Why Should We Accept the Factuality of the Old Testament?

Posted by John on January 1, 1997 under Articles

Many people accept the idea of God but do not accept the God revealed in the Old Testament. They do not believe in the factual nature of the Old Testament. Will being “a church that does good and has nice people in it” convince anyone? No, for this could describe any humanitarian organization such as the Lion’s Club, etc. What about the argument that the world was created? No, that merely shows the reasonableness that a God exists. It does not tell which God or describe that God in detail. What is needed is some way to test the factual nature of the Old Testament.

THE OLD TESTAMENT IS EVENT-CENTERED

First, Not all religions are event-based. Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, etc., are all “teachings” that are not based in any historical events in the same way the Old Testament is. There is not this string of people, places and things like in the Old Testament narratives. Further, the “gods” of these religions do not “enter history” as the God of the Bible does. Being event-based is important because if a writing claims to be true historically, then it’s contents should be verifiable as far as one is able to check.
(Note: an excellent resource to contrast world religions is The Compact Guide to World Religions, by Halverson, ed.)

Second, as with any world view, it will ultimately rest on faith. But it will not be blind faith. It will be faith founded on fact. And if the God of the Bible is the true One, then faith is the key principle (Hebrews 11).

HISTORICAL ARCHEOLOGY IS THE KEY METHOD

First, it is not physical/biological science that gets the starring role in evidences. Many seem to think that physical/biological science is the star because this is how the case for creation is established. However, showing creation to be logical doesn’t say one thing about the truth of the Old Testament narratives to the contrast of other world views. As such, the physical/biological sciences are very limited as evidence.

Second, historical events require historical verification. Artifacts, papers, and reason all enter into the picture. So, archeological evidences are superior to those from the “creation sciences” to establish faith in the factuality of the Old Testament.

Outstanding Old Testament events include not only creation but also the Flood, Tower of Babel, Call of Abraham, the Egyptian sojourn and EXODUS, the Sinai –event, conquest, kingdom, captivity and return narratives. All these are packed with names of people, places and cultural color. Does archeology verify the Old Testament along these lines?

As a side note: First, the use of the term “verify” is used in the place of “proof” because none of us were present to actually see or witness the events (which would be “proof” for us). We are limited to just making checks at available points along the line. If a number of these checks pan out, then we have reason to believe in the factuality of the document. Hence, we verify points along the line rather than “prove the entire line”. Second, there is always some uncertainty in the “facts” we gather. This does not mean our facts are worthless, it means that everything has a specific level of certainty associated with it. Facts are just items that have a high degree of certitude to them. Third, to establish a case, we always wish that more pieces of the puzzle were available. For example, even if one had a 100 piece puzzle of the Statue of Liberty and 12 pieces were missing in a random way, one could still “get the picture” with a good degree of certainty but we naturally wish all the pieces were present. The same holds true for any type of investigation.

WHAT ARE SOME ARCHEOLOGICAL VERIFICATIONS?

First, it is important to note that faith is in the picture. It will be faith in the testimony of the archeologists that guide us. And there are three very good works in this area that any library would benefit from having. They are (1) The New Unger’s Bible Handbook, revised by G.N. Larson, (Moody Press). This is an excellent work. It surveys the Bible and gives archeological “finds” that help illuminate the text. There is much use of color photos/charts and maps. (2) Genesis and Archeology, by Howard F. Vos, (Moody). Even though it contains B/W pictures, it still is very informative and easy to read. (3) Archeology and Bible History, by Free and Vos, (Zondervan). This is an up-to-date work by noted archeologists/scholars. It follows the Bible-line of history and that makes it very useful. The work is in-depth and authoritative.

CASE STUDIES

Sodom and Gomorrah:
1. Genesis 14 tells of five cities around the Salt Sea that are located close to tar pits. It is a fact that oil-based material does appear in considerable quantities around the southern end of the Dead Sea.^{1, 2a} As such, today no one wants to live there. But excavations have shown that the area was densely populated in the past.³ Further, Josephus, the Jewish historian, writing at the end of the first century, said that traces of the five cities could still be seen at that time.^2b This is independent, corroborative, testimony that verifies the Bible statement of cities being around the southern end of the Dead Sea.
2. The area also contained lots of salt, free sulfur (“brimstone”) and oil deposits. Coupled with earthquakes common to the area, this could account for the origin of the fire and brimstone “raining down from heaven.”⁴ While there are still many details to be worked out, it is clearly seen that the Bible statements do have a factual base. Hence, faith in the story of Gen 14 and 19 are fully justified.
The Bitter Waters of Marah:
In Ex 15:23 it is stated that the Israelites could not drink the water because it “was bitter.” How can water be “bitter”? Does this statement have a basis in fact? Yes, most certainly. When water is “bitter” it usually contains dissolved minerals. These are some of the same kind found in well water–calcium and magnesium. How can “bitter water” be made “sweet” (un-bitter)? Maybe the “tree” that Moses threw in had some property that could “catch” all the minerals responsible for making the water bitter. Some forms of cellulose (a constituent of wood) are able to work in this way and are used to “soften” water today.⁵ We do not know what actually occurred, but we can be confident that what is being told is not some fable. The writer of the story made true observations that are backed up by current knowledge. In short, the testimony rings true.
The Ark:
Using the measurements of the ark given by the Bible and the average distance of a cubit, engineers have calculated the size, stability and design of the ark. It is now know that these are not just haphazard numbers that some story-teller might have cooked up, but that they show the sign of intelligent design.⁶
The Exodus:
Here is where the story goes in a different direction. First, it is standard knowledge that the Egyptians had many “gods” and that even the Pharaoh was a “god.” Second, common sense tells us that no nation is going to build monuments that brag about how they got defeated, especially if was by a bunch of their slaves!! And this would even be more difficult to admit if the very “gods” of their nation were defeated (and they were)! Hence, one would naturally expect the Egyptians to actually “say nothing” of the Exodus. It can almost be imagined that it would be a political mistake to erect a monument or build some sort of Egyptian “billboard” (technical: stela) to that effect. Further, it would be expected that if anything was said about the Hebrews, it would be sarcastic. What is expected is actually what is observed. No monuments or discussion of the Exodus have been found. The Egyptians literally kept their mouths shut about it. However, in the context shown, their silence speaks loudly!

Later on, where Israel is mentioned in an Egyptian monument, it is a “put down.” For example, in the case of Merneptah,⁷ the successor of Ramesses II, he boasted of his victory over the people of Palestine (and he names Israel). The monument of this victory has a sarcastic tone to it as per Israel. After the Exodus and “overthrow” of Egyptian gods, the sarcasm toward Israel is perfectly reasonable.

Hence, it is seen that Egyptians report and boast of victory and are silent as a graveyard about defeat! Nothing in archeology contradicts the Old Testament record as per the Exodus.

WHAT IS THE CONCLUSION OF THE MATTER?

First, Nelson Glueck, the renowned Jewish archeologist, said that “it may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference” (from Rivers in the Desert; History of Neteg. Philadelphia: Jewish Publications Society of America, 1969, page 31).

Second, Wm. F. Albright, another highly respected archeologist, has this to say “. . . discovery after discovery have established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history” (from The Archeology of Palestine. Rev. ed. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Pelican Books, 1960).

Third, the two men mentioned above are not known to be conservatives, hence their testimony carries greater weight.

So, we can have full confidence in the Old Testament as history. Faith can be founded on fact and not feeling.

REFERENCES

Vos, Howard F., Genesis and Archeology, Chicago: Moody
Whitson, Complete Works of Flavius Josephus. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1963 (a) “Antiquities 1:9”, (b) “Wars of the Jews” 4:8.4
Free and Vos, Archeology and Bible History, revised ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992 (p. 52)
Unger, The New Unger’s Bible Handbook, Chicago: Moody, 1984 (pp. 23, 52)
Stock and Rice, Chromatographic methods, Chapman and Hall, 1967
Reference available on request. It contains the calculations by an engineer as per the ark and includes tests of stability for water vessels.
Pfeiffer, Charles ed., The Biblical World, Grand Rapids: Baker (p. 380ff)

Why Do Some Reject the World View of the Old Testament

Posted by John on under Articles

Why do people not accept the Old Testament world view as truth? Those who do accept the message of the Old Testament as truth, it is the very foundation for life and understanding the New Testament writings (Rom 15:4, Hebrews). But for others it is the foundation for nothing.

WHY DO SOME NOT BELIEVE?

First, many believe that the idea of God is just a human concoction. That is, God is just inferred in order to explain “mysteries.” These people point out that all religions have this one thing in common. Hence, writings, sacred books, etc., are all based on human imagination or ideas.

The above is not totally false. The idea that a God exists comes from the human mind. How else could it come about? Man sees nature, man infers, man concludes . . . that is the way man learns about the surety of God’s existence (Rom 1:19ff).

It is also true that many, like Shirley MacLaine, have written books that tell about having contact with a Someone “out there.” Plus the cults have their sacred books. The Greeks had their whole team of gods and wrote about them. So, it is also true that men have created writings to go along with their “religious” claims. Often it is not the idea that God exists that is disputed but the factuality of the Old Testament that is disputed. It is simply lumped together with all other “sacred books” and labeled “myth.”

Second, there is this thing of personal autonomy. That is, the desire to rule one’s self. In general, everyone wants to have his/her own way on a matter. It is hard to submit to authority, admit mistakes, and “line up” with how someone else sees it. Everyone has a natural desire to do things that are right in one’s own eyes. To believe in the Old Testament world view would put one into a dilemma because, in the Bible, it is an act of rebellion against God to follow one’s own self instead of submitting to God (Jer 17:15, Prov 3:7, Deut 12:8; and the case of Nadab and Abihu, Lev 10:1-3). So, to keep one’s independence, the Bible is simply rejected as are all other types of religions that are authority-based.

Third, there is this tension between the wrath of God and the love of God that affects people. On a recent program of “48-Hours,” George Carlin, the cynic comic, explained to the audience the “absurdity” of God. He tells them that there is this invisible man up there that watches everything you do. And that He has 10 things you ought not do . . . because if you do them He will send you to a screaming, burning Hell forever . . . (Carlin pauses) . . . and then this God tells you He loves you!! Of course, there were rounds of laughter and applause. To believers, Carlin is a fool, but to the audience he is wise. How can Carlin’s view of God be changed? What about his audience? If they see good works being done by the church would that prove that the God of the Bible is real and that the Old Testament is factual? No. What if they hear a sermon on self-esteem? Of course not. Will seeing “vibrant worship” do it? Hardly. What about preaching about the God revealed in the Old Testament? No. Nothing will change until Carlin and others believe in the factuality of the Old Testament . . . only then can you “talk content.”

Fourth, some sincerely ask why doesn’t God just speak to us directly as He did in the Old Testament. Why does He hide Himself if He really wants us to believe? So, this “hide-and seek” stuff really frustrates people and makes them just say, “Forget it!” We understand their frustration.

Fifth, there is this thing of not being able to find the truth on a religious matter. Since everyone thinks differently, because of his/her environment it is argued, that prevents them from ever agreeing on anything. That is, one’s outlook can never be changed by facts. Hence, one world view, religion, or expression of Christianity is just as valid as another. So, the “search is off” as far as looking into the world view of the Old Testament and finding out what it really says. Islam, Samaritanism, Mormonism, Deism, Animism, etc., are all equally valid expressions of man’s search for God-based outlooks pre-determined by culture. (This whole issue is called Post-modernism, and religious Pluralism is its fruit.)

MORE REASONS TO DOUBT

Some have heard either shaky evidences to prove the truth of the Old Testament or some laughable teachings that are supposedly what the Old Testament says that have caused doubt to prevail.

example 1) Isaiah 40:22 says that God sits above the circle of the earth. Many of us have heard this quoted as “proof of inspiration” because it foretold the ball shape of the earth before its discovery. But plates are round . . . and flat. If the earth had this shape, God could still sit above the “circle of the earth” and look down. The point is that we are dealing again with picture-language and it is stretching it to make it say something about the shape of the earth. Remember, the Old Testament is to make us wise unto salvation and not wise as to how the universe goes (2 Tim 3:15).

example 2) One of the more recent and sincerely taught ideas is that before Adam sinned there was no death of any living thing on this planet. This means that in the garden nothing died. Think about this. If Adam stepped on a roly-poly bug or ant or grub or worm, it would not die. There would be no food chains where big fish eat smaller fish etc. In fact, there would be no “humus” in the garden because it is decaying organic matter! The people that teach this are those involved in the Institute for Creation Science. Dr. Henry Morris is one of the leading expositors of this view. This is another case of “stretching it” too far as per the language of Genesis.

example 3) Sincere people say that they have found Noah’s ark. Maybe. But according to Dr. Harvey Porter, a respected archeologist and Christian, no archeologist of repute is an “arkeologist” or gives credence to their claims. The fact of the flood is not being disputed . . . it is the finding of the ark that is being questioned. In fact, the recent television program “In Search of Noah’s Ark” was found out to be filled with fraud. This made national news. “Bogus facts” do not help the cause.

example 4) The local newspaper here ran a section asking local ministers to give reasons why they believe in God. Some were good but others were dreadfully shallow. One preacher used most of his space to talk of his trip to Scotland and then told us that he believed in God because he saw a rainbow and that only God could make a rainbow. Actually kids in the backyard with a water-hose can make a rainbow. And that is probably what most people came up with. So the “evidence” fell flat as a flitter. When presenting evidences to the public, we need to spend time on the topic and get to the point.

example 5) Most of us who were in college about 25 years ago probably heard about N.A.S.A. computer experts finding the “missing day of Joshua.” This writer remembers trying to locate more information on the subject. It seems like every church bulletin and preacher mentioned it. It turned out to be a hoax (probably made by the same people that cooked up the “Search Noah’s Ark” T.V. special). We’ve got to make sure that what we say can be documented and is backed by competent research.

THE CHURCH NEEDS TO BE MORE AGGRESSIVE IN LAYING DOWN REASONS TO BELIEVE

First, the problem today is UNBELIEF. So preaching God to the lost, letting them see our good works, being a good neighbor to the community, having lectureships on the family and marriage, etc., PROVE NOTHING and DO NOTHING to lay a solid foundation for having a faith based on fact. True, the church is to be full of “good works” (Eph 2:10), but a cornerstone of the edifice has been left out . . . and that is preaching the FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE BIBLE!!

Second, people will believe something. Everyone has a world view. It is an act of faith. But some world views are not EVENT-BASED as the Old Testament is. In fact, the Judeo-Christian religion is unique by having a historical base. Our God acted in real-life and things were recorded and can be looked into. Being event-based, it is an umbrella for people, places, and things. We CAN assemble facts and establish reasons for faith.

Third, the church around here has focused on ” being a good neighbor” and providing a “place where visitors see how warm we are.” We also want to preach “hope.” People need “hope.” But “hope must have its reasons.” We are hitting all these important areas to the virtual . . . abject neglect of providing REASONS TO BELIEVE! Sure, someone may “join our club” by getting wet in the water but is it BLIND FAITH that motivates them? Is it responding to “warm fuzziness” or FACTS? (Please do not misunderstand . . . congregations need to be warm and have a sense of community, but if this is the hook to get them in, then our hook is just “warmer” than the cult down the street. The issue is DO WE HAVE A FACTUAL BASIS FOR EXISTING?? People need to know!)

Fourth, someone has said that a faith unexamined is not worth having. That is true. But the current movement of the church today is to dish out to the public a teaching that they are expected to swallow without giving them any solid evidence that it is the truth. Hence, if they respond, they have an unexamined faith. And what if the “warm-fuzziness” of the congregation fizzles? Then those people are gone. They had no roots. They never were shown that what they believed is backed up by evidence as is no other religion. Church leaders need to get their head out of the “warm-fuzzy” sand and act on the reality of the present situation.

CONCLUSION

This article has tried to show why some refuse to believe in the Old Testament world view and that some still doubt because they have heard very inadequate reasons for believing. Finally, it is advised that the church here (and elsewhere) get to the task of challenging unbelief and providing reasons to believe to those who are lost.

Short Answers to 10 Common Questions

Posted by John on under Articles

Mode of baptism? (New Testament written in Greek) Greek words are:* rhantizo = sprinkle* cheo = pour
* baptizo = immerse

Which word does God specify in the Great Commission (Mt 28:18-20)?
We follow Christ and His teachings and not the Old Testament teachings (Matt 28:20)?* OT points to Christ (Col 2:16, 17)* OT only a shadow of the true (Heb 10:1)
* Hence, the first (OT) in order to set in place the second (NT) [Heb 10:9]

* Apostles taught the teaching of Christ (Matt 28:20, Acts 2:42)

* The Sabbath, special priesthood, instrumental music all were a part of the OT system and are replaced with what they pointed to.
Instrumental music?
1. no one who read the NT for 500 years got the idea that God asked for it.
2. the Greek Orthodox Church still hasn’t found it even though they read the NT in the original Greek language like we read a newspaper (this can be documented). Hence, they sing acapella.

* God specifically asked for it in the OT (2 Chron 29:25, 26).

* God never asked for it in the NT. If so, where is the passage?

* Pope Vitalian (a mere man) put it in about 500 years after the church was established and under much protest (this can be documented). This proves that:

* If God is our Father, then He would like our love and trust. Shall we trust Him and give Him just what He asked for or what we ask for and want? (see 1 Cor 4:6).

* note the CONTRAST between what God asked for in OT worship and what He asked for in NT worship as per music.

One-man pastor system?
* Apostles put “elders” (plural) in churches (Acts 14:23)

* Titus 1:5 gives qualifications for installing “elders” (plural).

* Acts 20:17ff elders = overseers (NAS, bishops) = shepherds (Greek = pastor) therefore, all the same people = Group of pastors.

* Church has teachers that ought to be paid (Gal 6:6). They are commonly known as “preachers.” They are not the one-man pastor of the church. Yet, a teacher may be one of the pastors (1 Tim 5:17)

* Elders are men not women (Matt 10:2, Titus 1:6, 1 Tim 3:2)

* Men teach the assembled church (1 Tim 2:11ff, 1 Cor 14:34ff)

* Men and women may work together to tutor a person (Acts 18:26)
Lord’s Supper on the Lord’s Day is the NT practice?* LS is a memorial to the death of Christ for our sins* The first day of the week is a memorial to His Resurrection = Lord’s Day
* The two events (death + Resurrection) are tied together (2 Cor 15:3, 4 and Rom 4:25); therefore, the memorials that reflect those events are logically tied together. And this is the practice seen in Acts 20:7. What other practice reflects the gospel like this one ? What other day would fit?

* Taking the LS each Lord’s Day, 52 times a year will cause a person to focus on what Christ has done for him on the cross and its verification by the Resurrection. This is result in true worship.

* Records from early church history confirm that the standard practice was to take the LS each Sunday (see E. Ferguson, Early Christians Speak)
A “falling away” will occur. False doctrine will creep in and make changes?* Some will draw away disciples (Acts 20:30)* We must “hold fast” the traditions delivered to the early church (2 Thess 2:15). This means to contend for the faith that was once delivered (Jude 3).
* There can be no fellowship with those who want to change the apostolic teachings (Rom 16:17-18)

* THE CHURCH IS TO STAND FOR THE TRUTH as delivered (1 Tim 3:15)

* Church history give dates when the above practices (1-5) were changed by human wisdom (and with much controversy).
Jesus is the “way, truth, and life” and exclusive way to God, the Father?* statement made (Jn 14:6)* belief in Him is necessary or one will not follow Him as the way (Jn 12:46)
* the way is not easy (Matt 16:24)

* but Jesus gives an invitation to come and bring your burdens (Matt 11:28)

* discipleship involves belief, repentance and is initially declared in baptism (Matt 28:19)
Who is Jesus?* The true light (John 1:9)* He reveals God to us as God really is (Jn 1:18)
* He is “one with God” (John 14:10, Col 1:19)

* Full of grace and truth (1 Jn 1:14)

* King of Kings, Lord of Lords (Rev 19:18)

* Based on the above, He is ALL-AUTHORITATIVE in matters of religion (Matt 28:18)
True Discipleship?* thinks like Jesus thinks (Phil 2:5).* follows His teachings (Matt 28:20, Lk 6:46)
* His teaching = the very words of God (John 8:28)

* Our goal = Jesus’ goal = to always please God (Jn 8:29, Jn 6:38)

* Seeks to glorify God and not self (Jn 8:50)

* If one believes, he obeys (John 3:36)

* But our obedience springs out from LOVE FOR JESUS (John 14:23). This is the bottom-line.
Human wisdom is insufficient as a guide in matters of religion?* God’s thoughts are not man’s. It is best, therefore, to hear God on a matter or learn what pleases God (Isa 55:8-9).* In fact, what seems right to man may be that which leads to death (Prov 14:12)
* It is not in man to direct his own steps (NIV, Jer 10:23)

* Example: water won’t cleanse leprosy but God told Namaan to dip in water to be clean (2 Ki 5: 1-4). Only faith and trust in God effected his cure. He obeyed God and the leprosy left.
God wants man to respect His word and not change it?
Ex: if God specifies “baptizo,” then immerse.
Ex: if has a design for the worship of the church that contrasts with the design of OT worship, then respect the design.
Ex: if God makes love for Him and love for man the basic foundation for our actions, then let’s not make “mere duty” the basis.

* do not put words in God’s mouth or remove words from what He says (Deut 4:2, 5:32)

* do not go beyond what has been written . . . God has spoken! (1 Cor 4:6).

* those who speak for God expect their word to remain unaltered (Rev 22:18)

Jesus’ Words = Apostle’s Words?* They taught people how to do (observe) what Jesus commanded (Mt 28:18-20)* Jesus’ Word = God’s Word and He gave it to them (apostles) (John 8:28, 17:8)
* The apostles would be guided into all truth (John 14:26, 16:13, 14)

* Apostolic Word authority (1 Cor 2:11-13, 1 Cor 14:37, 2 Thess 2:15)

Proving a World View

Posted by John on under Articles

EVERYONE HAS A WORLD VIEW

Each and every person has a world view. This means that personal observations have been made about the world, its problems, the ultimate questions of origins, etc. And around this set of observations is wrapped a viewpoint that ties together and explains the observations. This is a world view. What are some facts about world views?

First, world views come in many colors. There is the theistic view, deistic view, pantheistic view, and even those who claim no world view, but to simply exist and “go with the flow,” have a “chaotic”world view.

Second, all world views have one major thing in common and that is they all are acts of faith and not results of absolute proof.

Third, world views also have one other thing in common. They all attempt to explain observables. For example, design in nature is an admitted fact. The world view of the Biblical writers and even the Islamic writers explain such design as an act of creation by a Supreme Being. The naturalistic world view explains it as a result of mere chance. Both are faiths wrapped around observations.

WHOSE VIEW IS CORRECT?

How do you “prove” a world view? First, a world view must have explanatory power to tie together a large set of observations. Does it explain why specific things happen/not happen in the world? Does it answer the ultimate questions such as a person’s origin, purpose and destiny?

Second, does it continue to touch base with accepted fact? That is, upon further examination, does it “square” with more observables? For example, is there any factual base for the “Tower of Babel” or the city of “Ur”? Is there any factual base for the Mormon view of history as presented in the Book of Mormon? How the written records of those holding specific world views check out with archeological findings could help firm up one view over another.

Third, is the view coherent? Does the whole system have internal consistency. That is, when the Bible is studied as a whole, with different writers of different backgrounds forming its content, is there is a unity in message and purpose seen? Are there internal contradictions? (This does not mean that everyone cannot use different words in describing an event or teaching or even write with differing degrees of precision.) It is a well known fact that no one has been able to show a bona fide contradiction in the Bible. Those who have tried have been ably answered. Such is not the case with the Mormon writings (cf. Mormonism: Shadow or Reality, by Gerald and Sandra Tanner).

Also, the idea of unity does not mean that there are not some “fuzzy areas” in the system. For example, our present understanding of chemistry is based on a core of accepted truths. But there are some areas that are not clear and are really “above and beyond” the ability of most chemists to understand. Chemists call this the “land of nebulosity.” More thought and research may bring out new truths that tie up the present loose ends. But none of this argues against an overall internal unity in the discipline. The same is true of any other world view. The existence of “fuzzy areas” do not argue against its overall consistency. In Christianity, the inability to comprehend the “Trinity” does not argue against it.

WHY MUST ACCEPTING A WORLD VIEW BE AN ACT OF FAITH?

First, because a person does not have the time or resources to examine each and every world view, selecting one must be an act of faith. This also means that a person could lose faith in one view and accept another that explains things better. This is exactly what happened to the Tanners listed above. They lost faith in Mormonism because they found outright cover-ups in Mormon history etc. So, after accepting by faith a specific world view, one must constantly examine it in light of known facts and its ability to explain those facts.

Second, as per the biblical world view, it tells one straight out that it is a walk of faith and not sight. For if the God of the Bible is the “true God” then this is the precise way to please Him (Heb 11). So, we sit about where Theophilus sat (Luke 1:3). Our faith must come from hearing testimony and not seeing attendant miracles (Rom 10:17).

The blessing comes by faith, not sight (John 20:29). It is faith from start to finish (Rom 1:17).

THE PROBLEM OF FAITH

Much is made by skeptics of the fact that Bible believers “walk by faith.” We all “walk by faith and not sight” in even the acceptance of “common knowledge.” For example, in everyday life most of us “goose-step” to what “they say.” You know the story . . . “they say” that eating rice with oranges will give you a headache . . . so we avoid that practice. “They say” you cannot mix motor oils so we make sure that isn’t done. “They say” oat bran helps prevent cancer . . . so, we buy oat bran. Even the most die-hard skeptic can be found at the grocery store buying corn flakes with oat bran in it. And on it goes. Another example is from the teaching of Chemistry. Most all chemistry books report that the nucleus of the atom was “discovered” by Rutherford by shooting “bullets” at gold foil. It is doubtful that the writer of the text actually observed the event. It is even doubtful that his teacher observed it. But we all believe that someone saw it and made an accurate report of the event.

Our position in chemistry is that of belief in testimony as per most of what is accepted as fact. Further, about all anyone can say that would not involve belief would be “I am a something . . . but I know not what.” This is where “walking by absolute certainty” leads a person. And you don’t find many people running out into the front of a roaring Mack Truck screaming, “It’s only a dream. It’s only a dream!!” No, most everyone tends to believe that what’s “out there” is real and not imagined. We all walk by faith and what we accept as “fact” is more than likely based on the testimony of some remote source.

HOW CAN THE BIBLICAL WORLD VIEW BE TESTED?

First, does it touch base with accepted historical fact? That means, if it mentions a city, people, king, etc., is there anything that backs up the claim? For example, Ezra 4:10 mentions the name of a “good Osnapper” (RSV). Did this person exist? Is there any “out there” stuff on him? Yes. The name itself is an Aramaic form of Ashurbanipal, the once King of Assyria. Around 1852-53, Hormuzd Rassam discovered the famous Ashurbanipal library. Here, the Old Testament writings “touched base” with reality. Another interesting example is that the river Ulai was not known except by being mentioned in the book of Daniel (8:2). Later it was found in the Assyrian inscriptions associated with Ashurbanipal.

Second, the Biblical view is that at one time in man’s early history that a great flood wiped out all except one man and his family and what animals they could save. Common sense, says that this story would have been handed down for generations to come. It is also reasonable that as men drifted away from God that the stories would become corrupted. It would be expected that records of the story would have been kept that would actually pre-date Genesis.

Within the Ashurbanipal library were found writings that describe a man who was separated from humanity by his good qualities. He was instructed to build a boat. Exact details were given to him to build the boat. Other people and animals were to enter the boat and those left outside would be destroyed. Birds were released to see if the waters had receded (doves and ravens). Finally after coming out of the boat a sacrifice was made by the man to the gods and a “sweet smell” went up to the gods (cf. Gen 8:21). This surely sounds familiar! Of course, the existence of this story in a pagan land does not prove the Bible story true, but how it originated is clearly explained by the Biblical world view. It is actually an “undesigned” coincidence that something in the Bible and in the Assyrian library would cross paths. This makes our world view firmer.

Third, another interesting item in the biblical picture is that before the flood men seemed to live much longer than those after the flood.

Does this find any verification in archeology? The Sumerian Prism is an artifact of very early civilization in Mesopotamia, the cradle of civilization, according to the biblical view. There is a statement on the block of rock (prism) that says that a flood swept over the earth. Then the rock is divided by a line into two sections — pre-flood and post-flood. The life spans of those kings before and after the flood are listed. And there is an obvious difference. Those before the flood lived decidedly longer. This a weighty piece of evidence that even points to a real “flood event.”

Fourth, there are many, many more places that the Bible mentions that can be verified. Interestingly, such is not the case with the world view contained in the Book of Mormon. Mormon scholar and defender of the faith, Thomas Stuart Ferguson, spent a good deal of his life trying to find something that would give credence to the history portrayed in the Book of Mormon. His conclusion? There are no artifacts, etc., “because it is fictional and will never meet the requirements of dirt-archeology.” Note this contrast with the Bible.

We believe that our world view is more sure than the Mormon view because of the factual support our faith has.

CONCLUSION

So, what is the point of all this? First, to show that everyone has a personal view of things that wraps around what they have observed and continue to observe. Second, that such a view is an act of faith and not a result of absolute proof. And that those who want to say that they walk by proof and not faith should be challenged on that point. Third, that some world views are better because they rest on much surer foundations. This is the case with the biblical view compared to the Mormon view.

Jesus or the Apostles or Both?

Posted by John on under Articles

Is what Jesus said during His personal ministry all His teachings? Are the writings that follow the Gospels of any worth in spelling out the will of the Lord?

Matt 28:18-20
1. Jesus has All-authority is matters pertaining to man’s relationship to God.
2. Jesus KNOWS THE WAY (John 14:6).
3. What He knew He gave to the Apostles (Matt 28:20, John 16:12-15).
Therefore: Jesus teaching = Apostle’s doctrine (Acts 2:42)
Apostles elaborate on how to apply the foundation teachings of Christ.
1. Jesus told the Apostles to teach the disciples how to observe all that He had said (Matt 28:20).
2. This must have included worship (Acts 2:42).
3. Apostles appeal to Jesus as their source of authority in their teaching (1 Thess 4:2).
It is false to:
1. Elevate the teachings of Jesus during His personal ministry to the diminishing of the rest of the New Testament.
2. Focus totally on the earthly Lord versus the RISEN LORD.
3. See the teachings of Jesus while on earth as being all of the will of God.

In Search of God

Posted by John on under Articles

Many today are searching for a Higher Power. Some call this God. Are there observations that can explain why, throughout the world, in all places and all times, men seek for answers?

THE FACT OF DESIGN

First, among all people, it is an undisputed fact that there is design in the world/universe. Order, structure, function and purpose are all clearly seen from the largest to the smallest level. For example, water molecules are built in such a way that when water freezes into ice, it floats rather than sinks. This means that things living in the water during winter can swim under the surface and survive.

The facts of design have lead some to infer the existence of a Designer/Creator behind it all. One such person is John N. Clayton. This former atheist-turned-Christian credits his change to seeing design in nature and the universe. (You can get free material from John Clayton that is really good in the area of design by writing to JNC, 718 Donmoyer Ave., South Bend, IN 46614-1999, or E-mail to jncdge@aol.com.) Others, such as the late, nationally-acclaimed astronomer, Carl Sagan, acknowledge that design exists, but they leave it at that. It isn’t that Sagan didn’t make the inference that a creator could exist; he didn’t believe because he had chosen not to believe. (See his book Cosmos.)

There is a logical implication inherent in the idea of design and a designer. If a Designer does exist, then what we see may have been purposely made in such a way as to testify to His existence. The biblical writers believed this and clearly taught it (Ps 19:1, Rom 1:19).

Second, not only is there design in the world; there is inherent value in that which is designed. Stars help man to navigate. Seeds, soil, sunshine, rain, worms, all help to grow crops and feed man. Even the lowly slug has its place as nature’s carpet cleaner. The slug constantly pulverizes and dissolves hard solid matter that is laying around and helps change it into soil. The world is “good” to man. Whether one believes in a creator or not, this is fact.

Further observation shows that man seems to be the main object the world/universe is built around. Man seems to be the centerpiece. In other words, the “good” in the world is directed toward man. The concept even has a name. It is called the “Anthropic Principle,” and it is an area of current research. Paul Davies, not a believer in God, is one of the foremost writers on the subject. So the existence of “good-directed-toward-man” is admitted both by believers and non-believers.

If all this “good” is received by man, and man believes in a Designer, what does this say about that Designer? Does it imply that He cares for man? If such is accepted, what could be a possible response from man? Praise? Gratitude? Worship? Seeking fellowship on a deeper level? Indeed some, like John Clayton, have responded in this way. Others, like Paul Davies, are indifferent. But isn’t this normal in real life? People receive gifts, but not all are thankful, not all care, not all respond by wanting to know more about the giver. Can it also be said that the goodness built into the world by the Designer is designed to draw man toward Him? Some of the inspired Bible writers have affirmed this (Jas 1:1, Rom 2:4, Acts 14:15-17).

THE FLIP SIDE

First, all is not well in the world. While it is true that one can clearly observe design in the machine and that it is good for man, the machine also has problems. Sometimes the earth/universe machine doesn’t work right. Malfunction is the keyword. For example, birth defects occur because DNA has errors in it. Tornadoes happen and devastate life and property. Earth is in danger of being hit by space debris such as asteroids and comets. Floods, erosion, animal pests, insect pests, foul air are with us. The obvious conclusion is that something is wrong somewhere.

Second, something is wrong with man himself. Murder. Rape. Theft. Destruction of property. Violence. Crime. And in all, there is an awareness of being out of control. By this is meant that man clearly does not know how to direct himself. Philosophies, ideas, isms, cults, New Age movements, drugs; all are attempts to find a way to truth. But what some have believed to be the right way has ended in their death. Man is on a sea without direction. This also shows the limitations of man’s knowledge. It is not in man to guide himself. Again, the writers of old recognized this (Jer 10:23).

There is, however, a good side to this awareness, and it is the motivation to seek for answers. The quest for truth can become a prime factor in one’s life, and the existence of a myriad of religions and philosophies all testify to this fact. Is the awareness of human inadequacy a design element that the Designer built into the system to motivate man to seek the true answer to life and an understanding of his Creator?

What about all the physical calamities? Can something be both unfortunate and good? Even though something is not working right, if a person is compelled to find out why the system is not working, and in so doing they discover a greater good, is it not worthwhile? It’s sort of like getting a spanking when you were a kid. Unpleasant, yes! But when you look back you see that its purpose was to lead you into being a more responsible person. The spanking was “unfortunate” but it was also “good.” (It should also be noted that the spanking reflects an act of justice. It is the penalty for error committed against the authority of the parent.)

So, can it be suggested that not only the positive design and goodness seen in nature, but even the negative things are designed to lead men to seek the Creator, because they drive man to find out why this wonderful earth/universe machine is not working properly?

Third, here is another consideration. The Designer that some believe exists seems very remote. There is no direct communication or signs given to unredeemed man today of His existence. So there is a sense of separation from the Creator. Even those who claim to have a “sign” still acknowledge that they are here and the Creator is “out there.” Could this also be by design in order to motivate people to find out why? Often in our world we become separated from people because of “things done wrong” against them. Those who were once close friends are not any more because of some error committed or some misunderstanding. In marriage, the awareness of such separation should be a warning, and should motivate those involved to work out their difficulties and to reunite. Could the Creator have such a positive end in mind? Is it possible that sometime in the past or present, the Creator has been offended and this has resulted in a separation? Mere observation cannot answer this question.

TOWARDS AN ANSWER

First, several things can be established by observation alone. The earth/universe has design; it is “good” and it is directed toward man, but it is also flawed in performance. Something is wrong. Man is trapped in a dark forest without any sure pathway to the light, and the Designer seems far from us and silent.

Second, an explanation is needed; something to wrap around these observations and bind them together. This is called a worldview. An inductive study of facts cannot, by itself, give a worldview. A worldview is based on faith and founded on facts. Everyone has a worldview. Some include the idea of a Creator and some do not. Not all that include a Creator are biblical worldviews. So why do men like John Clayton choose a biblical worldview? The answer is that it satisfactorily explains all known observations better than any other.

Third, the early chapters of Genesis explain what we observe. It tells us that we as humans are “outside-the-garden” people. We are, in fact, separated from a friend who was once close at hand. A break of fellowship occurred when our “father Adam” was put out of the presence of the Creator. We, being his offspring, are also “out here.” We learn that Adam disobeyed the commands of the Creator, and this disobedience is the reason for the separation. The term for disobedience is sin (I John 3:4). Sin causes separation (Isa 59:2). In a biblical worldview, the things that we see have logical explanations.

Not only are we separated, but the land is against us (Gen 3:17ff). Another biblical writer who was well-versed in the Old Testament writings expressed the idea that the whole world is “groaning in travail” until things become right (Rom 8:19-22). This is another consequence of being “outside the garden.” Yes, the flaws in the operation of the earth/universe machine testify that something is indeed wrong, and the Bible tells us why.

But the story gets more personal. We are not guilty of the sin of our father Adam (Eze 18:19-20). Nevertheless, we all have sinned (Rom 3:23). We belong outside the garden! The flaws of our world are designed to lead us to understand that we are separated from God by our own transgressions of His law.

And what about the “good” seen in our world? Even toward Adam and Eve who just sinned, God still demonstrated His care for them by making them garments (Gen 3:21). Outside the garden, good continues to be directed toward them (and us). Does this have a purpose? Yes! It is to draw man back to his Creator (Rom 2:4). Sadly, not all will respond (Rom 2:5).

CONCLUSION

Religious belief can result from man seeing design in nature and inferring the existence of a Supreme Designer. Many see the “good” directed toward man, and conclude that the Designer cares for man. The fact that things have gone wrong in this world testifies that there is a problem, and this drives many more to seek answers. The worldview expressed in the Bible puts all the observable facts together into the most reasonable and consistent pattern.

To accept this worldview is an act of faith. Worldviews cannot be proven. Nevertheless, many who have studied all sorts of explanations for the above observations have discovered that the Bible has the greatest power to explain what is, and that it rests on very solid and factual ground.

God’s Design for the Planet

Posted by John on under Articles

What does it mean to say that God has created according to design? First, it means that something is a direct result of planning and thought. Second, it means that something has arrangement, order and structure. Third, it means that what is created has intents and purpose. This is true in the physical realm as well as in the religious realm. In this article, we will explore God’s design in the physical realm. Another article will deal with the religious.

WHAT IS SOME EVIDENCE OF DESIGN IN THE PHYSICAL REALM?

First, consider the ozone layer. This is a blanket of gas in the upper region of our atmosphere. It filters out harmful rays from the sun. If this blanket is destroyed or gets holes in it, then terrible consequences will result. One such consequence is skin cancer. By ignoring or caring less about the ozone layer, man finds himself working against God’s design.

Second, what is it about green plants that shows design? Here are two:

(1) green plants are nature’s air fresheners. Have you every been in a “stuffy room”? That is because there is too much human exhalent (carbon dioxide) in the room. Green plants (trees, grasses, etc.) all absorb animal exhalent and replace it with oxygen. Green vegetation keep the earth’s air at a constant level of oxygen. And this keeps us from living in a “stuffy” atmosphere. So, what if man keeps on with the reckless cutting of trees and clearing out of grasslands? Again, altering the design God set-up will not enhance the quality of life God wants for us.

(2) There is a psychological power in green. It is a proven fact that the color green acts as a “calmer” for stress. Yes, a person stuck in a busy, slow-moving traffic line can look at a green tree and become calmer. People who work in the stressful office-place will benefit by having lush green plants in their office to look at and gaze upon. Is it any wonder why people want to escape for the weekend and go into the country? Green is God’s tranquilizer. Now consider replacing most of the green grass and trees with cold, gray concrete and man-made buildings. Even that statement can raise your stress level. Now, what about those who are active in altering the plan of God by tearing up forests and grasslands to build parking lots and super malls? Not only are they dishonoring God but also harming themselves and the rest of us.

Third, God made the water-cycle. When it rains in your city did you know that the water came from the ocean? As the ocean moves, water evaporates with the aid of the sun. This water vapor rises above the ocean and eventually forms a cloud. That cloud travels inland to your hometown and drops the water there. The water run-off finds its way back to a river and then back to the ocean to start the process over. During this cycle the water is cleansed and man is able to “catch it” for use. But what is happening? Man is pumping in chemicals into the air (such as sulfur dioxide) that causes acid water to fall out of the clouds. This is “acid rain” and is most hazardous to the well-being of life here. Further, waterways are being used as dumps for all sorts of chemicals. For example, the paper industry has dumped in methylmercury, this has gotten into the food-chain and has resulted in animal mutations. Not good. Some rivers and lakes are actually “dead” as a result of pollution. Disrespect for God’s design surely gets us into the ditch.

Fourth, scientists speak of the earth as an “ecological system.” This means that all living things and their environments interact. There is a balance. If one thing is harmed this causes an upset in the balance. This means that all living things have a place in the world. In a sense, this world is a “garden” to be tended and not torn apart (Gen 2:15). Man’s greed and vanity has led to the sensless extinction or near extinction of animals (e.g., leopard, tiger). Habitats are destroyed when men want to build “bigger barns.” In all this destruction, no respect is given to the fact that God designed the world to be enjoyed and not ravaged for the pursuit of wealth or high fashion.

WHY HAS MAN NOT WORKED TO PRESERVE THE DESIGN OF GOD FOR THE PLANET?

First, some act in ignorance. That is, they do not actually know about some of these things. If they did, many would actually change their minds and act accordingly. Education is the key here. A right heart with right facts will result in the right acts.

Second, some understand but simply do not care. Greed, pride, vanity and self-will are leading factors here. For example, it may be said that it costs too much to clean up the industrial water before it is dumped into the river. Another may say that it takes too much time to plant trees after cutting. Positive economic ends are the goals here and it is hard to get past that hurdle.

Third, some understand the design but relegate it to a “minor matter” or “just an opinion.” When faced with facts we do not like, one way to get rid of the facts is to simply label it as stated above. In this way, we can practice what we want without any strain on the conscience.

Fourth, some are unwilling to study out the issue. Fear prevents them from being open to the possibility of being wrong. And it is always good to blame our inability to understand on our “pre-concieved notions” or “blind spots.”

Fifth, money sometimes gets in the way of good reason. It is hardly likely that a person who makes a living by selling furs/skins is going to hear anything about the preservation of the leopard, etc. Not many corporate leaders change their minds as much as those who are a part of the public at large. Why? Because if your house, groceries and extras come from the corporation, why “buck the system”? Money makes people blind to truth.

WHAT IS THE PROPER RESPONSE TO GOD’S DESIGN?

First, the earth is actually “on loan” to us (Ps 24:1, 2). How do we handle things that are loaned to us? Do we tear it them up? What if you loaned someone your car and it came back with pinstripes on it? Looks pretty but did you ask for such? What if it came back with a fender bent? You’re going to be upset. In everyday life we want people to respect our property and we are not pleassed when such is not the case. How does God feel when man does what he does to the earth?

Second, the key to pleasing God as per the earth today is restoration. That is, mankind needs to work together to restore the land, restore habitat and restore the waterways and air to the original design.

Third, the key to a proper view of the earth is actually a belief in God and the fact that the earth is His. If He is honored, then His creation will be honored.

Fourth, every Christian has a responsiblility to be good stewards of the earth. This means that before a Christian will build or progress, he/she will consider the environmental impact of the thing and work toward good conservation. Further, Christians will have a proper view of hunting, etc. Jesus had fish cooking for the disciples (John 21:9-12). Killing for food and killing just to kill are different things. Killing animals just to project one’s own vanity by displaying skins, heads, etc., surely is questionable Christian conduct.

IN CONCLUSION

This article has tried to show that God has a design for the world. And that when the self-will of man interferes with that design by adding pollutants or by subtracting plants, animals or life chemicals, then God is not pleased and man is reaping trouble.

Following the Sure Path in Religion

Posted by John on under Articles

In matters of everyday life, people usually like to walk the sure path in everyday affairs. Examples are: (1) A chemist will mix chemicals and he is reasonably sure that it will not explode in his face. It would be dangerous to take two chemicals and mix them if he is uncertain about how they will react. (2) People usually do not cross bridges if the sign in front says that there is a 10% chance of getting across; they pick the one that has a 95% certainty of getting across. (3) No one will jump out of an airplane with a parachute they are unsure of. (4) Most people try to give their boss something for Christmas that they know he likes instead of just making a guess at it.

Yet, it is a curious thing that in matters of religion most people don’t seem to care about believing and doing what they are certain of. They walk both sure and unsure paths toward God. And when questionable things are done or believed, religious division occurs.

PLEASING FATHER

Consider this analogy: Father’s Day is coming up. He has made it known that he really likes fancy Jellybeans. No question on this. But you like chocolate. You are not real sure if dad likes chocolate or not. He has never said anything one way or the other. It is a questionable item. What are you going to get dad? What will love for dad direct you to get?

Now, God is our Father. The only way we know what He likes is through what He has told us in the New Testament (1 Cor 2:11). What will we give him? Will it be those things and attitudes that are questionable or those that are certain to please him (as revealed in the New Testament)? What will love for God motivate us to do?

BAPTISM

What about baptism? There is no question that the New Testament practice and teaching point to immersion in water and the corroborative testimony of church history firms up this conclusion. This is a “sure thing.” Will that be our practice? Will we change this and offer other options according to our likes and dislikes? What will love and honor for God motivate us to do?

LORD’S SUPPER

Take, for example, the Lord’s Supper. It is a without question that Jesus wants us to remember Him by “breaking bread” (Mt 26:26-29). And Jesus told His Apostles to teach the disciples how to observe it (Matt 28:20). Hence, meeting on the first day of each week to take the Lord’s Supper has apostolic approval (Acts 20:7) and must have come from apostolic instruction (Matt 28:20, Acts 2:42). And since the death of Jesus and His resurrection are literally tied together (Rom 4:25), then logically the memorials that mirror those events are tied together. Hence, the practice seen in Acts 20:7 has a clear theological design and is centered on the core of the gospel. So, why change it into something that is questionable? What other day would fit the picture like the first day of the week (Lk 24:1-20, note that the first day of the week = the third day = resurrection day)? (It is interesting that the early church was not taught to meet on Thursday, the day when Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper. That would have been a logical choice.)

The Acts 20:7 practice is corroborated by early church history (see Ferguson, E., Early Christians Speak, pp. 81-105, Sweet Pub. Company, 1971). And there is a practical design to it: 52 times a year a person is reminded of what Christ has done for them and its vindication by the resurrection! What other practice can deliver this? God’s wisdom is surely apparent. Shall we modify it or honor it? To use the analogy above, why offer God, the Father, “chocolate” when it is revealed that He likes “Jellybeans”? Wouldn’t love, respect and trust for our Father motivate us to follow the sure path in this matter?

An attempt to counter the force of Acts 20:7 is to ask, “Why not also take the Lord’s Supper in an ‘upper room’ with ‘many lights’?” First, place is not important in Christianity (John 4:21). Second, the Lord’s Supper and Resurrection day are memorials to key events of the gospel. What is the gospel significance of rooms, lights and windows? Third, Christianity moves in the progress and culture of the first century. They had to meet somewhere. They had to get around somehow . . . by horse, walking, or chariot (Acts 8:28). There is such a clear, common-sense contrast between Christian practice as seen here and the ordinary ways of the first century that it seems to be a mere “quibble” to ask the question above.

MUSIC

Look at the instrumental music issue. In the Old Testament, God asks for instrumental music to be used in worship to Him (2 Chron 29:25-26, Ps 150). There clearly was no question about it. It was a “sure thing.” Note this contrast: God has not said one word to that effect in the New Testament writings as per worship! As such, using instrumental music in New Testament worship is questionable as per pleasing God.

Everyone admits that acapella music is acceptable to God. This is because singing is an apostolic directive (Eph 5:19, etc.). And if the use of an instrument is in Eph 5:19, then it took the church about 500 years and a Pope to discover it! The Greek Orthodox Church still hasn’t found it; hence, they just sing to the Lord. This is even more interesting since the Greeks read Eph 5:19 in the original Greek language like we read a newspaper! So why divide the church on a questionable item?

The contrast is clear. Why not give our Father what he has asked for and leave off what he has not asked for? What else could love for God and trust in His wisdom motivate us to do?

The case against instrumental music above is not based on silence but on a contrast in what is being asked for by our Father. To see how we understand the principle of contrast in instructions, consider this: At basketball camp, a coach left written instructions for his team to go down and do lay-ups with “dunks.” That was their practice. This year, he wrote instructions for them go down and do lays-ups. Same context, but contrast the instruction. This year, “dunks” were left out. He did not ask for them. Was this by oversight or design? Did the coach have a different purpose? What would be the wise thing for the team to do to please the coach? What practice could they be sure of? Would it be presumptuous to practice as they did last year and argue, “But last year you said . . .”

When God gives contrasting instruction between the Old Testament and New Testament worship, shall we argue, “But in the Old Testament you said . . .”?

CONCLUSION

The Restoration Plea deals with following the “sure path” in religion. It is not a restoration of first-century ways of moving, dressing and eating but of a Christ-centered religion . . . one that is internal, not physical, as contrasted to the Old Testament system. The New Testament way is aimed to conform us into the image of Christ (Rom 8:29). The “sure path” is to trust what God has revealed in matters of worship, etc., (1 Cor 2:11) and leave off what is questionable as per God’s design of things.

So, what path will you follow? The way that is certain as far as being pleasing to God or the way that is uncertain?

Evidence for God from the Prophets

Posted by John on under Articles

FULFILLED PROPHECY

What if someone could speak of events before they happened in sufficient detail to make “coincidence” unlikely? Surely, this would directly support the existence of the supernatural. The arguments for God from prophecy are more direct than those from the sciences.

Bible students know that the kingdom of Israel became divided. Samaria (city) became the capital of the northern kingdom of Israel, while Jerusalem was the capital of the southern kingdom of Judah.

MICAH FORETELLS THE DOOM OF JERUSALEM

Micah claims to be a prophet of God (1:1) and his word carried weight in the eyes of the leaders of Judah. The prophet Jeremiah was not put to death for his prophecy against Jerusalem because it corroborated with what Micah had said (Jer 26:8, 9, 18, 19)! Are there any more reasons to believe that Micah is a true prophet?

First, read the book of Micah and be convinced that his speeches have a ring of honesty and truth to them. Sometimes the “proof is in the hearing.”

Second, many things that he says are corroborated by other independent sources (cf. 2 Ki 15:32-20:21; 2 Chron 27:1- 32:33; Hosea, Amos, Isaiah). When testimony in a court of law matches details presented by other witnesses, we believe the statements given are true. So, why not believe Micah?

Third, Micah could have had material gain by not saying what he did (Mic 3:5, 11). And he went against “peer pressure” to speak out (2:6). So, here we have a man who claims to be a prophet, the authority of his words saved Jeremiah from death, he sounds honest, his testimony can be verified by independent sources, he does not “preach for a price” and has enough courage to stand up against the establishment of the day. What more could one ask for in order to believe in the credibility of a person?

THE FALL OF JERUSALEM

What does Micah have to say about Jerusalem? Will it also fall to Assyria? At the time of his prophecy (remember this next line . . .) Assyria was the major force and reasonable choice to destroy Jerusalem! Already Assyria had come mighty close to taking it (see 2 Ki 18, 19 and 2 Chron 32, Isa 36, EBH pp. 374, 280). But the prophet says it will be Babylon and not Assyria that takes Jerusalem (Micah 4:10). This would seem far-fetched during Micah’s time because Babylon was a mere “spit-in-the-road” kingdom (EBH, pp. 282). Further, he says that Jerusalem will be plowed under and the Temple will be bashed down (Micah 3:12); this happened under the leadership of Nebuchadnezzar in 587 B.C. (EBH, pp. 271). Hence, the prophet Micah looked about 100 years into the future to see Babylon as a major conquering force from the north (EBH, pp. 450). Again, common sense would have made him see a world dominated by the Assyrians and not by some mediocre state like Babylon. But he did not follow any kind of private interpretation. He was moved by the Spirit of God to speak the truth (Mic 3:8ff; 2 Pet 2:20, 21).

NAHUM FORETELLS THE DOOM OF ASSYRIA

Some want to date the book of Nahum to be very late to avoid any suggestion that real prophecy took place. This is done because some scholars have an anti-supernatural bias in which they approach any Old Testament book. They have already decided that miracles cannot happen and this includes speaking of events before they occurred. Yet, when Nahum spoke, Assyria still had a grip on Judah (1:13, 2:2) and was still the dominant force to contend with. Hence, it is reasonable to believe that Nahum prophesied during the reign of Assyria and, therefore, before the fall of Nineveh (612 B.C.).

What is amazing about the prophecy of Nahum is not just the fact that he predicted the demise of Nineveh but the mechanism of its fall. They are:

(1) Water would play a major role in the destruction of the city (Nah 1:8, 2:6). Further, the siege of Nineveh occurred during the month of Ab, and according to a Babylonian tablet, this was the season of their heavy rainfall. So, rain poured heavy on the city. The early historian Diodorus Siculus (circa 30 B.C.) wrote of the destruction of Nineveh and testifies that water played a major role in its downfall (EDV, pp. 310-311). So, here we have independent, corroborating testimony from someone who is in a better position to know than any historian is today. (2) Drunkenness also played a role (Nah 1:10) and so did fire (Nah 2:13, 3:13). Diodorus Siculus cites drunkenness as a major factor in the fall of Nineveh and testifies to the burning of the palace by the Assyrian king himself. A.H. Layard, the foremost expert on Nineveh and who actually discovered Nineveh and proved its existence to a doubting world (ZPBD, pp. 589), said that in every major dig traces of fire are evident (PM, pp. 62). Therefore, the prophecy of Nahum is substantiated. Even by guessing, how could a person predict that flooding, drunkenness and fire would be factors in the fall of a city that God himself called “great” (Jonah 1:2)? Just to predict its downfall seems amazing enough in the context of the time. (It would be like Britain accurately predicting the downfall of Nazi Germany after the Blitz of London!)

(3) Nineveh’s destruction would be final (1:9, 14). Many cities in the ancient world were destroyed and then later rebuilt (e.g., Jerusalem). Nineveh never was rebuilt!

Such details cannot reasonably be assigned to mere coincidence. The best conclusion would be that Nahum spoke things beyond human understanding. This verifies the existence of God in a more direct way . . . a particularity of the God described in the Old Testament.

CONCLUSION

While the study of nature testifies to the existence of a God it is limited in describing or identifying “which God.” Old Testament prophecy gives us more direct evidence that the God of Abraham is the true God. However, there is a drawback. Old Testament history and the intermingling of the prophets and archeology is hard to study. But the jewels are there for the looking!

References:
EDV, Evidence that Demands a Verdict (a. Josh McDowell), Campus Crusade Intl., 1972, 1989.

ZPBD, Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary (ed. Merrill C. Tenney), Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978.

EBH, Eerdman’s Bible Handbook (ed. D. Alexander), Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s, 1973.

PM, The Prophet Motive (a. Kenny Barfield), Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1995.

25 Things That Save

Posted by Gordon on under Articles

God
Jesus
Holy Spirit
Faith
The Word
Preaching
Hearing
Repentance
Confession
Baptism
Grace
Mercy
Love
Jesus’ Blood
Jesus’ Life
Jesus’ Death
Gospel
Doing the will of the Lord
Being Righteous
Enduring to the end
Calling on the name of the Lord
Doctrine
Turning a sinner from the error of his way
The name of Jesus
Childbearing

home top next »