Category Archives: Articles

Articles, Sermons

How to Have a Great Marriage (part two)

Leave a comment

I was 7 years old when I heard some people talk about a local preacher.  They had been over to his house, and apparently he decided to tell some stories. Now, these weren’t just any stories. These were stories that made his wife look ignorant. And he laughed and laughed, even though no one else did.

And I’ll never forget what they said next in this conversation: She looked like she wanted to crawl under the table and hide.

Of course, when I was 7, I was trying to figure out why she’d want to play hide and seek during dinner. But as I got older, those words stuck with me, and I came to understand that she was embarrassed by the stories, ashamed by her husband’s behavior, and hurt that he could laugh while tearing her down.

My friends, that is not a God-honoring marriage.

Last week, we examined some requirements for a God-honoring marriage.

  • You have to leave your mommy and daddy and be joined to your spouse.
  • You have to be committed—100% to your spouse and your marriage.
  • You have to be faithful—and not just physically. Be faithful with your eyes and your thoughts.

When you do these things, divorce should never come up in the conversation.

This week, we’re continuing the same theme.  In order to have a great marriage, and a marriage that is pleasing to God, this ingredient must be present.

Respect for your spouse.

I cannot tell you how many times I’ve heard people bad-mouthing their husband or wife.  It’s nothing but complain, complain, complain to everyone. It’s like they can’t do anything right. All you hear is about how awful their spouse is ALL THE TIME! He’s a lazy jerk. She’s a horrible cook. She doesn’t clean. He won’t help with the kids.  And what’s worse is when they say those things in public while their spouse is right there.

That is not showing respect to your spouse AT ALL.  And let me assure you, the Bible commands that you show respect to your spouse.

Husbands, give honor to your wife (I Peter 3:7).

Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

That word honor means to value them. It means to show deference to them. To reverence them. To esteem them. To treat them with dignity. In short, it means to RESPECT them.

Husbands, show respect to your wife! Treat them like the weaker vessel.  Fine china is precious, expensive, and you have to be careful with it or it will break.  In the same way, your wife is precious, valuable, and you must treat her with the kindness and respect that she deserves, otherwise she can break.

Her self-esteem can be broken by a husband who doesn’t treat her with respect. Her will to work can be broken when she’s treated like she’s nothing special. Her desire to try to make the marriage better can break when the husband lets her know he doesn’t respect her.

Husbands, treat your wife kindly. Treat her with respect!

That means that you don’t treat her like she’s stupid—especially in front of other people!  That means you don’t mock her or ridicule her.  It means that you treat her like the gift from God to you that she is.

You should show her respect because she is also an heir of the grace of life.

What does that mean? It means that she has been given the gift of life by God, just like you have. She’s made in God’s image.  She is someone for whom Christ died.  And if you treat her like she’s unimportant, then you’re saying that you’re also unimportant–you can’t have it both ways. Ultimately, if you treat God’s creation disrespectfully, you can expect the same treatment from Him.

You should treat her with respect because if you don’t, you can’t get forgiveness of sins.

This goes hand-in-hand with what we just finished saying.  If you don’t treat her with respect, God will not hear your prayers. If God won’t hear your prayers, then you cannot have your sins forgiven. If you can’t have your sins forgiven, you’re going to hell. DO I HAVE TO MAKE IT ANY CLEARER?

Treat your wife with respect or you go to hell. Period. No exceptions. You have no hope—AT ALL.

Wives, reverence your husband (Ephesians 5:33).

Let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself, and that the wife see that she reverences her husband.

The word reverence means to show them honor. It means to show deference to them. The Greek word (phobos) actually means to fear them—as in show them respect. In fact, the NKJV, NIV, NAS, ESV all translate this word as respect.

This means that the wife isn’t going to go around bad-mouthing her husband. She won’t be complaining about everything he does. Even if there are things that her husband needs to work on, she’s not going to make that public knowledge. She’s not going to berate him for his mistakes. She will show him respect.

Thayer defines the word here as showing reverential obedience.

You should respect your husband because he is the God-ordained head of the household (Ephesians 5:23).  God has given him the responsibility of leading the family. Of providing for the family. Of caring for the family’s spiritual and physical needs.  These are heavy responsibilities, and he deserves your respect for taking them on.

You should respect your husband because God said so.  Regardless of how you may feel towards your husband, this is a command of God. And if you refuse to obey it, you have just forfeited your soul. Intentional disobedience is an automatic ticket to hell (Hebrews 10:26-31).

Whether you are the husband or the wife, RESPECT YOUR SPOUSE!  It may be hard, but if you want a happy marriage, you’ll do it. If you want a marriage that helps you grow as a person and as a Christian, you’ll do it. If you want to go to heaven, you’ll do it.

Trust me, it’s worth it.

But, if you want a mediocre marriage filled with yelling and screaming and constant complaining–one that makes you feel stifled and trapped–then go ahead. Don’t respect your spouse. If you want to go to hell, feel free to ignore God’s commands.

Articles, Sermons

How to Have a Great Marriage (part one)

1 Comment

It’s amazing when you consider that God’s commands for marriage are all ones that–when followed–improve your married life.  So, by following God’s commands, you are making your marriage better!  So, we could call this “Requirements for a God-Honoring Marriage” and it would be absolutely true, but it is also just as accurate to call these next four articles “How to have a Great Marriage!”

—

Over half of all marriages are ending in divorce. These messes leave sadness, broken hearts, hurt, anger, frustration, distrust, and disaster all around. These messes ruin the lives of children who often times cause the same messes in their own marriages later on. People shake their heads and wring their hands—what can you do?   You know that God doesn’t approve of all these rampant divorces, because God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16).

In the last post, we talked about the things that were absolutely required in order for God to recognize a marriage as valid. It must be between a male and a female, and the parties must be eligible to be married. Any marriage that doesn’t meet God’s definition and pre-requisites isn’t a valid marriage, it’s nothing more than “shacking up.” God calls it fornication, which is a sin that will keep you out of heaven (Galatians 5:19-21).

This week, we’re going to take a look at what is required for a God-honoring marriage—a marriage that pleases God.   These are things that—if done—will guarantee a happy home life, and will keep divorce from happening.

Leaving Father and Mother (Matthew 19:4-5).

“Haven’t you read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female? And He said, ‘For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they two shall be one flesh?'”

The people Jesus is speaking to claimed to be experts in the Law, yet He says to them, “haven’t you read?” It’s like he’s saying to them “It’s right there in the Bible—you know, the one that you claim to be experts in? Haven’t you read it?”

He said that a marriage involves leaving father and mother behind and clinging to your spouse. But one of the biggest causes of marriage problems is when one or the other (or both) have never actually left mom and dad.

Constantly saying, “well, my mother says this,” or “my dad does it this way,” is guaranteed to cause resentment. It also shows that you haven’t left mom and dad behind. And people wonder, “Why do you hate my parents so much?” It’s because the parents have been brought into the marriage. It’s because the husband is always running to his mommy to complain about his wife. It’s because the wife is saying, “that’s not how my daddy does it.”

God, from the very beginning, said that a marriage involved LEAVING mother and father and CLEAVING (clinging) to your spouse. When you get married, you must start your own family unit. This doesn’t mean that you have nothing to do with your parents, but it must be made clear that your spouse is the most important person in the world to you.   It must be made clear that when there are problems that arise in the marriage, arguments or whatever, that you deal with it with your spouse—don’t go off running to mommy and daddy. That shows an incredible lack of maturity. If your spouse doesn’t respect you very much, this may well be the reason why.

If you want to have a marriage that honors God—a marriage that will make you happy—then make your spouse the focal point of your love and attention. The marriage should be a safe haven in the midst of a troubling storm. And frequently, that storm is called “Hurricane In-laws.” If your parents talk bad about your wife, stand up for her. If they talk bad about your husband, stand up for him. Many marriages are doomed to failure because one or the other still wants to be daddy’s girl or momma’s boy instead of being a good husband or wife.

A God-honoring marriage is one that obeys God’s command to leave the father and mother and cleave to your spouse. And if you haven’t done it yet—do it now! It is a violation of a direct command of God if you don’t! It is a sin to remain tied to your parents when you’re supposed to be tied to your mate!

Parents, this is something that you need to keep in mind as well. Because immediately after Jesus mentioned the whole “leaving parents” and “cleaving to the spouse,” He said, “what God has joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matthew 19:6). Far too many parents are trying to run their kids’ marriages. Telling them where to live. Telling them what job to get. Telling them that they aren’t doing enough. Telling them that they need to start having kids. Telling them that they need to stop having kids. I know of one man who basically told his son and daughter-in-law that they needed to have an abortion when she got pregnant.

Some parents try to drive a wedge between the man and wife. The mother doesn’t think the daughter-in-law is good enough for her little boy. The dad doesn’t think his son-in-law is good enough for his little girl. And so they try to tell them what to do. They try to pit one against the other.   They bad-mouth them. Fight, fight, fight, fight, fight. And it brings horrible stress on a marriage, because they won’t let their kid obey Jesus by leaving the parents and cleaving to the spouse.   Unless you see them engaged in sin, then don’t be telling them what to do. Be there for them if they ask for advice, but don’t let them come to you complaining about their spouse. That’s gossip. And that’s sinful.

Commitment to Each Other.

A man and woman were celebrating their 60th wedding anniversary.   There was a big party for them. And one of the people in attendance asked them, “What’s the secret to staying married for 60 years?” And the wife gave a very deep, profound answer: “don’t die.” This answer represents commitment.

Years ago, people actually meant it when they said, “I take you to be my lawfully wedded wife, for richer or for poorer, through sickness and in health, FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE, until death do we part.” For them, their attitude was that they were going to stick together no matter what!

The Bible teaches that marriage is a life-long commitment. Matthew 19:6 – What God has joined together, let not man tear apart (that command is for the husband and wife just as much as it is any outsider who might try to break up the marriage). God hates divorce. In fact, God commands “Let not the wife depart from her husband…and let not the husband put away his wife” (I Corinthians 7:10-11). One way that God describes divorce is “dealing treacherously” with your spouse (Malachi 2:16). It is when the spouse dies that the marriage ends (Romans 7:2).

If both the husband and the wife lived out a life of commitment to each other, there would be no danger of divorce at all. The husband loving the wife (Ephesians 5:25). The wife loving the husband (Titus 2:4). This “love” is the conscious decision to put your spouse ahead of yourself. To put their needs first. To put their wants ahead of your wants. To show them kindness, respect, and compassion. It is a decision that you make.

If you don’t go into marriage with a firm commitment to your spouse, then you are sinning. Prenuptial agreements (If this doesn’t work out, here’s how we’ll split things) are just planning in advance to fail.

If you’re married, and you’re not committed, then you’re sinning. A man who was tired of being married to the same person went to the preacher and said, “I just don’t love my wife anymore. We don’t get along. We fight all the time. And I’m ready to quit.” The preacher looked at him and said, “Well, I guess there’s only one thing to do, then.” The man’s eyes lit up—the preacher was about to tell him to go ahead and get a divorce…at least, that’s what he thought. The preacher looked him in the eyes and said, “Yes, only one thing to do. You get yourself home and repent. Pray to God for forgiveness and beg your wife for forgiveness for not being the husband you ought to be.”

If you’re married and you aren’t committed to your spouse, then you have some heavy duty repenting and begging for forgiveness to do.

Faithfulness to Your Spouse.

Both cleaving to your spouse and being committed to your spouse involve being faithful to your spouse. God designed marriage to be the place where sexual desires can be satisfied (I Corinthians 7:1-9). Any sexual activity outside of a God-authorized marriage is sinful and can cause you to lose your soul eternally. When you get married, God joins you and your spouse together, and you two are to become one flesh (Matthew 19:5-6). No one else is allowed in this union.

Sexual activity outside of the marriage is condemned by God, and has always carried a very harsh punishment. In the Old Testament, both the man and woman were to be put to death (Leviticus 20:10). It is called “adultery,” and Galatians 5:19-21 states very clearly that those who commit adultery will go to hell. In the Old Testament, the nation of Israel was described as God’s bride, but they had gone after other gods. God describes what they did as adultery. And as a result of what they did, God utterly destroyed them.

Not only is adultery sinful, Proverbs 6:32 says, “he who committeth adultery with a with a woman lacketh understanding. He that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.” ISV says, “Whoever commits adultery with a woman is out of his mind!” The CEV says, “But if you go to bed with another man’s wife, you will destroy yourself by your own stupidity.” Basically, God says if you go sleeping around, you’re stupid! I didn’t say it, God did!

Sexual unfaithfulness is so wicked that it is the only reason that God allows someone to get a divorce and then get remarried (Matthew 19:9). When someone has sexual relations with someone other than their spouse, they have destroyed the union that God joined together. This, and this alone, gives someone the right to leave their spouse and get married to someone else. And according to Jesus, if you cheat on your spouse—they can divorce you, and you can never get married to anyone else again.

But, let’s dig a bit deeper—what about the whole argument of “well, I never CHEATED on my spouse”? Does the fact that you never physically cheated on your spouse mean that you are faithful in your marriage?

The Bible demands COMPLETE faithfulness to your spouse—or you will burn in hell.

  • The Bible demands faithfulness with your eyes (don’t even stare or lust after another person—Job 31:1, Matthew 5:28).
  • The Bible demands faithfulness with your thoughts – same verses.
  • Pornography is a sin! Having sexual conversations with someone other than your spouse is sin! That includes conversations in person, conversations on Facebook, “Sexting,” sending pictures, etc—all of them are sin.

And if you’re doing any of them, STOP IT! For crying out loud, STOP IT! You’ll go to hell because of it, so just STOP IT!

The Bible demands COMPLETE faithfulness to your spouse—in who you sleep with, who you look at, who you think about—it had better be your spouse!

Conclusion:

If you want a good marriage, a happy marriage, a marriage that honors God, a marriage that will never be destroyed by divorce, then you have to do what God has commanded: Leave your parents and cling to your spouse. Be 100% committed to your spouse and your marriage. Stay faithful exclusively to her/him.

And if you aren’t doing these things, then START doing them now! Don’t wait! If you refuse to do them, you make yourself an enemy of God, and He will destroy you (Hebrews 10:26-31). Do it for your soul. Do it for yourself—be selfish about it. You want to be happy, and the easiest way to be happy in your marriage is for your spouse to be happy with you. So, make things easier on yourself by being the spouse God wants you to be. Do it for your spouse—they deserve it. Whatever reason you want to use for doing it, just do it!

Articles, Bible Questions

Are Preaching Schools Authorized?

7 Comments

Are Preaching Schools authorized in the Bible? Should a church be paying teachers there and/or paying students to go to school? Thank you in advance for your thoughts on this.—James D.

Thanks for writing. In order to discover the answer to your question, we need to go to the Scripture and notice certain things. We must also keep in mind that if God gives a command, but doesn’t tell us how we are to carry it out, then the how is left to our own judgment (so long as it doesn’t violate another command of God). For example, Jesus said to “go teach all nations.” He said to go and to teach, but He didn’t say how we were to go—it could be on foot, by car, airplane, by horse, etc… He also didn’t say how we were to teach all nations—it could be in person, via correspondence courses, books, DVDs, television/radio, over the phone, etc… This is an important principle to keep in mind as we look at this question.

First, the command to teach men is found in 2 Timothy 2:2. This is Timothy teaching men (plural). Paul doesn’t say, “teach men in your house.” He doesn’t say, “Teach them at the church building.” He says simply to teach them. The specifics (time, place, length, setting, etc…) are not given, thus Timothy had liberty to do the teaching where and when he saw fit. If Timothy had set up his own “School of Preaching,” he would have not added nor taken away from the command given, nor would he have violated it at all—it would simply have been an expedient to obey the command to teach men.

We, therefore, have Scriptural authority for an individual Christian teaching others in whatever way is deemed expedient. But what about a congregation? After all (in case you are unaware), every school of preaching is the work of a specific congregation.

The purpose of a “school of preaching” is to build up Christians so that they will be able to go out and teach others (see Hebrews 5:12). This is something to be done individually (II Timothy 4:2) but also collectively as a congregation (Ephesians 4:12, 16). The specifics of where, what time, setting, etc… are not given, and thus the HOW of the “building up” of the saints, helping them to grow as they are taught, is a matter of opinion/expediency.

These above things being true, a congregation can set up a school of preaching to teach men, and they have not violated any command of the Scriptures.

Second, regarding the funding aspect—The apostle Paul received financial aid from several congregations in order for him to preach the gospel to the lost, but also to help Christians become grounded in the faith and to be prepared to teach others. Thus we have a divinely approved example of a preacher/teacher being supported by other congregations while he works to build up the saints.  The ones being taught in a preacher training school are saints, thus it follows this divinely approved example.

Third, regarding supporting students—you’re not paying them to go to school. That is a misnomer. You’re sending money so that they can live WHILE going to school. Several congregations gathered money and sent it to the poor saints in Jerusalem so that they could live. This money was collected by one trustworthy person who wasn’t a part of their congregations, and taken to be left with the church in Jerusalem for the elders there to disperse as needed. If it is permissible—and even commanded—for congregations to send money to help Christians who needed it to be able to eat and live, then it is permissible to do the exact same thing for Christians today who have dedicated themselves to the study and spread of God’s word.

Though some people are opposed to the idea of preaching schools, the Bible gives authority for these works to exist.

-Bradley S. Cobb

Articles

Where Did the Moral Conscience Come From?

Leave a comment

It has been a couple weeks since we posted the previous installment in our study of Apologetics (a defense of the basic truths for the existence of God, the inspiration of the Bible, and the deity of Jesus), but we’re back.

The Moral Argument (aka the Anthropological Argument)

As we discussed in the last installment, there are logical arguments that can be used to prove the existence of God.  While some of them aren’t as strong and clear-cut as others, when you put them all together, it makes for a massive wall of evidence that cannot be ignored.

There is something that all civilizations have in common: morality–a sense of right and wrong.  Because morality exists, it had to originate somewhere.

II Peter 1:3 – God has given all things pertaining to life and godliness; that includes our own moral conscience!

Man has an inherent moral consciousness.[1]

Regardless of where you go, there are some moral laws that are the same in every culture throughout history.  The unwarranted taking of another’s life is condemned in every culture.  They may differ on what determines “unwarranted,” but they all have this in one form or another.  Selfishness is decried in every culture.[2]  Other activities or attitudes are similarly seen as wrong.

Even children have a sense of right and wrong.[3]  If someone steals their toy, do they not know it is wrong?  If a boy cuts in line, do the other children not get upset because it is wrong to cut?  If a child hits another, the one who was hit knows that it was wrong.

The most devout atheist can claim there is no standard of morals, but to no avail.  After all, if his children were kidnapped, do you not think that he’d declare that a wrong had been perpetrated?[4] Or would he say, “My children have been kidnapped, but there’s nothing wrong with that because there is no real standard of right or wrong”?  If his wife were murdered, do you think he would say “it is fine?”

Almost everyone admits that there is evil in this world; but that means good also exists. Something can only be judged evil when compared with the good.[5] How can you claim that there is evil in the world without having something objectively good to compare it to?  By this very statement, they unwittingly admit that there is an objective standard of right and wrong–that there are universal morals.

There is a moral code inherent in every person.  It can be abused to where the moral consciousness is almost non-existent, but it still exists.  While it may differ in some respects from culture to culture, the similarities are amazing.[6]

Animals do not have this moral consciousness.

There’s a bull who goes by the name of El Torro.  El Torro, one day, stormed at a man who was walking through the pasture and impaled him on one of his horns.  The police were called to the scene and arrested El Torro, taking him to jail.  A few weeks later, El Torro was forced to take the stand in court, and the lawyer began screaming at him “Why did you gore this man?  Tell us all why you committed this horrible crime!  Have you no conscience?”

Surely by now you think there must be a punchline to this story, but there isn’t.  The point is that everyone recognizes that animals don’t have any kind of moral conscience.  They have no ability to distinguish between things which are morally right or wrong.  No one with a functioning brain would think to try to take this bull into a court room and make it defend itself in court.  The bull might be put to death, but that would be only to keep it from being a danger to others, not as a punishment for breaking a moral law.

Do we make Spot go to work to pay child support for all the puppies he’s sired with who knows how many girl dogs across town?  Do we shun and shame him because he’s committing doggie-fornication by fathering these puppies out of wedlock?  Of course not!

Most people recognize that dogs do not have a moral consciousness in them.  Because of that, we would not think to make a dog pay child support.

Why even bring these things up?  Because of this: if evolution were true, there would be other creatures besides man that had a sense of right and wrong.  But there are none–and every rational human being on earth recognizes that fact.

This moral code points to the existence of God.

If there is no God, where did morals come from?  Scientists have examined DNA from top to bottom, but there is no “morality” gene there.  There is nothing physical inside humans to make them differentiate between something that is morally right or wrong.  If there is no physical explanation for the existence of morality, then one must look beyond the physical for the answer.

If evolution is true, at least one other animal must have the same moral code.  Evolution claims that small, minor changes occurred throughout many millennia to produce humans.  Yet they cannot explain morality (except to deny it, which they do in vain).

Evolution states “survival of the fittest.”  Yet morality tends to want to help the weak.  Small children are helped.  Doctors see it as their duty to save the lives of those who are sick and dying; is that not counter-evolutionary?  If evolution be true, our attitude should be to let the sick die.

There is no physical explanation for morals.  There is no evolutionary explanation for morals (in fact it goes against the very center of evolutionist doctrine).

Morals came from God.

They were planted in man since the beginning.  God said that the Gentiles did “by nature” the things contained in the Law (the moral things). (Romans 2:14-15)

Man is unique in that he is the only creature on earth with a moral consciousness.  It is not physical, and it runs completely opposite of the theory of evolutionists, yet it does exist. It was put there by a moral being: God!

-Bradley Cobb

ENDNOTES:

[1] Jackson, Wayne. Fortify Your Faith, “Moral Consciousness.” (Apologetics Press, 1974), pages 20-21.

[2] ibid.

[3] Northrop, Chuck. Class Notes: Apologetics. Bible Institute of Missouri, 2009.

[4] Jackson. Moral Consciousness.

[5] Northrop. Class Notes.

[6] Lewis, C.S. “Mere Christianity” (Quoted in Jackson, “Moral Consciousness”)

Articles, Stories

Autobiography of R.C. Bell

Leave a comment

Taken from the pages of the upcoming “Studies in the Scriptures: Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and Philippians,” we present to you the autobiography of R.C. Bell.

Autobiography of R.C. Bell

On a farm near Bell Buckle, Tennessee, I, Robert Clark Bell was born, March 20, 1877. My father, S. A. Bell, Sr., was of Scotch Irish and my mother, Sally Catherine Hoover, of Pennsylvania Dutch descent. I inherited a sound bodily construction and a mind of quiet, studious bent rather than of the quick, brilliant type. As my parents were both faithful members of the church when they were married, I went to church regularly every Sunday from babyhood.

Native Religious Temperament

As indicative of my natively serious autumnal, rather than of gay vernal temperament, the first reading I did of my own choosing was a page, colored by pious thought and feeling, entitled, “Home Reading” in the Gospel Advocate, a paper that came into our home every week. (This page was long since discontinued, but the old man is grateful that the boy had a chance to read it.) I came into the church at fifteen years of age, during a meeting conducted at Fosterville, Tennessee, by E. A. Elam. At the close of this meeting, Brother Elam asked those who had just been baptized if they were so disposed, to promise, by reading three chapters on week days and five on Sundays, to read the entire Bible within a year. I promised, and for three consecutive years read the Bible through yearly, according to this plan.

Nashville Bible School

At the age of eighteen years, I entered the Nashville Bible School, Nashville, Tennessee, to alternate for five years attending this institution and teaching in the rural schools of Tennessee. Under the influence of David Lipscomb and James A. Harding, I soon saw that Paul’s description of some who would hold a form of doctrine, but deny its power, fit me. Especially, Brother Harding’s living, magnetic, contagious faith in God as a real personal friend matched the wavelength of my spirit. I slowly enough imbibed his enthusiasm for God’s fatherly care of individual Christians, for Christ’s brotherly sympathy and fellowship with them, and for the empowering Holy Spirit’s residence in them. In other words, for Brother Harding’s conception of Christianity as a “divine-human encounter,” in which spiritual communion between God and man, the sweetest of human experiences, was enjoyed.

I gradually came to realize, however, that the spiritual power of the church was contingent upon the actual personal presence and working of the triune God in and through Christians. More and more the conviction grew on me that Brother Harding’s interpretation of Christianity, which was Paul’s too, was needed to save the church from being merely a human organization with a formula to follow, a prayer to recite, and a dull, demagnetized program to render; with professional preachers in her pulpit mechanically saying dead words detached from the living realities of which they spoke, dealing in trite moralizings, threadbare platitudes, and heartless preaching about the heart and passion of Christ. This kind of a church instead of being the divine organism, instinct with the life and power of God, as designed by her Founder! In short, Brother Harding’s interpretation was needed to save the church from changing divine dynamics to human mechanics.

Potter Bible College

This fuller understanding of revolutionary Christian truth began to turn my “world upside down,” and to open up for me a new world of worship, of work, and of values in general. Consequently, when Brother Harding started another Bible school at Bowling Green, Kentucky, to be known as Potter Bible School and asked me to become one of his teachers for the fall of 1901, I, believing that God was guiding, eagerly accepted. Thus, began my half-century of teaching Bible in our Christian schools. Every member of Brother Harding’s faculties was expected to teach at least one class in Bible daily. Four happy years were spent at Potter. Bessie Sparkman of Era, Texas, who had been a classmate at Nashville, became my wife September 24, 1902. As sweethearts at Nashville, we, as only young people can, together accepted the view of Christian life and work that has continued and bound us together as “God’s fellow-workers.” All these years, we have never doubted God’s will for us was being fulfilled and that in such school work we could best serve ourselves, our fellow-men, and our God, the maker of us all. Each of our three daughters is a graduate of a Christian college.

Westward

By the fall of 1905 J. N. Armstrong, R. N. Gardner, and I (three teachers at Potter), and B. F. Rhodes (a student at Potter from Kansas), were ready, with evangelistic fervor, to open a Bible school west of the Mississippi River at Odessa, Missouri, to be known as Western Bible and Literary College. After four years, Armstrong, Rhodes, and I went to Cordell Christian College, Cordell, Oklahoma. Both of these schools, as such, have long since ceased to operate, but their influence lives on. For instance, how many native Africans will be saved eternally because these unpretentious schools lived, no man can know. The Scotts, the Reeses, the Shorts, and the Lawyers (three of these families have already furnished two generations of workers in Africa), some of our first American missionaries, all came through these schools.

Thorp Spring

My work in Thorp Spring Christian College, Thorp Spring, Texas, began in the autumn of 1911. After five years with this school, I saw that with the constantly rising educational requirements for teachers, my continued teaching in our schools demanded an academic degree recognized as standard by the ac-crediting agency for colleges. Therefore, I went to Sherman, Texas, to preach for the old Walnut Street church a year and to do enough college work in Austin College to standardize the B.A. degree, received at Potter years before. The next year was spent in Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, working out the M.A. degree. Then, I returned to Thorp Spring for a year’s teaching. During this last year at Thorp Spring, I first met, as a member of my freshman English class, Don H. Morris, now president of Abilene Christian College.

Abilene

I became a member of the faculty of Abilene Christian College, Abilene, Texas, in September, 1919. Twenty-five of the thirty-two years intervening between then and now, were spent teaching in this college. Of the remaining seven years, one year was spent in Harper College, Harper, Kansas, two years were spent in Harding College, Morrilton, Arkansas, before it moved to Searcy, and the other four years in David Lipscomb College, Nashville, Tennessee. Fifty years of teaching Bible in eight different schools, located in seven different states is not such a hodgepodge as it may seem at first thought. In the first place, halt of the time was spent in Abilene Christian College. More important, the fifty years, in reality, is all of a piece like a tree. Its general purpose, direction, and objective remained unchanged throughout.

In Retirement

Some old men regret the choice they made in youth of their life work. I am so far from such regret that were a second life to be lived on earth, I should be most happy to have an open door into such work for another long life through. I even like to toy with the fancy of living it all over again just for the privilege—I say, not duty—of teaching God’s word and of making a new generation of Christian friends. I should labor to do the same work, only with purer motives. That is, without personal ambition, without pride of human recognition and position, and without envy of others; and with more diligence, patience, kindness, hope, and love. In brief, with less flesh and more Spirit; with less self and more Christ.

And now that the sail is reefed, I shall take things a bit easier, and, being somewhat lifted o’er the strife of life, shall live the remainder of life’s book as God turns the pages, remembering in grateful thanksgiving and prayer the men and women who helped me as I helped them, and the friends I have made and kept through the years who are still bound to the whirl of the wheel of life. And, since such friends are too good to lose, I shall, in mellow musing, dream of greeting them again in the future life with God, as friends, “lost for a while” recovered; and therefore a little different from the host of stranger-friends from many races, times, and climes whom I shall meet in heaven for the first time. Is it not a great and blessed thing to be able to view the eventide of life here as a resting time, “Ere I be gone once more on my adventure brave and new” in the hereafter, somewhat as the period for tired football players between halves? One life—first half lived on earth and the second half in heaven. “Thanks be to God for his unspeakable gift” in Christ.

“Grow old along with me!
The best is yet to be,
The last of life, for which the first was made.
Our times are in his hand
Who saith, ‘A whole I planned’;
Youth shows but half. Trust God; see all, nor be afraid!”

—Robert Browning

Articles

“I think the sheriff has very little ability and no guts.”

Leave a comment

These words were spoken by Major General Milton Foreman about Sheriff Melvin Thaxton of Williamson County, Illinois, back in 1922.

You see, for days, everyone knew tensions were rising in Herrin, IL, then the biggest city in the county.  One of the mines had brought in non-union men (“strikebreakers”) to work during the UMWA strike.  The mine had brought in hired guns as “guards” who terrorized people who drove down the roads that crossed over mine property.  The union miners had robbed stores of guns and ammunition, saying “charge it to the union” as they left.

The governor was receiving telegrams from concerned citizens about the events, but when the Major General of the Illinois National Guard contacted Sheriff Thaxton, the sheriff said, “I have everything well in hand.”  And he added that there was no need for troops to be sent.

Even as June 22, 1922 came, and literally thousands of union miners and sympathizers attacked the mine, took the miners and guards prisoner, dynamited the mine equipment, and led the men at gunpoint to the city, the Sheriff did nothing.  In fact, he was nowhere to be found, having gone to a neighboring county to investigate a shooting (which wasn’t even in his jurisdiction).

Even after reports surfaced of prisoners being dragged from behind cars, shot, stabbed, beaten, and hanged, the Sheriff told the national guard “I have everything under control.”

When Major General Foreman was asked what he thought of the Sheriff’s response, he replied “I think the sheriff has very little ability and no guts.”

See, the Sheriff knew what was going on and did nothing to stop it.  He either supported the actions (my personal guess) or he was to big of a wimp to stop it.

You might wonder at this point why I’m even mentioning all of this.  I’ve noticed (and I’m sure you have too) that there are many Christians who fit this same description.  They have very little ability to fulfill their role as Christ’s messengers and they have no guts.

I don’t say this to sound demeaning towards these people.  I really don’t.  I’m talking about people who have been Christians for years, but who couldn’t tell someone the plan of salvation and prove it from the Bible if their life depended on it.  I’ve heard of preachers who passed out a worksheet to the congregation asking for this exact information.  The overwhelming majority of the congregation couldn’t tell you where the Bible says to hear, or to believe, or repent, or confess, or be baptized.

These Christians have very little ability–because of their own choice.  The writer of Hebrews chastised people like this because they should have been able to teach others–instead, they needed someone to teach them again!

We’d think there was something wrong if a baby was born and 15 years later, he was still a baby, unable to walk, to talk, or to chew food.  But for some reason, we give people a pass when they remain spiritual babies for 5, 10, 15, or more years!  This ought not be!

Another great fault of many Christians is that they have no guts.  Obviously, the ones who don’t know how to even show something as basic as the plan of salvation have good reason to be afraid to engage in spiritual discussions with others.  But what about those who do know the Scriptures?

Have you noticed that in this modern age, many Christians are more concerned about how others will react than they are about their eternal judgment?  We see lost and dying souls everywhere we go, but we don’t want them to think that we’re “religious nuts” or “Jesus freaks.”  We don’t want to potentially hurt their feelings by pointing out that they’re going to hell because they’ve not obeyed the gospel of Jesus Christ.  We’ve got the greatest news in the history of mankind, yet we’re more willing to tell someone about low gas prices than we are to tell them about that which can save their soul!

In short, several Christians have no guts when it comes to spreading the gospel.

My friends, we’ve got a job to do.  Whether we feel prepared for it or not, we still have a job to do.  We can either go into the job completely unprepared and fail miserably, or we can prepare ourselves.  If we are unprepared; if we do not cultivate the ability to carry out the work of the Lord, it is our own fault.

It takes guts–it takes courage to show others that they are living in sin and what the consequences of their continued sin will be.  It takes guts to be active in the Lord’s work.  It may not be easy, but it still must be done.

When you stand before the Lord on Judgment Day, will He say “well done, good and faithful servant”?  Or will His words be more like “I think you have very little ability and no guts”?

-Bradley Cobb

Note: The above story is true, and the quotations come from an Associated Press story printed on June 24, 1922 in newspapers across the country.

Articles

Design Demands a Designer

1 Comment

We continue our study of Apologetics this week with the first of four installments on the question: “Does God Exist?”

We have kept this short so that anyone who wants to can print it and use it in a Bible class or expand it.  Feel free to use it to God’s glory!

Design Demands a Designer
(aka The Teleological Argument)

Charles Darwin, and others like him, have tried to undermine the very basis of the entire Bible: that God exists.

Because we can not have a true faith in Christ without hearing the evidences (Romans 10:17), it follows that if we want a true faith in God, we must hear the evidences of His existence. It is no longer a given that people believe in God; for that reason as well, we must know the evidences that prove the existence of God.

 Design does not happen by accident.

Thomas Edison did not knock over a pile of metal and glass and discover it became a light bulb. He worked for years on the design for the incandescent bulb. He failed multiple times with other insufficient designs, but finally found one that worked. Was this design by accident?  Or is the light bulb proof that someone put careful thought into it’s design and creation?

The Wright brothers did not create their airplane by accident.They were meticulous in figuring out weight, wingspan, horsepower, balance, etc…They put massive thought into their design.

Nothing that is designed came about by a mere accident. Design always involves intent. Intent implies someone involved in the designing.

Design does not happen on its own.

A watch did not simply come into existence on its own, let alone the millions of other watches that exist in this world. The fact that it exists shows that it was made by someone. The fact that there is design to it (mechanical, electrical, aesthetic) shows that someone (or more than one person) designed it.

There is design to the earth.[1] If the earth was not tilted on the 23 degree axis, there would either be no change in seasons, or such extreme changes that no plant life could survive.[2]  If the earth was closer to the sun, mankind could not survive the temperature and exposure to the sun; if the earth was further away, we would all freeze to death.  The earth has a perfect spin, not to fast, and not to slow. It is 100% perfect for life to be sustained on it.

There is design to things on the earth.  The human body is more complex than any machine ever created (Psalm 139:14). The nervous system is still not fully understood.[3] DNA is called the human’s blueprint (design).[4] But who in their right mind would claim that a blueprint can create itself?  Yet that’s exactly what so-called “scientists” and evolutionists teach!

That there is design to the earth and to things on the earth proves that there is a designer.  The Darwinist and atheist expect us to believe that the perfect design of the universe, the earth, the human body, and everything else in the world came about by complete accident.[5]

But they readily concede that the existence of design in a watch proves that someone designed it.  How inconsistent!

 Design proves that God exists.

Psalm 19:1 – The heavens declare the glory of God. The fact that the sun and stars exist screams out the existence of God. God created them to be used for “signs and seasons” (Genesis 1:14). The stars were set in the sky to be used as “signposts” for travel. Naval ships still use them to this day along with their GPS equipment.

Romans 1:20 – The invisible things are understood by the visible things. We see order (design) in the natural world; therefore, we know there was something behind it. We see the complexity, yet perfect design, of man; therefore, we know someone created it.

Mankind did not create the universe, the earth, nor man himself. Man is by far the most intelligent creature on this planet. It is admitted by all that man could not ever create the universe, the earth, or even plants or animals. If man, the smartest being on the planet, could not have created the universe, then that means someone more intelligent than anyone on earth had to have created everything.

Who could that be?

Some atheists have caved in and admitted the truth that design demands a designer, but in their incredible effort to deny that God is the Creator of the universe, they say that the earth was created by … (are you ready for this?) … aliens.[6]

Conclusion

Design does not happen by accident, and never has. Anything designed must, be definition, have someone that designed it. The universe, the earth, and everything on earth show design. Therefore, they all must have been designed by someone.

That someone is God.

-Bradley Cobb

[1] Jackson, Wayne. Fortify Your Faith. (Apologetics Press, 1974).

[2] Gish, Duane, Ph. D. “Have You Been Brainwashed?” – (tract, Creation-Life Publishers, 1974).

[3] Harrub, Brad. “The Human Nervous System: Evidence of Intelligent Design [part II].” Reason and Revelation, September 2005.

[4] Evolution/Creation. Unsigned article

[5] Harrub, “Nervous System.”

[6] Richard Dawkins made this statement in the movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” which can be watched for free on YouTube.

Articles, Books

The Holy Spirit in Acts 17:11?

1 Comment

The following short segment comes from our upcoming book, The Holy Spirit in the Book of Acts.  Enjoy!

Acts 17:11

These [people of Berea] were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so.

Paul and Silas were both prophets, both spoke by inspiration of God, and Paul (perhaps Silas too) was able to perform miracles—all by the power of the Holy Spirit. Yet God takes a moment to praise the people of Berea because they weren’t content with a prophetic message; they weren’t content with an inspired message; they weren’t content with any miracles that Paul may have performed—they knew that the message had to match up with the Scriptures in order for it to be truly from God.

Prophets were temporary (Zechariah 13:2). Miracles (including inspiration) were temporary (I Corinthians 13:8-10). But God’s word remains forever (I Peter 1:23-25). The word of God is called “the sword [or the weapon] of the Spirit” (Ephesians 6:17). It is the word of God that is able to save the souls of men (James 1:21). Miracles can’t save souls—the word of God can.

The Holy Spirit, therefore, is active in every case of conversion from Pentecost through today—but His tool for converting the lost is the living and active word of God (Hebrews 4:12). The Holy Spirit is also active in guiding Christians ever since Pentecost in the very same way: through the Scripture which is able to make us perfect (II Timothy 3:16-17).

-Bradley Cobb

(NOTE: Today’s image is taken from the cover of a publication called Nobility, which is freely available from the Gravel Hill church of Christ website)

Articles, Tracts from the Past

The Evolution of Evolution

Leave a comment

Some of the most interesting things to read are old articles and papers that were typed up by brethren of the past.  One such article came from the typewriter of James D. Bales.  During his heyday, Bales was a highly-respected figure in the religious world, standing firm against evolution, communism, and other theories of belief that attacked the Bible.

We hope you find this article interesting.

THE EVOLUTION OF EVOLUTION

James D. Bales, Ph.D. (University of California), Searcy, Arkansas

Evolution means development. Thus men sometimes speak of the evolution of the airplane; which development was, of course, the work of intelligence and not of the blind workings of the forces of nature. The hypothesis of evolution which is widely taught today assumes that as a result of the workings of natural forces, life developed from the non-living; and from the first form of life there developed all the different forms of life which exist today, including man. Using the term evolution in the sense of development let us see how the hypothesis of evolution originated and how it develops when it is consistently applied. In other words, we want to notice something of the origin and some of the results of the hypothesis of evolution.

Evolution did not originate in scientific research, but in the bias of certain men against the God of the Bible who created the heavens, the earth, life, and man. It is based on the assumption that all past events must be explained in terms of present-day processes; even if this cannot be scientifically established. By maintaining that all must be explained naturally, the first evolutionists in our period of time put God so far away from the universe and life that He either did not exist; or if He existed He would in no wise interfere with man and the workings of the laws of nature. Thus for all practical purposes they could forget about God without having any fear that they must someday face God in judgment. They could rule their own lives without having to be subjected to the will of God.

The doctrine that all must be explained naturally was popularized in the field of geology by Sir Charles Lyell. He wrote his book on geology in order to establish this principle of uniformity as the basic principle in geology and ultimately in life itself. He accepted the idea of God, but his bias against God as revealed in the Scriptures is indicated in his contention that Moses had brought great mischief and scandal into the science of geology; and he spoke of driving certain men “out of the Mosiac record.”

Charles Darwin was converted to the idea that all must be explained naturally; and, of course, as this belief grew upon him, his disbelief in the Bible grew. Since Darwin had decided that all must be explained naturally, the very truth of evolution itself was taken for granted. The only question was, since evolution must have taken place, what laws in nature are sufficient to account for life’s origin and manifold form. So deep-seated was Darwin’s bias against God that, although he never became an atheist, but was an agnostic, when reason led Darwin to God he savagely turned on reason and discredited reason. As he said in his autobiography written in 1876:

“Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason, and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the ‘Origin of Species;’ and it is since that time that it has very gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker. But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man. which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?”[1]

Again he wrote:

“Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance. But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”[2]

Reason led Darwin to God so Darwin killed reason! He trusted his mind when reasoning about evolution, but not when reasoning about God! Why should we trust anything in his writings if the human mind cannot be trusted? How could Darwin say that he fully believed in evolution when his position concerning the origin of mind made it impossible for him, when consistent, to fully believe in anything? How could Darwin continue to cling to evolution, which led him to discredit the mind, and to do so on supposedly scientific grounds? If the mind cannot be trusted at all, science is impossible. Although Darwin admitted that one could still believe in God, even if evolution were true, yet in his own life and the life of countless others faith in evolution has been the means of leading them from God. Although they may not become atheists, they usually put God so far away from man and the universe that He has not spoken and will not interfere with man in any way, including bringing man into judgment.

Darwin’s wife told her daughter, concerning the Descent of Man, that: “I think it will be very interesting, but that I shall dislike it very much as again putting God further off.”[3]

Thomas Henry Huxley, who helped fight many battles for Darwin, admitted that evolution was simply the outcome of applying the hypothesis that all must be explained naturally. He began to be converted to this idea when he was around 12 years of age. This led him to abandon the Bible as the word of God, and finally to accept evolution; because there was nothing else for a man to do once he has rejected the idea of creation by God.

There are numerous other illustrations of the fact that evolution was accepted because men wanted to get away from the idea of the God who creates. As Henry Fairfield Osborn, an evolutionist, put it: “In truth, from the period of the earliest stages of Greek thought man has been eager to discover some natural cause of evolution, and to abandon the idea of supernatural intervention in the order of nature.”[4] This bias has been abundantly documented in the forthcoming book. Why Scientists Accept Evolution.

Evolution is a faith which they accept even though they do not have adequate evidence for this faith. As A. L. Kroeber, at the Darwin Centennial, said: “Overwhelmingly, biologists had been accepting evolution because there was nothing else for them to do; but they had not proved it to their own satisfaction.”[5] He thought that the situation had improved today. Charles Darwin himself admitted that when one descended to details, and of course scientists must descend to details, evolution could not be proved.[6]

William L. Straus, Jr. said: “I wish to emphasize that I am under no illusion that the theory of human ancestry which I favor at the present time, can in any way be regarded as proven. It is at best merely a working hypothesis whose final evaluation must be left to the future.”[7]

The hypothesis of evolution is so far from being scientifically proved that a widely used text book in biology said: “The piecing together of the evolution story is comparable to the reconstruction of an atom-bombed metropolitan telephone exchange by a child who has only seen a few telephone receivers. We know something about living plants and animals, and we have some fossil remnants to go on. Extensive study of the evidence available plus ingenious hypothesis, most of which cannot be adequately tested, have given us a sort of a trial schedule of the possible directions of evolution of living organisms. ”[8]

However, so deep-seated is the bias in favor of evolution that Professor Paul Shorey stated: “An ambitious young professor may safely assail Christianity or the Constitution of the United States or George Washington or female chastity or marriage or private property… But he must not apologize for Bryan… It is not done.”[9] One does not have to accept every interpretation of the Bible made by Bryan in order to realize that thorough-going evolution contradicts the Bible.

Why is it that some scientists, who demand scientific proof in various other areas, are determined at all costs to hold to the hypothesis of evolution as being scientifically proved? They know full well, if they are acquainted with the evidence and the meaning of “scientifically proved”, that evolution has not been scientifically established.

Originating in man’s effort to get away from the God who creates and who has spoken to man in the Bible, it is obvious that the influence of evolution would be to undermine faith in the Bible. There are, of course, some individuals who think that evolution has been scientifically established and that therefore they must try to harmonize the Bible with evolution. They hold to evolution and still want to hold to the Bible. However, any hypothesis of evolution that maintains that all can be explained in terms of the workings of present-day processes must come into conflict with the Bible whether they realize this or not. As a result of the influence of the hypothesis of evolution, as well as some other influences, a great deal of the religious world has reconstructed the Bible so as to conform to evolution. Thus there are those who maintain that there was no first human pair, that there was no real fall of man, that God did not miraculously intervene in human history as recorded in the Bible, and that Jesus Christ is thus the product of evolutionary development. If an individual maintains that God did intervene as the Bible says, and that Jesus Christ is God’s Son, they have admitted divine intervention in redemption so why should they rule out divine intervention in creation?

The hypothesis of evolution has had an adverse impact upon morality. If all must be explained in harmony with natural laws then there is no moral realm different from the natural realm. After evolutionists get through explaining the origin of the conscience and moral sensitivity of man, they have in reality explained away morality. To maintain that animals do certain things, and therefore we see in them the beginning of the development of moral conscience, does not prove that I am obligated to do anything. To jump from a description of something that has happened to the conclusion that we are obligated to do this or that is to draw a conclusion that is not justified by their starting point. If men are but highly evolved animals, what right does anyone have to say that one ought to do or ought not to do a certain thing? In fact, to say that one “ought to do something” is no more speaking morally than to say that someone itches. In both cases you are describing a physical sensation. To say that a certain course of conduct would lead to social progress —however progress may be defined — is not the same thing as saying that I am obligated to follow that course of conduct. Every evolutionist must abandon evolution in order to stand for the reality and the binding nature of morality. William F. Quillian, Jr., in The Moral Theory of Evolutionary Naturalism[10] has shown the inability of the evolutionists to establish morality on a consistent naturalistic evolutionary world view.

Darwin viewed morality, religion, and everything else as traceable to something in animals. As he told a cousin: “I look upon all human feeling as traceable to some germ in the animals.”[11]

Darwin’s antagonism to religion increased as the years went on so that he was more antagonistic to religion after many religious leaders had accepted him than before.[12]

Communists pay high tribute to Darwin. In fact Karl Marx wanted to dedicate to Darwin the English translation of Marx’s book on Capital. Darwin refused because he thought it would give pain to some in his family.[13] Karl Marx on December 19, 1860 wrote to Engels that Darwin’s book “is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.”[14] On January 16, 1861 he said: “Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history.”[15]

If man is but an evolved animal, there is no moral grounds on which you can condemn the Communists for wanting to establish animal farms, as it were. If morality is simply the evolved customs of man, the Communists have as much right as anybody else to evolve their own moral customs, and there is no moral law in the light of which we can say that they are wrong and we are right. If the survival of the fittest is the way of progress, then those who survive are the fittest by mere virtue of the fact that they survive. In other words, might makes right.

These, then, are some of the consequences that logically flow from naturalistic evolution. There are those, of course, who try to explain the origin and manifold forms of life naturally while maintaining that God is and that is more than an animal and more than matter. If this is true then God has supernaturally intervened in some way to make man more than matter. Once we grant this supernatural intervention we have destroyed the naturalistic hypothesis of evolution. If we are going to say that God super naturally intervened in some way in the creation of man, why not accept the Biblical account of the supernatural intervention?

That evolution has not been scientifically proved can be illustrated by the fact that it would be a rare scientist indeed who would sign the following proposition: Resolved that the evolutionary origin of life and of man has been scientifically proved. If you know of a scientist who will sign this affirmation, we shall be happy to debate him, the Lord willing.

[1] Francis Darwin, Editor, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898, Vol. 1, p. 282.

[2] Ibid., Vol. 1. p. 285

[3] As quoted in Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, London: Chatto & Windus, 1959, p. 316.

[4] Henry Fairfield Osborn, The Origin and Evolution of Life, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1918, pp. ix-x.

[5] Sol Tax. Editor, Evolution of Man, p. 2

[6] The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. II, p. 210.

[7] The Quarterly Review of Biology, September 1949, p. 220.

[8] Relis B. Brown, Biology, Second Edition, Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1961, p. 531.

[9] Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 142, Oct. 1928, p. 478.

[10] New Haven: Yale University Press, 1945.

[11] Himmelfarb, op. cit., p. 317.

[12] Ibid., p. 319.

[13] Ibid., p. 316.

[14] Marx and Engels, Selected Correspondence, 1846-1895, New York: International Publishers, 1936. p. 126. Translated by Dona Torr.

[15] Ibid., p. 125.

Articles

An Introduction to Apologetics

Leave a comment

Life has been extremely busy the past few weeks, leading to our less-than-stellar frequency of posts here at TheCobbSix.  Thanks for sticking with us.  🙂

Beginning this week, we are studying Apologetics in our Wednesday night Bible class.  We hope you will find these lessons as useful as we do!

What Is Apologetics?

Now, seemingly more than in any other time, apologetics is needed. “Apologetics” comes from “apologia,” which means “a formal, usually written, defense or justification of a belief, theory, or policy”[1]

God is being attacked on many different fronts by different people. There are some that completely deny His existence. Some will acknowledge His existence, but deny the Scriptures are really His  Word and are inspired by Him. And there are literally billions of people in the world today who do not believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and is indeed deity.[2]

Because of this, and the constant onslaught of teachings that come along with these  three topics, we are devoting some time for the next several weeks to study apologetics — the defense of the truth of these things.

 Why should anyone study apologetics?

Everyone should study apologetics to establish or solidify their own faith in God, His  Word, and His Son Jesus. Perhaps you are sitting, thinking, “I already believe in God and those other things.” But why do you believe? Is it just because that is what you’ve been taught?[3] Or have you weighed the evidence?

God never expected people to operate on “blind faith.”  God sent the ten plagues on Egypt so that They would know that He was the Lord (Exodus 14:4). God sent the quail and the manna to the children of Israel in the wilderness so that they would know that He was the Lord (Exodus 16:12). Jesus performed miracles so that people would see that He was from God (John 3:2). God has always, since the beginning of time, shown His existence. Our faith must be built on the evidence, not on what someone else has told us.

You should study apologetics so that you can teach others.  There are many in the world who call themselves “agnostics” who say that there is not enough evidence to prove God exists or to prove that He doesn’t exist.[4]  Simply put, these people just don’t know what to think.  Most want to know one way or the other, and the only way to prove it to them is to show them all of the evidence. You would not want a judge deciding a case against you without presenting him with all of the evidence, so why would you not want to teach a lost soul and show them all the evidence for the existence of God?

When you have that faith that is rock-solid because it is based on all of the evidence,  you are much more likely to convince someone else to become a Christian.

You need to study apologetics so that you can combat false teachings. In the schools (and everywhere else for that matter), evolution is being paraded as the truth about the origin of man and everything else.[5]  This denies the existence of God.  This denies that the Bible is inspired from God.  This denies that Jesus exists.  We must be able to combat these falsehoods that are being taught to everyone, especially our children.

There are false teachings even within the church that need to be combated with apologetics.  There are those who say they believe in God, but also claim to believe in evolution.[6]  This contradicts Genesis 1, Exodus 20:11, 31:17, and others which clearly state that creation began and ended in a total of six 24-hour days.

This would make Moses a liar or uninspired. If Moses was uninspired, so was Jesus who quoted him and who was called the      prophet like Moses (Acts 3:22). To say evolution is true is to, ultimately, deny the inspiration of the Bible and the deity of Jesus Christ!

 Can these things really be proven?

Yes! They can be proven!  God gave us everything that pertains to “life and godliness” (II Peter 1:3).  This would include proof that He indeed exists.  If there was no proof God’s existence, there would be nothing on which to base faith.

The heavens declare that God exists (Psalm 19:1).  The fact that there is design in the universe shows that someone had to design it.  The fact that nothing comes from nothing shows that someone had to create the universe.[7]

The complete accuracy of the Bible (even though it had many writers over a period of 1500 years) historically, doctrinally, and scientifically screams out that it is inspired of God. Skeptics have tried over and over to show the Bible as being historically wrong on something, yet it always turns out that they were wrong and the Bible was right.[8]

The Bible has stated scientific facts that were not discovered until thousands of years later.[9] The Bible predicted specific world events, sometimes tens and sometimes hundreds of years before they happened.[10]

The Bible records all the things we need to believe in Jesus as the Son of God (John 20:30-31).  Once we establish the inspiration of the Bible, we can see that Jesus Christ is indeed the Son of God.  The Jews heard Him say this, and they called it blasphemy because they knew it meant that He was claiming to be deity (John 10:24-33).  Jesus truly was God (John 1:1).

 What to Expect

We will see in the rest of this study various things that prove the existence of God, the inspiration of the Scriptures, and the deity (God-ness) of Jesus Christ. We will also look at arguments used against these things and show why they are wrong and should not be accepted. Ultimately, the goal of this study is to make your faith strong and to help bring others to Christ.

[1] Encarta World English Dictionary: “Apologia.”

[2] The “Jehovah’s Witnesses” claim that Jesus was the first being created by God, and is not deity (see their translation of John 1:1 as “the word was a god”). Other religious groups, such as the Muslims, claim Jesus was a good man and perhaps even a prophet, but deny that He is deity. Others, such as Buddhists, believe that if Jesus ever did exist, He was just a man. Still many others claim that Jesus never existed in the first place. As strange as it might seem to some of us, this denial of Jesus’ deity is held by the majority of people living today.

[3] Remember that Aquila and Priscilla had to teach Apollos more perfectly the way of the Lord. He did not have all the evidence, and thus was teaching an inadequate gospel (Acts 18:24-26). We must be ready to search the evidence to find out if these things are true (see Acts 17:11).

[4] The word “agnostic” means “no knowledge.” (Encarta) They believe it is impossible to know if God exists.

[5] Nearly every science textbook in public schools teaches the theory of evolution as a fact, and offers no alternative to it.

[6] There are examples that could be given, but this is not the place to list names of brethren who hold this belief. Suffice it to say, if one does much investigating into the topic, they will find numerous brethren of both today and times past that hold this stance.

[7] The Law of Biogenesis states that living things can only come from other living things, and not from non-living material. Basically stated, spontaneous generation is impossible.

[8] See later lessons on the inspiration of the Scriptures for specific examples.

[9] Again, see later lessons on the inspiration of the Scriptures for specifics.

[10] Specifically, the destruction of Jerusalem was predicted by Jesus approximately 40 years before it happened (Matthew 24:2-3); Daniel prophesied the Babylonian Empire would fall to the Persian Empire, which would fall to the Greek Empire of Alexander the Great, and that there would be a fourth kingdom, that being Rome. It was during the days of the Roman Empire that the church would be established. Daniel wrote this hundreds of years before the fact (Daniel 2, especially verse 44).