Truth Magazine

By Ronny Milliner

Humanists “reject the idea that God has intervened miraculously in history” (A Secular Humanist Declaration, p. 18). Not only do they reject the miraculous, but they also have a very degrading view of those of us who do believe in the miraculous. Paul Kurtz, the editor of the humanist magazine Free Inquiry, wrote in that publication, “I think that if he (Jesus, RM) existed he was either a disturbed personality and/or a magician . . . . Anyone who believes that he was sent by God . . . is, in my judgment, clearly disturbed” (“Letters to the Editor,” Free Inquiry, Spring 1984, p. 3). In the same issue of that paper is an article entitled “On Miracles.” Its author Randel Helms, affirms, “It requires theological maturity to outgrow the idea of miracles – a truly adult outlook to accept that the processes of the world are sufficient and sufficiently blessed, that the laws of nature never have and never will be set aside” (p. 44). In spite of the fact that we might be considered “clearly disturbed” and immature, we do believe there is sufficient evidence to show “that God has intervened miraculously in history.”

If there is no such thing as a miracle, then Christianity cannot exist. There is no such thinj as a non-miraculous Christianity. As one has well stated, “If opposition to the supernatural is consistently carried out, it cannot stop with denial of miracles, but must carry the person straight over into agnosticism or atheism. It is the height of inconsistency for the modernist to admit the existence of God and yet to deny the miracles recorded in Scripture on the ground that they are opposed to natural law. A little reflection should convince anyone that the whole theistic conception of the universe is at stake in the denial of miracles” (Loraine Boettner, Studies in Theology, p. 53). It is either miracles or atheism – there is no other choice.

The Definition Of Miracle

Webster defines a miracle as “an extra-ordinary event manifesting a supernatural work of God.” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says a miracle is “an extraordinary work of God…. transcending the ordinary powers of Nature, wrought in connection with the ends of revelation” (Vol. III, p. 2062). The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible states, “Miracles are events in the external world wrought by the immediate power of God and intended as a sign of attestation. They are possible because God sustains, controls, and guides all things, and is personal and omnipotent” (p. 399).

Here the humanist objects and says, “There are no breaks in the orderly sequence of things” (Randel Helms, “On Miracles,” Free Inquiry, Spring 1984, p. 45). He observes that since we have never observed a break in nature then such has never occurred. There is not now, nor ever has been, a miracle, because that would be a disruption in the laws of nature. Such reasoning begs the question.

Howard F. Vos has well answered this objection. He wrote, “It should be clear, then, that the laws of nature are merely observations of uniformity or constancy in nature. They are not forces which initiate action. They simply describe the way nature behaves – when its course is not affected by a superior power . . . . It is contrary to the laws of nature for immense steel ships to float or for airships weighing many tons to fly. Other factors have been introduced . . . . Is God less than man?” (“Miracles,” Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 11, p. 1136).

Also C.S. Lewis, in his book, Miracles, has provided a good illustration. “It is with them as with the laws of arithmetic. If I put six pennies into a drawer on Monday and six more on Tuesday, the laws decree that – other things being equal – I shall find twelve pennies there on Wednesday. But if the drawer has been robbed I may in fact find only two. Something will have been broken (the lock of the drawer or the laws of England) but the laws of arithmetic will not have been broken …. In calling them miracles we do not mean that they are contradictions or outrages; we mean that, left to her own resources, she (nature) could never produce them” (pp. 70,75).

But our understanding of miracles can be further enlightened by looking at the four different words in the Bible which are used to describe them. Sometimes the word “work” is used as in John 9:3, “Jesus answered, It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was in order that the works of God might be displayed in him.” The Greek word used here is ergon and defined as “deed, accomplishment – of the deeds of God and Jesus, specifically the miracles” (Arndt and Gingrich, p. 308). This word emphasizes the source of miracles. They are the works of God; they cannot be the works of men (including magicians).

We find Nicodemus using the word “sign” to describe the miracles of Jesus. He said, “Rabbi, we know that you have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.” The Greek word here is semeion and means “a sign, mark, token; … of miracles and wonders by which God authenticates the men sent by Him, or by which men prove that the cause they are pleading is God’s” (Thayer, p. 573). Here we see the purpose of miracles – to show that one was from God and that his message was divine instead of human.

The third word used is “wonder” or teras which W.E. Vine says is “something strange, causing the beholder to marvel” (Vol. IV, p. 228). Peter uses this word in Acts 2:22 when he said, “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know.” The word “wonder” shows the effect of miracles. They were such awesome events that they caused amazement in those who witnessed them.

The final word used is the word “power.” Used by Paul in 2 Corinthians 12:12 this word, dunamis in the original, means “the power of performing miracles” (Thayer, p. 159). This last word emphasizes the cause of miracles. They are done by such a great power that it can only be the power of God behind it.

The Evidence Of Miracles

“We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural.” So reads the Humanist Manifesto II. The reason they have not found the evidence may be the same reason a robber can’t find a policeman. We believe the evidence is there. Let us examine it with an open mind and honesty.

First of all what kind of evidence can we expect. It is certainly not a personal testimony, for we both agree that there are no miracles today. So we will make our case from historical evidence. Charles P. M’Ilvine wrote, “There are various descriptions of evidence, as the evidences of sense – the evidence of mathematical demonstration – the evidence of testimony. Each of these has its own department of subjects. A question of morals cannot be demonstrated by mathematics, or proved by the senses. A question of historical fact can be settled only by testimony. We are just as certain that such a man as Napoleon once lived, as that any proposition in geometry is true – though one is a matter of testimony, the other of demonstration. We are quite as sure that arsenic is poisonous, as that food is nutritious – though one is, to most of us at least, a matter of testimony only; while the other is, to all, a matter of sense . . . . Mathematical evidence is evidently inapplicable to the question. It is a matter fact belonging to another century, and therefore intangible by sense. Nothing remains but testimony. This is perfectly appropriate to the question” (“M’Ilvaine’s Review of Hume on Miracles, ” pp. 7-9).

John W. Montgomery agrees, as he expressed, “The only way we can know whether an event can occur is to see whether in fact it has occurred. The problem of ‘miracles,’ then, must be solved in the realm of historical investigation, not in the realm of philosophical speculation” (History and Christianity, p. 75).

We will call two witnesses to the stand. One is a Galilean fisherman by the name of John, and the other a physician called Luke. John was a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, and wrote a book about this unusual Nazarene. There has been found a fragment of a manuscript of the Gospel of John, called the Rylands Papyrus, dated from 100-150 A.D. Irenaus, writing around 185 A.D. and a student of John’s student, Polycarp, affirms that John was the writer of the fourth Gospel. We learn from other historical writings that this man was willing to suffer great persecution for the belief he had in what he had written. John states his reason for writing in John 20:30-3 1, “Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God-, and that believing you may have life in His name.”

Our other witness was a traveling companion of the apostle Paul, a former persecutor of the early followers of Jesus, but who, for some reason, changed to become a fervent follower of the Nazarene. W.M. Ramsay, after comparing Luke’s writings with known facts of the first century, concluded, “Luke is a historian of the first rank; . . . in short, this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians” (The Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 222). Luke states in the beginning of his book, “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the Word have handed down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught” (Lk. 1:14). Luke, as a man of science, was only interested in “the exact truth.”

What do these two reliable witnesses have to say about the miracles of Jesus? First, they show that the miracles of Jesus were varied. He showed power over diseases (Jn. 4:46-54; 5:1-9; 9:1-7; Lk. 4:38-39; 5:12-26; 6:6-10; 7:1-10; 8:43-48; 13:10-17; 14:1-6). He showed power over demons (Lk. 4:31-36; 11:14; 8:26-39; 9:38-42). He showed power over nature (Jn. 2:1-11; 6:16-21; Lk. 5:1-11; 8:22-25; 9:12-17). And He showed power over death (Lk. 7:11-15; 8:4142; Jno. 11: 17-44). (What magician ever raised a man who had been dead for four days?) The miracles of Jesus were also numerous (Jn. 20:30; Lk. 4:40-41; 7:21-22). His miracles were done publicly (Lk. 6:6-11; 9:37-43; 18:35-43). His miracles were qffirmed by His disciples (Jn. 2:11), the multitudes (Jn. 6:14), the cured (Jn. 9:11,24), and even by His enemies (Jn. 11:47-53). The miracles of Jesus also confirmed His claims. Jesus could say, “I am the bread of life” (Jn. 6:35,48,51), because He had fed over 5000 with 5 loaves of bread (Jn. 6:5-13). Jesus cold say, I am the light of the world” (Jn. 8:12; 9:5), because He gave light to a man born blind (Jn. 9:1-7). Jesus could say, “I am the resurrection and the life” (Jn. 11:25), because He gave life to a dead man (Jn. 11:38-44). No sane man would make such claims! But Jesus did and proved the proclamation by the miraculous signs.

The Attacks Of Miracles

The Jews were the first to attack the miracles of Jesus. Their attack was not a denial of the miracles, but rather they attributed Jesus’ power to the Devil (Mt. 12:24; Mk. 3:22-27; Lk. 11: 15-22). Jesus’ answer remains the same today, “And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then shall his kingdom stand?”

The Pantheist has denied miracles on the basis that God is nature. But the truth is God is above nature. The Pantheist would put a strait jacket on God and His power.

The Sceptic doubts the possibility of miracles. Let him doubt no longer, but examine the evidence and accept the only reasonable conclusion – Jesus did miracles!

The Rationalist says that the miracles are only myths made up by writers centuries later than the time of Jesus. But as we have seen the evidence comes from men who lived in the first century. They lived and wrote during the time when miracles were being done. If we accept the historical evidence for Julius Caesar, why will we not accept an even stronger historical evidence for Jesus and the signs He performed.

The Critic argues that the testimony is full of mistakes and contradictions. Where is the proof? This argument has been made for centuries, and we still are waiting for the first contradiction to be given.

Conclusion

Friends, without the miraculous we have no hope. Paul reasoned in 1 Corinthians 15 that if the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus is false and thus our hope in Christ is only in this life “we are of all men most to be pitied” (1 Cor. 15:16-19). “Without the miraculous element Christianity would have no message, no solace for our age . . . . The only answer to the choppy seas of life is a Savior who can say, ‘Peace, be still.’ The only hope for victory over Satanic power is through the One whom the demons recognized and obeyed. The only hope for the body in this life and the next lies in the One who is Lord of life and death. The only hope for the soul rests in the one who died for our sins and rose again and ever lives to make intercession for us” (Howard F. Vos, “Miracles,” Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 11, p. 1137).

Let us remember, “these (signs) have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name” (Jn. 20:31).

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 13, pp. 393, 408-409
July 5, 1984

By Bobby Witherington

In 1933, a group of 34 humanists in the United States set forth the philosophical and religious principles which they regarded as fundamental. The document they drafted is known as Humanist Manifesto L Herein are contained some 15 radical affirmations. Affirmation number one says: “Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existent and not created.” Affirmation number two says: “Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.”

Forty years later (1973), Humanist Manifesto Il was published. In this even more radical document the signers thereof affirmed “a set of common principles that can serve as a basis for common action,” and which were designed “for a secular society on a planetary scale.” In this publication, Humanism’s ungodly goals regarding Religion, Ethics, The Individual, Democratic Society, World Community, and Humanity as a whole are set forth. In the section on Religion we are treated to such statements as: “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. As non-theists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity …. But we can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. While there is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves . . . . Rather, science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces.”

In the book The Humanist Frame edited by Sir Julian Huxley, one of the founders of The American Humanist Association, we note these statements from the pen of H.J. Muller in his chapter on “The Humanist Future”: “For once the theory of evolution was accepted, only wishful thinking could avoid the logical conclusion, so aptly expressed by Shaw, that man has created God in his own image, rather than the reverse. An animal among millions of other species of animals, living and extinct, man was confronted with the responsibility of justifying his own existence and of finding his own footing or else admitting his inadequacy” (p. 402). Later he said, “This illustrates that modern Humanism must be revolutionary in its outlook” (p. 413).

From the same source we read these words penned by Sir Julian Huxley: “Evolutionary man can no longer take refuse from his loneliness by creeping for shelter into the arms of a divinized father-figure whom he has himself created, nor escape from the responsibility of making decisions by sheltering under the umbrella of Divine Authority, nor absolve himself from the hard task of meeting his present problems and planning his future by relying on the will of an omniscient but unfortunately inscrutable Providence” (p. 19).

The preceding statements, made by authoritative figures within the fast-growing Humanist movement, are but a few among many that could be cited. But these are sufficient to prove that the Humanist concept of the universe is based on the evolutionary hypothesis. Of course, if belief in a Supernatural Being is summarily dismissed, as is generally the case among Secular Humanists, then belief in the theory of evolution becomes a logical necessity. Secular Humanists, in their minds, have reasoned God out of existence. Their philosophy is anti-Genesis from start to finish. They do not believe that “in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1), for they do not believe God even exists, apart from man’s own imagination. They do not believe “God created man in his own image” (Gen. 1:27), for they believe God is simply a myth, and a myth can not create. Of course, man is real, so man is the creator – having, in the words of Shaw, “created God in his own image.” Having completely reversed Genesis 1:27, in concept and conduct they are thus forced to, also reverse Jeremiah 10:23 and conclude that “the way of man” is in himself, and that it is “in man that walketh to direct his steps.”

Let us get it straight; Humanism is not humanitarianism! Humanism is an evil tree that bears evil fruit, and which is rooted in the perverse soils of atheism and evolution. All true humanists are evolutionists. They believe life spontaneously sprang from non-life, and through eons of time evolved to produce life as we know it today, including man. To them, time plus chance equals man! In the words of Huxley, man is “made of the same matter and operated by the same energy as all the rest of the cosmos,” and is “linked by genetic continuity with all the other living inhabitants of his planet – animals, plants, and micro-organisms.” These, Huxley says, are all man’s “cousins or remoter kin, all parts of one single branching and evolving flow of metabolizing protoplasm” (The Humanist Frame, p. 19).

Logical-thinking, ancient Greeks said: “From nothing nothing comes. Something is. Therefore something was.” Modern men still quote these words of ancient wisdom. And well they should! Any mathematician knows that nothing subtracted from nothing, or nothing added to nothing still leaves nothing. Hence, the expression “something is; therefore something was” is axiomatic, or self-evident. The application of this principle leads us to say “for every effect there had to be an adequate cause.” This principle is expressed in Scripture in the statement “for every house is builded by some man. . . ” (Heb. 3:4). All intelligent people, including atheists and evolutionists, admit that a house did not build itself, nor did it evolve from a speck of mortar or a splinter of wood. It should be equally as obvious that “the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:20).

Theists, atheists, and evolutionists, if they are honest, have one thing in common; they have to admit the existence of a first cause which caused everything else. Something had to initially exist in order for something to exist now. And there could be but three alternatives – eternal mind, eternal matter, or eternal nothing. To believe that eternal nothing produced something is unthinkable. He who believes this has a problem which generally calls for treatment in a specially designed institution! This leaves two alternatives: eternal mind, or eternal matter.

Let us consider the second alternative first; namely, the belief that life as we know it, its design, its amazing complexity, and intellect, evolved from eternal matter. On the one hand, this would mean that mind, which is superior to matter, was produced by matter, its inferior. This is hardly consistent with the “mind over matter” concept! More specifically, it means that life came from non-life – which is the antithesis of every scientific experiment and observation to date concerning the origin of life. Moreover, the eternity of matter concept is contrary to the second law of thermodynamics, which recognizes the tendency in all the universe to degenerate, or to descend from the highly organized to the less organized. If left alone, metal rusts, wood rots, and buildings deteriorate. This law, also known as the principle of entropy, argues that the universe (matter) had a beginning – obviously so, for if it is running down, it must have been new at some point in the past. Furthermore, the most current sophisticated, scientific methods available for determining the age of the earth all agree that it is relatively Young – much, much younger than even the youngest age which is demanded by the evolutionary hypothesis. In fact, the scientific arguments against the theory of evolution are so consistent and so conclusive that honest evolutionists have admitted that the one compelling reason why they believe it is because the only other viable alternative is to believe in God! Against evidence to the contrary, they have forced themselves to believe in the eternity of matter. And they believe that through blind chance inanimate matter became animate, or that non-life sprang into life (spontaneous generation). According to them, inorganic matter became organic matter, which, through a transmutation process, became vegetable life, which became animal life, which became man. And all this without design, purpose, or any assistance from an intelligent being! And these are the people who deny every miracle recorded in the Bible, and ridicule the virgin birth of Christ! They think it incredulous to believe a virgin could conceive and bear a Son, but they question the intelligence of a person who refuses to believe an amoeba sprang of ancient slime and evolved into man. They are hardly in a position to criticize “blind faith”!

The Humanist concept of the universe is atheistic and evolutionistic. Being a belief structure, humanism is a religion. It admits to being a religion, and it has been so declared by the U.S. Supreme Court. But it is a religion which worship and serves the creature while often denying the very existence of the Creator. And being a belief structure, or a religion, humanism adversely affects man’s whole outlook upon life itself and man in general. In short, humanism was first conceived in the mind of the devil, and it can only lead to one destination – hell! We must “put on the whole armor of God,” and take “the sword of the Spirit” (Eph. 6:11,17), and resist this “ism” which is spreading like a cancer throughout the world. It is already much later than most people think. But if Christians will be as evangelistic with the truth as humanists are with their lie it may not be too late. Consider ye well!

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 13, pp. 391-392
July 5, 1984

By Connie W. Adams

A struggle of epic proportions is now being waged over what has come to be called “humanism.” With some it is a catch phrase, a scare word. Some of the opposition to what is being called humanism is ill conceived and sensationally promoted. Some have built great reputations as champion fighters of humanism. Others have dismissed the subject as too academic for them. Some are blissfully unaware of the nature of prevalence of this philosophy. This special issue of Guardian of Truth is designed to contribute to an understanding of the subject and to alert readers to the real dangers posed by this system to the faith and morals of our generation.

We are all part of the human family and as such ought to be concerned with whatever is in the best interest of all mankind. Some have naively concluded that this is all there is to humanism. Some see it as nothing more than a continuation of the renaissance of the fifteenth century with its revival of learning, emphasis on progress, science and technology. I have talked with some school teachers, including some who are Christians, who think that humanism is the promotion of human welfare (humanitarianism). Others identify it with the term humanities (the study of past and present cultures). But the humanism of this article, and indeed of this special issue of this Guardian of Truth, is much more than that.

Humanism is a man-centered world view. There are two basic views of the world: (1) dualistic and (2) monistic. The Christian’s view is dualistic. There is the realm of material reality which is to be investigated by the natural senses using the scientific method. But the Christian sees a second area of reality to be confronted and that concerns God and the human soul. This part of existence is revealed objectively in the Bible. Humanism, to the contrary, is monistic. It views everything from the vantage point of material reality. It recognizes no God, no revelation from God, no moral or spiritual absolutes.

Let Humanists Tell Us

I know of no better way to discover what humanists believe than to give them the floor to put it in their own words.

Humanism is primarily a method of procedure and a value system not a dogma about The method of procedure is the scientific method: the use of reason and observation in a naturalistic context. The value system involves the idea that human life in the here and now is the sole context within which morals apply and that satisfaction of human social and individual needs is the goal of ethics (Frederick Edwards, The Humanist, May/June, 1982, p. 48).

In 1933, a document called Humanist Manifesto I was published and signeo by 34 prominent citizens, including John Dewey, the father of the educational approach being used in America since his time. It was, in essence, creedal statement. In 1973, Humanist Manifesto II was published, initially signed by 261 people, many of whom were leading educators and some of whom were functionaries in government funded agencies at the time the signed the document. The identifying of the signees is an interesting study of its own, but beyond the scope of my assignment. There is no better was to learn what humanism is and what humanists believe than from this document.

“As in 1933, humanists still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to love and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith. Salvationism, based on mere affirmation, still appears as harmful, diverting people with false hopes of heaven hereafter. Reasonable minds look to other means for survival” (preface, p. 13).

“Many kinds of humanism exist in the contemporary world. The varieties and emphasis of naturalistic humanism include ‘scientific,’ ‘ethical,’ ‘democratic,’ ‘religious,’ and ‘Marxist’ humanism. Free thought, atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, deism, rationalism, ethical culture, and liberal religion all claim to be heir to the humanist tradition” (p. 15).

Humanism is a philosophy with a world-wide thrust. Consider the following: “We affirm a set of common principles that can serve as a basis for united action – positive principles relevant to the present human condition. They are a design for a secular society on a planetary scale” (p. 15).

Humanism and Religion

“We believe, however, that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species . . . . 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. As non-theists, we begin with humans, not God, nature not deity . . . . But we can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species . . . . No deity will save us, we must save ourselves . . . . Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful . . . . There is no credible evidence that life survives the death of the body” (pp. 15,16,17).

Humanism and Ethics

“We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction” (p. 17).

Humanism and Individual Rights

“Sixth: In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion and divorce should be recognized. While we do not approve of exploitive, denigrating forms of sexual expression, neither do we wish to prohibit, by law or social sanction, sexual behaviour betwen consenting adults . . . Short of harming others or compelling them to do likewise, individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their life-styles as they desire” (p. 18).

Humanism and Democratic Society

“Seventh: To enhance freedom and dignity the individual must experience a full range of civil liberties in all societies . . . . It also includes a recognition of an individual’s right to die with dignity, euthanasia, and the right to suicide . . . . People are more important than decalogues, rules, proscriptions, or regulations” (p. 19).

Prevalence of Humanism

While there are about 275,000 declared humanists in this country, the power and influence of this philosophy is much more pervasive than this figure would indicate. Among these are leaders in education, liberal religion, presidential appointees, the controlling forces of the news media, lawyers and jurists. The educational approach in our country has been slanted in this direction for half a century. This is the motivation behind many of the court battles in which the American Civil Liberties Union participates.

It affects the education of our children. Is anyone so foolish as to think that children can start in kindergarten and continue through high school and college with daily exposure to texts and some teachers committed to this notion without being influenced in thought and moral behavior? When origins must be studied without reference to God or the Bible, when values clarification strategy sessions are conducted with the presupposition that there are no right or wrong answers, when sex education studies present homosexuality, lesbianism and even bestiality as “alternative life-styles,” when social studies present communes and live in arrangements as choices equal to God-ordained marriage, and when death education is approached without reference to God, the soul or the hereafter, you had better believe that your children will be adversely affected.

Governors, congressmen, presidents, lawyers, judges and other public servants will act and react in those roles consistent with the moral and spiritual presuppositions which have molded and shaped their lives. They can do no other.

The bulk of today’s entertainment fare in the movies and on television is planned and packaged by people thoroughly saturated with humanism. Add the influence of that from the hours weekly spent in such viewing to the hours and years of public education through which our children pass, and it is amazing that we are able to salvage any of them. It takes very strong family influence and spiritual conviction to offset such odds.

Humanism Contradicts the Bible

“The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God” (Psa. 14:1). The wise man wrote, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Prov. 1:7). Again, “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Prov. 14:12). The prophet said, “0 Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself; for it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (Jer. 10:23). Paul said ‘ “the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God” (1 Cor. 3:19). Romans 1:18-32 gives the ultimate moral and spiritual degeneracy which follows in the wake of expelling God from human knowledge. Paul said, “professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” Is it not strange that those whom God calls “fools” are the shapers and molders of thought and action in modern America?

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 13, pp. 386, 395-396
July 5, 1984

By Harold Fite

David asked the question, “What is man, that thou art mindful of him?” (Psa. 8:4). This is an age-old question, the answer to which answers other perplexing questions, such as, “Where did man come from?”; “What is his purpose?”; and “Where is he going.”

The Humanist conception of man is expressed in their Manifesto in the following fashion:

Manifesto I

Article 2: “Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process.

Article 3: “Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.

Article 8: “Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man’s life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now.

Manifesto II

Article 2: “Promises of immortal salvation or fear of damnation are both illusory and harmful . . . . Modem science discredits such historic concepts as the ‘ghost in the machine’ and ‘separable soul.’ Rather, science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces . . . There is no credible evidence that life survives the death of the body.

Article 5: “We believe in maximum individual autonomy consonant with social responsibility.”

According to the humanist, man is the product of the evolutionary process and his total personality bears the imprint of the social and cultural society surrounding him. His origin was an organic accident. His purpose looks no higher than this earth, and when he dies he ceases to exist. The totality of what constitutes man is placed in the grave.

The humanistic philosophy is atheistic in nature and materialistic in application. When one denies the reality of God, he removes that which makes a man a man. There can be no “manhood” without “Godhood.”

If there is no God, man is not a created being; he does not possess an immortal spirit; he has no moral responsibility and no eternal purpose. He does not bear the image of God, but only the mark of “natural evolutionary forces.”

The humanist begin “with humans, not God; nature, not deity.” The humanist’s man is stripped of the spiritual and stands as a physical, earthbound, materialistic being.

Since humanists begin with man, they attribute to him the exalted position of the highest being. God is dethroned and man is deified. Basically, humanism is the worship of man. As the highest being, his thoughts and actions are always right. They are but the means through which he seeks the “creative realization of human needs and desires.”

The Humanists advocate “maximum individual autonomy consonant with social responsibility.” While some may be fooled by autonomy consistent with social responsibility, what the humanist are advocating is unbridled freedom – the removal of all restraints. The man that demands absolute freedom is the same man that determines social responsibility. As man enlarges his area of expression, he will bring “social responsibility” up to approve it. Humanism is a self-serving, self-centered, religion. Denying self is completely foreign to humanistic philosophy.

Biblical View of Man

What does the Bible say about man? It begins with God. Man’s origin, nature, purpose and destiny relate to Him. The Bible teaches that man is a creation of God: “And God created man in his image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Gen. 1:27). He was formed from the “dust of the ground.” He is God’s crowning creation. He is “fearfully and wonderfully made.” God then breathed into him the breath of life and he became a living soul (Gen. 2:7). Man Is made in the image of God (Gen. 1:27). He possesses mental faculties by which he can know and understand the things of God, and the intelligence to choose between right and wrong. This speaks of the moral responsibility of man.

Contrary to humanist doctrine, the Bible affirms the reality of the soul and its immortality. Jesus said, “And be not afraid of them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28).

Man is a dual being. Distinction is made throughout the Bible between the flesh and the spirit (soul) of man. Physical death is the separation of the two (James 2:26). The “dust returns to the earth and the spirit to God who gave it” (Eccl. 12:7).

The apostle Paul wrote of the spirit of man being “clothed’ with flesh. He shows that if his spirit were separated from his body, he would be “present with the Lord.” But if his spirit remained in his body, he would be “absent from the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:1-8).

Jesus said, “I am the God of Abraham,” then affirms that “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (Matt. 22:32). Abraham had been dead for hundreds of years, yet there was a part of Abraham then living. Death is not the cessation of existence. Being made in the image of God, man has within him that which is immortal.

Man has a purpose for living. He is to glorify God in all that he does (1 Cor. 10:32). He does so by fearing God and keeping His commandments (Eccl. 12:13).

Not only does man have a purpose on earth, but one which far transcends this earth. The nature of man presupposes an eternal purpose. God has set eternity in his heart (Eccl. 3:11). Some day Jesus will descend from heaven with a shout and all who are in the grave will be raised and brought before God in judgment. “And these (disobedient, H.F.) shall go away into eternal punishment- but the righteous into eternal life” (Matt. 25:46). To realize this purpose is to realize the very best that there is in man. It is a gross perversion of purpose to serve self and to be consumed with the “here” and “now.”

While man enjoys freedom and liberty, he doesn’t make license out of liberty. There are restrictions on freedom; limitations on liberty (Gal. 5:13). Freedom is enjoyed as we live within the confines of God’s law. Man does not have the freedom to do as he pleases. Freedom is not a question of doing what we like but doing what we should! The ideal life is a life of denial (Matt. 16:24-26).

The humanist man is no man at all. He has been robbed of his virtues and values which produce greatness. There remains the twisted, grotesque shell which faintly and fleetingly remind us what he was and what he could become.

“The fool has said in his heart, there is no God” (Psa. 14:1).

God’s Man	Humanist’s Man
1. Created by God.	1. Product of evolutionary process.
2. Image of God.	2. Image of natural environment and social heritage.
3. Has immortal soul.	3. Has no soul.
4. Has eternal purpose.	4. Has no eternal purpose.
5. Purpose on earth is to glorify God.	5. Purpose on earth is to glorify man.
6. Life after death.	6. No life after death.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 13, pp. 388-389
July 5, 1984