August 13, 2015

From Gary... Another sign


I would consider this sign unnecessary; but that is just me.  There are all sorts of people in this world, some who will look for God, some who will reject the almighty.  I don't understand the last group, because it makes sense to me to at least hedge your bets and acknowledge him. Why? Because if you are wrong in doing so, then you are no worse off. However, if God does exist (and of course he does) then you will inherit heaven if you obey his will. But, not everyone thinks the same, so you choose!!  Jesus told a parable (an earthly story with a heavenly meaning) that encompassed everyone out there and it focused on the true sign that leads to heaven- THE WORD OF GOD!!!!

Matthew, Chapter 13 (WEB)
  1 On that day Jesus went out of the house, and sat by the seaside.  2 Great multitudes gathered to him, so that he entered into a boat, and sat, and all the multitude stood on the beach.  3 He spoke to them many things in parables, saying, “Behold, a farmer went out to sow.   4  As he sowed, some seeds fell by the roadside, and the birds came and devoured them.   5  Others fell on rocky ground, where they didn’t have much soil, and immediately they sprang up, because they had no depth of earth.   6  When the sun had risen, they were scorched. Because they had no root, they withered away.   7  Others fell among thorns. The thorns grew up and choked them.   8  Others fell on good soil, and yielded fruit: some one hundred times as much, some sixty, and some thirty.   9  He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” ...

18  “Hear, then, the parable of the farmer.   19  When anyone hears the word of the Kingdom, and doesn’t understand it, the evil one comes, and snatches away that which has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown by the roadside.   20  What was sown on the rocky places, this is he who hears the word, and immediately with joy receives it;   21  yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while. When oppression or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he stumbles.   22  What was sown among the thorns, this is he who hears the word, but the cares of this age and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful.   23  What was sown on the good ground, this is he who hears the word, and understands it, who most certainly bears fruit, and produces, some one hundred times as much, some sixty, and some thirty.”

The groups of people are:
1. Those who don't listen vs. 19
2. Those who don't truly believe vss. 20f.
3. Those who have mixed up priorities vs. 22
4. Those who believe and act on the WORD vs. 23

Dear friend- what direction are you headed in and which group would you honestly place yourself in?

Your life, your choice.

Need another sign?  

How about Jesus' resurrection from the dead?
Matthew 28:1-10; Mark 16; Luke 24:1-27; John 20:1-18; 1 Corinthians 15:1-11

From Gary... Bible Reading August 13



Bible Reading 
August 13

The World English Bible



Aug. 13
Esther 1-3
Est 1:1 Now it happened in the days of Ahasuerus (this is Ahasuerus who reigned from India even to Ethiopia, over one hundred twenty-seven provinces),
Est 1:2 that in those days, when the King Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom, which was in Shushan the palace,
Est 1:3 in the third year of his reign, he made a feast for all his princes and his servants; the power of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes of the provinces, being before him.
Est 1:4 He displayed the riches of his glorious kingdom and the honor of his excellent majesty many days, even one hundred eighty days.
Est 1:5 When these days were fulfilled, the king made a seven day feast for all the people who were present in Shushan the palace, both great and small, in the court of the garden of the king's palace.
Est 1:6 There were hangings of white, green, and blue material, fastened with cords of fine linen and purple to silver rings and marble pillars. The couches were of gold and silver, on a pavement of red, white, yellow, and black marble.
Est 1:7 They gave them drinks in golden vessels of various kinds, including royal wine in abundance, according to the bounty of the king.
Est 1:8 In accordance with the law, the drinking was not compulsory; for so the king had instructed all the officials of his house, that they should do according to every man's pleasure.
Est 1:9 Also Vashti the queen made a feast for the women in the royal house which belonged to King Ahasuerus.
Est 1:10 On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he commanded Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha, and Abagtha, Zethar, and Carcass, the seven eunuchs who served in the presence of Ahasuerus the king,
Est 1:11 to bring Vashti the queen before the king with the royal crown, to show the people and the princes her beauty; for she was beautiful.
Est 1:12 But the queen Vashti refused to come at the king's commandment by the eunuchs. Therefore the king was very angry, and his anger burned in him.
Est 1:13 Then the king said to the wise men, who knew the times, (for it was the king's custom to consult those who knew law and judgment;
Est 1:14 and the next to him were Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, and Memucan, the seven princes of Persia and Media, who saw the king's face, and sat first in the kingdom),
Est 1:15 "What shall we do to the queen Vashti according to law, because she has not done the bidding of the King Ahasuerus by the eunuchs?"
Est 1:16 Memucan answered before the king and the princes, "Vashti the queen has not done wrong to just the king, but also to all the princes, and to all the people who are in all the provinces of the King Ahasuerus.
Est 1:17 For this deed of the queen will become known to all women, causing them to show contempt for their husbands, when it is reported, 'King Ahasuerus commanded Vashti the queen to be brought in before him, but she didn't come.'
Est 1:18 Today, the princesses of Persia and Media who have heard of the queen's deed will tell all the king's princes. This will cause much contempt and wrath.
Est 1:19 If it please the king, let a royal commandment go from him, and let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes, so that it cannot be altered, that Vashti may never again come before King Ahasuerus; and let the king give her royal estate to another who is better than she.
Est 1:20 When the king's decree which he shall make is published throughout all his kingdom (for it is great), all the wives will give their husbands honor, both great and small."
Est 1:21 This advice pleased the king and the princes, and the king did according to the word of Memucan:
Est 1:22 for he sent letters into all the king's provinces, into every province according to its writing, and to every people in their language, that every man should rule his own house, speaking in the language of his own people.
Est 2:1 After these things, when the wrath of King Ahasuerus was pacified, he remembered Vashti, and what she had done, and what was decreed against her.
Est 2:2 Then the king's servants who served him said, "Let beautiful young virgins be sought for the king.
Est 2:3 Let the king appoint officers in all the provinces of his kingdom, that they may gather together all the beautiful young virgins to the citadel of Susa, to the women's house, to the custody of Hegai the king's eunuch, keeper of the women. Let cosmetics be given them;
Est 2:4 and let the maiden who pleases the king be queen instead of Vashti." The thing pleased the king, and he did so.
Est 2:5 There was a certain Jew in the citadel of Susa, whose name was Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite,
Est 2:6 who had been carried away from Jerusalem with the captives who had been carried away with Jeconiah king of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away.
Est 2:7 He brought up Hadassah, that is, Esther, his uncle's daughter; for she had neither father nor mother. The maiden was fair and beautiful; and when her father and mother were dead, Mordecai took her for his own daughter.
Est 2:8 So it happened, when the king's commandment and his decree was heard, and when many maidens were gathered together to the citadel of Susa, to the custody of Hegai, that Esther was taken into the king's house, to the custody of Hegai, keeper of the women.
Est 2:9 The maiden pleased him, and she obtained kindness from him. He quickly gave her cosmetics and her portions of food, and the seven choice maidens who were to be given her out of the king's house. He moved her and her maidens to the best place in the women's house.
Est 2:10 Esther had not made known her people nor her relatives, because Mordecai had instructed her that she should not make it known.
Est 2:11 Mordecai walked every day in front of the court of the women's house, to find out how Esther did, and what would become of her.
Est 2:12 Each young woman's turn came to go in to King Ahasuerus after her purification for twelve months (for so were the days of their purification accomplished, six months with oil of myrrh, and six months with sweet fragrances and with preparations for beautifying women).
Est 2:13 The young woman then came to the king like this: whatever she desired was given her to go with her out of the women's house to the king's house.
Est 2:14 In the evening she went, and on the next day she returned into the second women's house, to the custody of Shaashgaz, the king's eunuch, who kept the concubines. She came in to the king no more, unless the king delighted in her, and she was called by name.
Est 2:15 Now when the turn of Esther, the daughter of Abihail the uncle of Mordecai, who had taken her for his daughter, came to go in to the king, she required nothing but what Hegai the king's eunuch, the keeper of the women, advised. Esther obtained favor in the sight of all those who looked at her.
Est 2:16 So Esther was taken to King Ahasuerus into his royal house in the tenth month, which is the month Tebeth, in the seventh year of his reign.
Est 2:17 The king loved Esther more than all the women, and she obtained favor and kindness in his sight more than all the virgins; so that he set the royal crown on her head, and made her queen instead of Vashti.
Est 2:18 Then the king made a great feast for all his princes and his servants, even Esther's feast; and he proclaimed a holiday in the provinces, and gave gifts according to the king's bounty.
Est 2:19 When the virgins were gathered together the second time, Mordecai was sitting in the king's gate.
Est 2:20 Esther had not yet made known her relatives nor her people, as Mordecai had commanded her; for Esther obeyed Mordecai, like she did when she was brought up by him.
Est 2:21 In those days, while Mordecai was sitting in the king's gate, two of the king's eunuchs, Bigthan and Teresh, who were doorkeepers, were angry, and sought to lay hands on the King Ahasuerus.
Est 2:22 This thing became known to Mordecai, who informed Esther the queen; and Esther informed the king in Mordecai's name.
Est 2:23 When this matter was investigated, and it was found to be so, they were both hanged on a tree; and it was written in the book of the chronicles in the king's presence.
Est 3:1 After these things King Ahasuerus promoted Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanced him, and set his seat above all the princes who were with him.
Est 3:2 All the king's servants who were in the king's gate bowed down, and paid homage to Haman; for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai didn't bow down or pay him homage.
Est 3:3 Then the king's servants, who were in the king's gate, said to Mordecai, "Why do you disobey the king's commandment?"
Est 3:4 Now it came to pass, when they spoke daily to him, and he didn't listen to them, that they told Haman, to see whether Mordecai's reason would stand; for he had told them that he was a Jew.
Est 3:5 When Haman saw that Mordecai didn't bow down, nor pay him homage, Haman was full of wrath.
Est 3:6 But he scorned the thought of laying hands on Mordecai alone, for they had made known to him Mordecai's people. Therefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews who were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus, even the Mordecai's people.
Est 3:7 In the first month, which is the month Nisan, in the twelfth year of King Ahasuerus, they cast Pur, that is, the lot, before Haman from day to day, and from month to month, and chose the twelfth month, which is the month Adar.
Est 3:8 Haman said to King Ahasuerus, "There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom, and their laws are different than other people's. They don't keep the king's laws. Therefore it is not for the king's profit to allow them to remain.
Est 3:9 If it pleases the king, let it be written that they be destroyed; and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver into the hands of those who are in charge of the king's business, to bring it into the king's treasuries."
Est 3:10 The king took his ring from his hand, and gave it to Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the Jews' enemy.
Est 3:11 The king said to Haman, "The silver is given to you, the people also, to do with them as it seems good to you."
Est 3:12 Then the king's scribes were called in on the first month, on the thirteenth day of the month; and all that Haman commanded was written to the king's satraps, and to the governors who were over every province, and to the princes of every people, to every province according its writing, and to every people in their language. It was written in the name of King Ahasuerus, and it was sealed with the king's ring.
Est 3:13 Letters were sent by couriers into all the king's provinces, to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day, even on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, and to plunder their possessions.
Est 3:14 A copy of the letter, that the decree should be given out in every province, was published to all the peoples, that they should be ready against that day.
Est 3:15 The couriers went forth in haste by the king's commandment, and the decree was given out in the citadel of Susa. The king and Haman sat down to drink; but the city of Shushan was perplexed.
 
Aug. 13, 14
Acts 25
Act 25:1 Festus therefore, having come into the province, after three days went up to Jerusalem from Caesarea.
Act 25:2 Then the high priest and the principal men of the Jews informed him against Paul, and they begged him,
Act 25:3 asking a favor against him, that he would summon him to Jerusalem; plotting to kill him on the way.
Act 25:4 However Festus answered that Paul should be kept in custody at Caesarea, and that he himself was about to depart shortly.
Act 25:5 "Let them therefore," said he, "that are in power among you go down with me, and if there is anything wrong in the man, let them accuse him."
Act 25:6 When he had stayed among them more than ten days, he went down to Caesarea, and on the next day he sat on the judgment seat, and commanded Paul to be brought.
Act 25:7 When he had come, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him, bringing against him many and grievous charges which they could not prove,
Act 25:8 while he said in his defense, "Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar, have I sinned at all."
Act 25:9 But Festus, desiring to gain favor with the Jews, answered Paul and said, "Are you willing to go up to Jerusalem, and be judged by me there concerning these things?"
Act 25:10 But Paul said, "I am standing before Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be tried. I have done no wrong to the Jews, as you also know very well.
Act 25:11 For if I have done wrong, and have committed anything worthy of death, I don't refuse to die; but if none of those things is true that they accuse me of, no one can give me up to them. I appeal to Caesar!"
Act 25:12 Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council, answered, "You have appealed to Caesar. To Caesar you shall go."
Act 25:13 Now when some days had passed, Agrippa the King and Bernice arrived at Caesarea, and greeted Festus.
Act 25:14 As he stayed there many days, Festus laid Paul's case before the king, saying, "There is a certain man left a prisoner by Felix;
Act 25:15 about whom, when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed me, asking for a sentence against him.
Act 25:16 To whom I answered that it is not the custom of the Romans to give up any man to destruction, before the accused has met the accusers face to face, and has had opportunity to make his defense concerning the matter laid against him.
Act 25:17 When therefore they had come together here, I didn't delay, but on the next day sat on the judgment seat, and commanded the man to be brought.
Act 25:18 Concerning whom, when the accusers stood up, they brought no charge of such things as I supposed;
Act 25:19 but had certain questions against him about their own religion, and about one Jesus, who was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.
Act 25:20 Being perplexed how to inquire concerning these things, I asked whether he was willing to go to Jerusalem and there be judged concerning these matters.
Act 25:21 But when Paul had appealed to be kept for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be kept until I could send him to Caesar."
Act 25:22 Agrippa said to Festus, "I also would like to hear the man myself." "Tomorrow," he said, "you shall hear him."
Act 25:23 So on the next day, when Agrippa and Bernice had come with great pomp, and they had entered into the place of hearing with the commanding officers and principal men of the city, at the command of Festus, Paul was brought in.
Act 25:24 Festus said, "King Agrippa, and all men who are here present with us, you see this man, about whom all the multitude of the Jews petitioned me, both at Jerusalem and here, crying that he ought not to live any longer.
Act 25:25 But when I found that he had committed nothing worthy of death, and as he himself appealed to the emperor I determined to send him.
Act 25:26 Of whom I have no certain thing to write to my lord. Therefore I have brought him forth before you, and especially before you, King Agrippa, that, after examination, I may have something to write.
Act 25:27 For it seems to me unreasonable, in sending a prisoner, not to also specify the charges against him."

From Jim McGuiggan... The Torah as a gracious gift

The Torah as a gracious gift

Years ago I read a man who was Mr. Death on legalism. In the course of his argument he said Israel should have said 'no' to God's offer of the Torah because God was only putting them to the test and they failed that test by agreeing to do whatever the Torah asked. That doesn't agree with God's view as it's reported for us in Deuteronomy 5:27-28, "Go near and listen to all that the Lord our God says. Then tell us whatever the Lord our God tells you. We will listen and obey." God's response to that was, "I have heard what this people said to you. Everything they said was good." God knew that they wouldn't keep the word they gave but he did commend the response.
Joshua (24:2) reminds Israel that their forefathers, in the days of Terah and Abraham, worshiped idols beyond the Euphrates. And what is it that redeemed them? God graciously made himself known to Abraham and so the night of idolatry and polytheism began to dawn toward a full blown knowledge of the one true God who gave Israel his covenant name, Yahweh.
Was this a privilege? Was Israel advantaged by this light? Were they blessed when compared to other nations who worshiped things that crawled and rattled and slithered? Because he opened up the possibility of life with God for Gentiles, independent of the Torah (Romans 2:6-16), Paul gives voice to a Jewish protest in Romans 3:1, "What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew?" and answers, "Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God." And later, in Romans 9:3-5, the gifts and privileges he says belonged to Israel include "the receiving of the law". God made himself known to Israel as to no other nation and a part of that self-revelation was the Torah.
Moses is thrilled with the privilege he had brought to Israel in the commandments of Torah. He has no thought that he's delivering to them a yoke of bondage. Far from it; in Deuteronomy 4:6-8 he delights to tell them:
"Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about these decrees and say, 'Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.' What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him? And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you this day?"
Not everyone was as fortunate or as privileged as those to whom Moses spoke when he said (Deuteronomy 5:2-3): "The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. It was not with our fathers that the Lord made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today."
And it was when they were called to, "Stand up and praise the Lord your God" that the returnees from exile confessed how good God had been to them down the years—delivering them from captivity and sustaining them through the awful wilderness. It was in that setting that they said, "You came down on Mount Sinai; you spoke to them from heaven. You gave them regulations and laws that are just and right, and decrees and commands that are good." (Nehemiah 9:5-13) They weren't thanking God for a yoke that can only accuse and bring death to them!
No wonder rabbi Jacob Neusner reminds us that, for the Jews, the Torah finds its place among the gifts of a gracious God: "We thank Thee, Lord our God...for thy Torah which Thou has taught us, for Thy statutes which Thou has made known to us, for the life of grace and mercy Thou has graciously bestowed on us..." (An Introduction to Judaism, Westminster/John Knox Press, Louisville, 1991, page 5)
In describing halakhah (the authoritative interpretation of Torah to which the pious take heed) he remarks, "When people think of law, they ordinarily imagine a religion for book-keepers, who tote up the good deeds and debit the bad and call the result salvation or damnation, depending on the outcome. But when we speak of life under the halakhah law, we mean life in accord with the halakhah, the rules and regulations of a holy life." (Page 63) It was the way people who were gifted with life and relationship responded to the grace showered on them. [We're aware that the Halakhah of the Pharisees often got in God's way.]
God's gift to Israel but the Torah was serving larger purposes
Torah was a servant to the Abrahamic promises and those promises while made specifically to Abraham and his physical descendants through Jacobthey were for all the nations. This means the Jewish Torah was not to be seen as serving only Israel; it was a gift of God's grace to Israel which was to result in the blessing of humanity. Note, for example, Genesis 12:2-3; 17:5: 22:18; 26:4. Life with God through Abraham was for every nation under heaven.
Nevertheless, Israel wasn't simply a "tool" to be used by God and cast aside. God loved Israel as he had loved their fathers and he called them to himself rather than some location in a wilderness (Exodus 19:4). He called them that they might enjoy life with him in the here and now and not simply in some distant future. The life that God offered Israel as a gracious gift was profiled in the Torah. The life he offered wasn't wages they earned because they were morally good enough; the life he offered was a relationship in which they lived out the character of the God who freely entered this covenant with them.
So when Leviticus 18:5 said, "Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord," God meant what he said. Israel would find life with God within the parameters of the Torah. He would not allow them to live like Egyptians where they'd been and he forbids them to live like Canaanites where they were going (18:1-3). To live as those nations lived wasn't "living" and if it was life Israel wanted, they would have to find it in a relationship with Yahweh. The parameters of that relationship (including forgiveness when sins were committed) were laid out in the Torah which by God's grace, deepens, enriches and purifies their experience of and relationship with God.
The Torah is the commandment that is "unto life" in Romans 7:10 and it was given exclusively to Israel. When Paul makes use of Leviticus 18:5 in both Romans 10:5 and Galatians 3:12 that is precisely the point he is making. "The man" who does "these things" is the Israelite to whom the Torah was given. The Torah was a specific and exclusive way for life with God for Israel after the flesh. It wasn't meant to be the commandment "unto life" for all nations. [And, of course, Israel despised the covenant and continued to dishonour God so that the covenant became their accuser and judge rather than the place within which they enjoyed life with God. Instead of bringing life to the loving obedient it brought curse and death to an impenitent nation.]
The covenantal law was to bring life to and shape the life of Israel.
Israel hadn't been rescued from Pharaonic slavery only to be put under a more galling and a more enduring one. The law was intended to bring life (Rom 7:10—"I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death").
In a covenant renewal setting (Deut 30:15-20), Moses says to Israel what is typical of his remarks throughout the book:
      
"See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase...I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses.
  Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life."
In Psalm 19 the psalmist sees the law as reviving the soul and making the simple wise, giving joy, vision, warning and reward (7,8,11). In Psalm 119 the torah makes blameless and pure (1,9), it leads to praise (7), gives pilgrims guidance (19), rebukes arrogance (21), preserves life (25), gives strength (28), ministers grace (29), results in freedom (45), is worthy of trust (86), preserves life (93), identifies the people of God (94), gives enlightenment and wisdom (97-100) and so forth.
The life that came as a result of Israel's lovingly obeying God's law was a gift and not a wage (see Deuteronomy 9:5-6) and it was life as defined within the parameters of the covenantal law which the gracious God gave to Israel. There is no life for the elect outside of covenant!
The life that Israel enjoyed with God under this covenantal law showed itself in blessings that consisted of possession of land, fruits, crops, herds, families, houses, wells, security, joy, emotional and physical health (as well as forgiveness of sins). But while these were part of what Israel understood as "life" with God, they didn't exhaust it. Life with God involved a relationship which existed between God and Israel even in the absence of these blessings.
The relationship Israel had with God was spiritual and the blessings which were enjoyed were not confined to the physical. It didn't matter that the ancients were ignorant of the vastness of the blessings—whatever was in store for them came to them because they were related to the Lord and they would enjoy them in the here and now or hereafter if there was to be a hereafter. The distinction we draw between spiritual and physical is (in the main) groundless, though at times to differentiate them is useful.
But the laws didn't exist simply to provide the needs/wants of Israel; they were there also to teach Israel what to want. Understanding came through asking questions but more wisdom and deeper understanding led them to know which questions to ask. It was important for the people to learn what to do with their goods but it was equally important for them to recognize a priority of goods. The laws were part of Israel's ethical education and enrichment as well as commands to be obeyed if they wanted to be blessed.
It was a gracious gift because it opened their eyes and dismissed their darkness.
It was a gracious gift because it shaped their lives, enabling them to know what they should want to want.
It was a gracious gift because it had a home attached with it.
It was a gracious gift because it was in faithfulness to promises God had made to their fathers.
Frank Crusemann makes the just observation, "Christians traditionally discuss Torah under the broader heading of 'law.' Thus, it (is) often contrasted with 'gospel.' Historically as well as theologically, however, such opposition can only give a distorted picture of the biblical concept of Torah." He goes on to say, "The concept of Torah includes both sides of the Word of God. What systematic theology divides into law and gospel, command and promise (and then often contrasts them) are all contained in Torah."
The Torah was gospel as well as other things—see Hebrews 4:1-2. Click for more.

©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

Faithfulness in Homosexual Marriages by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1653

Faithfulness in Homosexual Marriages

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The first same-sex couple to receive a legal marriage license in U.S. history two years ago (2004) now have terminated their “marriage” (Bone, 2006). The lesbian couple acted as plaintiffs in the 2003 case that led to the Massachusetts State Supreme Court legalizing same-sex “marriage” (Abraham and Paulson, 2004). While the legitimacy of same-sex marriage may not be called into question strictly on the basis of this couple’s actions, it surely is suggestive of the larger picture.
In his book Outrage: How Gay Activists and Liberal Judges are Trashing Democracy to Redefine Marriage, Peter Sprigg argues that homosexuals are less likely than heterosexuals to enter into long-term relationships, less likely to be sexually faithful, and less likely to stay together for a lifetime (“Books and...,” 2006). In the recent ruling by the Washington State Supreme Court which repudiated same-sex marriage, Justice James Johnson noted: “Direct comparisons between opposite-sex homes and same-sex homes further support the former as a better environment for children. For example, studies show an average shorter term commitment and more sexual partners for same-sex couples” (Andersen v...). That explains why less than half the homosexual couples in Massachusetts have bothered to “marry” even though they now have been granted the legal right to do so (Perkins, 2006). Nevertheless, normalizing sexually deviant behavior will inevitably alter how people conceptualize marriage itself. Legalizing illicit sexual activity cannot help but undermine the foundations of the marriage institution, which is characterized by and dependent on commitment, sexual fidelity, and dedication to permanence.
The Designer of marriage has indicated that one man for one woman for life is the very essence, nature, and character of marriage (Genesis 1:27; 2:24). Any other arrangement is “against nature” and the result of a “debased mind” (Romans 1:26,28). Those who engage in same-sex relations have been given up “to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves” (Romans 1:24).

REFERENCES

Abraham, Yvonne and Michael Paulson (2004), “First Gays Marry; Many Seek Licenses,” The Boston Globe, May 18, [On-line], URL: http://www.boston.com/news/ local/articles/2004/05/18/wedding_day/.
Andersen v. King County, Nos. 75934-1, 75956-1 (Wash. July 26, 2006), [On-line], URL: http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341co2.pdf.
Bone, James (2006), “First U.S. Gay Couple to Marry Have Broken Up,” The Times, July 22, [On-line], URL: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2280221,00.html.
“Books and Booklets” (2006), Family Research Council, July 22, [On-line], URL: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=BK04H01&f=WA06G20.
Perkins, Tony (2006), “Plaintiffs in Landmark ‘Marriage’ Case Split Up,” Family Research Council: Washington Update, July 21, [On-line], URL: http://www.frc.org/ get.cfm?i=WU06G13.

Christianity and Humanism by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.


https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=680

Christianity and Humanism

by  Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

INTRODUCTION

“Absolute truth belongs only to one class of humans—the class of absolute fools.” These are the piercing words of Ashley Montagu, famous evolutionist/humanist of Princeton University (1981, p. 4-C). Dr. Montagu wanted to make it clear that, at best, truth is relative—and anyone who states differently is to be categorized as a fool. Others have joined Dr. Montagu in this kind of thinking. Sir Julian Huxley, for instance, said: “We must now be prepared to abandon the god hypothesis and its corollaries like divine revelation or unchanging truths, and to change over from a supernatural to a naturalistic view of human destiny” (1965, p. 101).
Why do men make such statements? The answer, it seems, lies in an ever-increasing attitude of “supreme self-sufficiency”—a burning desire to “cut themselves loose from the apron strings of God” as it were. George Gaylord Simpson, the late paleontologist of Harvard, wrote:
Man stands alone in the universe, a unique product of a long, unconscious, impersonal, material process with unique understanding and potentialities. These he owes to no one but himself, and it is to himself that he is responsible. He is not the creature of uncontrollable and undeterminable forces, but is his own master. He can and must decide and manage his own destiny (1953, p. 155).
Richard Leakey echoed those same sentiments.
Unquestionably mankind is special, and in many ways, too…. There is now a critical need for a deep awareness that, no matter how special we are as an animal, we are still part of the greater balance of nature.… During that relatively brief span evolutionary pressures forged a brain capable of profound understanding of matters animate and inanimate: the fruits of intellectual and technological endeavour in this latter quarter of the 20th century give us just an inkling of what the human mind can achieve. The potential is enormous, almost infinite. We can, if we so choose, do virtually anything (1977, p. 256; first emp. in orig.; latter emp. added).
But is that the only (or even the major) reason for this “debunking of God” in favor of a purely human vantage point? No. It is not just that man is convinced he can make it on his own, although that in itself would be bad enough. Rather, it is the attitude of which the apostle Paul spoke in Romans 1:28 as he discussed those who “refused to have God in their knowledge.” It has to do with those who have “exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25). It is a willful determination on the part of man not to have God in his mind or in his life, and instead to replace Him with something—anything—non-divine and non-supernatural. It is a concerted effort to escape any ultimate responsibility, and instead to find a way to allow each person to “do his own thing.” In an article titled “Confessions of a Professed Atheist,” Aldous Huxley addressed this very point.
I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently, assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption.… The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do.… For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom (1966, 3:19).
Statements like these show the absolute determination of some to live without God, no matter what the cost. It is difficult not to be reminded of the kind of people of whom Paul spoke in Ephesians 2:11-13 who found themselves in the position of “having no hope, and without God in the world.” Such thinking is the warped product of what has been called “the void of humanism” (see Stearsman, 1981, 25[12]:490-491).

THE TENETS OF HUMANISM

There is nothing left to the imagination when it comes to the tenets of humanism. This system of thought has been so well defined and so oft’ discussed that it is an easy matter to understand its goals, aims, objectives, and teachings. In 1933, and again forty years later in 1973, humanists set forth their credo in Humanist Manifesto I and Humanist Manifesto II. Humanism is not just a system of thought that stresses the importance of humankind. Rather, humanism is a subtle, disarming, and sophisticated way of saying “atheism.” The Humanist Manifesto II makes that clear: “As nontheists, we begin with humans, not God, nature, not deity…. [H]umans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves” (1973, p. 16).
The Humanist Manifesto I is composed of fifteen theses covering such areas as ethics, religion, man’s origin and destiny, etc. It was signed by such men as R. Lester Mondale, brother of former Vice-President Walter Mondale, and American educator John Dewey, among others. Humanist Manifesto II contains seventeen theses grouped under five major headings: Religion, Ethics, Individual, Democratic Society, and World Community. It was signed by a number of influential people from almost every walk of life, including, among others, Linus Pauling, Isaac Asimov, Francis Crick, Julian Huxley, Anthony Flew, Corliss Lamont, and Kai Nielsen. In the preface, the proponents stated: “As in 1933, humanist still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-healing God, assumed to love and care for persons,...is an unproved and outmoded faith” (1973, p. 13).
Humanists have “taken aim” at God, religion, the supernatural, and the Gospel message, and intend to “shoot to kill.” Consider, for example, this statement from Kai Nielsen, humanist philosopher and former editor of The Humanist magazine.
In cultures such as ours, religion is very often an alien form of life to intellectuals. Living as we do in a post-enlightenment era, it is difficult for us to take religion seriously. The very concept seems fantastic to us…that people in our age can believe that they have had a personal encounter with God, that they could believe that they have experienced conversion through a “mystical experience of God,” so that they are born again in the Holy Spirit, is something that attests to human irrationality and a lack of sense of reality (1977, p. 46).
The message is clear. Those people who accept God, His Son, His Word, and His salvation are “out of touch with reality,” “irrational,” and “unreasonable.” There is no misunderstanding humanism, what it teaches, or what it hopes to accomplish. The Humanist Manifesto II is quite specific on a number of important points. Consider, too, the humanists’ comments on religion.
We believe, however, that traditional or dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species. Any account of nature should pass the tests of scientific evidence; in our judgment, the dogmas and myths of traditional religions do not do so.… 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.… Promises of salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful. They distract humans from present concerns, from self-actualization, and from rectifying social injustices. Modern science discredits such historic concepts as the “ghost in the machine” and the “separable soul.” Rather, science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces. As far as we know, the total personality is a function of the biological organism transacting in a social and cultural context. There is no credible evidence that life survives the death of the body (1973, pp. 15-17).
The following statements are representative of the humanists’ thoughts on the subject of ethics.
...we affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human needs and interest. To deny this distorts the whole basis of life. Human life has meaning because we create and develop our futures. Happiness and the creative realization of human needs and desires, individually and in shared enjoyment, are continuous themes of humanism. We strive for the good life, here and now. The goal is to pursue life’s enrichment despite debasing forces.... Reason and intelligence are the most effective instruments that humankind possesses. There is no substitute: neither faith nor passion suffices in itself. The controlled use of scientific methods, which have transformed the natural and social sciences since the Renaissance, must be extended further in the solution of human problems (1973, pp. 17-18; emp. in orig.).
Lastly, consider these comments on “sexual freedom.”
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 behavior between consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered “evil.” Without countenancing mindless permissiveness or unbridled promiscuity, a civilized society should be a tolerant one. Short of harming others or compelling them to do likewise, individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their lifestyles as they desire. We wish to cultivate the development of a responsible attitude toward sexuality, in which humans are not exploited as sexual objects and in which intimacy, sensitivity, respect and honesty in interpersonal relations are encouraged. Moral education for children and adults is an important way of developing awareness and sexual maturity (1973, pp. 18-19; emp. in orig.).
These, in summary, are the tenets of humanism. Promises of salvation are “illusory and harmful,” ethics is “situational,” and sexual activity between “consenting adults” is acceptable no matter who or what is involved. Sounds like “vice is nice” propaganda, doesn’t it? Abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, and even what some call the “last taboo”—incest—are acceptable according to humanism. As one author put it: “While humanity did not arise from the beasts, Humanism certainly stoops to their level” (Jones, 1981, 98[20]:309).
Many people simply are not aware that humanism advocates such things. Furthermore, many are not aware that humanism has its own systems of cosmology, soteriology, ethics, and even eschatology—all of which stand in direct opposition to the Bible. What, then, should be the Christian’s response to such teachings?

CHRISTIANITY AND HUMANISM

It is important to understand that a Christian cannot be a humanist. There are those who claim to be “Christian humanists” or “religious humanists.” But humanism and Christianity are not compatible. Paul Kurtz, former editor of The Humanist, addressed the subject of “Christian humanism” and observed: “Humanism cannot in any fair sense of the word apply to one who still believes in God as the source and Creator of the universe. Christian Humanism would be possible only for those who are willing to admit that they are atheistic Humanists. It surely does not apply to God-intoxicated believers” (1973, p. 177). Humanist writer Corliss Lamont has gone so far as to state: “Passing to the New Testament, we see plainly that its theology, taken literally, is totally alien to the Humanist viewpoint” (1977, p. 50).
Humanism and Christianity are mutually exclusive, diametrically opposed systems. Humanism states that matter is eternal, that there is no God, that man and his environment are the result of evolutionary forces, that ethics is situational, that no one can possess absolute truth, that there is no life after death, that views of salvation are illusory and harmful, that man is the most important thing in the Universe, that man has no soul, that there is no heaven or hell, and so on.
Christianity, on the other hand, teaches the exact opposite of these things. The Bible speaks often of an eternal God, man’s immortal soul, heaven, hell, a promised and planned salvation, the absolute nature of Truth, morals based on an objective standard, etc. Humanists have failed to comprehend one of the greatest of all truths—that the “fear of the Lord” is both “the beginning of knowledge” and “the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 1:7; 9:10). True wisdom is in Christ (1 Corinthians 1:30). He alone is the way, the Truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father but by Him (John 14:6). It is His Truth that will make us free (John 8:32) and protect us from the “philosophy and vain deceit after the tradition of men” which is able to destroy us (Colossians 2:8).
It is the Christian system that places man in his proper place in the Universe—as a specially created being (Genesis 1:26-27) made a little lower than the angels (Psalm 8:4-5). Man is not “up from the slime” as humanism advocates, but instead is “down from heaven.” In addition, Christianity correctly teaches that ethics is not situational, but instead always must be based on God’s Word since in that Word we find “all things that pertain unto life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3). Far from being situational, the ethical system of the Bible is governed by revelation provided by the Creator. Prohibitions against many of the things that humanism advocates (divorce, homosexuality, extramarital and premarital sexual activity, etc.) are frequent in the divinely inspired text (1 Corinthians 6:9-19; Romans 1:26-32; Matthew 5:27; Matthew 19:9; Genesis 2:24, etc.).
The wisdom that man values so highly, God often sets at nought (1 Corinthians 3:19-21; 2:6; 1:19-21). The Bible urges us to pray often (1 Thessalonians 5:17), with the assurance that we will be heard by our God (Matthew 7:7-8). Humanism denies these things. The Bible warns us against “friendship with the world which is enmity with God” (James 4:4) and promises us instead the “abundant life” (John 10:10) through Christ. Jesus Himself promised eternal life to those who were faithful to God (John 17:3; Matthew 10:32-33; John 14:1-3,23-24).

CONCLUSION

Why do we find the world in the state it is today? Tim LaHaye, in his book, The Battle for the Mind, suggested: “Our present society is in a state of moral decay, not because the majority of Americans love degeneracy, but because the influence of humanism has been greater on our culture than the influence of the church” (1980, p. 189). Christ said:
Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a lamp, and put it under a bushel, but on a stand; and it shineth unto all that are in the house. even so let your light shine before men; that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven (Matthew 5:13-16).
God’s people are to uphold that which is right and oppose that which is wrong. In so doing, we set an example for all around us to see. We must oppose humanism because its teachings are contrary to the teachings of God’s Word. We must come to understand, and help others to understand, the folly of human “wisdom” such as is found in humanism.
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and discernment of the discerning will I bring to naught. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of the 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 the preaching to save them that believe (1 Corinthians 1:19-21).
Human wisdom leads away from God if it is not founded on, guarded by, and subject to biblical revelation. Human wisdom is at war with God (Romans 8:7) and is foolishness as far as He is concerned (1 Corinthians 3:19-20). Christians must reject humanism, and help others to do the same.

REFERENCES

Humanist Manifestos I & II (1933/1973), (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus).
Huxley, Aldous (1966), “Confessions of a Professed Atheist,” Report: Perspective on the News.
Huxley, Julian (1965), Fortune Magazine, February.
Jones, Shawn (1981), “The Most Dangerous Religion in the World,” Firm Foundation, 98[20]:309, May 19.
Kurtz, Paul (1973), The Humanist Alternative (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus).
LaHaye, Tim (1980), The Battle for the Mind (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell).
Lamont, Corliss (1977), The Philosophy of Humanism (New York: Unger).
Leakey, Richard (1977), Origins (New York: E.P. Dutton).
Montagu, Ashley, (1981), Interview in The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, p. 4-C, July 26.
Nielsen, Kai (1977), The Humanist, May/June.
Simpson, George Gaylord (1953), Life of the Past (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).
Stearsman, Jackie M. (1981), “The Void of Humanism,” Christian Bible Teacher, 25[12]:490-491, December.