations in the northern kingdom. He set up two golden calves as a symbol of the God who delivered them from Egypt. He also grew tired of only the Levites being priests; so he allowed those of any tribe to be priests. Would the rabbi have approved of this enlightened way of thinking or stood with those who didn’t think such changes jibed with what he had been taught? Even though God did not authorize men from any of the other tribes to be priests, He didn’t say they couldn’t be. Truly, having Jeroboam as king was a liberating experience; now all men could be equal (sorry, ladies, that he excluded you). He also changed the place and time of worship. While many may have thought Jeroboam a progressive, God did not. As the northern kingdom is taken into captivity two centuries later, God lays the blame thusly: “Then Jeroboam drove Israel from following the Lord, and made them commit a great sin” (2 Kings 17:21b). No one can assume that, when society changes, it is for the better—particularly when the will of God has been violated. The southern kingdom was also taken captive for their refusal to repent and live godly.

America has been departing from God, taking Him out of the public forum. Prayer and Bible study in schools must be prohibited. Abortion and homosexuality must be allowed, along with easy divorce, excessive emphasis on alcohol, and now legalization of other harmful drugs. “Oh,” says the rabbi, “but Christianity is not under assault.” If he missed it when it happened in the Old Testament, he is not likely to see it now, either.

Was the Bible Composed by Men? (Part 2)

Many lodge complaints against the Bible due to the existence of manuscript variations and problems that occur in translating the Scriptures from one language to another. These are legitimate concerns, to be sure. As noted previously, all languages have idiomatic expressions that do not smoothly make the transition. For example, “spill the beans” might be translated, “Tell us what you know,” which is accurate but not literal. In this instance conveying the thought is justified since a literal translation would leave the reader scratching his head about the charge to be clumsy with one’s food.

The problem with the NIV and most paraphrases, however, is that they are not literal when they should and could be. For example, Deuteronomy 6:7 is a famous passage—one which Jews still have their children memorize. In it the Israelites are commanded to teach diligently the words God spoke to them that day to their children. Teach diligently was used by the KJV, the NKJ, the ASV, the NAS, the RSV, and the newer ESV. Rather than remain with the literal, the NIV translators decided to change the idea slightly; their translation advises parents to take God’s words and, “Impress them on” their children. To impress something upon someone is certainly a related thought but not nearly as forceful as teach diligently. No idiom was involved in this change.

So we find variations in translation and in the ancient texts of the Bible that we have. God has (in His providence) preserved many entire manuscripts, as well as fragments, so that we have plenty of material to study and verify that we actually do have the truth. So, let us notice some areas that variations in the text and the problems of translating from one language to another have not altered.

1. The promise of Genesis 3:15 that the seed of woman who would defeat Satan has remained intact, and the reader sees Jesus fulfilling it about 4,000 years later by being raised from the dead.

2. The three promises that God made to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-7 have not been thrown out of any major translation. Israel became a great nation and received the land that God promised her. Jesus proved to be the seed of Abraham, through whom all the nations of the earth are blessed (Gen. 22:18). He was “born of a woman, born under the law” (Gal. 4:4).

3. Although one translation tried to minimize the importance of the prophecy by changing virgin to young woman, it is rendered correctly in all other major translations. Jesus fulfilled this prophecy, also (Matt. 1:21-23). He is the only One who was ever born of a virgin.

4. Despite various modernist “scholars” suggesting erroneously that Isaiah had two or three different authors, the prophecy of Jesus’ life and death still remains a marvelous prophetic passage (Isa. 52:13-53:12).

5. No variations in texts or translations have cast any doubt on the fact that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2).

6. Neither can there be any doubt that Jesus’ resurrection was foretold (Ps. 16:8-11; Acts 2:25-31).

7. No controversy surrounds the prophecy of the new covenant foretold in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which the book of Hebrews confidently states has been established (Heb. 8:6-12).

8. Although some did not understand that the nature of the kingdom to come was spiritual (instead of physical), it was so revealed in the Old Testament and confirmed in the New Testament. Isaiah 2:1-4 and Daniel 2:44-45 talk about a kingdom coming forth from the mountain of the Lord, which would never be destroyed. The fact that it would last forever suggests that it is spiritual rather than physical. It has never been left “to other people” because this kingdom has only ever had one King to reign over it—Jesus the Christ. This is the kingdom first announced by John the Baptizer (Matt. 3:2) and then later by Jesus and His disciples (Matt. 4:17; 10:7).

There is only one way to enter this kingdom—by being born of water and the Spirit (John 3:5). It is a spiritual kingdom, and it requires a spiritual birth to enter in. Those who have obeyed the gospel have been delivered from the power of darkness and been translated into the kingdom of Jesus (Col. 1: 13), where “we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins” (1:14). This kingdom is also referred to as His body, the church (1:18). Textual problems do not begin to encroach on this vital doctrine (which some still do not understand).

9. No variations in texts or translations affect at all the doctrine of Jesus being the Savior of all mankind who obey Him. All readers can see that faith is essential to understanding salvation. Repentance is equally necessary (Luke 13:3), as is confessing that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God (Rom. 10:9-10; 1 Tim. 6:12). Yes, some texts omit the treasurer’s confession in Acts 8:37, but the doctrine remains in Matthew 18:16-19 and the other texts cited. Even Jesus confessed His Deity. The necessity of baptism is emphasized several times over (Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom. 6:3-4; 1 Peter 3:21; et al.). Yes, Mark 16:16 is challenged (without sufficient evidence), but other verses confirm the truth of it.

10. Moral teachings are consistent throughout the New Testament. No one finds that lying and stealing are right in some situations but wrong in others; they are universally condemned. Paul does not allow adultery and fornication while Peter takes a dim view of such activities. Furthermore, not one writer of the New Testament was influenced by the culture of the day. John said that it was unlawful for Herod to have his brother Philip’s wife. No one later wrote that John was a bit hasty in confronting him with that fact.

If mere men had written the Bible (as Ehrman concluded), why does it have such a high moral and ethical standard? People divorced and remarried at will in those times (consider not only Herod but the woman at the well in John 4). People committed fornication and adultery (the woman of John 8 and the Samaritan woman again). Some practiced homosexuality (Nero was noted for it). So why call people to a religion that forbids all of those actions? Is that the way to be popular? Consider how many religious denominations today not only allow homosexuality but endorse homosexual “marriages” (a misuse of the word).

If there were no other proof that the Bible is from God, this observation would suffice. Not only do those in the world oppose the morality taught in the Scriptures, even Christians have a hard time with it. In the days of the apostles, some were teaching that freedom in Christ meant that one was free to sin (Rom. 6:1-4). Some said that what the body did had no effect on the soul and were leading astray those who had escaped from “the corruption that is in the world through lust” (2 Peter 2). The Bible is not written by men because they would not have vaunted holiness and purity (2 Cor. 7:1).

If the Bible were written merely by men, how do we account for the scientific truths revealed in it before mankind even discovered them? At the time Moses wrote Genesis, one of the leading theories was that man had evolved from the white worms in the Nile or that the world was hatched from a giant flying egg. Consider the creation in connection with Marduk who slew Tiamat, a goddess. According to Wikipedia, he

took his club and split Tiamat’s water-laden body in half like a clam shell. Half he put in the sky and made the heavens, and he posted guards there to make sure that Tiamat’s salt waters could not escape. Across the heavens he made stations in the stars for the gods, and he made the moon and set it forth on its schedule across the heavens. From the other half of Tiamat’s body he made the land, which he placed over Apsu’s fresh waters, which now arise in wells and springs. From her eyes he made flow the Tigris and Euphrates. Across this land he made the grains and herbs, the pastures and fields, the rains and the seeds, the cows and ewes, and the forests and the orchards.

Marduk set the vanquished gods who had supported Tiamat to a variety of tasks, including work in the fields and canals. Soon they complained of their work, however, and they rebelled by burning their spades and baskets. Marduk saw a solution to their labors, though, and proposed it to Ea. He had Kingu, Tiamat’s general, brought forward from the ranks of the defeated gods, and Kingu was slain. With Kingu’s blood, with clay from the earth, and with spittle from the other gods, Ea and the birth-goddess Nintu created humans. On them Ea imposed the labor previously assigned to the gods. Thus the humans were set to maintain the canals and boundary ditches, to hoe and to carry, to irrigate the land and to raise crops, to raise animals and fill the granaries, and to worship the gods at their regular festivals.

With all of these fanciful explanations, why did Moses choose to write, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1)? How did Moses know that the number of the stars was uncountable (Gen. 22: 17) when the telescope was not invented for 3,000 more years? How did the author of Job know that the earth was a sphere (Job 40:22)? How did David know about the paths of the sea (Ps. 8:8)? How did Isaiah know about the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Isa. 51:6; Heb. 1:10-12)? They obviously depended on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit rather than the wisdom of those who were their contemporaries. There are no textual variations that would cause a different reading on any of these verses.

If mere men wrote the Bible, they are totally deserving of two awards. The first goes to them for setting forth a plausible explanation of the universe. The origin and nature of the universe are described along with the nature and purpose of man. How mankind came into existence, along with his future after death—the Bible provides answers to all of the important questions of life. Most of all, it deals with sin, its consequences, and the redemption that is available to man through Jesus.

The second award, if men wrote these things under the power of their own wisdom, is for being Kings of Deception. First, they had to make up answers to the questions people have and then make them all harmonize throughout the Scriptures. Since the Bible was written over a period of 1,600 years, the latter writers had to figure out how to be consistent with those who lived 500 to 1,000 years earlier. And they all had to be in on the deception! This is the best conspiracy of all time! Imagine trying to provide hope for human beings when nothing occurs after death! What cruelty! And why do it when they would not be present to laugh at the duped? Who can believe it? The Bible is the Word of God, and was given by inspiration of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17). No inconsequential variations can persuade us otherwise.

Relative Morality

Possibly some watched the interview with Sean Penn (movie star/journalist) on 60 Minutes Sunday evening, January 17, 2016. If not, Penn has certainly been in the news recently since he had an interview with El Chapo, head of a Mexican drug cartel, who escaped from prison last year. According to Wikipedia, his full name is Joaquin Archivaldo Guzman Loera, but he usually goes by “shorty” (El Chapo) Guzman. He has been called “the most powerful drug trafficker in the world.” El Chapo was fond of a Mexican actress, and through her the interview was set up with Sean Penn. This arrangement that ensued may have subsequently led to the drug lord’s recapture.

All of those details furnish the background for the statement that Sean Penn made which was quoted on The O’Reilly Factor on Monday, January 11th. He said:

We are the consumer, and as such, we are complicit in every murder, and in every corruption of an institution’s ability to protect the quality of life for citizens of Mexico and the United States that comes as a result for our insatiable appetite for illicit narcotics. It’s a question of relative morality.

A normal reaction to these words would be, “What?” It seems that Penn is saying that the consumers who desire illegal narcotics are themselves guilty of the murders that El Chapo and others commit. If no demand existed for the drugs, all of those who have murdered others in an effort to enrich themselves would not have happened. Americans, then, who crave these drugs are responsible for the cartels’ wars against each other—as well as the war against the Mexican government and our own government.

Would it not be more appropriate to lay the blame at the doorstep of Greed (1 Tim. 6:10)? Making huge profits motivates cartels to produce and sell drugs. Yes, the buyers are also to blame, but many are enticed into beginning those habits by those seeking financial gain. The concept of relative morality is a farce. It is immoral to produce the drugs (knowing what they do to people); it is illegal to sell them; it is illegal to buy them. “Relative morality” means no morality and is a lame attempt to justify sin.

Was the Bible Composed by Men?

More and more people today are asserting that the Bible was either composed or altered by mere men; they refuse to believe that it is Divinely inspired. Anyone has the right to believe anything; however, the day shall arrive when all shall believe, know, and confess the truth. Yes, “every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:11). No one will have an excuse not to know that God exists—because the natural world declares it (Ps. 19:1-6; Rom. 1:18-20). The evidence for Jesus being His Son is abundant (John 20:30-31).

So what do critics complain of? To boil it down, the main criticism involves uncertainty. If God actually did in-spire the words first recorded on parchment, nevertheless, we do not have those originals; we have only copies of copies of copies of the ancient manuscripts. We have variations (thousands of them) in those manuscripts; so we know that sometimes a scribe added something to it or deleted something from it (whether intentional or accidental). At best, we have an altered original text. And then there is the problem of translation; some verses just may not be the equivalent of what the author intended. Furthermore, if the original texts have been altered by men, how do we know they were inspired in the first place?

These are challenging questions, but they do have honest and satisfactory answers. Do translations from the original languages vary? Sure, a few problems will always exist when going from one language to another. We have idioms in the English language that do not translate well into other languages. Imagine reading a translation of the English into some other language when one performer tells another who is about to go out on stage, “Break a leg.” What? How cruel! No one would have a reason to know that this is a phrase meaning, “Good luck.”

Jesus may have spoken in Hebrew at times or the more popular Aramaic to the Jews. But His words were writ-ten down in Greek and eventually translated into several other languages. So there probably will be variations. How-ever, these do not prove that the Bible is false. The very fact that we have differences simply throws more light on a given verse. A different shade of meaning may enrich our understanding; it does not change that which is true into something false.

One would think that one translation said that man was created on the sixth day while another translation had it a month later. No one disagrees on crucial in-formation that readers need which is vital to salvation. The fact is, however, that some translations are just not done very well, but when we study them, we find out the truth about them and quit using them.

For example, nearly every modern translation renders Exodus 20:7 this way: “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain…” (KJV, NKJ, ASV, NAS, RSV, ESV). But the NIV has, “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God….” Although that is a similar thought, it probably leaves a question in the mind of the reader: “What does it mean to misuse the Lord’s name?” But even with such a poor choice of words, no contradiction arises.

However, there are plenty of situations when violence is done to the text, and for that reason a person needs to be careful about which translation to use. With most reliable translations, sometimes an inferior rendering surfaces, but the more paraphrase-y one becomes, the worse it gets. In John 2:10, the master of the feast mentions that the guests had “well drunk” (KJV, NKJ), meaning that they had had their fill of the wine when they desired to. The ASV, NAS, RSV, and ESV say correctly they had drunk freely. The NIV erroneously chose to say: “after the guests have had too much to drink.” How shameful! This description makes it sound as though the guests had grown tipsy on alcoholic wine—something for which there is no basis in the text.

When unfortunate word choices do find their way into translations, they usually stand out, and those familiar with the Scriptures recognize them and protest against them. The RSV chose to replace virgin (as used by the KJV and the ASV) in Isaiah 7:14 with young woman. They were immediately called out on this aberration, and no legitimate translation (NAS, NKJ—even the NIV) since then has used anything but the proper word—virgin.

So even though some really bad translations occasionally make it into a major version, we have enough of them to discern what is right, and we also have word studies and a multitude of commentaries, all of which examine everything very closely. Thus, the claim that we are merely using translations and not the Greek text lacks sufficiency as a criticism.

Did God not know that Greek would not always be a universal language? God is the One who confused the languages at the Tower of Babel. Did He not know that eventually His Word would need to be in every language? Was not the Holy Spirit the One Who had the apostles speak in all the languages of those pre-sent on Pentecost? God knows all about languages and translations; even flawed versions contain enough truth to save people from their sins.

The problem with variations in manuscripts is a larger—but not an insurmountable—one. It is a fact that we do not have any of the original gospel accounts of Jesus’ life or any of the letters written by the apostles. Copy machines did not exist in the first century or for hundreds of years afterward. The printing press did not make mass reproduction available for nearly 1500 years. So, when an original was about worn out, one or more copies were made in order to preserve God’s Word.

This process does not sound like it would cause a huge problem, but now let’s look at the situation from the other end of the spectrum—from 2016. Some-where along the way, some individuals did not copy a manuscript correctly because we have variant readings. For example, in Revelation 1:5, there are two verbs that are very similar which show up in different manuscripts. One verb is lousanti, and the other is lusanti. Both verbs have the accent over the u; only the o is missing from the second word. It is not difficult to see how someone copying the text omitted an o.

The first word (lousanti) means “to wash.” Did Jesus wash us from our sins in His own blood? Yes; the concept is found in Acts 22:16, where Saul was told to arise and be baptized, and wash away his sins. The word translated “wash” there is the same verb but with the preposition apo in front of it. The second verb, lusanti, means “to loose.” Did Jesus loose us from the sins that had bound us? Yes. The word is not commonly used in that way, but it would be entirely appropriate to do so. So this variation is actually of no con-sequence. And the same is true of many others.

Bart D. Ehrman, in his book, Misquoting Jesus, argues that manuscript variations prove the Bible is from man and not God. He writes:

The more I studied the manuscript tradition of the New Testament, the more I realized just how radically the text had been altered over the years at the hands of the scribes, who were not only conserving scripture but also changing (207).

“Wow!” one wonders. “How many super blunders there must be in the Bible to have caused such a conclusion!” In the next sentence, however, he basically says that there wasn’t much:

To be sure, of all the hundreds of thousands of textual changes found among our manuscripts, most of them are completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance for anything other than showing that scribes could not spell or keep focused any better than the rest of us (emph. GWS, 207).

Then why all the fuss?

Previously Ehrman had said that most of the changes in manuscripts were “the result of mistakes, pure and simple—slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words…” (55). Yet one would think there were gigantic plots to alter the Scriptures the way he writes the remainder of the book. To be sure, those copying the New Testament had disadvantages that we have never experienced. Early manuscripts were written without any punctuation marks, without any distinction between capital or small letters, and without any spaces between the words (48). Probably they did not include pictures, either; so a copyist would be staring at a page full of letters.

An example of one word being mistaken for another is in 1 Corinthians 5:8, where Paul talks about the old leaven of wickedness (or evil). The Greek word is poneras, but a few manuscripts have porneias, which would be “sexual immorality” (90). The point is that we know that this second reading is inaccurate (not only because of the context) but because so many manuscripts have it correctly. Ehrman relates that the here-tic Marcion made changes in eleven books of the Bible, taking out references to the Creation. But the fact is, due to the 5,700 manuscripts that we have (88), we know what he did and do not trust his corrupted text.

The author of Misquoting Jesus quotes Origen, whose works date from the first half of the third century, as lamenting already the variations of the text in manuscripts. He accused some of making “additions or deletions as they please” (52). The point, however, is that men like him knew of the changes and thus could warn others and use their influence to preserve the best manuscripts.

According to Ehrman, there were all kinds of plots to change the New Testament text, but most of his claims are poorly substantiated and involve a great deal of supposition. One example will suffice—one he claims involved a “deliberate” attempt to make Jesus God. The text, 1 Timothy 3:16, reads as follows:

God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by Angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.

The big controversy revolves around if the first word above should be God or Who, with the implication that God replaced the original who to emphasize the Deity of Jesus. There is one such text (1 John 5:7-8), but we know that because of the abundance of manuscripts where those words were omitted. But here no evidence exists that any such attempt occurred. The two words look alike (when theos is abbreviated).

So which word belongs? Better manuscript evidence exists for who, but God fits the text better. But the choice of the word there essentially makes no difference since Jesus is God, and He was manifested in the flesh (John 1:1-3, 14).

Textual critics, however, should stick to the facts and quit trying to assign motives to those who copied manuscripts. Instead of assuming that an honest mistake was made, Ehrman feels obligated to charge, “Conspiracy,.” asserting that “the New Testament rarely, if ever, actually calls Jesus God” (114). Seriously? What does he think John 1:14 does, if not call Jesus God in the flesh? Has he never read Peter’s confession of Jesus’ Deity, the rock upon which the church is built (Matt. 16:16-19)? Did he somehow overlook Jesus identifying Himself as the “I AM” of Exodus 3:14 (John 8:58)? Is he unaware that Paul referenced Jesus’ equality with God (Phil. 2:5-8)? Has he somehow overlooked that Jesus was crucified for confessing His Deity (Mark 14:61-62)? These are just a few. References to the Deity of Jesus in the New Testament would fill up the rest of this column. No one needs 1 Timothy 3:16 to prove Jesus is God. Ehrman makes a baseless and frivolous accusation.

Another groundless assertion is that one or more scribes omitted Luke 23:34 (“Father, forgive them…”) because it was obvious (from the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70) that God had not forgiven the Jews. So they removed the verse. First, if that were the case, why did they leave in Stephen’s petition, “Lord, do not charge them with this sin” (Acts 7:60)? Second, Jesus’ prayer was answered. Three thousand repented and were baptized on Pentecost. Naturally, those who never repented were not forgiven, since repentance is always a condition. Stephen’s prayer was answered, also, when Saul of Tarsus, who held the garments of those who stoned him, was forgiven of his sins. No conspiracy amongst copiers of texts can be proven; the verse could have been omitted by accident. But, again, we have so many manuscripts that we know it belongs.

Is Ehrman’s conclusion valid? He writes:

Given the circumstance that he [God, GWS] didn’t preserve the words, the conclusion seemed inescapable to me that he [God, GWS] hadn’t gone to the trouble of inspiring them (211).

Basically, this statement argues that God does not know what He is doing. Perhaps He should have waited until the invention of the printing press to begin the New Testament era. However, we know Jesus came in the fullness of time (Gal. 4:4). Did God not know uninspired copyists would make errors? Of course, but the abundance of preserved manuscripts allows us to see them and compile a reasonable facsimile to the originals. But even if a word or two is under dispute, no contradictions occur. If someone added a verse that agrees with the remainder of the New Testament, it was unauthorized but still true. If someone removed a verse (even intentionally), plenty of others teach the same truth. One does not find adultery both accepted and condemned. Nowhere is the Deity of Jesus denied. Christians can be assured that the Bible we have is the truth.

What Are You All About?

When some are invited to worship with members of the church of Christ, they do not know what to expect. They might think we are some sort of Pentecostal group or perhaps even a cult of some kind, since so many exist today. New religious groups that no one has ever heard of seem to be popping up every day. But we are neither Pentecostal nor new; in fact, we simply call ourselves Christians. That may sound like a novelty in today’s religious climate, but the name is a Divinely-designated one dating back to the first century. The disciples of Jesus were called Christians first in Antioch (Acts 11:26).

What we call ourselves relates to what we are all about. Various religious groups are known for certain characteristics. The Roman Catholic Church, for ex-ample, is known for having a pope, being against abortion, and being steeped in traditions that extend back over 1,000 years. The Mormons have presented themselves as being very family oriented. Jehovah’s Witnesses are known for going door-to-door. Church-es of Christ should be known (if they are not) for their emphasis on truth.

If someone compared us to those listed above, they would observe that we oppose abortion, also, but our reason for doing so is based on what the Bible teaches. We are happy to observe God-instituted traditions (2 Thessalonians 2:15)—but not those invented by men (Matthew 15:8-9). We also stress family relation-ships, although it is not what we are most noted for. And we sometimes go door-to-door to reach people with the gospel—even though others have a greater reputation for doing so.

The fact is that the religious world is greatly divided and therefore confusing to anyone trying to figure things out. Someone who has the desire to love God and to please Him may not know where to start, since so many different ideas exist. If one were in a forest with heavy undergrowth, he might keep slashing every-thing in his way with a blade, or he might climb a tall tree to get a better perspective of the way out. That tree which will furnish the proper perspective is the reality which is found in the Bible.

Before someone argues, “But everyone uses the Bible, yet confusion reigns,” consider that God gave us the Holy Scriptures for a reason. “Your Word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path” (Ps. 119:105). God gave His Word so that we would be able to find the right path. So why are people wandering all over the place. The answer is not difficult to discern—the devil has sown seeds of error (weeds) in the Garden of Truth. The remedy is to read the Scriptures carefully and learn which is which. We must apply correct principles of reasoning to the Word of God.

God did not create mankind and then say, “Worship me however you feel like doing and live whatever way you want.” One may as well believe in a random universe that arrived here by chance because then the chaos would be understandable. No standard of right and wrong could exist under those conditions, and one person’s views would be just as valid as another’s. God has, however, given us a standard, and we have no excuse for not understanding it and applying it properly.

Take, for example, the moral issue of abortion. Is it right or wrong? Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land since January 22, 1973—nearly 43 years ago. More than 60,000,000 infants have been put to death since that time with the permission of our government. However, a higher authority than our government exists, as the Nuremburg Court declared when trying Nazis for war crimes. They did not violate German law when they put Jews to death, but they did violate a higher law—God’s.

The same is true with respect to abortion. While our Supreme Court may have legalized it (without any legal precedent whatsoever), the Bible considers that a “fetus” is a human being from conception. In the Old Testament, after Rebekah had conceived, it was told her that she had two nations in her womb (Genesis 25:22-26). If she had aborted the twins, Hitler would have had no Jews to persecute; they would never have come into existence.

In the New Testament, the fruit of Elizabeth’s womb leapt when Mary greeted her (Luke 1:41). If Elizabeth, who was “well advanced in years” (Luke 1:7), had elected to have an abortion because of the inconvenience, then John who prepared the way for Jesus by preaching truth and baptizing people, would never have been born. Worse yet, what if Mary had made that decision? No Lord and Savior of the world would have been born. Yet the same Greek word that refers to John in the womb is used to describe Jesus after birth (Luke 2:12, 16). So the Scriptures are clear on the subject of life within the womb, but some man-made churches support abortion. The only way to determine that they do not represent Christ is to know the Word.

Truth is the only foundation we have. We cannot simply speculate and offer opinions on a matter. We cannot use the writings of philosophers or theologians (who often err), nor can we depend upon the charismatic personality of a religious leader. The only way to arrive at the truth is through a sufficient knowledge of the Scriptures. Did not Jesus say so? “If you abide in My word,” He said, “you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32).

Jesus also said that true worshipers would worship God in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24). Therefore, it matters whether we are following the traditions of men or the New Testament. God designed worship to be spiritual rather than carnal. Worship is not something that God gives to mankind to please him; worship is what man gives to God in order to please Him. If a church has an orchestra and a mammoth choir, it may make for a great show for attendees, but it would not be worship offered to the Father. If a band comes in to rock the house, the beat may attract young people, but such performances are geared to the audience—not the Lord.

God, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit told us to sing and make melody in our hearts to the Lord (Ephesians 5:19)—not be wowed by semi-professional musicians and singing that brings forth goosebumps on our bodies. Simply singing praises that honor God from hearts devoted to Him is sufficient.

One way in which Jesus desired to be remembered was in what is called the Lord’s Supper. Originally, Jesus showed His disciples how to remember Him with the unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine in Mat-thew 26:26-29. Later, Paul reminds brethren to ob-serve the Lord’s death in all seriousness, discussing the subject in 1 Corinthians 11:23-29. Partaking of these two elements, which represent the Lord’s body and blood, is the way He said to remember Him. The church in the first century met together, in part, to do that very thing, as demonstrated in Acts 20:7. Why have so many churches de-emphasized the one thing that the Lord commanded? The truth regarding this practice is found in the Scriptures.

Because the Bible says, “Buy the truth, and do not sell it” (Proverbs 23:23), all of the messages presented involve many references to the Scriptures. Some people may find that odd. As a matter of fact, a woman and her boyfriend once visited a congregation in Den-ton, Texas—but after a few weeks, quit attending. A few months later, the two returned (at his insistence) and stayed. Eventually, we found out why they left. She had come from a very liberal church that seldom used more than one passage of Scripture for sermons, and she thought it was weird for people to be using the Bible so much. But the Bible is what God gave us. It is our only source of authority.

Three decades ago on a Donahue show, some members of the studio audience, as well as one person on stage, were members of the church of Christ. They were discussing a situation that had occurred and explaining that what was done was following the Scriptures. Near the close of the program, one woman in the audience spoke up: “These people are blinded by the Bible.” Apparently, she would have preferred the wisdom of men to the Word of God.

What apparently was intended as an insult actually proved to be a compliment, although most of us would not use the term blinded. What we would say is that we recognize that God’s Word is the final authority in all things regarding what we believe and how to live. Jesus told His apostles just before returning to Heaven: “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18). What He and His apostles taught, then, is the final word.

When two teams play football, they both have an authority to which they submit. One team cannot play by the rules of 1935 while their opponent is playing by the current rules, for there would be variations. Nor can one team make up their own rules as they go along. The game would be chaotic. Instead, the players, the coaches, the referees, and the fans all subscribe to the same authority.

The New Testament is our final authority for this era. It is the truth by which all mankind must abide. God did not give us permission to change His Words into something we might prefer. Paul wrote: “And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him” (Colossians 3:17). To act in the name of Jesus means by His authority.

Jesus went to the Scriptures for answers to questions or when establishing a principle. In talking about wicked men (some of whom He was facing at that very moment), He said, “Did you never read in the Scriptures…” and then He quoted from Psalm 118:22-23. When they perceived that He was talking about them, they became angry with Him (Matthew 21:41-45). The point, however, is that the Lord appealed to Scriptures for a prece-dent.

Some Sadducees tried to trap Him by talking about a woman who had married seven brothers (one at a time, after each husband died successively). They wanted to know which man’s wife she would be in the resurrection. Notice that Jesus answered: “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matthew 22:29). First, marriage is an earthly covenant for human beings—not one for angels or those who have been raised from the dead and changed into a spiritual body. Second, the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, but God has the power to raise the dead. Further-more, they did not know the Scriptures sufficiently, or they would have known that Abraham was still alive for God is the God of the living (Exodus 3:6, 15).

The New Testament is our authority in Christianity. If we do not know it, we will err just as the Sadducees did. If we do know it and follow it, we can please God (Mat-thew 7:21-27). Paul commended those in Thessalonica because when they received the gospel that he preached, they “…welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God…” (1 Thess. 2:13).

May all of us share in their attitude.

Why Are You Here?

Why are you here today? Of course, members of this congregation plan to be here (unless ill or traveling). Christians realize their obligation not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together (Hebrews 10:25). We come to offer up our worship to God, as well as to be edified and built up in the faith. We do not come to be entertained but to engage actively in worship.

You who are visiting, however, are here this morning because you have been invited by members, and we are all delighted that you have decided to come and worship with us this morning as we begin this gospel meeting. We are convinced that the messages presented will be relevant to you in this or any century. The gospel does not change, and all of us have the same spiritual needs that human beings have had since sin first entered the world. Some visiting this morning have already heard and obeyed the gospel, but some have not.

This morning’s message is: “Now That You Know, What Do You Do?” and it will be taken from the second chapter of Acts. Many people have some understanding of the concept of sin and our need of redemption but have never been taught the particulars regarding salvation. In fact, some have probably heard the erroneous idea that all a person needs is faith. Faith is certainly the starting point, but it is not all that one needs. If it were, then what did Jesus mean when He said, “Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3)? Obviously, more than faith is required. And when you find out what else is necessary, what will you do with that information?

The larger question is, “Why are you here?” period—on earth, that is. It’s a question we surely have all asked ourselves. Are we here only to go to school, get a job, marry, have children and then grandchildren, retire, and die? Or did God create us in His image (Genesis 1:26-28)? Do we need to seek Him? Having imparted to us the gift of life, does He have expectations for us? Is there a moral code we must follow? Does He expect us to serve Him and be grateful for what He has given us? The Bible answers these questions—and more. It has answers to the most important questions of life, including the origin of sin and why evil exists in the world. It will also tell you why you are here.

Christianity, the Religion of New Beginnings

Many religions are Fatalistic—that is, the overriding attitude of those who believe this way is, “Que Sera, Sera,” which was a song sung by Doris Day in Alfred Hitchcock’s movie, The Man Who Knew Too Much. [The song reached number two on American charts and number one in the United Kingdom the same year the movie was released—1956.] The phrase simply means, “Whatever Will Be Will Be.”

Is there some impersonal force guiding the world somewhere somehow? Or does life consist of random influences, subject to change when the wind shifts directions? Fortunes rise, and fortunes fall, and mankind is pretty much at the whim of Destiny or Fate. If such were true, then it would not really matter what a person thought or did because our choices would not really matter. The poet, Robert Frost, in “The Road Not Taken,” disagreed. His famous concluding lines are:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

One message of this poem is that, “Choice makes a difference.” O. Henry’s short story, on the other hand, portrays the opposite idea. In “Roads of Destiny,” the luckless poet, who is the main character, ends up dead no matter which of the three roads he travels. The poor fellow could not win for losing. Is doing evil the same as practicing righteousness? Do we really not have any choices of consequence in life?

The Bible proclaims that we do. Joshua gave Israel a choice that would affect their entire future (Joshua 24:14-15). They chose wisely initially, although future generations would choose to live foolishly. Previously, Moses had recorded a similar challenge:

“I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live” (Deut. 30:19).

Many years later, Ezekiel would write of God’s pleading with Judah to repent. Two waves of captivity had already occurred, and the third and final one was just a few years away. God said:

“Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel?” (Ezek. 18:31).

They were making the wrong choice—one that would result in famine, being put to death with the sword, or captivity. But the point is that they had a choice to make. God gave us the freedom to choose life or death, which means Fate has not locked us in.

When arising in the morning, one notices, while walking through the neighborhood, how renewed all things have become. The air smells fresh; dew is on the ground, and yesterday’s troubles seem distant. It’s a new opportunity to make better choices than the ones we made yesterday. We often think of beginning a new year with resolutions that are calculated to im-prove ourselves, but really that opportunity arises each day when we lift our heads off the pillow.

What is the sin that we are determined to give up once and for all? How much better are we going to be with respect to self-control? By how much are we going to improve our disposition? To what greater extent will we be thinking evangelistically? Will this be the day that we begin to be more thoughtful of others? Will we discover once and for all that, despite what external pressures and adversity come our way, we have the final say and can make the proper choices?

It would be depressing indeed to be a Fatalist—to have the view that no matter how hard we try, every-thing depends on Chance. Good decisions and good actions matter not at all. How much more positive it is to know that God works all things together for good to those who love Him (Rom. 8:28). Every day we have the opportunity to repent of sin, get our lives in order, and glorify God as He deserves. In the New Testa-ment we see new beginnings with many people who came in contact with Jesus.

Even though physical ailments may limit some choices, we still have them. Very early in His ministry, Jesus met (in a rather unusual manner) a man who was paralyzed. Finding it impossible to enter the house where Jesus was teaching, they transported the man to the roof, cut a hole in it, and lowered him into the presence of Jesus, where He made him able to walk again (Mark 2:1-12). Having that physical ailment removed gave the man many more choices in life than he possessed previously. He might now be able to labor in various jobs that required standing, walking, running, or lifting. He experienced a new beginning and hopefully learned the gospel as well.

The man who was born blind likewise obtained many more options in life. He could not only now see, but he defended Jesus as well before the Lord’s ene-mies (John 9). Lazarus (and others whom Jesus had raised from the dead) obviously received a new lease on life. How many people have departed from this earth wishing they had turned to God? Someday, they were going to obey the gospel, but someday never came. Someday, they planned to repent, but death came first.

Jesus benefited many people’s lives when He healed them of their physical infirmities. But even better served were those who made new beginnings in a spiritual way. Consider, for example, the woman at the well from John 4. She had been married five times and was currently living with a man who was not her husband (18). She seems to have been fairly astute and not altogether uninterested in spiritual matters. She asked where was the proper place to worship—on the mountain where they were talking or in Jerusalem.

She probably did not expect Jesus to say that the place would soon be unimportant—and that true worshipers would worship the Father in spirit and in truth (21-24). The woman apparently associated such a change with the coming of the Messiah. Was she surprised when Jesus identified Himself as that very individual (25-26)? She left her water pot behind, went into the city, and began announcing, “Come, see a man who told me all the things I ever did. Could this be the Christ?” (28-29).

Notice that she did not just return home and say to her “partner”: “A strange thing happened today at the well.” Then, after recounting the incident, she did not merely conclude, “I wonder if tomorrow will be as interesting.” Instead, the conversation with Jesus was a life-changing one. Jesus revealed things about herself to her that He had no way of knowing. He had not engaged her on the age-old question of where to worship but said it would no longer matter. He had confessed to being the Messiah. She not only became convinced of that fact; she happily communicated what she believed to others. She aroused such a curiosity in them that they went out to meet Jesus themselves, which caused them to be even more convinced than they already were (39-42).

What happened to this woman? We do not see her again—that we know of. It would be devastating to our image of her if she went back to living immorally after having come face to face with the Messiah—although more than a few individuals have chosen fleshly companionship over the blessings of Heaven in their “gold-en” years when they were not far from eternity. Others have rejoiced greatly about having the opportunity for a new beginning—only to later reject it. Perhaps she eventually became one of the women who followed along with Jesus and His disciples. Or she may have remained in Samaria, living independently, and remaining one of the faithful there. No one wants to imagine that she squandered her opportunity for a fresh start.

The same situation exists for another nameless woman who was apparently overwhelmed by the per-son and character of Jesus. The account occurs in Luke 7:37. The text only says that she was a sinner in the city and that others knew of her reputation. Considering the times, this description might suggest that she was a harlot. She knew where Jesus was, and apparently she knew Who He was, also. Although the text does not explain it this way precisely, it implies that she went to the Pharisee’s house because she wanted to repent. She brought with her “an alabaster flask of fragrant oil” (37). She

stood at His feet behind Him weeping; and she began to wash His feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head; and she kissed His feet and anointed them with the fragrant oil (38).

The only explanation that comes to mind for her behavior is that she realized that she was in the presence of One Who was genuinely holy. Even the thought of the Lord’s purity—compared to her own sinfulness and corruption was enough to reduce her to tears. If anyone ever felt the need to repent, it was this woman. Simon the Pharisee failed to see the spiritual tenderness that was occurring before his eyes. He was critical in his thoughts; he could only see her as a sinner—not some-one who was at the beginning of a new life (39).

Jesus points out to him his deficiencies (40-46). Then of the woman Jesus made a pronouncement: “Therefore I say to you, her sins, which are many are forgiven…” (47). He further said to her, “Your sins are forgiven” (48). What joy must have filled her heart! It may be that this guarantee was more than she had hoped to receive. Whatever she was guilty of had been forgiven—and by a righteous man—even the Son of God. He spoke one last assurance to her: “Your faith has saved you. Go in peace” (50). No matter how badly one has sinned, Jesus stands ready to grant forgiveness and a new life to the spiritually downtrodden.

For little children Zacchaeus is famous for being “a wee little man,” a fact which is worth noting. Because he wanted to see Jesus, he climbed up into the sycamore tree that everyone has heard about. He got more than what he wanted: Not only did he see Jesus, but even more importantly Jesus saw him—and did an unusual thing; He invited Himself to stay at Zacchaeus’ house. The tax collector was elated rather than being offended, and he received Him joyfully (Luke 19:6).

The negative-thinking, critically-minded Jews, instead of seeing this as a great opportunity, were insulted. How despicable was it to go to the home of one who collected taxes and probably stole money from honest folks! Jesus does not defend Zacchaeus as he did the sinful woman. The man short in stature proved to be tall in faith, and he spoke for himself. He not only was going to give half his goods to the poor, he would restore four times as much of anything he had stolen. How could the opponents of Jesus say anything negative about that? Jesus said, in light of Zacchaeus’ intentions, “Today salvation has come to this house…” (9). The tax collector saw an opportunity for a fresh start and took it. How blessed would everyone be who embraced Jesus and His teachings, choosing a new beginning.