“As He Is In the Light” — Answering Continual Cleansing by Trevor Bowen

http://insearchoftruth.org/articles/answering_continual_cleansing.html

“As He Is In the Light” — Answering Continual Cleansing

A DESPERATE ALTERNATIVE

Fundamental to Christianity is the holy march towards ever deeper spiritual purity (I John 3:1-3). Frequently, the Bible sets the standard at nothing short of perfection (I John 3:4-10; Matthew 5:48; I Peter 1:14-16). Yet, Christians often struggle with difficult, habitual sins, and always looming is the fear of what a Christian might not know. Cracks in one’s faith can be driven with questions, like: “Do you — or any of us — have perfect knowledge? Therefore, how do you know you are not sinning in ignorance? Do you — or any of us — have perfect control? Therefore, how do you know you will not be struck down in a moment of weakness, immediately after losing control?” Furthermore, hypothetical situations, like the following, may be presented to draw sympathy towards the proposed unreasonableness of God condemning a man for a single sin:

Imagine a godly man, the most spiritual man, who has preached for over 50 years and raised godly children. Even his devout grandchildren are a testament to his devotion! However, after living such a godly life, one day while walking to church to preach, a car drives by him and splashes mud all over his Sunday suit. Out of character, and without thinking, he curses. What if immediately a second car struck the man and killed him, before he had a chance to repent? Would God condemn such a man to hell for one little slip, after a lifetime of holiness? I think not!

Such reasoning and hypothetical examples highlight the discrepancy between what God commands and what we think is reasonable. To remedy the obvious fear and misery that many Christians might endure, the following alternative standard is offered:

I affirm that (a) continuous cleansing is an absolute necessity for the faithful Christian because he does sin and even may be unaware of some of his sins; (b) continuous cleansing for the faithful Christian is a genuine reality because God has promised that, through the blood of Jesus, we have full forgiveness as we walk in the light; (c) continuous cleansing for the faithful Christian is without any satisfactory alternative because if such is not so, then there is no hope at all for any of us. If the blood of Christ does not keep us cleansed (while we walk not after the flesh but unless we die with a prayer upon our lips we may indeed die lost, and every hour of every day and night would be a day and an hour of misery and fear. (Leslie Diestelkamp, Patton-Diestelkamp on Continuous Cleansing, p. 7)

Please notice that this doctrine, here called “continual cleansing” and “walking in the light” (taken from I John 1:7), is a doctrine of apparent necessity. It was invented to fill the gap and bridge the discrepancy between God’s commands and our general experience. Although the exact terms are unclear, continual cleansing offers immediate forgiveness of all sins committed in ignorance, weakness, presumption, etc., which are uncharacteristic with a man’s general walk, provided he is generally seeking purity, praying for forgiveness, and forgiving others. This doctrine has been advocated, because we are deemed “without any satisfactory alternative”, not because the unique attributes of this doctrine are necessarily advocated by Scripture. Therefore, if this proposed stop-gap solution is found inconsistent with Scripture, or if another alternative can be found — especially if the alternative is consistent with Scripture — then the doctrine of continual cleansing will have no reason or justification to continue as a possible theory.

A FLAWED PROPOSAL

The above proposed explanation, which is designed to comfort Christians struggling with sins of weakness and ignorance, exhibits the following flaws and inconsistencies with Scripture:

1. Inconsistent with Context — In the context of I John 1:7, “walking in the light” is immediately defined and limited walking “as He is in the light”. Furthermore, in this context He is attributed with the identity, “God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.” Therefore, every doctrine is fundamentally flawed that defines “walking in the light as He is in the light” differently from God’s abiding in light. Moreover, in the same context John identifies a people, who claim to fellowship God while practicing sin (I John 1:6) and another group, who claim that sin does not adhere to them (I John 1:8), all of which are condemned as self-deceived, liars, and those divorced from truth (I John 1:6-8). There is a bitter irony that a passage written to condemn automatic forgiveness and fellowship beyond confession and repentance is used by some as a proof-text that forgiveness may be obtained apart from repentance and confession!
2. Unrealistic — The fear and paranoia produced by the above hypothetical situation ignores the fundamental characters of both God and a spiritual man. A mature, godly man will not behave as described in the above hypothetical. Such behavior is fundamentally inconsistent with his character. Will a truly, godly man, mature in all his ways curse God, when something unexpected occurs? Or, is he more likely to turn to God and seek His help, as did Stephen (Acts 7:57-60)? Furthermore, the above hypothetical assumes that God is either cruel and capricious or uninvolved. Are either true of the God we serve (II Peter 3:9)?
3. Avoids Responsibility — If we do not yet have the knowledge or discipline required of Christians, then whose fault is it? Does God demand what is impossible of us? We are responsible and may be condemned for what we do not know of God’s Word, because it can be understood (II Peter 3:16; Ephesians 3:3-5; 5:17). When we make special allowances beyond God’s Word for sins of ignorance or weakness, we are ultimately abdicating responsibility for these transgressions, making them God’s fault. If God will not hold us responsible for these sins, then who is responsible?
4. Kicking the Can — This proposal does not address the fundamental issue it proposes to resolve. How many sins must a person commit, before he is considered no longer “walking in the light”? If the limit is not 1 sin, is it 2, 3, 4 — how many? If it is not based on number, is it based on some measure of severity? If so, which ones are severe and not severe in God’s judgment? Maybe we have committed one of the severe ones and do not know it? Where is the list? Fundamentally, this proposal fails because it only pushes the line so as to make some folks some more comfortable. It ultimately must turn to faith, resting on God to be the ultimate judge. If such an approach cannot eliminate the need for faith that God will discipline and judge appropriately, then how does it answer the fear and misery that may come from not knowing?
5. Self-Inconsistent — Beside being unable to answer the number or type of sins that are required to condemn a person and therefore provide some measure of insight and confidence, the doctrine of continual cleansing is not even self-consistent, which consistency is a requisite hallmark of truth (Titus 1:2). The doctrine seeks to save those who sin out of character with their previous choices, but what does it offer those who at the last repent near death, out of character with their past choices? Will it deny them salvation? If a man is measured by his general walk and uncharacteristic behavior is disregarded, then what comfort can be extended to those who seek forgiveness late in life? How can it offer them a self-consistent hope?
6. Unique Hopelessness — Do Christians have a responsibility to evangelize, to perform benevolence, to edify? Have any of us managed to evangelize the whole world, aid all the needy, instruct all those in doubt, or encourage all the discouraged? Why is it that such grand tasks do not evoke the same sense of hopelessness, despair, and resignation that God’s lofty goal to be as holy as Him evokes? Will we eventually, similarly diminish the need for these tasks, since it appears impossible?
7. Double Forgiveness — How should one react to learning of sins that he previously, unknowingly committed? Must he seek forgiveness for what has already been forgiven? Will God forgive the same sins twice? In the record, ancient saints had to seek forgiveness for “unintentional sins” and sins committed even in “integrity of heart” (Numbers 15:22-31; Genesis 20:1-7)? If it was already forgiven and forgotten, then what forgiveness is there to seek? What atonement is to be sought?

“PEACE THAT SURPASSES ALL UNDERSTANDING”

Ultimately, any position that seeks to enumerate what God might do in every possible case is fundamentally flawed, because only God has that capability and authority:

Do not speak evil of one another, brethren. He who speaks evil of a brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy. Who are you to judge another? (James 4:11-12)

Just as no Christian has the rights to move the boundaries to condemn another, neither does any Christian have the right to move the boundaries to justify someone. Only God has such right “to save and to destroy” (Romans 14:4, 7-8; James 4:11-12)! The continual cleansing theory — as does all grace-fellowship based approaches — ultimately fail, because they seek to work backwards from what they think God will do on Judgment Day and thereby diminish what God clearly demands of us now.

Let us ever keep moving forward, pressing on to higher ground, “judging nothing before the time” (Philippians 3:12-14; I Corinthians 4:3-5), and while keeping in mind these Scriptural facts about the God we joyfully serve:

1. Patient, Forgiving God — God does not want anyone to be lost (II Peter 3:9). He is not a cruel or capricious God, looking to zap someone the moment they sin, trying to send as many people to hell as possible. In fact, quite the opposite is true. “Do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?”, (Romans 2:4). If time will indeed solve our problem, God has promised us that (II Peter 3:9). Let us be grateful that we have a patient, forgiving God.
2. Involved God — More than once in history, God has providentially acted in people’s lives to bring them to salvation (Acts 8:26-29; 10:1-6; 16:8-10). Even once we have record of God somehow preventing an innocent man from engaging in sin to his own destruction, since he would have done so unknowingly and in integrity (Genesis 20:1-7). Do we doubt God’s ability or desire to do likewise today? Is the God of the Bible so far removed from men and their lives?
3. Instructive God — Just as God wants us to be saved, He also wants us to know His will. We are taught to pray for wisdom from the One, “who gives to all liberally and without reproach” (James 1:2-8). His grace not only saves, but it also “teaches us” (Titus 2:11-14). He wants us to learn, grow, and overcome, so we would not be easily deceived (Ephesians 4:11-16; 6:10-18). He has promised to help us in the things we have yet to understand (Psalm 138:8; Philippians 3:15). Even if this refers to the revelation of the already revealed Word, is it not sufficient for its task (II Timothy 3:16-17; II Peter 3:16-19)? If He has already given His Son to save us, why would He deny us the knowledge necessary for us to act (Romans 8:32)?
4. Pacifying God — God wants us to cast our cares upon Him (I Peter 5:7). There may be many things that we do not understand about God, His judgment, the future, and ourselves, but if we trust in Him — if we walk by faith — then through prayer, grace, hope, and faith, we can enjoy that “peace of God, which surpasses all understanding” (Philippians 4:5-7). Sooner or later, we must all give up whittling on God’s end of the stick. We might as well stop where God’s revelation stopped and enjoy peace and comfort where God defined it, instead of where it suits us (Deuteronomy 29:29; I Peter 4:11)

Finally, only God knows what He will do in every case. Only perfection itself would be qualified to even guess what God may do beyond what He has revealed. Therefore, if we are struggling with sins of weakness, let us not take comfort that God will overlook these sins, rather, let us redouble our zeal and not quit until we have overcome habitual sins. If we are fearful that we may be condemned by what we do not know, then let us delve into God’s faithful Word, which can be understood as God promised. Let us gather confidence from the tests that God provides for confidence in our personal salvation, and not invent theories to work around any failing of those tests. With faith in God, in His love, in His mercy, and in His patience, let us resolve to let God be our ultimate judge, always pressing on, never excusing any sin, and always “walking in the light as He is in the light”.

ADDENDUM

Job and his friends spent a great deal discussing Job’s tentative righteousness and integrity. However, notice God’s reaction to Job’s friends:

And so it was, after the LORD had spoken these words to Job, that the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “My wrath is aroused against you and your two friends, for you have not spoken of Me what is right, as My servant Job has. Now therefore, take for yourselves seven bulls and seven rams, go to My servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and My servant Job shall pray for you. For I will accept him, lest I deal with you according to your folly; because you have not spoken of Me what is right, as My servant Job has.” (Job 42:7-8)

Although Job and his friends thought they were talking about Job, they were truly reflecting upon God Himself, which He did not take lightly.

Many false doctrines and theories ultimately reduce to statements about God, which if they are false, then they likewise impugn and blaspheme Him, as did the false statements of Job’s friends.

Most false doctrines only blaspheme God in one way or another. Continual cleansing manages to blaspheme God in at least three ways at once, indicating a fundamental misunderstanding of God! If God fellowships those who continue in sin — even if the sins are unknown or difficult for the sinner — then His righteousness and holiness is blasphemed (I John 1:5-6). If God willfully permits a “good” man (as we see it) to be tragically killed and eternally condemned, when he would have repented in time, then God’s “goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering” are maligned (Romans 2:4; II Peter 3:9). If God inadvertently or unknowingly allows such a man to be condemned, then either His omniscience or omnipotence is called into question (Psalm 139). If God’s only recourse for our weakness and ignorance is to overlook it, then He fails to train, discipline, and perfect us, as He has promised making Him a liar and no kind of Father at all (Hebrews 12:5-14; I Thessalonians 5:23-24; I Peter 5:10; Matthew 7:7-11). Dear friends, our faith may waiver at times, and we may have questions, as did Job and his friends, but let us not transfer our weakness to God and speak of Him what is not right, as did Job’s friends. Let us trust in God, His promises, His love, and His power. Let us trust and obey Him!

Author: Trevor Bowen

Promise of Renewal! by EE Healy

http://www.eehealy.com/commentary/page8.shtml

Promise of Renewal!

Yesterday as I walked about my garden I saw much work to be done. The old scars of winter lay everywhere. In a word, it all looked ugly!

Today when I looked out I saw the result of a spring snow. All the scars were covered with a beautiful white blanket. It was pleasing to my eyes and for a moment I forgot about what was under that covering.

Then I realized that soon the warm days of spring will melt away the blanket and those ugly scars will still be there.

Sometimes life is like the spring snow. We receive scars from daily living, facing struggles but not always having success. As a result scars appear in our memory and it appears to be ugly. So there is an attempt to forget by covering the scars with something like spring snow. For the moment it appears beautiful. But soon that covering fades away like the spring snow revealing the ugly scars.

What can be more effective than just covering over and hiding for the moment the reality of the scars? In a short time the scars will be revealed. Removal must come first.

With my garden it takes the removal of the old, cleaning up, and then there is room for the renewal of spring growth.

From the scriptures God tells me that the old must be removed in order for the new to grow. Once the removal comes there is the time for new growth. As with my garden, the new growth brings with it the promise of a new harvest. Col 1:21-23 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation--if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel…(NIV)

Life is much like a garden. It takes continued care. With a life connected to God there is the promise of a harvest that is eternal. This gives me hope in this world of change. Rom 12:1-2 Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God-- this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is-- his good, pleasing and perfect will. (NIV)

Eph 4:14-16 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work. (NIV)

Why Christianity? Why the Bible? by Kippy Myers, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1362

Why Christianity? Why the Bible?

by	Kippy Myers, Ph.D.

Are religions of the world simply different expressions of the same thing? Is Christianity the counterpart to Hinduism, Islam, or Buddhism, and do these religions merely “complement” one another? Is Allah the same deity as Jehovah, and is Jehovah the same as the Hindu god, Brahman? There are some who think that we are all trying to get to the same place, and simply call God by different names or approach Him in different ways. Thus, in the final analysis, the different approaches are coequal, and therefore equally acceptable to God.

The brief answer to these questions is a simple “no.” These religions are not the same truth in different wrappings. We can discern why by noting some of the radical distinctions at the very heart of these religions that show how completely distinct and unrelated they are. Of course, they have things in common (they are religions, they have deities, they have holy books, etc.), but this does not mean that they are equally efficacious, any more than a book with blank pages is equal to a book filled with good information.

Let me introduce an important term—“ontology.” Ontology refers to something’s being, essence, or nature. It has to do with what makes it what it is even after being stripped of all its unnecessary elements. Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity are different ontologically. When you strip them of their coincidental characteristics and focus on what makes them distinct as religions, they are radically divergent. They are different by their very nature, even in their most basic elements. Their books, their concepts of salvation, and even their deities are wildly different from one another. Let us make a simple beginning by noting a few of their essential differences.

THE BOOKS OF WORLD RELIGIONS
DISASSOCIATE THEMSELVES FROM ONE ANOTHER

Individuals who claim to be members in good standing of one religion (whether Christian, Moslem, or Hindu) sometimes extend the hand of fellowship to those in other religions. That is, some express a willingness to accept people who remain in other religions as if they have their deity’s blessing. But for the most part, these open-armed well-wishers are viewed as heretics by the faithful followers because the holy books themselves, which form the very center of the religions, are not so accepting of one another. Can the follower be better than the “inspired” book from which he gains faith?

The Bible—For example, the New Testament clearly claims to be the only way by which a person can come to God (specifically, one must come through Jesus—John 14:6; 2 John 9; et al.). This establishes solid barriers against all who disagree with the person of Jesus depicted in the gospel accounts. Prior to New Testament times, Judaism carried the same policy. In the Old Testament, God always spoke against pagan religions and their followers. The religions of Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, Canaan, Greece, and others are roundly attacked, condemned, and described in great detail as false and devilish.

Obviously, simply calling something “god” and worshipping it does not mean that it is acceptable to the God of the Bible. Jesus said that they who worship God must do so in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). Amazing as it may seem to those who think that the God of the Bible approves of other religions, the apostles of Christ even condemned those in the Christian age who were going backward, trying to be saved by the Mosaic law, a religion that unquestionably centered on the same God as Christianity (Galatians 5:4). In addition, they even condemned their own Christian brethren if they were living wrongly (Acts 8:18-23; Galatians 2:11).

Thus, even if the different religions did comprehend the same God, worshipping the same God does not legitimize one’s religion or religious practices according to the Bible since the one true God must be worshipped properly, that is, as the Bible prescribes (Colossians 3:17). The Bible claims to be the uniquely acceptable religion before God, and specifically condemns any other as illegitimate. Whatever we say about Islam and Hinduism’s relationship to Christianity, we cannot say justifiably that biblical Christianity has any affiliation with them. Any superimposition of fellowship between them would be forced and unnatural.

The Koran—The Islamic holy book, the Koran (or Qur’an), claims to be the final word from God. It claims that the Bible was just a step in its direction, so the Koran is further and final revelation (Sura 4:161). Whereas the Bible says that the apostles would be led into all Truth, and although it condemns additional and different alleged revelations as false (e.g., John 16:13; Galatians 1:6-9), the Koran teaches that if a person has only the Bible, it is not enough because then he rejects the greatest prophet of all, Mohammed. Since the Islamic holy book condemns unbelievers, it condemns those who accept only the Bible.

Whereas the Bible says that Jesus was and is God, and is the only way to heaven (Philippians 2:5-11; Hebrews 5:9), the Koran exalts Mohammed above Jesus. Mohammed explicitly says several times that Jesus was not God, but a prophet and apostle (Sura 5:79; 4:169, et al.). The apostle John, however, calls the teacher of this doctrine “the antichrist” and has a lot to say about his spiritual condition (1 John; 2 John; 3 John).

Speaking of misbelievers (which would most definitely include Hindus) who turn others from the path of God, the Koran says in Sura 13:34, “For them is torment in this world’s life; but surely the torment of the next is more wretched still—nor have they against God a keeper” and “the recompense of misbelievers is the Fire!” (13:35). Also, “Whosoever craves other than Islam for a religion, it shall surely not be accepted from him, and he shall, in the next world, be of those who lose” (Sura 3:79).

Mohammed claimed that his revelations came from God via a Heavenly Book from which all Zoroastrian, Jewish, and Christian revelations came. The Bible, however, teaches that God is not a God of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33), which would be contradicted if all of these conflicting religions came from the same source. The Koran says that Moslems believe what was revealed to Jesus and the prophets, but this is incredible in light of the aforementioned facts in addition to hundreds of others left unmentioned here (Sura 3:78-79). Amazingly, Richardson says in his introduction to the Koran, “the Qur’an often contradicts itself as well as other scriptures. Allah, then, changes his mind and alters the text of the Heavenly Book accordingly (Surah 13:39).” Compare this with Jesus’ statements, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word will not pass away” (Matthew 24:35), and “The Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35).

Hindu Writings—Contradictions between the most basic doctrines of the Bible and the Koran could be multiplied, and the Hindu Vedic literature is widely divergent from these two. As different as they are, the Bible and the Koran have more in common than either has in common with Hindu writings. Vedic materials are something altogether different. The point here is that if the major religious books condemn and contradict one another on such fundamental issues, where does anyone get the idea that they belong together? If we believe any one of them, we must disbelieve the others. They cannot be related unless severely mutilated. They clearly are mutually exclusive. Since they so clearly do not affiliate, which, if any, is the right one?

HISTORICAL EVENTS AND INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCES

The Koran—Islam is based entirely upon the secret, private experiences of one man. Mohammed regularly went alone to a cave and said that a Revealer delivered visions to him there. He later identified this person as the angel Gabriel. Only one person allegedly saw the angel. Only one person allegedly heard a voice. Only one person allegedly saw the visions. The only way to become a Moslem, then, is to take this one man’s word for it. We must believe a man who was kicked out of his home town, became a robber baron, led a pack of thieves in attacks on caravans, and then later returned to the city and took it by force. Compare the lifestyle and character of this man with that of Jesus Whom he claims to supersede, and see who is more worthy of belief.

The Bible—In vivid contrast to this approach of having to take one man’s word for an entire religion and basing one’s eternal destiny on one person’s private visions, the Bible is rooted and grounded in objective historical events—things many thousands of people beheld. Its specific times, places, people, and events can be located in history. Archaeology, ancient history, geography, literature, etc., corroborate its details. These give the Bible the ring of authenticity, and tie it to reality outside the mind of any single person or any group of people.

Because of this, the Bible has a beginning, middle, and end. It has a flow, a progression, a unity. It is very orderly and systematic. The Koran, however, is a very disjointed collection of many small apothegms called Suras. This is because Mohammed could not write and did not intend for his revelations to be compiled into a book. Richardson’s introduction to the Koran says, “It was addressed to the ear, not to the critical eye....” However, after Mohammed died and many began to question the legitimacy of his visions, believers gathered together the leaves, potsherds, etc., on which his sayings allegedly had been copied by some of his hearers. Someone later edited them and put them in a book format. Richardson says, “Apart from its preposterous arrangement, the Qur’an is not so much a book as a collection of manifestoes, diatribes, harangues, edicts, discourses, sermons, and such-like occasional pieces. No subject is treated systematically....” It certainly does not appear to be related to an alleged Mother Book from which the Old and New Testaments also were derived. The Koran’s sum and substance is very different from Scripture as Christians know it.

Hindu Writings—The holy literature of Hinduism encompasses many volumes, and is referred to as the Vedic literature. The most widely known is the Bhagavad-Gita, a small section of the much larger section, the Mahabharata—a huge work that has influenced Hinduism profoundly. It allegedly was composed over a period of eight hundred years (400 B.C. to A.D. 400), and supposedly tells the Sanskrit history of the ancient world. But as A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada says in his translation, the Gita is “the essence of Vedic knowledge.”

The high god in Hinduism is Brahman. In a sense, Brahman is the All, the infinitely embracing Everything—ultimate reality. In another sense, Brahman is a god composed of Brahma, Shiva (the one often pictured with four arms), and Vishnu. Each of these three has a basic personality and work. Brahma creates, Shiva destroys, and Vishnu preserves. Each has wives, sons (one of Shiva’s sons is the elephant-headed Ganesha), daughters, and a series of folklore-type adventures. Their consorts also are worshipped, so there is actually an indefinite number of gods. A Hindu expert will tell you that they often use the number 330,000,000 as a convenient way of describing how many are worshipped. The boundaries and eccentricities of Hinduism, therefore, are very loose, and there are many types and sects of Hindus. What ties them together seems to be their belief in Brahman and the pantheon of gods, reincarnation (the idea that after you die you are reborn into another life on Earth), karma (the law which says that if you were bad in this life you will have a difficult life in the next), and the Vedic teachings.

One of Vishnu’s avatars (incarnations) was named Krishna. He has been described as “an impetuous, violent, and erotic figure.” Krishna is the speaker and the hero of the Bhagavad-Gita, in which he is prince of a great dynasty. The Gita’s setting is a battle in which he is involved with relatives who are enemies of his kingdom. There is no way of checking whether these events actually occurred or if this is pure legend, since we have no record of the events outside the Gita itself.

Someone might respond, “But why is it better to be historical and checkable (like the Bible) than to be non-historical (like the Koran or Vedic writings)?” The real issue, of course, is that we believe we must be rational in regard to religion. Does anyone seriously suggest that we be irrational about it? If we are to be irrational, then what is the use of arguing rationally that we must be irrational? Why worry about persuading people that the major religions are all the same if it does not really matter? Actually, all of the world religions attempt to use reason and (with the possible exception of Buddhism) teach their adherents to use their minds in religion. Even though Buddhism tries to get its adherents to a point in meditation where they lose thought and feeling, it uses reason to teach them, to explain itself, and to get them to that point. The point is, should reason and proof be the “engine that pulls our train of life” or not? Should we not require proof for what we believe? If not, that would put us in the position of accepting every person who claimed a divine vision. The Bible both demands proof and provides it (Deuteronomy 18:20; Isaiah 41:21-24; 1 Thessalonians 5:21, et al.).

UNIQUENESS OF INCARNATION

The Bible—The Christian system centers on the fact that God has come to Earth in a physical body and made a one-time sacrifice for sin (John 1:1-14; Philippians 2:5-9). The Bible says that the salvation of mankind was accomplished only through this act and that apart from it, man would be hopelessly lost in sin (John 3:16; Ephesians 1:7, et al.). The incarnation of the Word, along with His death and resurrection, combine to form the fundamental essential truth that defines Christianity (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). Without it, Christianity would not exist.

Hindu Writings—In Hinduism, there is no requirement to escape from sin before judgment comes (Hebrews 9:27) because for the Hindu, there is no final judgment day. Rather, the Universe is eternal; we live here forever in different personalities, one lifetime after another. The goal is to gain release from being reincarnated. The incarnation and sacrifice of someone in Jerusalem plays no role at all in Hinduism. Hindus gain release from this cycle through individual observance of ritual, right thinking, and right acting. Everything we get in this life is what we deserve because of the way we lived in past lives (even though we cannot remember our past lives so as to learn to do better in the next one, we still suffer for them). If we are better in each successive life, we will climb the ladder of goodness until we finally achieve release and oneness with divinity and the Universe.

Thus, there is also no unique one-time incarnation of God because the Hindu god, Vishnu, has come in the flesh many times in a number of guises. Vishnu has visited Earth ten times as a deliverer (as Rama, Krishna, et al.). For example, the one to whom the Gita is directed is a warrior named Arjuna. One day Krishna is driving his chariot, and Arjuna says to him, “You are the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the ultimate abode, the purest, the Absolute Truth. You are the eternal, transcendental, original person, the unborn, the greatest” (10:12-14). In the section “Knowledge of the Absolute” Krishna says, “as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, I know everything that has happened in the past, all that is happening in the present, and all things that are yet to come” (10:26). He elsewhere comments, “This material nature is working under My direction.” Hence, he was allegedly deity in the flesh several times.

The Koran—Islam teaches that Jesus Christ was not deity, but rather one of the great prophets (see previous quotes). His death is not necessitated for redemption, and if He died on the cross at all, its purpose was definitely not to wash away our sins. Moslems believe that salvation is obtained through observance of the “five pillars” of Islam: recite the creed (which is basically, “There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet”); pray five times daily while facing the holy city of Mecca; give alms to the poor; fast for an extended period each year; and once in your life make a pilgrimage to Mecca.

RADICALLY DIVERGENT DIVINITY

Hindus do not believe the Universe was created by God out of nothing. It is simply an eternal emanation from Brahman. It is illusory and must be escaped so that we may gain what is real, viz., oneness with the Universe and oneness with Brahman. Islam and Christianity think of this as blasphemy, for Jehovah is perfect in every way, and infinite in every attribute. A created being never could attain such a degree of being and certainly never could become God.

Hindu gods in their many thousands of representations are commonly worshipped by means of figurines and “idols” that are condemned by both Old and New Testaments (e.g., the first two of the ten commandments—Exodus 2:3-4). One of Mohammed’s primary goals was to condemn and destroy this practice.

Islam also says there is only one member of the godhead, Allah. Christianity preaches a trinity: God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:18). Obviously, Christianity and Islam are as opposed to Hinduism on this matter as it is to them.

DECIDING WHICH IS RIGHT

From this brief introductory study it can be seen that these three religions and their books cannot be equated. But the question remains, which one should we accept? I maintain that we should accept the Bible over other religious books because no book can amass the evidence for supernatural origin that the Bible can. No other book exhibits such profound evidence for inspiration. We should accept the Bible because:

1. It claims to be from God. That in itself does not prove its claim, but the claim is something we should look for. Would God send His revelation anonymously?
2. It is based in history, not in the subjective experience of one individual. That opens it to being tested. It can be proven or disproven.
3. It contains the highest and purest moral teachings. They remain unsurpassed for their simplicity, applicability, and profundity.
4. It contains prophecies that are made and fulfilled. They surpass the possibility of human or natural powers to foresee or bring about.
5. It has a sublime unity about it in every way—doctrine, progression of thought, story line, theme, details, structure, etc.
6. It is accurate in every way—historically, geographically, scientifically, etc. As diligently as skeptics have tried for centuries, there never has been one flaw or contradiction proven to be in the Bible that would establish that it is not what it claims to be. Yet, “to err is human.”
7. It contains medical and scientific knowledge ahead of its time. The Bible did not partake of its contemporary medical and scientific ignorance.
8. It has had an immeasurably profound impact on the world and always in a positive way whenever faithfully practiced.
9. It has the best textual sources of any ancient book. That is, we can trace its history back to its beginnings more accurately, and with greater corroboration, than any major writing of the ancient world.
10. It contains a reasonable view of God, man, and truth.
11. It is indestructible. Its most powerful, rabid, and scholarly opponents have failed to do away with it.
12. It always is current. Last year the Book of the Month Club asked 2,000 of its readers what book most influenced their lives. The Bible was number one.
13. It addresses our fundamental questions about why we are the way we are, why suffering exists, where we came from, what our destiny will be, how the Universe began and how it will end, etc.
14. It fulfills our spiritual, social, psychological, and emotional needs.
15. It is incredibly brief, although it is set forth as a seminal book from the Creator. Men are notorious for their verbosity in such matters.
16. It is based on the testimony of thousands of witnesses throughout its history.
17. It portrays its heroes, flaws and all. It is unbiased in its treatment of history, unlike works of men praising their heroes.

On the other hand, the evidence for the inspiration of the Koran is based solely upon the testimony of one man, Mohammed. The same kind of “evidence” would make you a Hindu. Why accept Mohammed’s testimony and reject the Hindu testimony? Or, why accept the Hindu writings and reject the Koran? Both have essentially the same evidence in their favor. One cannot be proven to be any more legitimate than the other.

However, the preceding list includes just a few of the many very significant avenues that should be considered if a person is truly seeking to be open-minded about searching for truth among the world’s alleged books from God.

All religions are not the same. Their most basic doctrines readily contradict the others. However, there is one religion that is based upon a book that provides good reasons to be believed—unity and consistency of thought, high standards of thought and conduct, etc. Which should we believe?

[EDITOR'S NOTE: Kippy Myers holds an M.A. in philosophy and Christian apologetics from Harding Graduate School, an M.A. in philosophy from the University of Dallas, and a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville. He is an assistant professor of Bible at Freed-Hardeman University in Henderson, Tennessee.]

Why did God Want to Kill Moses? by Alden Bass

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1279

Why did God Want to Kill Moses?

by	Alden Bass

Moses was eighty years old. He had just stood in awe before the bush that burned but was not consumed, and had received instructions from the Angel of the Lord to appear before the Pharaoh of Egypt and command him in the name of the Great I Am to release the Hebrews from their bondage. After some deliberation and hesitation, Moses accepted the mission, and immediately began making preparations. He obtained permission from his father-in-law to return to Egypt with his family, then packed up his wife and two sons and headed south. It seems they had not gone far, perhaps only the first day’s journey, when a peculiar circumstance arose. As they made arrangements to sleep for the night, the Lord met Moses and sought to kill him (Exodus 4:24). In response to this turn of events, Moses’ wife Zipporah circumcised their uncircumcised son and threw the foreskin at his feet, screaming, “You are a husband of blood!” After this, the Lord “let him go” (4:26).

This story is particularly difficult to understand because of its brevity, and the unusual wording of verse 24: “The Lord sought to kill Moses.” Though the phrasing of the verse may elicit dark images of God slinking about the encampment, waiting to ambush Moses, the fact that God would kill someone is not unusual in other contexts. The wicked were slain by God in the Great Flood because of their violent and ungodly actions (Genesis 6:1-7). The Lord killed Er and Onan, two of Judah’s sons, because of their overt rebellion (Genesis 38:7,10). In Moses’ later years, God would legislate the death penalty for those guilty of disobeying certain laws (Leviticus 20). In these instances and many more, God “killed” a person or persons, albeit indirectly. In Exodus 4, we can be assured that Moses was afflicted because he was guilty of some sin, since disobedience is the only act God punishes with death.

The sin of Moses is not stated explicitly, but the surrounding events give substantial clues as to the nature of Moses’ transgression. God had instructed his messenger to warn Pharaoh to free Israel, or risk losing his firstborn son (Exodus 4:21-23). Moses had been specially groomed by God for eighty years for this mission, and now the time for action had come. Moses was to lead his people out of Egypt, and to be an example to Pharaoh’s house, to the nation of Egypt, and to all the nations that heard of those happenings (Exodus 18:10-11; Joshua 2:10-11). Accordingly, Moses’ personal life had to be in order before he could direct the spiritual lives of the Hebrew people. It seems that Moses had neglected to administer the sacred rite of circumcision, the act that symbolized the Almighty’s covenant with His chosen people. Perhaps this was the result of pressure from his surrogate Midianite tribe; more likely he was persuaded by Zipporah not to circumcise his son, since she apparently found the practice revolting (4:25). This would explain her violent outburst; she felt that she had saved her husband from death by shedding the blood of her son. Whatever the cause, Moses’ outstanding sin made him unfit to serve as a spiritual leader, and the situation had to be rectified before he could carry out his mission effectively. Indeed, as soon as Zipporah performed the act, the Lord “let him go.”

Though the details of this mysterious story are absent, the underlying message is plain. Disobedience, whether by acts of omission or commission, result only in punishment and ultimately death.

Why Humanity Should Serve God by Wayne Jackson, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=230

Why Humanity Should Serve God

by	Wayne Jackson, M.A.

I have no reason to doubt that her question was entirely sincere—however misguided it was. “Suppose you could prove to me that there is a God. So what! Would that necessarily mean that I would be obligated to serve him?,” the young lady asked. “Your God must be on a super ‘ego trip’ if He expects everyone in the Universe to worship Him.” What response should be made to this flippant comment from an intelligent but confused college student?

First, the issue of whether humans should yield their lives to the Creator has nothing to do with the divine ego. God, by definition, is infinite in all of His attributes. He cannot be more powerful than He is. He cannot be wiser than He is. The Lord cannot be any more glorious than He is. Consequently, His “ego” never could be enhanced by human servitude. This is implied logically in the language of Christ’s prayer shortly before His crucifixion. Jesus petitioned that He might be glorified with the glory that He shared with the Father “before the world was” (John 17:5). If it were the case that God’s glory had been inflated by virtue of human devotion across the centuries, the Lord’s prayer surely would have reflected a desire for the current glory of the Father, rather than that possessed before the world was created (cf. Fuller, 1963, p. 23). God’s requirement that we serve Him, therefore, obviously is not for His benefit; rather, it is for ours. Because God is love (1 John 4:8), He wants the best for us. Our true contentment will be found only in living for Him, and that is why He bids us thus to do.

But let us expand this thought with supplemental reasons as to why we, as rational human beings, should be obedient to the Creator of our very being.

THE NATURE OF GOD

A primary reason for bowing before Jehovah has to do with the nature or essence of this Being. God is worthy of human service simply because of Who He is! Exactly what does this suggest?

There are two sources of information regarding the Supreme Being. First, there is the abstractrevelation of nature, which argues for the wisdom and power of Deity (Psalm 19:1; Romans 1:20). Jehovah’s power is seen in the vastness of the Universe; His wisdom is reflected in its intricate design. The evidence is so clear that those who survey these data, and yet fail to conclude that “He is,” are “without excuse” (Romans 1:20; Hebrews 11:6). In addition to the abstract revelation of divinity in the book of nature, there is the concrete revelation of Holy Scripture, which affirms the moral attributes of the Lord. These two “volumes” of testimony complement one another wonderfully.

The Bible teaches that God is the eternal Spirit Who is the Architect and Creator of the Universe. When did Jehovah Himself originate? He didn’t. God always has existed; He is the eternal “I Am” (Exodus 6:3; cf. Genesis 21:33; Psalm 90:2). Logic demands such. A venerable argument—that remains unanswered to this day—is this: If something is, then something always was. But something is; therefore, something always was. That eternal “something” must be either matter or mind. But it is not matter, for science demonstrates that matter is not eternal. Thus, the eternal “something” is mind. The Scriptures identify this Mind as God.

As to His essence, God is spirit and not flesh (John 4:24; Luke 24:39; Matthew 16:17). He is the Almighty (Genesis 17:1; Revelation 1:8), whose purposes cannot be restrained (Job 42:2). God is infinitely wise (Romans 11:33-36), and His loving, benevolent disposition is breathtaking (1 John 4:8; Ephesians 2:4; James 1:17). The gift of His Son to accommodate the redemption of rebellious humanity provides ample motive for surrendering one’s life to Him.

One of the most profound documents of the Old Testament is the book of Job. An interesting aspect of that narrative has to do with the worthiness of God as an object of human adoration. In a mysterious convocation at which Satan was present, the Lord introduced Job, the patriarch of Uz, as a trophy of human character—a spiritually mature, upright man who was unique among his contemporaries. Satan agreed, but suggested that Job’s righteous demeanor was the result of bribery! In other words, God had blessed Job so abundantly that the sage of Uz would have been foolish not to serve him. In a word, Job knew who buttered his bread!

The subtle and diabolical implication in this charge was this: “You, God, are not worthy of human devotion on the basis of your character; rather, men serve you only because you make it to their advantage to do so. Let us use Job as a test case. Take away his ‘goodies’ and he will abandon you.” And so, for our benefit (not for His own), the Lord accepted the challenge. Thus, Job was deprived of his wealth, his family, his health, his friends, and his prestige. He lost everything. And yet, the devout dignitary never forsook his faith in God. Though he lashed out in anguish at times—because he did not understand what was happening to him—he nonetheless proclaimed triumphantly: “Though he slay me, yet will I trust him” (Job 13:15). The noble patriarch thus demonstrated this proposition: God is worthy of human service on the basis of His own nature—apart from the generous blessings He bestows. As the psalmist expressed it: “I will call upon Jehovah, who is worthy to be praised” (Psalm 18:3). We ought to praise God simply on account of Who He is!

THE RELATIONSHIP WE SUSTAIN TO OUR MAKER

Certain associations carry with them intrinsic responsibilities. One of those is that of the Creator/creature relationship. The “created” thing sustains a subordinate status to that which created it. Paul argued this very point in his letter to the Romans. “Or hath not a potter a right over the clay?,” he asked rhetorically (Romans 9:21). In the Greek text, the query implies an affirmative answer, as suggested by the particle ouk (cf. Matthew 13:55). The term rendered “right” in our common versions is the Greek exousia, literally “authority.” The potter, by virtue of his status, has authority over the vessel he has fashioned.

The historical facts are these. “Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7; cf. 3:19). The inspired writers of both testaments affirmed that the Lord is our “Creator” (Ecclesiastes 12:1; Isaiah 40:28; Romans 1:25), or our “Maker” (Psalm 95:6; Proverbs 14:31; Isaiah 17:7; Hosea 8:14). Hence, by virtue of this Creator/creature relationship, Jehovah has a right to commission human loyalty.

But there always has been a propensity in man to repudiate the Creator/creature relationship in order to justify human self-centeredness. More than anything else, some people want to be their own“God.” Seven centuries before the birth of Christ, Isaiah wrote regarding the rebels of his day: “Ye turn things upside down! Shall the potter be esteemed as clay; that the thing made should say of him that made it, He made me not; or the thing formed say of him that formed it, He hath no understanding?” (Isaiah 29:16). Of this arrogant claim: “He made me not,” Edward J. Young rightly observed: “Words more wrong, more foolish, more soul-destroying have never been uttered by human lips” (1969, 2:325). May we be chastened by the inspired writer: “Know that the Lord Himself is God; It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves” (Psalm 100:3, NASV).

This haughty and independent attitude, of course, is the motive behind the theory of evolution. Foolish man wishes to cut loose from the moral and religious ties that bind him to a sovereign Creator. Hence, he has fashioned gods of his own design—Mother Nature and Father Time—to whom he owes no responsibility. As the late George G. Simpson, the renowned paleontologist and evolutionist of Harvard University, once expressed it: “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).

Despite such infidelic protestations, the theory of naturalistic origins is void of proof that man is the “product of a long, unconscious, impersonal material process.” Rather, the evidence suggests that human beings are the result of an Intelligent Cause Who specially designed them (see Jackson, 1993; Thompson & Jackson, 1996). As creatures of divine planning, we have a responsibility to submit to God—and He has the right to require it!

THE HUMAN CONDITION

Another valid reason for serving Jehovah has to do with the “status quo” of the human family. As an old, country philosopher put it: “That’s Latin for ‘the mess we’re in.’ ” Nothing could be further from the truth than the old cliché: “Every day, in every way, we’re getting better and better.” The fact is, as Paul once wrote: “Evil men and impostors shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Timothy 3:13).

The presence of evil is apparent universally, and has been acknowledged from time immemorial. The Roman philosopher Seneca said: “We have all sinned, some more, and some less.” A Chinese proverb states: “There are two good men: one is dead and the other is not yet born.” Paul wrote: “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). And John bluntly noted: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8).

How is this deplorable condition to be remedied? Man never has been able to concoct a solution. When it was alleged that “education” could provide the answer, we discovered that education, without spiritual values, makes only more skillful criminals. Those who touted “psychology” as the panacea for human woes have lived to see one theory after another disappear into complete obscurity. Ours is now a world of escapists—alcoholics, drug-abusers, and dream-world mystics. [See related article, “I'm Not Guilty, I'm Just Sick.”] A recent news feature suggested that by the end of the next decade, the third leading cause of work disability will be clinical depression. We have more material security than any generation that has gone before us, but generally speaking we are a miserable lot. Is there no help for the human family?

Someone is bound to claim that religion surely is not the answer, for it has been around for centuries, and yet, here we are, in this sordid predicament. Yes, “religion” has been around alright, but it rarely has been tried on a massive scale in its pristine form. If the teaching of Jesus Christ were to be adopted sincerely and pursued rigorously by a significant segment of society, changes so dramatic would occur as to produce utter amazement. There is absolutely no remedy to human distress apart from the divine plan as implemented through the atoning work of Jesus of Nazareth. The Lord declared emphatically: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one comes unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). This declaration carries validity because of the solid historical evidence that undergirds Christ’s authoritative claim of being the Son of God.

The truth is, there is no abiding contentment in a world without God. Out of a background of materialism and hedonism, Solomon, an inspired penman, proclaimed: “[T]he way of the transgressor is hard” (Proverbs 13:15). “Fear [reverence] God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man” (Ecclesiastes 12:13).

On the other hand, it is a lie which suggests that serving the Creator is all pain and tears. Moses was willing to forsake the temporal “pleasures of sin,” which are but for a season, to identify with the people of God. Why? He did so because he knew that the reproaches of Christ are vastly superior to the treasures of any land (Hebrews 11:24-26). For troubled souls in a world of confusion, the Scriptures offer hope: “And the peace of God which passes all understanding, shall guard your hearts and your thoughts in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:7). In His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus announced: “Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5). This passage has long perplexed multitudes. It cannot be a prophecy that finds its fulfillment in events following the return of Christ (as some allege), for there will be no Earth at that point (Matthew 24:35; 2 Peter 3:10ff.). Rather, it is a promise for those who yield to God—here and now! Barclay has shown that the “meek” person is the one who has been mastered by God (1974, pp. 240-242). The passage suggests this: As children of Him Who is the God of Heaven and Earth, those who yield to Christ will enjoy this planet’s blessings more than all others. The point is: People ought to serve the Lord for the sheer joy that it brings—not only in eternity, but right now, here on the Earth.

ALL ACCOUNTS NOT SETTLED IN THIS LIFE

Some years ago there was published an edition of Charles Darwin’s revolutionary volume, The Origin of Species. On the back dust jacket were these words: “This book has made a joke of ‘the Day of Judgment.’ ” If there is a joke in this, Jehovah will have the last laugh: “He that sitteth in the heavens will laugh: The Lord will have them in derision” (Psalm 2:4). The laughable thing is that man labors under the illusion that he can thwart the will of the Almighty. If there is no ultimate Judgment—where all wrongs are made right and where justice ultimately prevails—then life is indeed a meaningless riddle.

Consider the plight of Asaph who, according to the superscription, penned the seventy-third psalm. The poet had assumed that if one enjoyed a right relationship with God, his well-being always would be secure. Conversely, it is implied that rebellion against the Creator would bring only woe. That concept is suggested subtly in the opening verse of the narrative. However, as he considered the circumstances of his environment, Asaph was baffled by life’s inequities (73:2-9). In this state of bewilderment, his “steps had well nigh slipped,” i.e., he almost had lost his faith in Heaven’s providential government of earthly affairs. He surveyed the “prosperity of the wicked” and was confused. Though evil men wear pride like a chain around their neck, and their eyes bulge with opulence, they finally seem to die in peace. The godless live as though the Judge of the Earth has no knowledge of what is transpiring on His planet (10). Asaph wondered, therefore, whether his religious exercises had been for naught. He had attempted to serve his Maker, yet he suffered hardship consistently (13-14). What is the answer to this enigma? The writer says that he entered “into the sanctuary of God”—i.e., the place where divine truth was revealed. Delitzsch observed that he became privy to the “holy plans and ways of God” (1978, 5:318). He discovered that the “latter end” of the wicked would be destruction (17-18). He learned this truth: All accounts are not settled in this life! If there is no final Judgment, then it makes no difference at all as to how men live upon this globe. The life of Jesus Christ amounts to no more than that of Adolf Hitler. But who can live with such a senseless philosophy? No one who is rational can do so.

Orin Gifford wrote: “You may juggle human laws, you may fool with human courts, but there is a judgment to come, and from it there is no appeal” (Mead, 1965, p. 259). Men need to serve God because they possess an immortal soul that eventually will give account to the Creator.

CONCLUSION

There are multiplied thousands of people who are willing to give intellectual assent to the fact that a Supreme Being exists, but who do not see that such an idea bears any relationship to their daily personal lives. Technically, these people are designated as “deists.” They are theoretical theists, but practical atheists. Such people have made a tragic mistake. There are powerful and valid reasons for totally surrendering to the will of God, as such ultimately is made known in the revelation of the New Testament. May we urge our contemporaries to give due attention to such matters.

REFERENCES

Barclay, William (1974), New Testament Words (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).

Delitzsch, Franz (1978 Reprint), “Psalms,” Commentary on the Old Testament, C.F. Keil & F. Delitzsch (Grand Rapid, MI: Eerdmans).

Fuller, Daniel P. (1963), “God’s Sovereignty in Creation,” Things Most Surely Believed, ed. Clarence S. Roddy (Westwood, NJ: Revell).

Jackson, Wayne (1993), The Human Body: Accident or Design? (Stockton, CA: Courier Publications).

Mead, Frank S. (1965), The Encyclopedia of Religious Quotations (Westwood, NJ: Revell).

Simpson, George G. (1953), Life of the Past (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).

Thompson, Bert and Wayne Jackson (1996), The Case for the Existence of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Young, Edward J. (1969), The Book of Isaiah (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).