Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

This entire issue of Guardian of Truth is devoted to a study of humanism. Most of our readers probably have heard very little, if any, about humanism and never read the Humanist Manifesto I or II or A Secular Humanist Declaration. Most probably imagine that humanism is a philosophy that is studied only by a few “eggheads” in some university somewhere. While it may be true that the study of humanism is rather limited, the doctrinal conclusions of the philosophy of humanism are affecting various areas of our lives.

The basic tenets of humanism arc as follows:

1. It affirms that the universe is self-existent and denies that it was created. Thus, it affirms the eternity of matter and denies the existence of God and His word of creation.

2. It affirms that man has evolved by purely natural means. This means that they hold that God had nothing to do with bringing man into being.

3. It affirms that man is totally physical, thus denying that man has a spirit or soul.

4. It affirms that all religion is the result of social evolution.

5. It denies that God is the ultimate good, thus denying that men do either that which is really (objectively) wrong or that which is really (objectively) right.

6. It affirms that the ultimate end of man’s life is to be found in the here and now. Humanism rejects Heaven; it denies there is a Hell.

7. “Worship” of and prayer to God is rejected. Man should rather use his time in seeking to promote social well-being.

8. It affirms that man must learn to depend upon science and must discourage hopes of Heaven (which involve wishful thinking).

9. It affirms that all religious institutions – thus, including the church for which Jesus died must be “reconstituted” (changed).

10. It holds that man alone is responsible for the realization of the world of his dreams, thus. holding that God has nothing whatsoever to do with it.(1)

Most of us have long ago decided that there is a God who created the world, who revealed His will to mankind in the Bible. We believe that the Bible, as the revelation from God, is authoritative in our lives. We have begun our life as a Christian and are seeking to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord. Why would I want to use my time learning about some philosophy of little interest to me?

Humanism’s Influence

The first reason why I should want to be concerned about humanism is its influence on my life. Your life and mine are touched by the influences of infidelity which are manifest in humanism. Secondly, I need an understanding of humanism to understand why the unbelieving world believes what it believes. I must understand the thinking of the unbeliever to some extent in order to reach him with the gospel of Christ.

To demonstrate the influences which infidelity is having on our lives, I would like to relate some of the modern concepts held by the American populace and how these concepts are rooted in the philosophy of humanism, whether perceived or not by those who hold them.

Concepts Regarding Religion

Humanism believes that God was a concept invented by man in coping with a world which he did not understand.(2) Religion was developed over a period of time in various stages until it evolved into its present forms. Julian Huxley wrote of the development of religion stating that “the main and most essential steps appear to have been, first, the personification of the powers revered and religiously feared as brooding over human destiny; then the progressive unification of these powers, resulting in the substitution of few gods for innumerable spirits; and finally the fading or fusing of the several gods into one God”(3) This is the concept of religion which is presented in most state supported university classes on “comparative religion.”(4) The results of this concept of religion are: (1) Religion was invented by man instead of being revealed to us by God; (2) One religion is just as good as another; (3) There is no one true religion.

As these ideas have become generally accepted, we are seeing attitudes develop in the general populace. Here are some of those attitudes for us to consider:

1. “Religion is something to be tolerated.” It is a part of man’s past heritage which is no longer useful or relevant to man’s needs.(5)

2. “Religion is viewed as useless.” “First, religion is considered subordinate and even useless to science; hence it is to be ignored as a possible source of knowledge . . . Second, when the fears and hopes of man which give rise to religion have been, respectively, allayed and fulfilled, religion is rendered useless and vanishes.”(6)

3. “Religion is a display of man’s weakness.” It is viewed as a crutch on which emotionally weak people must lean.

4. “Religion is a hindrance to social progress.” John Dewey, who signed the Humanist Manifesto I and whose influence in education is extensive, wrote, “. . . the assumption that only supernatural agencies can give control is a sure method of retarding this effort [of social betterment].”(7) To have social progress, religion must either be eliminated or completely revamped. Karl Marx viewed religion as the opiate of an oppressed people. He wrote, “Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.”(8) Based on Marxist thought, Communist countries have systematically sought to abolish religion.

5. “Religion is communion with nature.” Sometimes our friends emphasize that they can be just as religious in a boat on a lake as you can in attending worship. Religion is just as religious without God as with Him.(9)

6. “One must not be dogmatic in religion.” Since all religions are the inventions of man, those who make dogmatic statements affirming that theirs is the only true religion are narrow-minded, bigoted, and to be pitied. [Christians have been influenced by the spirit of this age as well as others. Many churches no longer appreciate sermons on the one true church or which imply that only those who have believed in Jesus, repented of their sins, confessed their faith in Christ and been immersed in water for the remission of sins are the “only Christians.”] Tolerance should be exercised toward all religions.

Brethren, watch how religion is being portrayed on television to see the influence of infidelity. The preachers portrayed in television programing are ungodly and immoral, unable to contribute anything to cope with the needs of the people, and useful only for weddings and funerals. What part does church attendance have in our lives, based on the portrayal of television, the newspapers, and other forms of public media? The influences of humanism and The relative approach to ethics is the approach used in the television programs, and movies. These concepts are being accepted by many who have no formal contact with humanism.

Concept Toward The Universe

The humanist concept of the universe is also pervading our society. The humanist deny any supernatural origin or providential direction of the world. Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.(10)

Quoted . . .

“Most journalists are simply blind to religion. They think it’s somehow slightly embarrassing, a holdover from the Dark Ages. . . . something only ignorant’~and backward people really believe in. This is not necessarily a conscious judgment on their part. It’s just part of their general world view . . . in which religion is seen as an aberrant phenomenon.”

– Robert Bellah, professor of sociology, University of California, Berkeley, quoted by David Shaw in the Los Angeles Times, Dec. 28, 1983.

We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural . . . . But we can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species.(11)

This concept of the universe has also led to some general attitudes shared by many.

1. “The world originated through evolutionary processes.” Atheistic evolution posits that matter is eternal and that the world has evolved into its present form by chance and the survival of the fittest. This idea is taught as fact in most schools, colleges, and universities. Television programs of a scientific nature present evolution as fact. The humanists who preach tolerance for other points of view and academic freedom are intolerant of creationism and refuse to allow a two-model approach to be taught in the public schools.

2. “Man is only a little more highly developed animal.” Tied with this concept is the belief that man’s existence ends with death. Man’s place in relation to the rest of nature is judged superior only on the personal evaluation of the scientists that he is the most highly developed animal of all creation. (What standard is used to form this judgment has never been revealed.) Consequently, man should not worry about an afterlife.

3. “Miracles have never occurred.” The miracles of creation, those associated with the life of Jesus, and otherwise recorded in the Bible are discarded and disbelieved because they are contrary to the presupposition that there is no God to cause them. Miracles do not occur today; consequently, we have no reason to believe that they occurred in the past.(12)

4. “There is no need to pray.” “Why should one pray to a God who does not exist? Why should one pray to a God who does not intervene in the affairs of men? Rather, one should get up off his knees and do something to change his situation in life.” As this attitude has spread in our society, prayers have changed. Even in churches, Christians are very careful in how they pray for the sick. Why should one pray for rain when he can find out on the six o’clock news whether or not it will rain tomorrow? Surveys have indicated that even preachers are spending little time in prayer.

The concepts of humanists have infiltrated every level of our society, even though many who hold these points of view have had no formal contact with humanism.

Conclusion

The reason that you should be concerned about humanism should be more apparent to you now than at the beginning of this article. Humanism is influencing the world around us. In order to understand why our world is now accepting homosexuality as an acceptable form of sexual expression, abortion on demand, withholding food and water from handicapped infants, defending the pornographers’ right to distribute his wares, and other things which Christians understand to be wrong and which our government formerly disapproved, a person must understand the fundamental doctrines of humanism. To help enlighten us on this subject. This special issue on humanism is presented. I commend it to you.

Endnotes

1. Is There Such A Thing As A ‘Christian Humanist’?, Thomas B. Warren, Spiritual Sword, XXIII:2 (January 1982), p. 1.

2. Humanism contends that instead of the gods creating the cosmos, the cosmos, in the individualized form of human beings giving rein to their imagination, created the gods” (Corliss Lamont, The Philosophy of Humanism, p. 145).

3. Religion Without Revelation, p. 23.

4. See Man’s Religions, John B. Noss. The religion departments of most state and not a few private universities are the pulpits of infidelity.

5. Today, God can no longer be considered as the controller of the universe in any but a Pickwickian sense. The god hypothesis is no longer of any pragmatic value for the interpretation or comprehension of nature, and indeed often stands in the way of better and truer interpretation. Operationally, God is beginning to resemble not a ruler, but the last fading smile of a cosmic Cheshire Cat” (Julian Huxley, Religion Without Revelation, pp. 58-59).

6. B.F. Skinner as quoted by Norman L. Geisler, Is Man The Measure?, p. 3 1.

7. A Common Faith, p. 76 as quoted by Geisler, Ibid., p. 54.

8. On Religion, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, p. 42.

9. The foregoing survey of the field of philosophy of religion … does nevertheless very clearly reveal a tendency to dispense with God as the goal of religion and the end of life” (Fulton Sheen, Religion Without God p. 58).

10. (Note: Corresponding footnote number not found in original article) Humanist Manifesto II, pp. 17-18; cf. Corliss Lamont, The Philosophy of Humanism, p. 13.

11. (Note: Corresponding footnote number not found in original article) Joseph Fletcher, Situation Ethics, p. 26.

12. (Note: Corresponding footnote number not found in original article) John A.T. Robinson, Honest To God, p, 114.

13. (Note: Corresponding footnote number not found in original article) The Scriptures teach that one should seek fulfillment in life, but this fulfillment is found in “fearing God and keeping His commandments (Eccl. 12:13-14).

10. Humanist Manifesto 1, p. 8.

11. Humanist Manifesto II, p. 16.

12. This same kind of reasoning would eliminate belief in evolution. We never see a “big bang” bring a world into existence. Why should we believe it happened in the past? We never see an evolution from one kind to another. Why should we believe that occurred in the past? The premise of uniformitarianism which denies miracles also undermines belief in evolution, if consistently applied.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 13, pp. 385, 394-395, 411
July 5, 1984

By Don R. Hastings

The fact that the morality of this nation has greatly deteriorated cannot be successfully denied. An article in McCall’s magazine stated that each year about one million teenagers between the ages of 15 and 19 become pregnant. One survey revealed a 30% increase among teenagers in sexual activity within the last five years. Many other statistics could be quoted to show that we are fast becoming a nation of people who support and practice sexual activity outside of marriage.

What can be done to reverse the head-long plunge into complete moral decadence? Those who run our schools believe the answer lies in teaching our children about the sexual functions of their body from kindergarten through twelfth grade. Are they right? No! Knowledge does not restrain teenagers, and those younger, from engaging in sexual activity. Many naive parents and educators think that if girls and boys are taught how pregnancy occurs that this will keep them from engaging in the act that produces pregnancy. Baloney! The teaching of sex education courses has greatly increased in schools all over this land and, as we have seen, sexual activity among teenagers has greatly increased, as well. But, we are told that what we need is more sex education. How foolish can we be?

We live in a sin-sick, sex-saturated society. Television, movies, newspapers, advertisements, records, bookstores, etc. are constantly bombarding the public with sex, sex and more sex. Now our children have to listen to their teachers talk about it. But, the educators say that we teach them to use correct terminology.

If my fifth grade son comes home and describes perfectly and accurately the human reproduction process, I will not be proud of his knowledge. I would greatly fear what that knowledge, at that age, would do to him emotionally, morally and spiritually!

The present downward slide into the cesspool of all manner of vile sexual acts will not cease until we teach our children by word and example to: “Fear God and keep his commandments” (Eccl. 12:13). All sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful (Heb. 13:4)! As long as we continue to disregard the Bible standard of morality, there is going to be an increase in rape, venereal disease, illegitimate birth, homosexuality, abortion, incest, adultery, prostitution, child molestation, etc.

Some school officials contend that teaching about human reproduction is comparable to teaching about the circulatory system or any other function of the body. They talk as though they can see no difference between presenting factual information about the heart and facts about the reproductive organs. I find it difficult to believe that they are really that ignorant concerning the emotional make-up of human beings.

A teacher can lecture on the function of the heart to a group of boys and girls and no one is embarrassed, there is no snickering, and no lustful emotions are aroused. Such is not true when the teacher lectures on the reproductive system. There is a big difference!

We find this statement in Planning Stages For Sex Education Unit In The Elementary Schools, “Children become desensitized quickly and become very comfortable discussing the subject matter in a few days.” Do you know what this means? We are told that it is good and wholesome for children to talk as freely about their reproductive organs as they would their hands and arms. Do you want your child to discuss his, or her, genital organs with other children without any shame or embarrassment? Do you think it is healthy for children to talk to members of the opposite sex about their reproductive organs without any hesitancy or modesty? If you answer “No” then you need to stop sex education courses from being taught. Many sex education courses turn out to be an exercise in destroying the conscience, modesty, and morals of our children.

We are living in a society that has been de-sensitized in many respects and the effect is moral decay. I heard Lucille Ball say that it used to be one could not say the word “pregnant” on television; now the programs show you how to become that way. Not long ago you wouldn’t hear any curse words on television; not it is hard to find a program without them. Listen to how raw the language on records has become. Those who practiced homosexuality once tried to hide their sin from the public; now they openly advertise their perversion. People who committed adultery were once looked down on as harlots; now they are held up as people who know how to really enjoy life. Yes, we have come a long ways down the broad way “that leadeth to destruction” (Matt. 7:13). We have become so insensitive to godless talk and behavior that we are like the people who lived during the time of the prophet, Jeremiah. “Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not ashamed, neither could they blush; therefore they shall fall . . . (Jer. 6:15).

Some “experts” on sexology charge religion with being a major cause for people having sexual hangups. I strongly deny the charge! Some corrupt what the Bible teaches on this subject, and I will not defend their perverted doctrine; however, I am set for the defense of God’s word.

God has given us our sexual desires and these are not to be thought of as “dirty” or “sinful.” He has made it possible for us to satisfy these desires with a member of the opposite sex. He has, also, restricted the satisfaction of these desires to marriage. “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4). Those who are not true children of God bitterly oppose God’s restriction. They want to fulfill their sexual desires with anyone, at anytime, and not feel any shame for their activity. It is toward this end that our nation is headed!

It is not the Bible which causes people to be maladjusted concerning sex. The Bible teaches the man and woman to enter into marriage pure, keep themselves faithful and true to one another, and “Defraud ye not one the other . . .” (read 1 Cor. 7:1-5). If the husband and wife would follow God’s rules for marriage, they would be happy in the satisfying of each other’s desires and that includes the sexual ones.

Many problems arise because we depart from God’s word. Those who keep themselves pure, do not have to worry about venereal disease, ruined reputations, illegitimate births, abortions, being charged with rape, incest, prostitution, or adultery. You don’t have the heavy burden of a guilty conscience. You do have self respect and peace of mind. God’s way is best!

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 12, pp. 368-369
June 21, 1984

By Don Martin

Who made the statement, “I am come to give division?” Was it Karl Marx, Adolf Hitler, or some infamous anarchist seeking to overthrow our government? Who would be so bold as to openly reveal that he had come to divide families and set men at variance? Would you believe me if I told you Jesus Christ is the author of the statement “I am come to give division?”

Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law (Lk. 12:51-53, cf. Matt. 10:34-37).

“But I thought Jesus and his gospel produces peace and harmony among men and unites families,” we frequently hear. Beloved, Christ is the Prince of Peace (Isa. 9:6); His gospel is referred to as the “gospel of peace” (Rom. 10:15); Jesus effected peace between the alienated Jew and Gentile (Eph. 2:14); and He extends peace to all men which peace is incomparable to the peace man offers (John 14:27); (all emphasis throughout mine, dm). Concerned reader, Jesus’ statement, “I am come to give division” is another aspect and facet of Jesus and Christianity which is often forgotten in our permissive, principleless, political age.

The enunciation, “I am come to give division,” is considered by some scholars to be a marshal. That is, a statement which is designed to be shocking and startling and seemingly contradictory, one that sounds unbelievable! Such language has the purpose of attracting and arresting our attention (see discussion in New Testament Commentary, by William Hendriksen, Vol. 2, pp. 682, 683). Jesus’ declaration would appear paradoxical for at least two often related reasons: (1) Christ’s declared purpose, if you will, was contrary to the prevailing, common understanding of the Messiah’s advent. Hence, the language, “Suppose ye . . ..? ” (Lk. 12:51). The design assigned to Jesus’ coming and the real purpose were often contradictory (He had not come to unite the world and become a world monarch). (2) The arrival of the Lord, upon cursory. examination, would also appear to contradict the many prophecies of His being the Prince of Peace, etc. Think about it, the Prince of Peace came to give division!

Beloved, most realize that “peace” and “unity” are features of the gospel but few fully realize that division is also a feature of the Jerusalem gospel. Allow me to inject this thought for your consideration at this point: In order for any system to be considered divisive, in our case, it must be able to be defined and interpreted (either have an oral or written creed which can be understood by man) and it must be radically different from its environs. I submit that the gospel satisfies both requirements – the New Testament constitutes the embodiment of truth or creed, the gospel which can be understood and defined by man (2 Jn. 9-11) and the gospel is radically different from the religious (denominational) and secular climates in which it finds itself (cf. 2 Cor. 6:17).

Illustration Of The Principle “I Am Come To Give Division.”

Too many times we are excessively discouraged when division, as a result of the gospel, takes place. “I just can not understand why the world seems to hate me now that I am a Christian,” some are heard saying (see Matt. 10:22). Immature Christians are perplexed and dejected over the division in the Lord’s church. “Why is there so much division in the church?” they complain, “such is discouraging. ” As such false doctrines as unity-in-diversity and grace-fellowship find acceptance among preachers and members of the church, Jesus’ statement is becoming more paradoxical and irreconcilable! Permit me to hurriedly insert that division is sinful and its existence indicates some are displeasing to the Lord! When there is opposition and averse reaction to the gospel (division), those who are thus reacting are in a state of rebellion to God (cf. Lk. 10:16; Prov. 6:19; Rom. 16:17).

Division in the world over the gospel. When one becomes a Christian, one becomes different from the world. They do not talk the way the world talks (Eph. 4:29); they do not dress immodestly (1 Tim. 2:9); they choose friends who will not spiritually drag them down (1 Cor. 15:33); they do not engage in the “unfruitful works of darkness” but “rather reprove them” (Eph. 5:11). Hence, this often radical difference and nonconformity result in division (cf. Jas. 4:4).

Division in the denominational world over the gospel. There are people in the denominational world whom we can teach; they are open minded. However, there are also those in the religious world whom we can not reach. It is with this second class that we often experience division (that is, opposition, etc.). It is this group that learn to “hate us” when we tell them of the one church (Eph. 4:4), baptism for remission of sins (Acts 2:38) and other Bible truths.

Division in the Lord’s church. “For there must be also factions among you, ” Paul explains to the Corinthians, “that they that are approved may be made manifest among you” (1 Cor. 11:19 ASV, see also v. 18). Brethren, division is a characteristic, if you please, of Christianity! Division and factionalism within the body of Christ have the positive effect of testing us and revealing those who will stand for truth. No, we do not “desire” it and we endeavor to avoid it – but division will, from time to time, inevitably characterize the people of God because there will be individuals in the church who will not have the truth and who will actively oppose the truth to the point of division.

Christian and concerned friend, what is your reaction to Jesus’ statement, “I am come to give division”? Do you understand it, do you appreciate it, and do you accept it? Jesus’ nature is not contentious and His teaching is not by nature divisive; however, Jesus knew there would be resistance and bitter rejection of His teaching; hence, division would come. Do not allow division to crush or cause you to despair. Do everything you can to avoid it and not unnecessarily create it but understand division will be experienced in the secular world, the religious world, and even in the Lord’s church. Standfor truth regardless of the consequences that you might be among those “approved” and made “manifest!”

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 12, pp. 367-368
June 21, 1984

By J.B. Patton

When God’s people walked in His commands, doing what He told them to do, He spoke of them as a virtuous woman; but when they refused to obey His commands and would not walk with Him, He spoke of them as harlots. In Hosea 2:2,3, Israel is represented as a corrupt woman.

In Romans 7, we read the discussion of the question as to how the Jews could be married to Christ under His law. They (the Jews) reasoned that it was contrary to their teaching to be married to more than one husband at a time. But, Paul takes up this position and explains beyond a doubt that the old law to which they had been married was dead, and as the death of the husband gave the woman the right to marry again, so this would give them the right to marry the One who was raised from the dead.

Wherefore my brethren, ye also have become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead that we should bring forth fruit unto God (Rom. 7:4).

Christians are married to Christ and as a wife is subject to her husband, so Christians must be to Christ (Eph. 5:22-24). When we are buried in the waters of baptism, we have gone through the ceremony that marries us to Christ. To be in Christ is to be in the body of Christ. Inasmuch as the body is the church, when we are in Christ we are in His body which is His Church. We want you to remember that baptism brings us into Christ (Gal. 3:27). It brings us into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12,13); and the body is the Church (Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:22,23).

When a woman is married to a man and they become bride and groom, she becomes subject to him and will show that by carrying out her duty as a wife. One of the ways she does this is by wearing her husband’s name. She does not wear the name of a friend of the groom. It would not be right for a bride to wear any other name but the name of her husband. Can those who are married to Christ wear another name, and yet be faithful to their husband?

Will Christ, as a Bridegroom, ask His wife to submit to Him in false teaching since He is not a false teacher and everything He says is based upon the truth? The wife (the bride – church) is to submit to Him in what He (Christ) teaches. Christ has left instructions for the Church to carry out, and His Bride must do what He says in order to be faithful. If the church does not carry out Christ’s instructions, she has committed spiritual adultery. If Christ wants His Bride to be a praying, studying and worshiping church, she must be that to remain faithful. If Christ has given instructions on the Lord’s Supper, music, contribution, organization, and terms to be saved, then the church should love Him enough to obey those instructions.

Many claim to be faithful wives to Jesus Christ; however, the true test is in the lives and teaching of the claimants. It takes more than “lip service”, or going through a form of doctrine, to really be a dedicated member of the body of Christ (church). The church must abide in the doctrine of Christ only; in order to make certain of this, Christians are encouraged to “believe not every spirit but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1).

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 12, p. 373
June 21, 1984