April 14, 2015

From Gary... Bible Reading April 14




Bible Reading  

April 14

The World English Bible

Apr. 14
Numbers 19, 20
Num 19:1 Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying,
Num 19:2 This is the statute of the law which Yahweh has commanded, saying, Speak to the children of Israel, that they bring you a red heifer without spot, in which is no blemish, and on which never came yoke.
Num 19:3 You shall give her to Eleazar the priest, and he shall bring her forth outside of the camp, and one shall kill her before his face:
Num 19:4 and Eleazar the priest shall take of her blood with his finger, and sprinkle her blood toward the front of the Tent of Meeting seven times.
Num 19:5 One shall burn the heifer in his sight; her skin, and her flesh, and her blood, with her dung, shall he burn:
Num 19:6 and the priest shall take cedar wood, and hyssop, and scarlet, and cast it into the midst of the burning of the heifer.
Num 19:7 Then the priest shall wash his clothes, and he shall bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp, and the priest shall be unclean until the even.
Num 19:8 He who burns her shall wash his clothes in water, and bathe his flesh in water, and shall be unclean until the even.
Num 19:9 A man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay them up outside of the camp in a clean place; and it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water for impurity: it is a sin offering.
Num 19:10 He who gathers the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: and it shall be to the children of Israel, and to the stranger who lives as a foreigner among them, for a statute forever.
Num 19:11 He who touches the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days:
Num 19:12 the same shall purify himself with water on the third day, and on the seventh day he shall be clean: but if he doesn't purify himself the third day, then the seventh day he shall not be clean.
Num 19:13 Whoever touches a dead person, the body of a man who has died, and doesn't purify himself, defiles the tabernacle of Yahweh; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water for impurity was not sprinkled on him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet on him.
Num 19:14 This is the law when a man dies in a tent: everyone who comes into the tent, and everyone who is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days.
Num 19:15 Every open vessel, which has no covering bound on it, is unclean.
Num 19:16 Whoever in the open field touches one who is slain with a sword, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days.
Num 19:17 For the unclean they shall take of the ashes of the burning of the sin offering; and running water shall be put thereto in a vessel:
Num 19:18 and a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it on the tent, and on all the vessels, and on the persons who were there, and on him who touched the bone, or the slain, or the dead, or the grave:
Num 19:19 and the clean person shall sprinkle on the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day: and on the seventh day he shall purify him; and he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at even.
Num 19:20 But the man who shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from the midst of the assembly, because he has defiled the sanctuary of Yahweh: the water for impurity has not been sprinkled on him; he is unclean.
Num 19:21 It shall be a perpetual statute to them: and he who sprinkles the water for impurity shall wash his clothes, and he who touches the water for impurity shall be unclean until even.
Num 19:22 Whatever the unclean person touches shall be unclean; and the soul that touches it shall be unclean until evening.
Num 20:1 The children of Israel, even the whole congregation, came into the wilderness of Zin in the first month: and the people abode in Kadesh; and Miriam died there, and was buried there.
Num 20:2 There was no water for the congregation: and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron.
Num 20:3 The people strove with Moses, and spoke, saying, Would that we had died when our brothers died before Yahweh!
Num 20:4 Why have you brought the assembly of Yahweh into this wilderness, that we should die there, we and our animals?
Num 20:5 Why have you made us to come up out of Egypt, to bring us in to this evil place? it is no place of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of pomegranates; neither is there any water to drink.
Num 20:6 Moses and Aaron went from the presence of the assembly to the door of the Tent of Meeting, and fell on their faces: and the glory of Yahweh appeared to them.
Num 20:7 Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,
Num 20:8 Take the rod, and assemble the congregation, you, and Aaron your brother, and speak to the rock before their eyes, that it give forth its water; and you shall bring forth to them water out of the rock; so you shall give the congregation and their livestock drink.
Num 20:9 Moses took the rod from before Yahweh, as he commanded him.
Num 20:10 Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said to them, Hear now, you rebels; shall we bring you water out of this rock for you?
Num 20:11 Moses lifted up his hand, and struck the rock with his rod twice: and water came forth abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their livestock.
Num 20:12 Yahweh said to Moses and Aaron, Because you didn't believe in me, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them.
Num 20:13 These are the waters of Meribah; because the children of Israel strove with Yahweh, and he was sanctified in them.
Num 20:14 Moses sent messengers from Kadesh to the king of Edom, Thus says your brother Israel, You know all the travail that has happened to us:
Num 20:15 how our fathers went down into Egypt, and we lived in Egypt a long time; and the Egyptians dealt ill with us, and our fathers:
Num 20:16 and when we cried to Yahweh, he heard our voice, and sent an angel, and brought us forth out of Egypt: and behold, we are in Kadesh, a city in the uttermost of your border.
Num 20:17 Please let us pass through your land: we will not pass through field or through vineyard, neither will we drink of the water of the wells: we will go along the king's highway; we will not turn aside to the right hand nor to the left, until we have passed your border.
Num 20:18 Edom said to him, You shall not pass through me, lest I come out with the sword against you.
Num 20:19 The children of Israel said to him, We will go up by the highway; and if we drink of your water, I and my livestock, then will I give its price: let me only, without doing anything else, pass through on my feet.
Num 20:20 He said, You shall not pass through. Edom came out against him with much people, and with a strong hand.
Num 20:21 Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his border, so Israel turned away from him.
Num 20:22 They traveled from Kadesh: and the children of Israel, even the whole congregation, came to Mount Hor.
Num 20:23 Yahweh spoke to Moses and Aaron in Mount Hor, by the border of the land of Edom, saying,
Num 20:24 Aaron shall be gathered to his people; for he shall not enter into the land which I have given to the children of Israel, because you rebelled against my word at the waters of Meribah.
Num 20:25 Take Aaron and Eleazar his son, and bring them up to Mount Hor;
Num 20:26 and strip Aaron of his garments, and put them on Eleazar his son: and Aaron shall be gatheredto his people, and shall die there.
Num 20:27 Moses did as Yahweh commanded: and they went up into Mount Hor in the sight of all the congregation.
Num 20:28 Moses stripped Aaron of his garments, and put them on Eleazar his son; and Aaron died there on the top of the mountain: and Moses and Eleazar came down from the mountain.

Num 20:29 When all the congregation saw that Aaron was dead, they wept for Aaron thirty days, even all the house of Israel.

Apr. 14, 15
Luke 9

Luk 9:1 He called the twelve together, and gave them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases.
Luk 9:2 He sent them forth to preach the Kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.
Luk 9:3 He said to them, "Take nothing for your journey-neither staffs, nor wallet, nor bread, nor money; neither have two coats apiece.
Luk 9:4 Into whatever house you enter, stay there, and depart from there.
Luk 9:5 As many as don't receive you, when you depart from that city, shake off even the dust from your feet for a testimony against them."
Luk 9:6 They departed, and went throughout the villages, preaching the Good News, and healing everywhere.
Luk 9:7 Now Herod the tetrarch heard of all that was done by him; and he was very perplexed, because it was said by some that John had risen from the dead,
Luk 9:8 and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the old prophets had risen again.
Luk 9:9 Herod said, "John I beheaded, but who is this, about whom I hear such things?" He sought to see him.
Luk 9:10 The apostles, when they had returned, told him what things they had done. He took them, and withdrew apart to a deserted place of a city called Bethsaida.
Luk 9:11 But the multitudes, perceiving it, followed him. He welcomed them, and spoke to them of the Kingdom of God, and he cured those who needed healing.
Luk 9:12 The day began to wear away; and the twelve came, and said to him, "Send the multitude away, that they may go into the surrounding villages and farms, and lodge, and get food, for we are here in a deserted place."
Luk 9:13 But he said to them, "You give them something to eat." They said, "We have no more than five loaves and two fish, unless we should go and buy food for all these people."
Luk 9:14 For they were about five thousand men. He said to his disciples, "Make them sit down in groups of about fifty each."
Luk 9:15 They did so, and made them all sit down.
Luk 9:16 He took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to the sky, he blessed them, and broke them, and gave them to the disciples to set before the multitude.
Luk 9:17 They ate, and were all filled. They gathered up twelve baskets of broken pieces that were left over.
Luk 9:18 It happened, as he was praying alone, that the disciples were with him, and he asked them, "Who do the multitudes say that I am?"
Luk 9:19 They answered, " 'John the Baptizer,' but others say, 'Elijah,' and others, that one of the old prophets is risen again."
Luk 9:20 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered, "The Christ of God."
Luk 9:21 But he warned them, and commanded them to tell this to no one,
Luk 9:22 saying, "The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up."
Luk 9:23 He said to all, "If anyone desires to come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.
Luk 9:24 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever will lose his life for my sake, the same will save it.
Luk 9:25 For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses or forfeits his own self?
Luk 9:26 For whoever will be ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed, when he comes in his glory, and the glory of the Father, and of the holy angels.
Luk 9:27 But I tell you the truth: There are some of those who stand here, who will in no way taste of death, until they see the Kingdom of God."
Luk 9:28 It happened about eight days after these sayings, that he took with him Peter, John, and James, and went up onto the mountain to pray.
Luk 9:29 As he was praying, the appearance of his face was altered, and his clothing became white and dazzling.
Luk 9:30 Behold, two men were talking with him, who were Moses and Elijah,
Luk 9:31 who appeared in glory, and spoke of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.
Luk 9:32 Now Peter and those who were with him were heavy with sleep, but when they were fully awake, they saw his glory, and the two men who stood with him.
Luk 9:33 It happened, as they were parting from him, that Peter said to Jesus, "Master, it is good for us to be here. Let's make three tents: one for you, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah," not knowing what he said.
Luk 9:34 While he said these things, a cloud came and overshadowed them, and they were afraid as they entered into the cloud.
Luk 9:35 A voice came out of the cloud, saying, "This is my beloved Son. Listen to him!"
Luk 9:36 When the voice came, Jesus was found alone. They were silent, and told no one in those days any of the things which they had seen.
Luk 9:37 It happened on the next day, when they had come down from the mountain, that a great multitude met him.
Luk 9:38 Behold, a man from the crowd called out, saying, "Teacher, I beg you to look at my son, for he is my only child.
Luk 9:39 Behold, a spirit takes him, he suddenly cries out, and it convulses him so that he foams, and it hardly departs from him, bruising him severely.
Luk 9:40 I begged your disciples to cast it out, and they couldn't."
Luk 9:41 Jesus answered, "Faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you and bear with you? Bring your son here."
Luk 9:42 While he was still coming, the demon threw him down and convulsed him violently. But Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, and healed the boy, and gave him back to his father.
Luk 9:43 They were all astonished at the majesty of God. But while all were marveling at all the things which Jesus did, he said to his disciples,
Luk 9:44 "Let these words sink into your ears, for the Son of Man will be delivered up into the hands of men."
Luk 9:45 But they didn't understand this saying. It was concealed from them, that they should not perceive it, and they were afraid to ask him about this saying.
Luk 9:46 There arose an argument among them about which of them was the greatest.
Luk 9:47 Jesus, perceiving the reasoning of their hearts, took a little child, and set him by his side,
Luk 9:48 and said to them, "Whoever receives this little child in my name receives me. Whoever receives me receives him who sent me. For whoever is least among you all, this one will be great."
Luk 9:49 John answered, "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he doesn't follow with us."
Luk 9:50 Jesus said to him, "Don't forbid him, for he who is not against us is for us."
Luk 9:51 It came to pass, when the days were near that he should be taken up, he intently set his face to go to Jerusalem,
Luk 9:52 and sent messengers before his face. They went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, so as to prepare for him.
Luk 9:53 They didn't receive him, because he was traveling with his face set towards Jerusalem.
Luk 9:54 When his disciples, James and John, saw this, they said, "Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from the sky, and destroy them, just as Elijah did?"
Luk 9:55 But he turned and rebuked them, "You don't know of what kind of spirit you are.
Luk 9:56 For the Son of Man didn't come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." They went to another village.
Luk 9:57 As they went on the way, a certain man said to him, "I want to follow you wherever you go, Lord."
Luk 9:58 Jesus said to him, "The foxes have holes, and the birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."
Luk 9:59 He said to another, "Follow me!" But he said, "Lord, allow me first to go and bury my father."
Luk 9:60 But Jesus said to him, "Leave the dead to bury their own dead, but you go and announce the Kingdom of God."
Luk 9:61 Another also said, "I want to follow you, Lord, but first allow me to bid farewell to those who are at my house."
Luk 9:62 But Jesus said to him, "No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the Kingdom of God." 

From Mark Copeland... "THE CHURCH JESUS BUILT" Other Standards Of Authority



                        "THE CHURCH JESUS BUILT"

                      Other Standards Of Authority

INTRODUCTION

1. In our previous study, I endeavored to show...
   a. That it is through the apostles' doctrine, that the Lord 
      speaks to and directs His Church
   b. That the New Testament is how Christ speaks to us today and 
      leads us to life everlasting
   c. That it is the apostles' doctrine which ought to be our 
      standard of authority in matters of religion - cf. Ac 2:42

2. Many say that they accept the apostles' doctrine as their 
                                           authority in religion...
   a. But when faced with an issue in which a cherished position or view
      is being challenged...
   b. ...they often appeal to a source for their authority that is quite different

3. Perhaps the best way to avoid this is to be aware of other sources of authority in religion...
   a. Some sources are objective - where we look outside of ourselves for authority
   b. Other sources are subjective - where we look within ourselves for authority

[This study shall briefly touch upon standards that people commonly turn
to when faced with questions about what they believe and why they
practice the things they do in religion.  Let's start with...]

I. OBJECTIVE STANDARDS OF AUTHORITY

   A. THE OLD TESTAMENT...
      1. It is common for people to resort to the O.T. to provide
         authority for some practice
         a. When they can't find authority for it in the teachings of
            Christ and/or His apostles
         b. For example, a clergy-laity system, burning of incense or
            use of instrumental music in worship, keeping the Sabbath
      2. But the O.T. was designed to be temporary, to fulfill a
         specific purpose and as a covenant has been replaced by the New
         Covenant (i.e., the New Testament)
         a. It was given because of transgressions, till Christ should come - Ga 3:19
         b. For those under the Law (Israel), it was a tutor
            1) A tutor designed to lead them to Christ - Ga 3:24
            2) A tutor that has been taken away - Ga 3:25
         c. When those who were under the Law came to Christ...
            1) They became dead to the Law - Ro 7:4
            2) They were delivered from the Law - Ro 7:6
         d. As prophesied by Jeremiah, God has made a "new covenant" to
            replace the "first covenant" which is now obsolete - He 8:7-13
      3. In the issue of circumcision, the apostles demonstrated that
         one cannot use the O.T. to teach something which the apostles
         themselves did not command
         a. Some sought to enforce circumcision and the Law upon Gentile
            believers - Ac 15:1,6
         b. But the apostles, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
            were able to defuse the problem by simply stating they "gave
            no such commandment" - Ac 15:22-29
      4. This is not to say the O.T. is not of value to Christians...
         a. It was written for our learning, to provide patience,
            comfort, and hope - Ro 15:4
         b. It was written for our admonition, that we not make similar
            mistakes - 1Co 10:6,11
      5. We just can't use it to enjoin religious practices upon others
         which the apostles themselves did not teach!

   B. MAJORITY RULE...
      1. Many people accept whatever the majority thinks about something
      2. But consider the words of Jesus, in describing the end of the
         majority - Mt 7:13-14
      3. If you followed the majority...
         a. In Noah's day, you would have perished in the flood
         b. In Joshua's day, you would have perished in the wilderness
      4. Rather than simply follow the majority, let our attitude be
         like that of Joshua:  "as for me and my house, we will serve
         the Lord." - cf. Josh 24:14-15

   C. PARENTS...
      1. Some think "If it was good enough for Mom and Dad, it is good
         enough for me."
      2. As much as we may love and respect our parents, Christ must
         come first - Mt 10:37
      3. If every generation had simply followed their parents, then we
         who are Gentiles would still be idol-worshippers and
         polytheistic!

   D. PREACHERS...
      1. It is common for people to place their trust in their preacher, priest, or pastor
      2. They reason that surely these 'men of God' could not be wrong or lead them astray
         a. Yet Paul warned of how we can easily be misled - cf. 2 Co11:13-15
         b. And Jesus warned about the 'blind leading the blind' - Mt15:12-14
      3. Our attitude needs to be like that of the Bereans, who
         carefully examined Paul's teachings in light of the Scriptures
         - Ac 17:11

   E. CREEDS AND TRADITIONS OF MEN...
      1. This is where the denominations really get most of their authority
      2. Indeed, adherence to the creeds of men is what produces denominations
         a. Accept the Bible only, and you become a Christian only
         b. Accept the Bible along with some Creed, and you become something else!
            1) Accept the Bible and the Book of Mormon, and you become a Mormon
            2) Accept the Bible and papal authority, and you become a Roman Catholic
            3) Accept the Bible and the Lutheran Catechism, and you become a Lutheran
      3. Creeds are really not even necessary...
         a. If they say more than what the Bible says, they say too much
         b. If they say less than what the Bible says, they say too little
         c. If they say exactly what the Bible says, then why not let
            the Bible be our creed book?
      4. The fact is, creeds are filled with the traditions and commands
         of men, many which conflict with and displace the commands of
         God! - cf. Mk 7:6-9

[Creeds of men, preachers, parents, majority rule, even the Old
Testament, are objective standards that many turn to rather than the
authority of the Lord's apostles. Some turn to...]

II. SUBJECTIVE STANDARDS OF AUTHORITY

   A. CONSCIENCE...
      1. "Let your conscience be your guide" is the motto of many
      2. But our conscience cannot always be reliable
         a. Paul had served God with a good conscience throughout his
            life - Ac 23:1
         b. Even at a time when he was persecuting Christians! - cf. Ac 26:9-11
      3. Our conscience is like a clock, which works properly only if
         set properly
      4. Once our conscience has been set by the apostles' doctrine,
         then it can be a good guide

   B. HUMAN WISDOM...
      1. Many feel that through their own wisdom they can determine right and wrong
      2. But God's thoughts and ways are not always our own - cf. Isa 55:8-9
      3. In fact, God has chosen to save man in a manner specifically
         designed to confound those who depend solely upon human wisdom
         - cf. 1Co 1:18-29
      4. For us to know God's will, it was necessary for Him to reveal
         it to us - 1Co 2:9-12
         a. This He has done through His Spirit-inspired apostles
         b. Who in turn shared it with us through their writings - Ep 3:1-5

   C. FEELINGS...
      1. This is often the standard of authority for many people
         a. Who go by whatever 'feels right'
         b. Who place stock in a religion 'better felt than told'
      2. Yet the Bible declares the danger of trusting in feelings
         a. "There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is
            the way of death." - Pr 14:12
         b. "He who trusts in his own heart is a fool..." - Pr 28:26
         c. "O LORD, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not
            in man who walks to direct his own steps." - Jer 10:23

CONCLUSION

1. Because the way we should live is 'not in man'...
   a. We need an objective standard for our authority in religion
   b. We can't depend upon subjective standards like conscience, human
      wisdom, or feelings

2. But which objective standard...?
   a. Not creeds of men, preachers, parents, majority rule, or even the Old Testament
   b. Only the apostles' doctrine, i.e., the New Testament...
      1) For the apostles were personally selected to be Christ's ambassadors
      2) For the apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit, to be guided
         into all the truth
      3) And they were inspired to write all that Christ would have us
         to know and do

What is our standard of authority?  Our answer will determine whether we
are the church Jesus built...

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

eXTReMe Tracker 

“Sundays Excepted”? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2405

“Sundays Excepted”?

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Did the Founders of American civilization believe in the God of the Bible? More specifically, did the vast majority of them embrace the Christian worldview? Even though they advocated freedom of worship, and opposed any persecution instigated against those who sought to practice divergent religious views, did they, themselves, approach life from the perspective of the Christian religion? A mountain of evidence exists to prove that they did. Consider just one.
Though the Founders intentionally omitted an extensive treatment of religion in the federal Constitution, since they intended for the federal government to stay out of the religious arena and leave such matters to the States and local communities, they nevertheless implied their religious orientation in that seminal document. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution reads:
If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law (Constitution of the United..., emp. added).
“Sundays excepted”? Indeed, to this day, the U.S. government shuts down and does not transact business on Sunday? Why? If this provision had been made in respect of Jews, the Constitution would have read “Saturdays excepted.” If provision had been made for Muslims, the Constitution would have read “Fridays excepted.” If the Founders had intended to encourage a day of inactivity for the government without regard to any particular religion, they could have chosen Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. Instead, the federal Constitution reads “Sundays excepted”—proving that America was Christian in its orientation, that the Framers themselves shared the Christian worldview, and that they were determined to give political recognition to and accommodation of that fact by making allowance for the Christian day of worship. Their decision reflects a respect for Bible teaching on the matter (Acts 20:7; Revelation 1:10).
This respect for the Christian worship of God on Sunday has been perpetuated throughout American history. The vanishing “Blue Laws” verify this fact. For example, in the 1846 South Carolina court case City Council of Charleston v. Benjamin, the court declared:
The Lord’s day, the day of the Resurrection, is to us, who are called Christians, the day of rest after finishing a new creation. It is the day of the first visible triumph over death, hell and the grave! It was the birth day of the believer in Christ, to whom and through whom it opened up the way which, by repentance and faith, leads unto everlasting life and eternal happiness! On that day we rest, and to us it is the Sabbath of the Lord—its decent observance, in a Christian community, is that which ought to be expected (2 Strob. L. 508 [S. C. 1846], emp. added).
Many other examples exist (cf. Miller, 2006). America was founded on Christian principles. The future of the Republic is endangered in direct proportion as those principles are abandoned. “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord” (Psalm 33:12).

REFERENCES

City Council of Charleston v. Benjamin (1846), 2 Strob. L. 508 (S. C. 1846).
Constitution of the United States, [On-line], URL: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/ constitution.html.
Miller, Dave (2006), “America, Christianity, and the Culture War (Part I),” Reason & Revelation, June 2006 - 26[6]41-47, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2942.

"I Do not Want to Be a Fool" by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=460

"I Do not Want to Be a Fool"

by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

INTRODUCTION

Through our mail box in a year’s time come hundreds of letters. Some are from evolutionists or those sympathetic to them, boldly objecting to our work. Some are from friends, offering a word of encouragement. Some are from students, writing to ask for materials they can use in the preparation of a term paper, speech, or debate. And some are from people whose faith is faltering because it has been attacked by unbelief and is in danger of being destroyed.
This article concerns a letter from the latter category. A Christian student’s graduate program in the sciences at a state university led him to study under a man he termed “a giant in his field...rocket-scientist intelligent...and a devout evolutionist.” In his letter, the student said:
...working this closely with one who thinks as he does is beginning to cause not a small amount of cognitive dissonance in my own mind with regards evolution v. special creation. I really need your help, both as a Christian and a scientist, to clearly see what it is. Hundreds of thousands of scientists can’t be wrong, can they? Consensual validation cannot be pushed aside in science. How can that many people be following a flag with no carrier, and someone not find out? The number of creation scientists pales in comparison.... I do not want to be a fool.”

“COGNITIVE DISSONANCE”

This young writer expressed what many people experience, yet are unable to enunciate so eloquently. It is not uncommon to encounter those who once knew what they believed and why they believed it, yet who now are terribly confused. “Cognitive dissonance” is the internal struggle one experiences when presented with new information that contradicts what he believes to be true. As he struggles for consistency, he must change what he believes or disregard the new information. This young Christian who once knew what he believed, and why he believed it, no longer knows either. He stated: “I am a confused young man with some serious questions about my mind, my faith, and my God. Please help me sort through these questions....”
There were two things he did know, however. First, he recognized that the beliefs he once held were inconsistent with those he was being taught. Second, he recognized that if he accepted these new teachings, then not only his beliefs but his actions would be inconsistent with his Christianity. His plea—“help me sort through these questions”—has been echoed countless times through the centuries by those who languish in the “cognitive dissonance” which results from replacing the wisdom of God with the wisdom of man. What answer could we give the young querist?

“CONSENSUAL VALIDATION”

It is true that “most scientists” accept organic evolution. The co-discoverer of the DNA molecule, James Watson, once stated: “Today the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority” (1987, p. 2). One university textbook widely used for almost two decades began with these words: “Organic evolution is the greatest principle in biology. Its implications extend far beyond the confines of that science, ramifying into all phases of human life and activity. Accordingly, understanding of evolution should be part of the intellectual equipment of all educated persons” (Moody, 1962, p. 1x). In the March 1987 issue of Natural History, evolutionist Douglas J. Futuyma noted:
That evolution has occurred—that diverse organisms have descended from common ancestors by a history of modification and divergence—is accepted as fact by virtually all biologists.... The historical reality of evolution is doubted chiefly by creationists, mostly on doctrinaire religious grounds (96[3]:34).
This kind of diatribe—that evolution is a “fact” accepted by “all educated persons” except a “fundamentalist minority”—has a devastating impact on impressionable young minds. Two questions are therefore in order. First, why do so many scientists believe in evolution? Second, are they correct in doing so; that is to say, is “consensual validation” reason enough to acquiesce in favor of organic evolution?

Why Do So Many Scientists Believe in Evolution?

There are a number of reasons that could be offered to explain why belief in evolution is popular, but two seem especially apropos here. First, for those who do not believe in a Creator, evolution is their only escape. Henry Fairfield Osborn, renowned evolutionist of the early twentieth century, suggested: “In truth, from the earliest stages of Greek thought man has been eager to discover some natural cause of evolution, and to abandon the idea of supernatural intervention in the order of nature” (1918, p. ix). British evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith once remarked that “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable!” (as quoted in Criswell, 1972, p. 73). D.M.S. Watson, who held the position of the Chair of Evolution at the University of London for more than twenty years, echoed the same sentiments when he stated that “Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is incredible” (1929, p. 233). As Henry Morris has noted: “Evolution is the natural way to explain the origin of things for those who do not know and acknowledge the true God of creation. In fact, some kind of evolution is absolutely necessary for those who would reject God” (1966, p. 98).
Second, it may be that “The main reason most educated people believe in evolution is simply because they have been told that most educated people believe in evolution” (Morris, 1974, p. 26). Many people, including scientists, fall into this category. For the past century, evolution has been taught from kindergarten to graduate school as a fact that “all reputable scientists believe.” As a result, people often believe that if they, too, wish to be “educated,” it is a prerequisite that they believe in evolution. Where, in all likelihood, did the graduate student’s professor receive his education? At the feet of evolutionists, no doubt. And where did they, in turn, receive their education? At the feet of evolutionists. Thus, the vicious circle continues unabated.

Are “Hundreds of Thousands of Scientists” Correct?

The graduate student asked: “Hundreds of thousands of scientists can’t be wrong, can they?” This question may be addressed as follows. First, any argument based on “counting heads” is fallacious. Philosophy professors instruct their students on various fallacies of human thought, one of which is the “fallacy of consensus.” In his book, Fundamentals of Critical Thinking, atheistic philosopher Paul Ricci discussed the “argument from consensus,” and explained its erroneous nature (1986, p. 175). Interestingly, however, in the pages prior to his discussion, Mr. Ricci offered the following as proof of evolution: “The reliability of evolution not only as a theory but as a principle of understanding is not contested by the vast majority of biologists, geologists, astronomers, and other scientists” (1986, p. 172, emp. added).
Mr. Ricci fell victim to the very fallacy about which he tried to warn his readers—truth is not determined by popular opinion or majority vote. A thing may be, and often is, true even when accepted only by a small minority. The history of science is replete with such examples. British medical doctor, Edward Jenner (1749-1823), was scorned when he suggested that he had produced a smallpox vaccine by infecting people with a less-virulent strain of the disease-causing organism. Afterwards, he lived as a man whose reputation had been sullied. Yet his vaccine helped the World Health Organization eradicate smallpox. Ignaz Semmelweis (1818-1865) of Austria is another interesting case study. He noticed the high mortality rate among surgical patients, and suggested that the deaths resulted from surgeons washing neither their hands nor their instruments between patients. Dr. Semmelweis asked them to do so, but they ridiculed him. Today, the solutions posed by this gentle doctor are the basis of antiseptic techniques in life-saving surgery.
Often, scientific successes have occurred because researchers rebelled against the status quo. Sometimes consensual validation must be set aside for the sake of truth. If it is not, those of us who work in science shall become little more than cookie-cutter scientists rushing to fit into a predetermined mold.
Darrell Huff correctly observed: “People can be wrong in the mass, just as they can individually” (1959, p. 122). If something is true, stating it a million times does not make it any truer. Similarly, if something is false, stating it a million times does not make it true. And the prestige of a position’s advocates has nothing to do with whether or not the fact is true or false. It is incorrect (to use one example) to suggest that because a Nobel laureate states something it is true by definition. Were that the case, when Nobel laureate W.B. Shockley suggested that highly intelligent women be artificially inseminated using spermatozoa from Nobel Prize winners to produce super-intelligent offspring, we should have taken him up on his suggestion. Of course, such an idea was based on nothing more than the narcissistic dreamings of an over-inflated ego. As Taylor has commented: “Status in the field of science is no guarantee of the truth” (1984, p. 226). Factual knowledge is not based on: (a) the number of people supporting the claim; or (b) the importance of the one(s) making that claim.
Second, the idea of strict objectivity in science is a myth. While scientists like to think of themselves as broad-minded, unprejudiced paragons of virtue, the fact is that they, too, on occasion, suffer from bouts of bias, bigotry, and presuppositionalism. Another Nobel laureate, James Watson, remarked rather bluntly: “In contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid” (1968, p. 14).
History provides a sad but instructive example of how scientists sometimes treat their colleagues when “consensual validation” is threatened. Immanuel Velikovsky was a medical doctor, and a scholar in his own right. He was also an “evolutionary catastrophist” (a rarity in the evolutionary community). Dr. Velikovsky believed, among other things, that the miracles described in the Bible actually occurred, but that they had purely natural explanations. His books (Earth in UpheavalWorlds in CollisionAges in Chaos, and others) challenged much evolutionary thought, and caused ripples of global proportions in the scientific community. The ensuing controversy was not a pretty sight (see de Grazia, 1966; Talbott, 1976). In their book, Velikovsky Reconsidered, the editors of Pensée magazine offered the following assessment of what occurred in this instance:
The professional scientists’ campaign against Worlds in Collision began well before the book appeared. Harlow Shapley, probably the best-known American astronomer alive today, led an energetic attempt to stop the publisher, Macmillan, from publishing the book. He arranged for denunciations of the book, still before its appearance, by an astronomer, a geologist, and an archaeologist in a learned journal. None of them had read the book. When it did appear, denunciatory reviews were arranged, again, in several instances, by professors who boasted of never having read the book.
Velikovsky was rigorously excluded from access to learned journals for his replies. Then Shapley and others really got busy on the old-boy circuit. They forced the sacking of the senior editor of Macmillan responsible for accepting the Velikovsky manuscript. (He had been with the firm twenty-five years.) They forced the sacking of the director of the famous Hayden Planetarium in New York, because he proposed to take Velikovsky seriously enough to mount a display about the theory.
...The process thus begun did not stop. ...a great many “refutations” of Velikovsky’s theory have appeared in print, some by very famous people.... Some of them are chiefly remarkable for dishonesty or incompetence. They misquote the text they are criticizing. They willfully misrepresent the theory Velikovsky advanced. And they are replete with errors of fact and theory (Talbott, 1976, pp. 38,39).
Eventually, Macmillan was forced to transfer Velikovsky’s works to its competitor, Doubleday, which had no textbook division and thus was not subject to the blackmail that Shapley and his evolutionary colleagues were perpetrating. The whole sordid affair was made public in Dr. Velikovsky’s last book,Stargazers and Gravediggers (1984), published posthumously at his request.
Dr. Velikovsky’s treatment was scandalous, and remains a source of embarrassment to every scientist. Science is alleged to be self-testing and self-correcting. Even unorthodox views supposedly are welcome, since once put to the test, they will be weeded out if incorrect. But to deny someone the right to set forward a theory is not science—it is bigotry. While I as a scientist certainly do not share most of Velikovsky’s views, I delight in the fact that science has room in its investigative method and procedures for even the most unlikely candidate of a theory.
Newspaper magnate William Randolph Hurst, Jr. once wrote about pressures from “fashionable ideas...which are advanced with such force that common sense itself becomes the victim.” He observed that a person under such pressure may then act “with an irrationality which is almost beyond belief ” (1971, p. A-4). This is exactly what happened in the cases of Jenner, Semmelweis, and Velikovsky—and the list could be extended with ease. Common sense became the victim, and people acted irrationally. Were “the scientists” in the majority? Indeed. Were they wrong? Yes. Just because “hundreds of thousands of scientists” believe something does not make it right.

“THOU SHALT NOT FOLLOW A MULTITUDE TO DO EVIL”

Christ, in His “Sermon on the Mount,” warned that “narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Matthew 7:14). The majority ultimately will abandon God’s wisdom in favor of their own. Moses commanded the Israelites: “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil” (Exodus 23:2). Regarding this passage, Guy N. Woods has observed that this divine injunction
...was designed to guard the Lord’s people from the corrupting influences of an evil environment, as well as from the powerful appeals of mob psychology to which so many in every generation succumb....
Man, by nature, is a social and gregarious being, tending to flock or gather together with others of his kind.... Man may, and often does, imbibe the evil characteristics of those about him as readily, and often more so, than the good ones (1982, 124[1]:2).
Yes, there are “hundreds of thousands of scientists” who reject the biblical account of creation. But, as Woods noted, “It is dangerous to follow the multitude because the majority is almost always on the wrong side in this world” (1982, 124[1]:2, emp. added). The “wisdom” with which we are impressed is not always the wisdom with which we should be impressed. Paul told the Corinthian Christians:
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning will I bring to naught. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it was God’s good pleasure through the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe (1 Corinthians 1:19-21).
It should not be surprising that so many “intelligent” people view creation, and Christianity, as the fool’s way out. Paul himself commented that “not many wise after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put to shame them that are wise; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put to shame the things that are strong” (1 Corinthians 1:26-27). Those highly intelligent are often the least interested in spiritual matters because “the god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:3-4) has blinded their minds so that they cannot, or will not, see the truth. They ignore the fact that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 1:7).
We must not fall prey to mob psychology—the idea which suggests because “everyone is doing it” that somehow makes it right. Nor should we believe that “science” provides the answer to every conceivable question.
To treat science as a secular substitute for God is not only naive, it is idolatry.... Science and technology are the activities of imperfect people. The tendencies to misuse and exploit for personal gain operate here as in every other department of life. But the answer to abuse is not disuse, but responsible use (Poole, 1990, p. 126).

CONCLUSION

The graduate student said, “I do not want to be a fool.” It was a joy to tell him that he does not have to bear that stigma. The Scriptures are clear: “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God” (Psalm 14:1). We need not be intimidated by the pseudo-intellectualism of those who esteem themselves with higher regard than they do their Creator. The cartoon character Lucy was correct when she told Charlie Brown, “You’re not right; you just sound right!”
At times, we need to focus on these issues and remember that it is far more important to study, and submit to, the Word of God than it is to be able to explain the ins and outs of quantum physics. One of those will “abide forever” (Isaiah 40:8); the other will perish. One of the graduate student’s final questions was: “How, then, may we compete?” Frankly, there may be times when we cannot. We run a different race, operated by different rules. While the world may esteem us not at all, the One Who will eventually judge us shall esteem us as “sons by adoption,” and “heirs of the kingdom.” Who, then, shall have played the fool?

REFERENCES

de Grazia, Alfred, R. Juergens and L. Stecchini, eds. (1966), The Velikovsky Affair (Hyde Park, NY: University Books).
Futuyma, Douglas J. (1987), “World Without Design,” Natural History, 96[3]:34, March.
Huff, Darrell (1959), How to Take a Chance (New York: W.W. Norton).
Hurst, Jr., William Randolph (1971), “Editor’s Report,” in The [Los Angeles] Herald-Examiner, November 14.
Criswell, W.A. (1972), Did Man Just Happen? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Moody, Paul A. (1962), Introduction to Evolution (New York: Harper & Row).
Morris, Henry M. (1966), Studies in the Bible and Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Morris, Henry M. (1974), The Twilight of Evolution (San Diego, CA: Creation-Life Publishers).
Osborn, Henry Fairfield (1918), The Origin and Evolution of Life (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons).
Poole, Michael (1990), A Guide to Science and Belief (Oxford, England: Lion).
Ricci, Paul (1986), Fundamentals of Critical Thinking (Lexington, MA: Ginn Press).
Talbott, Stephen L., ed. (1976), Velikovsky Reconsidered (New York: Warner).
Taylor, Ian (1984), In the Minds of Men (Toronto, Canada: TFE Publishing).
Velikovsky, Immanuel (1984), Stargazers and Gravediggers (New York: Quill).
Watson, D.M.S. (1929), “Adaptation,” Nature, Vol. 123.
Watson, James D. (1968), The Double Helix (New York: Atheneum).
Watson, James D. (1987), Molecular Biology of the Gene (New York: W.A. Benjamin).
Woods, Guy N. (1982), “ ‘And be not Conformed to this World,’ ” Gospel Advocate, 124[1]:2, January 7.