Greater Than Greatest Born of Woman

Think of all the individuals who lived before Jesus died and how amazing they were. If you had to pick the greatest one who would it be? Obviously, to think about this, you would have to exclude sinless Jesus, but who would you pick?

What about Abraham, the father of all of those who walk by faith? It is in his life, above all others, where we see faith defined by his actions. Perhaps you might think of Joseph and his devotion to doing right in his teens while living in a foreign country. Then, there is Moses the amazing servant who delivered the Ten Commandments to the Jews and gave to us the first five books of the Bible.  Joshua would have to be in that listing somewhere for his unwavering obedience to God from the time the Jews left Egypt until they possessed the Promised Land.

Who could surpass the greatness of David, the great king of Israel? Only one man in the entire Bible is described as a man after God’s own heart. Then, to read the lives of other men of old also brings them into this picture—Hezekiah, Jehoshaphat, Josiah, Nehemiah and Ezra.

Think of the greatness of the prophets. What about the first prophet, Enoch, who walked with God and his faith was rewarded by escaping death? Would you not at least have to give great consideration to Elijah and Elisha who served God during the time of Ahab and Jezebel and their evil influences? What about Isaiah who volunteered his service to God saying, “Here am I, Lord, send me”? The steadfastness of Jeremiah and Ezekiel who encouraged the righteous remnant and rebuked the ungodly as Babylon carried Israel into captivity? Would you think that Daniel might be that person, who, as a faithful youth, was taken to Babylon and refused to eat the king’s food? What about his faith years later when at 80+ years of age he was in the lions’ den?

So have you picked one as the greatest individual, with the exception of Jesus, who lived before the death of Jesus? As strange as it might seem, none of those listed above would be the right answer. Hear the words of Jesus, “Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist” (Matt. 11:11). If you struggle to understand this, just consider the unique work he did as the forerunner of Jesus.

However, there is someone greater than John. Hear the rest of Jesus’ words. “But he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” Who is greater than the greatest? It is you!  What a blessing it is to be a Christian!

Posted in Dan Jenkins | Tagged , | Comments Off on Greater Than Greatest Born of Woman

Absolute Truth, Absolutely Exists, According to Christ!

Absolute Truth. Black-and-white, “it’s wrong or it’s right,” eternal, exclusive, and unending truth (Psalm 119). The sin-warped world in which we live seeks to seduce us into accepting that such absolute truth simply does not exist today. Or, if it does, they claim we cannot know it. But we who know Christ, know better! Jesus Christ clearly and consistently told us the truth about the truth. To deny it, is to deny Him (Jn. 12:48)! He defined truth for us in John 17:17 when He said that God’s word is truth. To reject it as such, doesn’t change it from such (Jn. 6:60-69).

Many today want to tell us that “truth” is relative; that is, that whatever you believe to be true is true for you, and whatever I believe to be true is true for me, and even if our two so-called “truths” are both diametrically opposed to each other and God’s standard, we’re both still somehow okay with God, and our completely opposite views are both still somehow “true.” They call that “relativism;” I call it “ridiculousism.”

For example: The authorities have determined that the speed limit on your home-town Main Street is 25 MPH. If your “truth” states that it ought to be 50 MPH, and your teenagers’ “truth” states it ought to be 75 MPH, that isn’t going to avail either of you one whit when the blue lights of authority start flashing behind you. The all-authoritative and exclusive standard of well-established truth is what you’ll be judged by. The same is true in Christianity (Jn. 12:48; Acts 13:46). Although some well-educated religious peoples’ so-called “truth” says, “salvation is by ‘faith only,’” “once saved, always saved,” and “baptism doesn’t save you,” God’s all-authoritative and exclusive truth says just exactly the opposite (Jms. 2:19-24; Gal. 5:4; 2 Ptr. 2:20-22; 1 Ptr. 3:21; Acts 2:38).

Jesus told us that we were truly His disciples only if we would abide in His word, which is the truth. He also said that we could know the truth (which millions of misled minions of Satan today constantly claim we cannot), and that knowing His truth was the only thing which could set us free (Jn. 8:31-32; 1 Jn. 5:10-13).

Jesus also said that we must worship God in spirit and truth if we truly expected our worship to be accepted by God (Jn. 4:23-24; Matt. 15:7-9; 1 Tim. 3:15). For those who say that absolute truth either does not exist or cannot be known, I say, how could we worship God in spirit and truth if truth were not knowable?

Christ additionally told us that it would be the truth of His Word which would ultimately judge us all on the last day (Jn. 12:48-50). Psalm 119:89 is still true too: God’s truth has no expiration date, and needs no expediency mandate, or politically-correct update. God fully meant every single word of truth He ever conveyed to His creation (Matt. 4:4; Rom. 3:4); always has, always will.

We who comprise faithful congregations of the church of Christ (Romans 16:16) today, still absolutely believe that. We take God completely “at His word.” That word is what our weekly Bible Classes, Worship Services, and very life’s practices had better all be about exclusively: God’s truth. “Book, chapter, and verse” answers from that which will ultimately judge us all on the last day, because God’s word also makes it abundantly apparent that some are in for quite a surprise come that day (Matt. 7:21-27). We who comprise faithful churches of Christ certainly don’t want to be amongst the thus surprised, nor do we want any of our friends and neighbors to be. Therefore, our plea is quite simple. We know that many people around us every day in our own social circles have salvation questions which might not have ever been thoroughly, scripturally addressed. We would love the privilege to seek to do so, straight out of God’s book, the bible, with “book, chapter, and verse” answers. Doesn’t that sound refreshing? And if you, like us, believe that the Bible is the exclusive truth of Almighty God, then we invite you to please join us in person this coming Sunday for Bible study and Worship “in spirit and truth.” “…And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free” (Jn. 8:32).

Posted in Doug Dingley | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Absolute Truth, Absolutely Exists, According to Christ!

Hoaxes of Evolution

The apostle Paul warned his young protégé Timothy, “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called(1 Tim. 6:20, emp. SW). The term “science” refers to knowledge (as other translations translate), and some commentators believe that it refers to the body of inspired knowledge. Regardless, that which Paul warns deals with a body of truth for which some have created contradictions or hoaxes.

One of the staunchest supporters of Charles Darwin in the nineteenth century was German scientist and noted atheist Ernst Haeckel, who used fraudulent material to promote evolution. Even evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould conceded as much when he wrote,

Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution…. Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases—in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent—simply copied the same figure over and over again….Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings [sic] right from the start. [“Abscheulich! (Atrocious!),” Natural History, March 2000, 42-44]

Unfortunately, much of his noted inaccuracies have become permanent fixtures in many standard biology textbooks, of which one noted educator numbered at least fifty!

Embryology is certainly one area where the strains of evolution are pronounced in science books all over the land. Dr. Jonathan Wells wrote of the time when he was working on his doctorate in cell and development biology,

The textbook I was using prominently featured drawings of vertebrate embryos–fish, chickens, humans, and such like–where similarities were presented as evidence for descent from a common ancestor. Indeed, the drawings did appear very similar. But I’d been studying embryos for some time, looking at them under a microscope. And I knew that the drawings were just plain wrong. I re-checked all my other textbooks. They all had similar drawings, and they were all obviously wrong. Not only did they distort the embryos they pictured; they omitted earlier stages in which the embryos look very different from one another. [“Survival of the Fakest,” The American Spectator, December 2000, Vol. 33, Issue 10, 18-26]

He admitted that most of these very drawings came from Ernst Haeckel. He has since written a book, Icons of Evolution (2002), exposing these misrepresentations and hoaxes of science.

While he barely mentioned the topic of human genesis in The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin later wrote extensively about it in his later book, The Descent of Man, when he said, “My object is to show that there is no fundamental difference between man and the higher animals in their mental faculties” (1871, p. 34). In other words, as the materialistic philosophers of ancient Greece, he believed that humans are nothing more than animals, but during his day, he lacked the evidence (fossils) to prove such.

However, evolutionists thought they had arrived at such in 1912 when Charles Dawson found part of a human skull and jawbone in a gravel pit in Piltdown, England. Nevertheless, forty years later, scientists proved that the “Piltdown man” was not the intermediary fossil, but a modern human skull and a jawbone of a modern orangutan, with the jaw being chemically treated to make it look as if it were a fossil, and its teeth deliberately filed down to resemble human teeth. Such was a forgery for sure!

Dr. Harry Rimmer details the infamous “Nebraska Man” hoax in his book, The Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1946, pp. 118-123). In 1922, Mr. Harold Cook discovered a fossil that was supposed to prove once and for all that evolution was factual, but it turned out that the single tooth he found was not even human—it was from an extinct pig.

In the November 1999 National Geographic was published an article (“Feathers for T. Rex?”) detailing its discovery of Archaeoraptor—the missing link between birds and dinosaurs. In the issue, it appeared to be a large feathered bird with the tail of a dinosaur. However, closer examination by experts shows the specimen to be two fossils stuck together with strong glue!

Luke Harding reports that Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten was a professor of anthropology at Frankfurt University for thirty years. However, in April 2004, the University forced his resignation when they discovered that he falsified dates on many “stone age” fossils, including a skull fragment that supposedly linked humans and Neanderthals, passing off fake fossils as genuine ones. In addition, the University caught him attempting to sell his department’s complete chimpanzee skull collection to the United States (“History of modern man unravels as German scholar is exposed as fraud,” The Guardian, February 19, 2005).

Why are not more scientists speaking out on the forgeries and hoaxes within their field? Douglas Futuyma’s Evolutionary Biology describes the situation best when it informs students that Darwin’s theory of evolution, Marx’s theory of history, and Freud’s theory of human nature together “provided a crucial plank to the platform of mechanism and materialism,” and Oxford Darwinist Richard Dawkins stated more bluntly, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist” (The Blind Watchmaker, New York: Norton, 1986, pp. 6-7).

Posted in Sam Willcut | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Hoaxes of Evolution

Is Cremation O.K. for Christians?

Cremation is a topic that is not talked about a lot in public and so there is great deal of confusion about it in the church.  According to the Cremation Society of North America, in 2000, 25% of all dead bodies were cremated and in 2010 it increased to 38% because it is more economical (1-2,000 vs. 6-8,000), efficient and environmentally friendly.  Some think it’s O.K. to cremate claiming that it is my body and I will do with it what I want.  Others feel a Christian should never consider cremation because of its ties to atheism, heathenism and ignorance with regards to the Bible.  So, we need to know as Christians what the Bible says about it and whether it is O.K. to cremate or not.

In the Old Testament, some say it is wrong to cremate because: Gen. 19:24 states the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with fire.  Also, some claim that burning the body is associated with wickedness such as the case in Lev. 20:14, which states, “If a man marries a woman and her mother, it is wickedness. They shall be burned with fire, both he and they, that there may be no wickedness among you.”  Furthermore, in Num. 16:35, God exterminated Korah and 250 Israelite men with fire because they opposed Moses.

In the New Testament some say it is wrong to cremate because we associate burning with the lake of fire that all the wicked will be cast into and will burn for eternity (Rev. 20:10-15).  But, these things have to do with punishing those that were breaking God’s Law.  What about the righteous when they die?

When the righteous died, the Bible shows that it was the custom to bury the body.  Gen. 25:10, There Abraham was buried, and Sarah his wife.  Gen. 35:19, Rachel died and was buried.  Gen. 35:29, Isaac breathed his last and died and his sons Esau and Jacob buried him.  Moses was buried by God in Deut. 34:6.  Even in difficult circumstances God’s people kept Joseph’s bones for over 400 years until they buried him in the promise land (Josh. 24:32).

In the New Testament: John the Baptist was buried (Matt. 14:10-12).  Ananias and Sapphira was buried (Acts 5:5-10).  Stephen was buried (Acts 8:2).  And, Jesus, our great Example, was buried (Jn. 19:38-42).  Burial was the most common way that a person’s body was dealt with and it was and still is considered as an act of kindness and respect.

Now, some have the strange idea that if your body is burned that it will somehow affect your resurrection.  The Moravians bury with their feet pointing to Jerusalem because they believe when the Lord returns and establishes his kingdom (which he has already done), their physical bodies will be resurrected and all will be looking toward Jerusalem.  But, there are no Scriptures for this practice.  In fact, Eccl. 12:7 states, “Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, And the spirit will return to God who gave it.”  Also, in Matt. 10:28 it suggest that we should not worry about what happens to our bodies because no matter what a person does to it, they cannot do anything to a person’s soul.  Besides, what about Christians who have been burned to death?  Are we saying that they do not get to resurrect because they no longer have a physical body?  How strange.

The Scriptures show that God is more interested in the Spirit than the physical (2 Cor. 5:1; 1 Cor. 15:55-57).  But, I would also like to point out that in the Bible, people knew where the righteous were buried and it reminds me of a restoration trip my wife and I went on while in MSOP.  I saw tombstones of Christians that had Bibles and Scriptures all over them, one tombstone was completely made into a Bible with Mk. 16:15 written on it, another I found said a “minister of the gospel of Christ,” another that said, “An elder of the church of Christ” and so many more.  I found that impressive because their tombstones are teaching about God long after they are gone.

David Sain is a great proclaimer of the Gospel once told me that when he visits a town for a Gospel meeting or has some time on his hands, he will walk through the cemetery of that town and reads the tombstones.  He often wanders if those departed souls every heard the Gospel?  And, many times he does not know because there is little there to tell him if one was a Christian or not.  Why, even if you go to the cemetery in the local towns around you, almost all of the tombstones have nothing to do with what religion they were.

Again, while the Scriptures show that people were buried, it is a custom that has gone down throughout time.  I do not see the command to bury, but if you do bury, make sure that all others who pass by your grave, know that you are a Christian because precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints and the world needs to know this truth.

Posted in Robert Notgrass | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Is Cremation O.K. for Christians?

The Naturalist Worldview

The Christian has nothing to fear from science per se. This is because the proper role of science is to deal with things that are empirically observable, repeatable, and demonstrable: that which occurs within the ordinary and everyday experience of common humanity. When science limits its methodologies to this sphere, it does well. However, when science steps out of this domain and seeks to comment upon things that are beyond the empirical, conflicts with spiritual claims ensue. This is because science is not properly equipped to parse non-empirical claims; neither does the scientific method have the capacity to ramify spiritual concerns. This is not to say that science cannot corroborate some spiritual truths or provide veridical support for some empirical claims that the Bible makes. The science of Biblical Archaeology, for example, has helped us understand the Bible tremendously. Neither is this to say that science cannot make inferences regarding empirically verifiable data. However, the scientific method is limited to the role of falsification, and any hypothesis, no matter how trustworthy (scientifically speaking), can only be affirmed as a probability.

When scientists begin to make claims beyond empirical data (whether they are believers or non-believers), they have left their work as scientists and have begun promulgating a philosophical position. Scientists who claim that nothing exists beyond the physical world or who suggest that everything that exists can be explained with science are actually promoting the worldview of naturalism. Naturalism is grounded upon the philosophical claim that the material universe is all that exists, and that all experiences within the material universe can be wholly explained through the laws of nature. This is not a scientific claim because science can purport no knowledge of anything beyond the material. Yet to say that nothing exists beyond the material is purporting knowledge beyond the material. In other words, science may say that it, as a discipline, has no knowledge beyond the material, but it cannot say that no one can know anything beyond the material. The claim that there is no knowledge beyond the material is itself a claim that is beyond the material. The claim that all knowledge is empirically verifiable is itself a knowledge claim that is not subject to empirical verification, but these are precisely the claims of the naturalist worldview.

The implications of such a worldview ought to be immediately evident to all Bible-believing Christians. If all that exists is the material universe, the implications are: 1) God does not exist; 2) Jesus was not God; He was just a man, nothing more; 3) the Bible is not inspired; 4) worship/prayer is pointless; 5) neither heaven nor hell exist; 6) there is no life after death and no resurrection; 7) humans have no soul/spirit; 8) man is not made in the image of God; 9) the universe has no overarching purpose or end. This list echoes the apostle Paul’s sentiments in 1 Corinthians 15:17-19: “And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.” These nine claims are not the conclusions of science; they are the conclusions of the Naturalist Worldview. Indeed, these claims are not appropriate objects of scientific inquiry since their central axis inherently involves inquiry outside of the material world. One simply cannot use empirical methods to come to such conclusions.

The Naturalist Worldview, however, has a great problem explaining some of humanity’s key common experiences. Try as they may, naturalists cannot consistently ply 1) morality, 2) consciousness, or 3) freedom with their worldview. When seeking to explain morality, they must do so without any appeal to God or any other unchanging and objective standard. This they cannot do because if God does not exist, then no standard beyond man himself exists whereby one may adjudicate right from wrong, and when man becomes that standard, then anything goes; the iron rule prevails; might makes right. In the words of one atheist, “That is a horrible ethic.” Yet such is the ground upon which the natural world of plants and mindless animals persists on a daily basis. The naturalist worldview would reduce men to mere beasts, livestock, brute varmints. Moreover, ethical systems put forth under this worldview offer no personal intrinsic value. Humans only possess value instrumentally, or as they may be usefully employed. If a human’s usefulness does not exist, then the naturalist can hold no moral compunction in ending said human’s existence. This translates to abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia.

Consciousness is also a vexing problem for naturalism. If, as one atheist put it, “Our brains secrete thought like our liver secretes bile,” then how is it that we all have unique conscious experiences? How is it that humans have the very personal experiences of awareness, focus, attention, recollection, thought, the experience of redness, pain, pleasure, and other such uniquely first-person experiences? If such experiences are simply chemicals coursing through our brain, then how is it that we have such unity of thought? What is the locus of the billions of chemical interactions coursing through our skulls? If these chemicals are constantly working, then why is it that we ever become unconscious? And how is it that we can be conscious of dreams, something that occurs while our bodies are unconscious? Why is it that chemistry alone has failed to solve the mental problems of millions of suffering people? If man has no soul to explain consciousness, consciousness becomes inexplicable.

Perhaps the most difficult problem for naturalists to solve is the existence of human freedom. Each one of us has the unique personal experience that we are fundamentally in control of our own lives. We may make decisions for good or ill, but they are our decisions— decisions that we have individually chosen and accepted. If the Naturalist Worldview is correct, then humans (and all of their component parts: limbs, organs, cells, atoms, etc.) are nothing more than a complicated collection of matter in motion, not unlike a massive chain of dominoes that operates upon the fundamental law of cause and effect. That is to say that the Universe itself is simply a closed system of cause and effect, and our various component parts are simply acting as dominoes in that closed system. Once the first one fell, nothing could impede the eventual fall of the last. If our bodies are all that exist, and we operate upon such laws, then humans are no more free than the atoms fusing at the core of the Sun.

Ultimately, the Naturalist Worldview holds no basis for criticizing or even objecting to the beliefs of Christians, because it holds no basis for concluding that the beliefs of the Christians have been produced by anything but naturalistic processes. The very processes they claim are solely responsible for the existence of the Universe are the very processes that brought about Christianity itself. How can one criticize that which naturally must occur? I may not like the fact that a rock is in my driveway, but I cannot say that it is immoral. Naturalism stands in exactly this predicament. Consequently, humanity has full autonomy to pursue spiritual claims without worry that one is not being scientifically honest.

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The Naturalist Worldview