Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

I suppose that every age has a group which professes to be “free thinkers’.’ or “enlightened” because they have reached the conclusion that there is no God. Our age is no different from those which preceded us. Our “free thinkers” (as if to imply that no others are “free thinkers” or “enlightened”) have organized themselves under the name of “humanism” and have published several documents detailing their beliefs. They confidently affirm that there is no God. They assert:

We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of the survival and fulfillment of the human race (Humanist Manifesto H, p. 16).

Whereas the percentage of Americans who consider themselves humanists is relatively small, many Americans have accepted the main tenets of the humanist movement. Some consider themselves to be atheists or agnostics; many live as atheists and agnostics-wholly disregarding the claims of God upon their lives.

Those leaders in the anti-God movement are working to establish state supported atheism or secularism. Their concept of the ideal relationship of religion and the schools is a school system in which state supported teachers can attack the Bible, deny the existence of God, belittle Christians and Christianity, and actively work to re-shape the moral values of our children so that Christian ethics are replaced with humanist ethics. The same school system must not permit voluntary prayer, the public display of the Ten Commandments, any reference to God and the Bible, and any instruction regarding biblical morals. While they say that they want the state separated from religion, what they desire is state supported atheism, agnosticism, and secularism. If we create a system in which God is systematically eliminated from our schools, our public events, our courts, our Congress, and everything else related to the government, we will effectively have produced an atheistic state! Those who believe in state supported atheism are hiding under the guise of “separation of church and state”!

In view of what is happening in our society, we need to be reminded that God exists and, as our Creator and Sustainer, has the right to govern us.

Evidence of God

The Bible nowhere makes an argument to prove the existence of God. The Bible assumes that God exists. However, there are a number of evidences for the existence of God.

1. There is no logical explanation of the creation without the existence of God. Our creation is a cosmos, not a chaos. Whether we consider the most intricate workings of the eye or the movements of the heavenly bodies, there is order manifested everywhere. The design that exists points us toward a designer. There is no explanation of the orderly arrangement of the universe without the belief that God designed it.

The existence of life itself points to the existence of God. No man has been able to show that life can come from the random collision of nonliving elements. Science has shown many times that all life comes from previously living things. A rock cannot produce a worm; helium gas does not produce an amoeba. All living things come from previously living things. If there was ever a time when there was no life, there would always be no life because something (life) cannot come from nothing (non-life). The existence of a living God is the most logical explanation of the creation which exists.

The conscience of man and moral values point to the existence of God. All men have a conscience. From whence did it originate? Did man’s conscience originate from a rock, a turkey, or even a monkey? Man is the only part of God’s creation which has aconscience. Where did it come from? The most logical explanation of the conscience of man is the belief in a living God.

Hence, the creation which exists points toward the existence of God. There is no logical explanation of the universe without the belief in the existence of God.

2. The Bible points toward the existence of God. The Bible exists. No one can deny this. The Bible contains things beyond the capability of unguided men.

The Bible was written by 40 different men from different, backgrounds and educational levels, on three continents, in three languages, and over a period of 1600 years. Yet there is a remarkable unity in this book. The thread which ties the Bible together is Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who came to this earth to make atonement for sin. The first book of the Bible points to the coming of one who is the son of Abraham through whom all families of the earth will be blessed (Gen. 12:3). The rest of the Old Testament develops this messianic expectation of a deliverer. The New Testament announces that the Messiah has come; He was Jesus of Nazareth. The book tells of His life, death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven. It closes with the promise that He will return to take those who have been faithful to Him to Heaven. Truly, the Bible manifests a remarkable unity-a unity which cannot be explained on a purely natural basis.

The Bible also contains prophecy. No man is able to foretell the future. Yet the Bible foretells the future. Copies of Isaiah exist which were written approximately 200 years before Jesus was born. The prophecies of the book of Isaiah announce that the Messiah would be born of a virgin (7:14), considered deity (9:6), made an atonement for sin (53:46), put to death (53:8), and raised from the dead (53:8). How did the author of this book know these things about the Messiah? He could know them only because God revealed them to him. Indeed, the Bible points to the existence of God.

3. Jesus points to the existence of God. No one can deny that Jesus lived. Historical evidence is too extensive for anyone who is honest with the evidence to deny that Jesus lived and died on a cross at the time in history recorded in the Bible. The New Testament documents are the eyewitness accounts of His contemporaries-men who testified that Jesus worked miracles and was raised from the dead. These documents and these men’s testimony cannot be dismissed with a wave of the hand.

Can you imagine a situation in which a popular public figure was killed and three days later the report is out that he is raised from the dead? Documents are written within 20-30 years of his death which report his resurrection. To demonstrate how impossible these facts would be to believe, if Jesus were not raised from the dead, consider the death of John F. Kennedy in November 1963. Can you imagine me writing a document to our contemporaries reporting the resurrection of Kennedy? How many would believe it? How many disciples of Kennedy could we make in A short period of time?

Yet, in the case of Jesus, His resurrection was reported within three days of His death in the very city in which He was crucified and buried. Within fifty days of His death, 3000 were baptized in His name to receive the forgiveness of their sins. How can this be explained without admitting that Jesus was actually raised from the dead?

If Jesus were raised from the dead, then He is the Son of God. In that case, there is a God. Therefore, I argue that Jesus demonstrates the existence of God.

Conclusion

The psalmist wrote, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Psa. 14: 1). The Hebrew word nabal (fool) refers to more than mental ignorance; it refers to a man who has “no perception of ethical and religious claims . . . ignoble,

disgraceful. ” The men who are denying the existence of God are still this kind of men-men who see nothing wrong with fornication, adultery, homosexuality, abortion, pornography, situation ethics, and other forms of immorality. Their denial of the existence of God is directly related to their unwillingness to submit themselves to God’s ethical standard. Yes, my brethren, there is a God!

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 4, pp. 98, 116
February 21, 1985

By Don Willis

Cicero proclaimed hundreds of years ago: “Man is his own worst enemy.” Lying deep within our bosom is that deceivable self. By nature, all are selfish. Solomon affirmed, “He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city” (Prov. 16:32).

One must learn to “rule his own spirit,” the inner man. “Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life” (Prov. 4:23). Jesus said . out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh” (Mt. 12:34). Further, “. . . those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: these are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man” (Mt. 15:18-20). James even said that one should be consistent in speech, “Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be. Doth a fountain send forth at the same time sweet water and bitter?” (Jas. 3:10f).

The first word in the earthly “Repentance is preaching of Jesus is “Repent.” “From that time Jesus begin to mind that

preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Mt. 4:17). John the Baptist had also preached, “repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Mt. 3:2).

What did the Lord mean by “repent”? Jesus gave an illustration, “A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work today in my vineyard. He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went” (Mt. 21:28-29). What is repentance? Apparently it means a change of mind that results in a change of life! One cannot be in the kingdom of heaven without this repentance.

John the Baptist told men, “Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance… And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then?” (Lk. 3:8,10). John said, if you have two coats, impart to the person who has none. John told tax collectors, “Exact no more than that which is appointed you.” Soldiers were told, “Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages” (see context in Luke 3).

The heart must be changed! That is what repentance accomplishes. Petrarch said, “Five great enemies to peace inhabit with us: viz., avarice, ambition, envy, anger and pride. If those enemies were to be banished, we should infallibly enjoy perpetual peace.” All of these lie within the heart.

Jesus told Nicodemus, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (Jn., 3:3); a man must be born of the water and of the Spirit (v. 5). When a believer repents of his sins and is baptized into Jesus Christ, he becomes a new creature (2 Cor. 5:17); a new man is raised from the waters of baptism (Rom. 6:3-6). But, it begins within the heart when one determines that Jesus is the Son of God, and repents! Until one repents of sin, he cannot enter the kingdom, regardless of how many times he is baptized!

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 4, p. 99
February 21, 1985

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: What is chastisement, what is the purpose of chastisement, and what should be our attitude toward chastisement?

Reply: The Hebrew verb form yasar is the principle word rendered “chasten, chastise” in the Old Testament. The New Testament Greek verb is paideuo and the Greek noun is paideid which according to Arndt and Gingrich, means “upbringing, instruction, discipline, correction” (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 608). The basic meaning of chastisement is “the learning or teaching of a lesson…. The lesson may be learned in three different ways: through the experience of suffering (Jer. 10:24), through the acceptance of verbal instruction (Psa. 16:7), and through observing a given situation (Jer. 2:30)” (Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, p. 113). In the New Testament chastisement is mostly that of God upon His own people. It is divine discipline (1 Cor. 11:32; 2 Cor. 6:9; Heb. 12:5-11). As human fathers chasten their sons (Heb. 12:7; 10a), the New Testament teaches that God chastens His people for their own spiritual good. He fulfills the role of a Father and the infliction is administered in love. It is a maturing process that results from instruction, training, and suffering.

We cannot say that all of our trials are inflicted upon us by God. Some of our suffering, sickness and sorrow are self-inflicted. They result from our disobedience of God’s laws, either in the realm. of the natural or the spiritual, or both. However, there are inflictions that come from God that we may be improved. We should not, though, be so concerned about the source of our suffering or chastisement as we should our attitude toward it. How we receive our chastisement should be the main point of our concern.

Having considered the definitions; and sources of chastisement, a brief textual study of Hebrews 12:5-13 will be helpful. It is the longest single passage in the New Testament dealing with chastisement. Apparently some of those whom the author of the Hebrew letter was addressing were not gladly bearing their persecutions. “My son, regard not lightly the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art reproved of him” (v. 5). It is this writer’s belief that persecution is the context of this passage (see w. 2,3). The Hebrews had forgotten their former encouragement. They should have considered (as we should also consider) that any parent who will not chastise a child does not love the child as he should. A parent that is permissive or lax is not respected. A wise and loving parent will not hold correction from the child (Prov. 3:12; 13:24; 19:18; 22:15; 23:13; 29:15-17; Eph. 6:4). “Spare the rod and spoil the child” is not a proverb of Scripture but the principle is there. When tribulation comes upon us and distress rills our hearts, it is quite easy for us to pity ourselves and even take sides against God. The Christian is cautioned against despising the Lord’s chastenings. We must remember that He loves us and it is for our good. We, as the Hebrew readers, are not to be discouraged and disheartened by what may seem to be a heavy burden.

Our question centers upon how God chastens His children. We focus upon verse six. “For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. ” Chastisement in various forms is found in several other books of the Bible (Job. 5:17; Psa. 94:12; Prov. 3:12; Rev. 3:19).

We are admonished to endure when we are chastised (v. 7). “It is for chastening that ye endure.” The footnote (ASV) is “endure unto chastening.” To help us endure trials, we must have faith and look to the end result. It is said even of Jesus, “who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising shame…” (Heb. 12:2). One writer expressed it this way: “Faith not only looks beneath the surface of things and sees the sweet orange beneath the bitter rind, but it looks beyond the present and anticipates the blessed sequel” (Arthur W. Pink, An Exposition of Hebrews, p. 941).

The Hebrew author continues by saying, “But if ye are without chastening, whereof all have been made partakers, then ye are bastards, and not sons” (v. 8). From the standpoint of human reasoning, we would ask, “If we are God’s children, why are we chastised?” But our readers are told that they could not be true sons without chastisement. They would be considered illegitimate, which is not what they wanted to be.

Surely our respect for God should be greater than that for our earthly parents who chasten their children. “Furthermore, we had the fathers of our flesh to chasten us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits and live?” (v. 9). Verse ten states that God’s chastening is for profit-“that we may be partakers of his holiness. ” The end result is further seen in verse eleven. “All chastening seemeth for the present to be not joyous but grievous; yet afterward it yieldeth peaceable fruit unto them that have exercised thereby, even the fruit of righteousness.” Correction from the hand of God makes one righteous. It is unpleasant for the moment, but the result is our maturity. Christians should look to chastisement or discipline as a source of encouragement (v. 12).

Looking at chastisement from the aspect of teaching or instruction, two passages come to our attention. The first is Titus 2:11,12. Paul mentions that the grace of God instructs or teaches. “Teaching” in this passage is the same root word that is translated “chastise.” It is the Greek verb paideuo which literally means to discipline through the acceptance of verbal inspiration. As the father is to nurture his children (Eph. 6:4), so God’s chastening of His children nurtures them step by step toward fulfilling what He wants them to be. The second is 2 Timothy 3:16,17. The three words in this passage are correlated to chastening. The Scriptures teach and “reprove.” Also, they convict one of error, directing him on the right path. They “correct,” changing us to what God wants us to be. Without correction, we could easily go astray. They instruct – ” instruction which is in righteousness.” The word “instruction” here is the Greek noun paideia. So, chastening is instruction or discipline-it educates and trains us.

Chastisement when administered as punishment, may be so severe as to result in physical death (Acts 5:11) and the fear of God is impressed upon all the saints. Whether our chastisement is suffering (physical or emotional), or instruction and training, in either case or both, it results in our final reward if we faithfully trust, obey, and serve God.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 4, pp. 100-101
February 21, 1985

By Johnny Stringer

When Jesus prohibited divorce and condemned the second marriages or divorced persons as adulterous (Matt. 19:3-9; 5:32), He made one exception to the rule: Divorce is permissible if it is for the cause of Some, however, teach that there is no scriptural ground for divorce. They recognize that Jesus allowed divorce for fornication, but they say Jesus’ teaching does not apply to us.

Proponents of this position maintain that Jesus was merely explain the meaning of the Law of Moses regarding divorce. There was debate among the Jews about the matter; some contended that under the Law, of Moses, divorce was permissible only for fornication, while argued that it was allowed for any reason, no matter how trivial. Advocates of the position under discussion claim that Jesus was merely settling this controversy, showing that. under Moses’ law, divorce was only for fornication. It is, their, contention that the New Testament, which we are now under, allows no exception to the rule that marriage is permanent.

Based On Erroneous Definition

In order for this position to be true, Jesus’ teaching must have been the same as Moses’ teaching on the subject of divorce. He could not have been explaining Moses’ teaching if He were teaching something different from what Moses taught. Advocates of this position contend that Jesus was indeed teaching precisely what Moses taught.

This contention is based on an erroneous, definition of the word rendered “uncleanness”, in Deuteronomy 24:1. According to that divorce was allowed if a man found some “uncleanness” in his wife. It is argued that the word rendered “uncleanness” meant “fornication.” Hence, it is concluded, the Law of Moses allowed divorce only for fornication; Jesus, therefore, was only setting forth what the Law of Moses taught.

In fact, the word rendered “uncleanness” does not have that meaning. It is a rather broad term, vague an indefinite meaning. Young defines it as “a thing offensive.” Brown, Driver, and Briggs define it as “indecency, improper behavior.” God used a term that was vague and indefinite in meaning, because His purpose was not to set forth specific offenses which would make divorce permissible. If God had meant to make fornication the only ground for divorce under the Law of Moses, He would have used a word that had that specific meaning; but He did not.

It is obvious that the word rendered “uncleanness” in Deuteronomy 24:1 did not have reference either to adultery or to pre-marital fornication; for the woman guilty of either of these sins was to be put to death (Lev. 20: 10; Deut. 22:20-21), whereas the woman with “some uncleanness” was to be given a writing of divorcement and sent on her way. What was to be done to the fornicator was different from :what was to be done to the woman with some uncleanness.

What Jesus taught was clearly not in harmony with what Moses taught. Under Moses’ law the adulteress was not to be divorced, but to, be put to death. Moreover, under Moses, one who was divorced could go and be another man’s wife (Deut. 24:2); but according to Jesus’ teaching, she could not (Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Lk. 16:18). It is false, therefore, to say that Jesus was merely explaining and reaffirming the Law of Moses.

Purpose Of His Teaching

When Jesus delivered His teaching regarding divorce, His purpose was not to explain and reaffirm what Moses taught on the matter. Rather, His purpose was to set forth the principles that would govern His kingdom. His teaching in general pointed to His kingdom and was designed to instruct men regarding His kingdom (Matt. 4:17, 23).

A good sample of His teaching is found in the Sermon on the Mount, in which He clearly was setting the tone for His kingdom. Jesus’ teaching regarding divorce, allowing divorce for the cause of fornication, is found in that sermon (Matt. 5:32). It is in a section beginning in Matthew 5:20, in which Jesus contrasts the righteousness taught and practiced by the scribes and Pharisees against the righteousness He would demand in His kingdom. He was making the point that since a higher degree of righteousness was required in His kingdom than was taught and practiced by the scribes and Pharisees, one whose righteousness did not exceed theirs could not be a part of the kingdom of Christ. The scribes and Pharisees even fell short of what was required in the law on many points; but even when they set forth precisely what the Law taught about divorce, their teaching still fen short of what Jesus required. In the Sermon on the Mount, therefore, as Jesus was setting the tone for His kingdom, He gave His teaching on divorce to help describe the higher righteousness required in it.

Jesus had no intention of entering into and settling a Jewish controversy about what was allowed under a law which would not be binding much longer anyway. He did not argue that His position was correct on the basis of the wording found in the Law of Moses. In fact, He made no effort to show that it was what the Law of Moses taught. Rather, He presented His teaching as being correct; not because it was what the Law of Moses taught, but because of His own authority. With the words, “I say unto you,” He affirmed that this was his teaching resting on His authority (note Matt. 7:29). He was not acting as an expositor of the Law of Moses, but as the King setting forth His own laws to govern His soon-to-be-established kingdom (Mat 4:17, 23).

Then after the Apostles received the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, the Spirit taught them all things, reminding them of all that Jesus had taught (John 14:26), including what He had taught regarding divorce. Under His guidance, they wrote it into the New Testament. It is now our obligation to be governed by it.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 4, pp. 101-102
February 21, 1985