The Spirit’s Inspiration and Confirmation of the New Testament

Inspiration: New Testament

The Apostles

“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.” (John 14:26)

"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13)

“Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit…” (1 Cor 2:12-13)

Gifts of Revelation (1 Corinthians 12-14; Romans 12:3-8; Ephesians 4:11-12; Acts 20:28)

 

Confirmation: New Testament

  1. Through Miracles
  • The Apostles (Mark 16:20; Hebrews 2:3-4)

“And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that followed.” (Mark 16:20)

“After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, 4 God also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will.” (Heb 2:3-4)

  • The Identity of Jesus (Mark 2:1-10, Acts 2:22, 10:38)

"Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know” (Acts 2:22)

"God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him." (Acts 10:38 )

"That you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…" (Mark 2:1-10)

    1. Through Fulfilled Prophecy
  • The Destruction of Jerusalem (Mt 24:1-2)
  • Coming of False Teachers, Persecution, etc.
  • The Return of Christ…it’s coming!!
  1. The Implications of the Spirit’s Work in Inspiration and Confirmation: Just think of the implications of all scripture being given to us through the Holy Spirit. This shows how we as God ‘s people depend on the Holy Spirit each day in our lives. The work of the Holy Spirit is the reason why you can have direction from God’s word. The work of the Holy Spirit is what shows us what we need to do to be pleasing to God and escape eternal damnation. We would be in the dark without His work!

The Spirit’s Inspiration and Confirmation of the Old Testament

It is clear in the teachings of Scripture that it is given by God, the Holy Spirit. Here are a couple verses that show this:image

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work”. (2 Tim 3:16-17)

“knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:20-21)

As we saw in our article in this series on the Deity of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit, we saw that the Bible is God-breathed, meaning that God Himself is the one who gives the words of scripture. We also saw that the Holy Spirit is the breath of God i. (Job 32:8; 33:4; 34:14-15), proving that the Holy Spirit is God. He has inspired the Bible as we have it (the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments)

In this article, I would like to show how the Holy Spirit inspired and confirmed the Old Testament scriptures. I will approach each section of the Old Testament (The Law, the prophets, and the writings)

Inspiration of the Old Testament

The Law: Moses (Genesis – Deuteronomy)

    Moses wrote the Law of God by the Spirit

"Then I will come down and speak with you there, and I will take of the Spirit who is upon you, and will put Him upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with you, so that you will not bear it all alone.” (Num 11:17)

"You gave Your good Spirit to instruct them” -Neh 9:20

He gave the tablets to the Israelites that contained the Ten Commandments, which were written by the "Finger of God"

1. Finger of God = Holy Spirit (cp. Matthew 12:28 & Luke 11:20)

"But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. (Matt 12:28)

"But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. (Luke 11:20)

The people rejected and provoked the Spirit when they disobeyed the Commandments of Moses in the wilderness (Heb 3:7-11, Isaiah 63: 10)

 

The Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, The Twelve, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel)

    "Thus says the Lord" used over 400 times in this section of scripture

    "The word of the Lord came to…" is used over 100 times

Elijah and Elisha: (2 Kings 2:9; 15) Elisha asks that a double portion of the Spirit that rested upon Elijah rest upon him, which we see fulfilled after Elijah goes to Heaven.

As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries, 11 seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. (1 Peter 1:10-11)

"However, You bore with them for many years, And admonished them by Your Spirit through Your prophets, Yet they would not give ear. Therefore You gave them into the hand of the peoples of the lands. – (Nehemiah 9:30)

 

The Writings (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles)

    David said, "The Spirit of the Lord speaks by me; his word is on my tongue. 2 Sam 23:2 (ESV)

    "Then how does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying, 44 ‘THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET"’? -Matt 22:43-44; Also see Mark 12:36, Acts 1:16, Acts 4:25

 

Confirmation: Old Testament

 

Through Miracles

i. The Law: Moses (Genesis – Deuteronomy)

1. Moses performed many signs before Pharaoh.  After 9th plague: “Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh; yet the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he did not let the sons of Israel go out of his land." Ex 11:10

2. The plagues in Egypt done by the hand of the Lord, The Holy Spirit

"And Moses said to the people, "Remember this day in which you went out from Egypt, from the house of slavery; for by a powerful hand the LORD brought you out from this place. And nothing leavened shall be eaten". -Ex 13:3; also see 9:2-3  (Verses that show H.S. is the "Hand of the Lord" 1 Chron 28:19, 30:12; Acts 13:9-11, 11:21; Ezek. 3:14-15; 37:1)

3. Performed many miracles in the Wilderness through the Spirit (Heb 3:8-9)

 

ii. The Prophets Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, The Twelve, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel

1. Elijah

  • Raised the dead
  • Parted the Jordan
  • Called fire from Heaven
  • Causing the rain the cease for 3 1/2 years
  • Was caught up to heaven in a whirlwind

2. Elisha

  • Parting of the Jordan
  • Miracle of the vessels of oil
  • Miracle of the bread
  • Healing of Naaman
  • Floating of the axe head
  • Resurrection of the man touched by his bones

Confirmation: Through Fulfilled Prophecy

Deuteronomy 18:20-22

"But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ 21 "You may say in your heart, ‘How will we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?’ 22 "When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him."

When the prophets that were inspired said something that was going to happen, IT HAPPENED! This was validation/confirmation that their message was from God.

  1. Moses’ prophecy of the Messiah/Prophet to come
  2. Daniel’s prophecy of the four kingdoms
  3. Isaiah’s prophecies of the Suffering Servant and His miraculous works
  4. David’s prophecy of the resurrection of the Messiah
  5. Joel’s prophecy of the Outpouring of the Holy Spirit
  6. Etc…  (Click here to see 48 prophecies fulfilled by Jesus in the NT)

Catholic Doctrines and Practices Not From Jesus or His Apostles

This article comes from a discussion I have been having with a well-studied Roman Catholic. He asked me to provide examples of Catholic Church doctrines and practices that were not given by Jesus and His Apostles. There are so many to mention. I will be adding to this article  Below is a list that I will add to as I study more of the Catholic catechism and catholic church councils. I will also be working on articles on these subjects and will add in links. This list is meant to show that what we know as the catholic Church does not look like the church in the Bible as described by Jesus and His Apostles. They have many unbiblical and extra-biblical teachings and traditions that they bind on people that the scriptures do not.

  1. The Organization of the Church (New Testament pattern- the position of elder/bishop/pastor/presbyter (all same position in NT), deacons, evangelists, teachers) There is not an organization beyond this and the New Testament churches were autonomous. They were self governed and followed the writings of the Apostles. There is not a laity-clergy distinction in the Bible as we see today.
  2. The Position of Pope – The position of pope is not mentioned in the New Testament.
  3. Infallibility of Pope (Vatican council) Peter himself didn’t make any such claims.
  4. Priests – This was a later invention of the Catholic church that reinstates the O.T. system of worship. All Christians are priests in the New Testament with Christ as their High Priest.
  5. Priests can forgive sins – There is no evidence this power went beyond the Apostles.
  6. Not allowing marriage within leadership – This is contrary to scripture in 1 Timothy 4:3.
  7. Calling spiritual leaders “father” – This was not a religious title given to men.
  8. Prayer to Mary and other “saints.” – Prayer to someone who is not on this earth presupposes they are 1.) able to hear all people in any given language at all times, 2.) hear unspoken prayers. This practice deifies these people as being omniscient and omnipresent. We are told that we can approach the throne of GOd on our own to ask for mercy and forgiveness in the New Testament.
  9. Veneration (or worship) of Mary -
  10. Immaculate conception of Mary – This is nowhere found in scripture
  11. Perpetual virginity of Mary – Many scriptures must be twisted to believe this
  12. Practice of infant baptism – the candidate for baptism is someone that is a penitent believer. Peter commanded the people on the day of Pentecost to repent and be baptized (Acts 2:38). Jesus says that the one who believes and is baptized will be saved (Mark 16:16). The Corinthians heard the message, believed, and were baptized (Acts 18:8). Peter says that baptism is the “answer of” or an “appeal for” a good conscience to God (1 Peter 3:21) where the conscience is sprinkled clean and the body is washed with pure water (Heb 10:22). Those who are baptized need to understand that they need to walk in newness of life (Rom 6:4). Jesus said they were to go and make disciples by baptizing (Mt 28:19) and by teaching them to observe all that was commanded by Christ. How can a baby do these things? A baby that gets baptized is doing nothing but getting wet. Baptism comes after belief and repentance in every example we see in Christian baptism and the baptism of John, which was a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
  13. Special dress for clergy -
  14. Observance of Holy days (Christmas, Easter, etc) as religious holidays – The Apostles gave the first day of the week as the time in which Christians are to come together for worship and the Lord’s Supper. He nowhere in the New Testament tells Christians of any other days to observe. These are manmade inventions.
  15. Observance of lent – Although the Catholic Church no longer commands the observance of lent, my understanding is that they did in the past. Paul condemns commanding it as a religious observance: “But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth .(1 Tim 4:1-3)
  16. The doctrine of Purgatory – This was not created by the Apostles, but was later created and then read back into scripture.
  17. Instrumental Music in Worship – This was not practiced in the earliest centuries of the church nor by the Apostles. It is a manmade invention that God did not give His approval of under the New Covenant.
  18. Canonization of saints -  All Christians are called saints in the N.T. There is not a special class of saints, especially a group that can be prayed to.
  19. Burning of Incense in New Testament worship – This is from the Old Testament system of worship. There is not authority in the New Testament to use it in New Testament worship.
  20. Using  an alter – This concept is not in the New Testament in reference to Christian worship assemblies.
  21. Transubstantiation -  If the wine in the Lord’s Supper miraculously turns into the literal blood of Jesus, this would mean that Jesus commanded Christians to drink blood, something that was condemned in the Old Testament and commanded not to do by the Apostles (Acts 15:29).
  22. Mass as a “re-sacrificing of Christ – Christ’s sacrifice was a one time sacrifice. The practice of re-sacrificing Christ at the mass denies the sufficiency of the cross (Heb 7:27; 9:12; 10:10; 1 Peter 3:18)
  23. Ten Commandments must be observed to be saved (CCC 2068). Those who command observance of the law as a requirement of salvation bring themselves under bondage to keep the whole law (Gal 5:1-4)
  24. Veneration/ bowing before statues -Statues for veneration should not be made nor bowed before. This is idolatry according to Ex 20:4-5.
  25. Adoration and Elevation of Host: ie. communion bread
  26. Sale of Indulgences or “tickets to sin” – This is in direct opposition to many scriptures that show that the Christian will not sin that grace may abound (Rom 6:1).
  27. Ringing bells at Mass -
  28. Man-made tradition of church made equal to Bible (Council of Trent) – Jesus lifted scripture over all manmade traditions. The Jews believed their beloved traditions came from the time of Moses. They even made them equal and/or greater to scripture as the Catholic Church does today with what they claim is from the time of the Apostles.
  29. Apocryphal books added to Bible (Council of Trent) These are Jewish writings that the Jews never accepted as inspired writings.

More to come!

“Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.” (2 John 1:9)

Does Mark 16:9-20 Belong?

There are so many attacks against the New Testament offered by unbelievers, including atheists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims, etc. that believe the New Testament has been corrupted. They say that men have corrupted the text and have mistranslated the Bible since the Apostles wrote it. One such example that many may bring up is Mark 16:9-20. Some say it does not belong in the Bible. Some say it does. Below are some of my opinions based on what I have read and learned about this issue.

Many people claim that this passage in Mark is not authentic. There seems to be three main reasons why they believe this to be the case:

  1. Mark 16:9-20 is not included in two of the oldest manuscripts that we currently have today, the Sinaiticus and Vati­can­us manuscripts.
  2. The vocabulary and style of the verses are deemed non-Markan, and
  3. The connection between verse 8 and verses 9-20 seems awkward and gives the surface appearance of having been added by someone other than Mark.

Not Included in Two Oldest Manuscripts

    There are a few problems that I have with this position:
  • It is in the Alexandrian manuscript, which is about the same age as the other two. It is only 40 years older. What makes the other two more reliable than this one? It is an arbitrary decision to say that the oldest manuscripts are the more reliable manuscripts. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus should carry no more weight over Alexandrinus.
  • The vast majority of manuscripts do include Mark 16:9-20
  • This passage is referred to by Irenaeus (in Against Heresies), an early church father, in the second century. It is also mentioned by a disciple of Justin Martyr around 170AD, and by Tertullian in the early 3rd century.
  • One of the manuscripts that leaves Mark 16:9-20 out (Vati­can­us) also leaves out the book of Revelation, but no one questions the book of Revelation as being canonical.
  • Nothing within it contradicts other scripture, and most of what it teaches is taught elsewhere in scripture. (one exception is the drinking of deadly poison)

Connection Between Verses 8 & 9 is “Odd”

    I believe this point is easily dismissed as arbitrary and subjective opinion. Some may agree that the connection between verses eight and nine is awkward, some may disagree. Both opinions are equally valid and do not give evidence for its being excluded or included.

    Different Vocabulary

    This point also seems invalid to me. I am sure you could find many books in a bookstore that may contain different words in the last chapter compared to the other chapters that are written by the same person. This really proves nothing.Also, if you provided the same test on verses one through eight with the rest compared to the rest of Mark, you find the same problem. Should we reject verses one through eight also? This is not solid evidence to reject verses that are included in the vast majority of manuscripts.

      The strongest three evidences against Mark being included can easily be dismissed. By far the strongest evidence, (different vocabulary) could be used to dismiss sections of the book which are clearly written by Mark. Based on this fact, along with the vast amount of manuscript evidence, the question I ask is: Is there a bias that many scholars hold that leads them to reject Mark 16:9-20? Do they have a bias because they believe the oldest manuscripts are the best? Do they have a bias against something taught in the passage?

    Evolution: Science or Faith?

    Genesis 1 to the Evolutionist:

    In the beginning there was nothing. And nothing said to itself, “Let us become something, explode, and become an ordered universe that is governed by laws of science, physics, and mathematics. Let us become a universe that is able to sustain life. And it happened. All of the universe was created. Nothing became something, exploded, and became everything. And this all took billions of years…

    Then the earth said, “let us make life from the primordial soup.” And it was so; many chemical reactions happened over time. These chemical reactions became more and more complex, and became a living cell that could reproduce and grow. From this single cell came all of the different animals; the birds of the air, the fish in the sea, and the animals on the ground. All of this happened through chance, random processes and mutations. And this all took billions of years…

    imageAnd there was a special group of animals, the primates. And they said, “Let us make man in our image,” and it was so. Over time, through chance mutations, the primate became a man. This man was special. He formed a much more complex brain than the primates before him. He could reason. He had a conscience that could tell right from wrong. He formed emotions, human dignity, and logic. And man was able to, through His intellect, find his purpose in life… Nothing. And this all took billions of years.

    Defining Evolution

    What do you think about when you hear the word evolution? The word has many meanings. It can simply mean “change; a process of formation or growth.” Here are a couple common definitions:

    “Evolution is the process by which a species changes or adapts to its environment through time… 7

    “the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations.”

    My textbook does not even call it the “theory” of evolution. It introduces it as a fact that has been happening since the origin of life. It refers to it has a principle. Many atheists believe it is a fact. A leading atheist, Richard Dawkins, made this statement about evolution:

    “One thing all real scientists agree upon is the fact of evolution itself. It is a fact that we are cousins of gorillas, kangaroos, starfish, and bacteria. Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun. It is not a theory, and for pity’s sake, let’s stop confusing the philosophically naive by calling it so. Evolution is a fact.”1

    Many scientists agree with Richard Dawkins (many disagree also) and go as far as saying that if you question evolution, you are questioning science. The debate usually turns to being in between science vs. faith, with most unbelievers saying that science is the winner by default. Then the next step is to call theists irrational and illogical because they believe we are contradicting known, observable science.

    So is “molecules to man” evolution a fact?

    The answer to this question is: YES and NO.

    This whole debate hinges on the definition of evolution you want to use and what you want to group under this umbrella of ‘evolution.’ What evolutionists do not like to do is make a distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. One is from God, and the other is not. They do not like to make this distinction because, if they do, it destroys the majority of the evidence for their beloved theory.

    Evolution is Scientific Fact: Micro-Evolution

    clip_image004Micro-Evolution is the observed reality of variation within a kind (Gen 1:21, 24). This might better be called variation, or adaptation. You and I have observed micro-evolution. For example, how many different types of dogs have you seen? You have the Great Dane and the Chihuahua. Both dogs, but clearly different. The differences in dogs can be explained by breeding over hundreds and thousands of generations. Micro-evolution has been observed. Examples are Darwin’s finches, fruit flies, peppered moths, and many others. This has been observed. No rational person can deny micro-evolution is true. Micro-evolution is from God. And the Bible allows for it. God created every animal after its kind. We should expect to see over thousands of years changes within the different kinds of animals, such as the dog example we just talked about.

    We see changes within a kind in scripture, even something simple as what we see in Genesis 30:37-43 where Jacob gets Laban’s flocks to mate so they would bear flocks that were striped, speckled, and spotted. As simple as this is, it is an example of differences within a kind. It is an example of micro-evolution. Micro-evolution is from God. It is a fact.

    Evolution is a Faith: Macro-Evolutionclip_image005

    Macro-evolution is a different story. Macro-evolution is the teaching that through small changes, organisms and animals can jump from one species to another, such as a primate becoming a human over long periods of time through natural selection and chance mutations. Scientists use micro-evolution to prove macro-evolution. There is a huge difference between adapting to your environment and becoming a whole different kind of animal. It is nothing more than speculation to say that many small changes within a species can lead to one animal becoming a completely different animal. To say it can happen is not science, but a statement of blind faith. Macro-evolution has never been observed in a laboratory.

    If it has not been observed in a laboratory, it doesn’t qualify as observable science. It does not qualify to be a theory, let alone a principle. To be classified as a hypothesis, it must be observable and testable.5 But the fact remains, an animal becoming an animal of a completely different species through adaptation or chance mutations has never been observed by a human eye. It can only be a statement of faith.

    Every example of macro-evolution that evolutionists have pointed me to has been an example of micro-evolution; whales becoming whales, plants becoming plants, etc.

    Scientific Problems with Evolution

    There are also scientific problems with evolution. I will mention two:

    1. For Darwinian Evolution to be true, life had to come from non-life on its own at some point billions of years ago. This has never been observed in a lab. No one has seen non-living matter become alive on its own. clip_image007When I made this point to an atheist in a debate on twitter, he was quick to send me an article that proved that scientists created synthetic life.6 I don’t know if this is true or not. Even if it is, it does not help the case of the evolutionist. It would only prove this point: Making life requires an intelligent mind. This in no way proves life can miraculously come into being on its own by chance.

    The probability that such a thing can happen is beyond the realm of possibility. Science has shown that life does not come from non-life on its own. It takes life to make life. My biology teacher made this point during class, “new cells MUST arise from pre-existing cells.” This is called Cell Theory. It has been observed. But when I asked the question about the origin of life, she contradicted herself by saying that this is one of the exceptions. She said that there are some good “theories” (in my opinion-unproven assertions and guesses) explaining how it could have happened, then she later that day emailed an article to our class that said this:

    “Living things (even ancient organisms like bacteria) are enormously complex. However, all this complexity did not leap fully-formed from the primordial soup. Instead life almost certainly originated in a series of small steps, each building upon the complexity that evolved previously…(emphasis mine)8

    This is nothing but an unfounded assertion that has no evidence to support it. The rest of the article doesn’t do much more than just make assertions (without evidence) about how life evolved into existence from primordial soup, of which there is no evidence that it ever existed. It is interesting that the above quote makes it sound like life evolved from non-life. This has not been the common position of most evolutionists I have talked to. They try as hard as they can to separate the origin of life from evolution, saying they have nothing to do with one another. This is not the case. They use language that shows they believe in what used to be titled “chemical evolution.” They just use different names for it so they don’t taint their beloved theory.

    As much as they do not want to admit it, if this really did happen; if life came out of non-life on its own, atheists and evolutionists believe in miracles also! Without this miraculous event, you cannot have evolution. You do not have anything that can evolve if you cannot account for how life got here in the first place. But this usually doesn’t phase the evolutionist because they trust that at some point in the future, a naturalistic answer will come to how life can come from non-life on its own. Yes, evolutionists have faith also!

    2. There is no known observable process by which an animal can become a different animal over time. This cannot be stressed enough. IT has always been observed by scientists that birds always evolve into birds. Apes always evolve into other apes.

    One evolutionist sent me articles that show a process called ‘speciation’ in which animals can over time become a different species and are no longer able to breed with other species. Whether this is true or not, this does not prove macro-evolution. In all of the examples that were sent to me, they became a different “species” alright, but they were still the same kind of animals. whales were still whales; plants were still plants, etc. How does this show macro-evolution is true; that one animal can become a different type of animal given enough time? It doesn’t.

    Chance mutations do not explain this leap from changes within a kind to changes into a completely different kind. There is no denying that mutations happen within species. They can be beneficial at times, and that they even at times are passed down to the next generation, but this does not prove macro-evolution to be true. The majority of mutations are not beneficial. They usually lead to disease, birth defects, and making an animal weaker.4 It has never been observed that an animal can become a completely different animal through chance mutations.

    If evolution were true, it would demand millions of chance mutations that are conveniently passed to future generations without ever reverting back to its original form. Evolutionists accept macro-evolution by faith. It is only speculation. No matter how many times they may say evolution is true does not prove it to be so. It is begging the question to say that micro-evolution is proof of macro-evolution. They are assuming that it is true without proving it to be so.

    Also, Interpreting macro-evolution into the fossil record does not prove that it can happen, and using similarities in DNA as evidence does not prove macro-evolution can happen. Both of these can easily be interpreted from a theistic perspective.


    Evolutionists accept macro-evolution by faith. It is only speculation. No matter how many times they may say evolution is true does not prove it to be so. It is begging the question to say that micro-evolution is proof of macro-evolution. They are assuming that it is true without proving through observation that it is true.

    Disagreement Between Worldviews

    I will argue that this debate is not between science and faith, but actually “the faith of believers vs. the faith of unbelievers.” This is in reality a philosophical debate between the Atheistic Worldview and the Theistic Worldview. Both sides look at the same evidence and come to two different, opposing interpretations of the evidence. Christians look at the evidence with the presupposition that the Bible is from God and that no known, observable science contradicts Biblical teaching. The Evolutionist, on the other hand, looks at the evidence based on their philosophical beliefs of naturalism along with other beliefs that I don’t have time to go into, such as empiricism and materialism.

    “Naturalism denies that there are any spiritual or supernatural realities. There are, that is, no purely mental substances and there are no supernatural realities transcendent to the world; or at least we have no sound grounds for believing that there are such realities or perhaps even for believing that there could be such realities. It is the view that anything that exists is ultimately made up of physical components.”2

    What this means is: Naturalists do not believe there is a spiritual realm; the material world is all there is. They believe we must have a naturalistic explanation to everything that happens in life. Here is the interesting thing about the philosophy of naturalism: it cannot be proven using the scientific method. Just try it. You cannot prove that the natural world is all there is. You cannot prove there is not a spiritual realm. It is a faith. You cannot prove naturalism by looking at the natural realm without begging the question. They consider it to be true by default. It is not scientific and cannot be proven to be true, but it is what scientists base their claims on.

    They dismiss God as a possibility before they even start. Even if God was the answer to questions regarding origin, scientists who are naturalists would not allow Him to be the answer. One atheist said this:

    “Materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”3

    Why would an atheist say such a thing? Well, let’s look at the rest of the quote to find out.

     “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.”

    Here is a summary of what this guy says: “Even if God is the answer, we are NOT going to allow it.

    I don’t know haw an atheist or a scientist that believes in naturalism can look at anyone with a straight face and say that they do not have a theological and philosophical bias that they use to examine evidence. No one is neutral when approaching the evidence, neither the Naturalistic Atheist nor the Supernatural Theist. Do not allow someone who claims to be a scientist, no matter how many letters they have after their names, persuade you of their philosophical beliefs about the world. Just because they say “evolution is a fact” does not mean that it really is. They in reality are giving you a faith statement based on their philosophical beliefs.

    Paul says in Colossians 2:8

    “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.”

    All that evolution is, in my opinion, is a way for sinful men to justify their rejection of God, which they have no excuse for.

    “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse” ( Romans 1:18-20).

    Unbelievers are always looking for ways in which they can suppress the truth so they can do what they want. They make up some of the most extraordinary theories, label them as true science, just so they can suppress the truth of God’s existence. They go through great effort to suppress the truth.

    Evolution has many other philosophical problems. You can check out the following articles to learn more about these things that an evolutionary, atheistic worldview cannot account for: (I give an overview of each article below)

    • The Laws of Logic: Proof for God: An evolutionary, naturalistic worldview cannot account for anything that is immaterial, universal, or unchanging. The laws of logic are one example. These are laws that we have discovered that never change and predate man.
    • Absolute Moral Laws: Proof for God: If evolution were true, there is no reason to believe in morality. It cannot be accounted for from a worldview in which we are nothing more than animals or matter in motion. If evolutionists were consistent, they would reject all notions of morality. If we are just glorified primates, it would be just as “moral” for a human to kill another human than it would be for an ape to kill another ape. It would be just as acceptable for us to go, kill, and eat other people as other animals do instead of loving our neighbor. Why does the evolutionist make a distinction? We are related to apes, and have no extra inherent value than any other primate if evolution were true. It is all about survival of the fittest. Might makes right.
    • Absolute Truth: Proof for God: If evolution were true, our thoughts would be the mere by-product of the chemical reactions in our brains, i.e. “brain fizz.” You do not get truth from chemical reactions. It would be like shaking up a bottle of Pepsi on one table and a bottle of Mountain Dew on another table, opening them up, and then deciding which chemical reaction is giving you true fizz and which one is giving you a false fizz. You cannot have truth or be certain of anything without God.
    • Science: Proof for God: Science presupposes that the universe is logical and orderly and that it obeys mathematical laws that are consistent over time and space,. These are immaterial laws that once again Naturalists and materialists cannot account for. Scientific study is based on the uniformity of the laws of nature and mathematics. Scientists make their predictions based on their presupposition that these laws do not arbitrarily change with time and space. How could scientists experiment and make predictions if these laws didn’t operate consistently? Uniformity of nature makes no sense in a random chance world of evolution. How can the evolutionist assume that the future will reflect the past in a mindless world begun with a big bang? They cannot without begging the question. Evolutionists do science based on faith in the uniformity of nature without any justification for their belief (blind faith). To do science, you must begin with God, who says that He is holding all things together and keeping the universe running until the day where He ends it all.
    • Evolution cannot account for reason and logic. If our minds are nothing more than products of chemical reactions, we cannot know that we are reasoning correctly or coming to conclusions that are sound and logical. Darwin spoke of this dilemma that evolution brings.
      • “…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?”9
      •  How can we trust our thoughts if our brains are the products of time, chance, and mere natural processes? We can’t.

    Hopefully you can see the truth that a worldview that is based on the faiths of naturalism and evolutionism have serious problems. These beliefs cannot answer the important questions of life. Evolutionists cannot account for the beginning of life, for reason, logic, and objective truth and morality. They cannot account for science and all of the laws of nature that they hold dear. They accept all of these things by blind faith. They are unable to give a justification for believing in these things because they are unwilling to believe in the one who really created them.

    Macro-evolution is just one way in which people suppress the truth about God’s existence. Also, macro-evolution may possibly be one of the many tools that God uses to send a strong delusion on those who do not have a love for the truth so they can be judged by Him for their rebellion and wickedness (2 Thes 2:10-12).

    Before I close, I would like to give a couple thoughts on those who claim to be Christians that want to accept macro-evolution. The Bible does not support it. You cannot reconcile evolution with the creation account in Genesis. Theistic Evolution is not a possibility. It is like saying you believe in theistic naturalism. It is like trying to mix oil and water. It is nothing more than a compromise of truth based on false faith-statements of atheistic scientists who are examining the evidence with theological and philosophical biases. Don’t allow yourself to be fooled by the vain and darkened thinking of the philosophy of atheists. You must submit your thinking to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. The treasures of wisdom and knowledge are found in Him (Col 2:2-3), and the beginning of knowledge is found in fearing the Lord (Proverbs 1:7).

    Sermon audio of this material


    • 1. Natural History article : The Illusion of Design, by Richard Dawkins
      2. Kai Nelson. “Natural Explanations of Theistic Belief”
      3. Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons.” The New York Review, p.31, Jan 1997
      4. from www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cfl/mutations
      5. Mader, Sylvia, and Michael Windelspecht. Human Biology, 12th ed. pg. 9
      6. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/scientists-create-first-self-replicating-synthetic-life/
      7. Mader, Sylvia, and Michael Windelspecht. Human Biology, 12th ed. pg. 6
      8. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2bDetailsoforigin.shtml

    • 9. From http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-13230

     

    A Form of Godliness

    Scripture says that some people have the appearance of godliness, but deny its power. (2 Tim 3:5).

    As you look out into the religious world today, there are so many people that go to church and claim to be the people of God, when in reality you can see clearly that they are not once you get to know them. They try to appear to the world to be religious when their hearts do not really belong to the Lord. They have not been regenerated. They have not been born again.

    Jesus says, “”Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God… unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:3,5). This is a serious statement that Christ makes that we must consider. There is no hope for anyone to get to heaven who is putting on a show; anyone that has not allowed their life to be impacted(and changed) by the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Romans 1:16).

    The reason I have titled this article “Catholicism: A Form of Godliness Without Power” is because this is one thing I have noticed amongst people that I know that are Catholics and amongst those who claim to be Catholic when I am out sharing the gospel. It seems like, without fail, every time I ask a Catholic whether or not they have been born again, they say no. Some of them may be going to mass every week (some even 5-7 times per week), but they have not allowed the Gospel to penetrate their hearts so that they may be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. Instead, they trust in a church that has no power in itself to save, no power to forgive sins, and who does not speak for Jesus Christ.

    Beyond this, we see in the Roman Catholic Church , an organization that puts so much focus on appearances. The pope, cardinals, bishops, and priests may wear the most elaborate clothing to set themselves apart from the laity. The Catholic Church builds amazing buildings that probably cost a ton of money, and build many statues of “saints” so that their people honor them and by bow before them. But with all of this work on appearances, these men lift themselves up beyond what is taught in scripture, give themselves authority which Christ didn’t give them, and have not been regenerated (born again) by the teaching of the gospel.

    One thing is for sure: I believe the gospel is powerful enough to save these men. It is able to convict them to become new creatures in Christ. The gospel can lead them to leave their sin and call Him Lord.

    Next time you share the gospel with a Catholic, try asking them this question: “Are you born again?” It will be a good way to show them where they stand before the Lord.

    Also, ask yourself the same question. Have you allowed the Gospel of Christ to transform you? Or do you look the same as you have your whole life? If you cannot point to a time in your life where Christ transformed your life; your thinking about sin, the world, and yourself; or has led you to trust only in His authority as your Lord, you probably have not been born again. This means, once again, that you will not enter the kingdom of God. Please examine yourself, to make sure you are in the faith that was once for all time delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

    Are We Born Sinners? An Examination of “Total Inherited Depravity”

    New Microsoft Office PowerPoint PresentationThis article is an examination of the popular doctrine of “total inherited depravity” or “original sin.” This has been a topic I have been studying for quite some time now, considering different texts that proponents of this doctrine use to show it is taught in scripture. After studying these things on my own, I have decided to write about the conclusions that I came to from scripture. If you disagree with any of the arguments that I make below, please send me your thoughts, comments, or questions so I can consider them and test the conclusions I came to.

    God Made Man Upright

    Eccl 7:27-29 – Behold, this is what I found, says the Preacher, while adding one thing to another to find the scheme of things— 28 which my soul has sought repeatedly, but I have not found. One man among a thousand I found, but a woman among all these I have not found. 29 See, this alone I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes.”

    Solomon is speaking of things that he has observed in his life under the sun. One of these things he has seen is: God has made man upright, but they have sought out sinful things. This text seems to be referring to each individual person, and not Adam specifically. Each person is made by God upright, but sin against Him and seek to do their own will.

    God Forms the Baby in the Womb

    Psalm 139:13-16 “For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. 14 I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well. 15 My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; 16 Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.”

    The baby in the womb is a work of God. He “wove” the child, and made the child. Does God make and form a sinful child in the womb or an innocent one? Instead of being fearfully and wonderfully made, was David sinfully and corruptly made?

    Be Like Little Children

    Matthew 18:3 "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

    Matthew 19:13-14 “Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. 14 But Jesus said, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

    According to those who hold the doctrine of original sin, children are all little sinners. They say, “just go to Chuck E. Cheese and sit there for awhile. You will see that children are rotten sinners!” This argument presupposes why they are ‘sinners.’ It’s begging the question. It assumes they are sinners because they were born this way. There is an equally valid possibility that children can be taught to sin through nurture, by lack of training and discipline, or by giving into temptation as you and I do. This also raises the question, “should we label a child a ‘sinner’ if they do not have a knowledge of good and evil and ignorant of the consequences of their choices?” There is reason to debate this.

    Again, Jesus does not say that children are rotten sinners. He says that we need to be like little children. Is He saying that we need to be sinners?

    Children are innocent/ Have No Knowledge of Sin

    Deuteronomy 1:39  “Moreover, your little ones who you said would become a prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it.”

    Isaiah 7:14-16 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel . 15 "He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. 16 "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.

    These two verses show that children are not sinners. They have no knowledge of sin. They are ignorant of good and evil. They are not making sinful choices in rebellion to God. The prophecy of Jesus Christ in Isaiah 7 (quoted above) shows that Jesus was just as the children of Israel. Neither had the ability to choose between good and evil. They do not qualify to be sinners.

    Sin is a choice to disobey God and His law.

    1 John 3:4 – “Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.”

    Sin is a breaking of the law of God. It is not meeting the standard, falling short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23)

    Did Jesus Have a Sinful Nature?

    Hebrews 2:14  -   “Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil”

    Jesus had a human nature just like us. Jesus shared in the flesh, "the same." The text does not say He was like us, except for the sinful nature.

    Hebrews 2:17 -  “ Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.”

    Jesus was made like his brethren in ALL THINGS!!!! If He wasn’t, He was not the perfect and faithful high priest that this verse is talking about. If we have a sinful nature from birth, Jesus had to also.

    Hebrews 4:15 -  “For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.”

    Our high priest can sympathize with us. Calvinists say that we are tempted by a sinful nature that we have had since birth. Jesus was tempted in every way we are. Was He tempted by a sinful nature as we are? If not, He wasn’t tempted in ALL ways as we are. This shows that men do not have a sinful nature from birth.

    If Jesus were fully god and fully man (just as we are), why doesn’t he have a sinful nature? The answer is: He doesn’t, because men don’t have one either from birth. There is a theory that the sinful nature is passed through the man, but there is no scriptural evidence at all.

    Sin Transferred to Descendants?

    Heb 7:9-10 “One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, 10 for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.”

    This verse is commonly used to prove that sin can be transferred to the next generation through the father because we are all still ‘in the loins” of our fathers as Levi was, and just as Levi paid tithes through Abraham, we sin through our fathers. Those who use this verse to say this miss the point of the entire verse. The verse does not even mention sin. It mentions a good thing being done and “passed” to a descendant. It actually teaches a contrary thing than proponents of the “sinful at birth” doctrine are trying to use it for. IF we use their logic in approaching this text, can we say that since our parents do good things in service to God, we have those things put onto our account? No. This is not what the text is teaching. The point of the text is not to teach how the acts of our ancestors are put onto our accounts. The Bible does not teach such a thing. It actually contradicts it (Ezekiel 18).

    Sinful at Birth?

    Psalm 58:3 "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies."

    The word for estranged means to turn aside, which means they perform an action. The verse is not saying a person is sinful before leaving the womb. Do people speak from the womb? NO. This verse is meant to be hyperbole.

    Psalm 51:5 "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me."

    Some modern translations say “I was a sinner at birth,” making the focus of the verse David. But all literal translations say that the mother was the sinner. It may also be saying that the sexual act that his mother conceived him with was sinful. Either way, David in this psalm is using hyperbole to show how sinful he is because of his sins with Bathsheba and Uriah. To say these two verses are teaching original sin misses two things, 1) the poetic nature of what is being said (hyperbole), and 2) the Jews never interpreted these verses to teach original sin.

    By Nature Children of Wrath

    Ephesians 2:1-3 “ And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind , and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest”

    Those who believe in the sinful nature take the last part of verse three to prove their belief, but completely disregard the first 2 ½ verses that show WHY we are children of wrath. It is because of our practices. We walked in trespasses and sins (vv1-2), and we lived in the lusts of the flesh and indulged in our desires (v3). Remember, we must allow the context define what Paul is talking about as the “sinful nature.” Within the many definitions of the Greek word for “nature” is the definition that something becomes ‘natural’ through practice:

    nature – “a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature”: ημεν φυσει τεκνα οργης, by (our depraved) nature we were exposed to the wrath of God, Ephesians 2:3 (this meaning is evident from the preceding context, and stands in contrast with the change of heart and life wrought through Christ by the blessing of divine grace”—Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon

    Thayer defines the word in this text as something we do by practice that becomes habit, and he shows from the context why this is the definition of the word out of the possible choices. This is one of the 4 definitions he gives for this Greek word. The context is used to define it correctly.

    Romans 2:14  -  “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.”

    Gentiles can “by nature” do the law. This verse contradicts the doctrine of original sin that says that man is incapable of doing non-sinful things. This verse says they can by nature follow the law even though they do not have it.

    Slaves of Sin

    Romans 6:12-20 “ Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, 13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace. 15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! 16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification. For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.”

    Nowhere in the text is it mentioned that we are born slaves of sin. Verses 12 -20 shows that sin becomes our master if we let it reign in our bodies. We choose to present ourselves to sin and to be its slave. Once again, remember the context of the verse to define what a verse means.

    John  8:31-36 “So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." 33 They answered Him, "We are Abraham’s descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, ‘You will become free’?" 34 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. 35 "The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. 36 "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.”

    He that sins is a slave to sin. Jesus doesn’t say those who are born are slaves to sin, but that we become a slave of sin by practicing sin.

    Did Cain Have the Ability to Master Sin?

    Gen 4:7 "If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it."

    Cain is told by God that he had the ability to master sin. He was not a slave to it after the fall. Temptation was there. Sin was at the door. But Cain could choose not to do it AND be the master over it. Only when you practice sin do you become its slave (Rom 6:12-20- discussed above).

    Wicked Hearts

    Jeremiah 17:9-10  "The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it? 10 "I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds.”

    This verse teaches what it says. Everyone agrees that the heart of man is sinful and sick. We disagree as to why. Some believe it is because they were born that way, which I disagree with. Some believe they are sinful and sick because they with knowledge practice sin (disobey the law of God).

    Mark 7:21-23 “"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23 "All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man."

    Is Jesus saying here that the heart is sinful and evil from birth? No. He says out of the heart of “men” come evil things. This verse does not even deal with the question of why the hearts of men are like this. We can only assume this based on what we already believe.

    Sinful from our Youth

    Jeremiah 3:25 “Let us lie down in our shame, and let our dishonor cover us. For we have sinned against the Lord our God, we and our fathers, from our youth even to this day, and we have not obeyed the voice of the Lord our God.”

    Gen 8:21 The LORD smelled the soothing aroma; and the LORD said to Himself, "I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.

    The Jeremiah passage is giving a time reference (from youth till today). It does not say “from birth.” There is a Hebrew word that means ‘from the womb’ or ‘from birth’. The author doesn’t use it. There is also a word for baby that is not used in the text.

    Genesis 46:34 uses the same phrase. “Your servants have been keepers of livestock from our youth even until now, both we and our fathers.” Does this mean that the sons of Jacob were shepherds from birth? It is inconsistent to say no and then to say that the above verses are referring to a condition from birth.

    None Who Do Good?

    "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; 11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; 12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE." 13 "THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING," "THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS"; 14 "WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS"; 15 "THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD, 16 DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS, 17 AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN." 18 "THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES." (Romans 3:10-18)

    Who are the “all” who have turned aside” and the “none” who are righteous and not seeking God that this verse is talking about? This very text answers who it is talking about. It says that these people “HAVE TURNED ASIDE.” This is an action that someone does. An infant, who does not have the ability to break the law of God, is unable to “turn aside.” They have become useless, which means there was a time in which they were not useless. After turning aside, they became useless. The context of this passage is teaching that all men are under sin because “their throats are open graves,” they “use their tongues to deceive,” their “mouths are full of cursing and bitterness,” their “feet are swift to shed blood,” etc. These are all actions that men are guilty of, showing that they are under sin. Are infants guilty of any of these sins mentioned in the context of the verses 10-12 that say that all have turned aside and have become useless?

    All shut up under disobedience?

    ”Just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. 32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.” (Romans 11:30-32)

    This text is saying that God is showing mercy on those who were disobedient. These people sinned. The verse does not say they were born this way. Verse 32 is just finishing the thought of verses 30-31 that clearly show that they all sinned. The same is the case with the following Galatians passage:

    “But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.” (Gal 3:22-24)

    This text is saying that God is showing mercy on those who were disobedient. These people sinned. The verse does not say they were born this way. Verse 32 is just finishing the thought of verses 30-31 that clearly show that they all sinned. The same is the case with the Galatians passage. The context of the Galatians passage you quoted are showing that the Law gives men the knowledge of their sinfulness so they can be led to the Savior.

    No man living is righteous

    “Hear my prayer, O LORD, Give ear to my supplications! Answer me in Your faithfulness, in Your righteousness! 2 And do not enter into judgment with Your servant, For in Your sight no man living is righteous. 3 For the enemy has persecuted my soul; He has crushed my life to the ground; He has made me dwell in dark places, like those who have long been dead.” (Psalms 143:1-3)

    I agree that no MAN that is living is righteous without the mercy of God. What does the condition of men have to do with infants again? David in the context is talking about his sins and the sins of his enemies that are persecuting him. He is not talking about infants. We must be careful to not read into the text things that are not being spoken of in it.

    We are liars if we say we have no sin

    “If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; 7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.” (1 John 1:6-10)

    Who is the apostle John talking to in the context? Christians! If we as Christians say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves. We as Christians are not immune from sin. After we become Christians, we still need to approach the throne of mercy and grace to ask for forgiveness of our sins. That is what this verse is teaching. It is not saying anything about the spiritual condition of infants.

    Romans 7: Paul’s Conflict Under Law

    For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. 16 But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. 17 So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19 For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.” (Romans 7:14-25).

    Paul begins this chapter by showing that Christians are no longer under the jurisdiction of the Law because of our dying with Christ. We have died to the law so we can bear good fruit for God (v4). In the following verses, Paul shows how the law puts one into bondage, and how it is only through Jesus we can be freed from the bondage that the Law puts us under (v25). We, left to ourselves, will never be able to obey the law perfectly. To point to it as where we will gain righteousness only brings condemnation to ourselves. This seems to be the point of the text.

    With this said, Paul is talking about a man who is under the law. Because he knew the law that says, “do not covet,” he had produced within him all kinds of coveting. This is what trying to practice the law leads to. The one question I have is this, where are infants mentioned in this passage. Paul says that “nothing good” dwells in him” as a man under the law, but he nowhere in this text mentions that babies are in the same boat. This is assumed into the text by proponents of the original sin doctrine, just as in many of the other verses that this article examines in context.

    Romans 5 Commentary

    This text is a central text in the debate over the doctrine of original sin/total inherited depravity.

    12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned

    This verse does not say that sin was imputed by death. Because of Adam’s sin, everyone will die. There is debate if this is talking about physical or spiritual death. I presently believe it is talking about spiritual death.

    Death spreads to all men not because they were born as sinners, but because all men sinned!

    13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.

    Sin was in the world before the law of Moses was given. All men have the law written in their hearts (Rom 2:14-15) and disobey God who puts it there.

    14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

    We sinned (v12), but not the exact sin as Adam. (remember also, sin and death reign over us because we practice sin. This is what makes us slaves – Rom 6:12-20)

    15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.

    Throughout this text, I will keep a consistent interpretation. The text is contrasting the results of Adam’s one single act impacted everyone who sins. The single act of Christ on the cross has a impact on all those who believe the gospel.

    16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.

    Both of these acts had far reaching consequences. The consequence of Adam’s sin was that condemnation/death spread to all men (because all sinned – v12). The consequence of Jesus’ sacrifice brought justification to men who sinned.

    17 If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

    Once again, death reigned because of Adam’s sin and our following in his steps by sinning (v12). Christ’s sacrifice brings the gift of eternal life to those who believe (Rom 1:16).

    18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

    One sin led to the condemnation of all men who sinned (v12). Jesus’ one act of righteousness led all who believe to be justified and to have life.

    19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.

    Adam’s one sin led all to be made sinners. Once sin entered the world, there was no keeping every man from sin (all sinned v12, Rom 3:23). Jesus’ obedience leads those who believe to be made righteous.

    20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,

    The law cam to show men the depth of their sin against God, but also to show the depth of the grace God is willing to give those who believe.

    21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

    Sin ‘reigned’ by bringing death to all who sinned (v12). Grace reigns and brings righteousness through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ.

    As you see, Romans 5:12-21 does not teach that the sin of Adam was imputed to us. We need to interpret it based on what has already been said within the book of Romans; that all men sin and are guilty before God (chs. 2-3), and can saved and justified by faith in the blood of Christ. This specific text opens up the same way in verse 12 when it says that death spread to all men because all sinned. This makes the most sense of the passage to me.

    1 Corinthians 15:21-23

    “But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.”

    I disagree with how many people interpret this verse in trying to use it to refer to a spiritual death that comes to all men because of Adam’s sin. This, to me, completely disregards the context of the passage. The whole context is referring to the physical resurrection of Christ. It shows that because we know that Christ was raised from His tomb, we will be also when He returns. This text is not talking about the spiritual death that Adam’s sin brought into the world, but physical death. The text is teaching about the physical resurrection of Christ and believers and the physical death that was brought about by Adam’s sin and men losing access to the tree of life.

    Early Christian Teachings on the Nature of Man1

    I will just quote the early church fathers (Pre-Nicene Fathers) without any commentary so you can see for yourself what they believed about the nature of man. You may be surprised that it was not until the time of Augustine in the AD400s  that being born sinners was taught as universal doctrine in the church. The opposite was taught until then.

    “Therefore, the prophets used to exhort men to do what was good, to act justly and to work righteousness…because it is in our power to do so.” Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.519

    “God has created us naturally social and just.” Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.307.

    “Let them not then say that he who does wrong and sins, transgresses because of demons. For then he would be guiltless. Instead, a person becomes a demoniac man by choosing the same things as do the demons: by sinning and being unstable, frivolous, and fickle in his desires – just like a demon. Now he who is bad (having become sinful by nature, because of evil) becomes depraved. He has what he has chosen. And, being sinful, he sins also in his actions. Likewise, the good man does right.” Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.502.

    “Entire freedom of will, therefore, was conferred upon man in both tendencies. So that, as master of himself, he might constantly encounter good by the observance of it, and evil by its spontaneous observance of it…But the recompense for good and could not be given to the man who is found to have been either good or evil through necessity, and not choice.” Tertullian (c. 207, W), 3.315.

    “Is not [the doctrine of the Gnostics] from the beginning and everywhere an invective against the flesh? Their doctrine is against its origin, its substance, its casualties, ant the invariable end that awaits it. According to them, it is unclean from its first formation of the dregs of the ground. It is even more unclean afterwards from the mire of its own seminal transmission. According to them, it is worthless, weak, covered with guilt, laden with misery, full of trouble.” Tertullian (c. 210, W),3.548.

    “It is evident from all this that no one is pure either by essence or by nature. And no one is polluted by nature. The consequence of this is that it lies within ourselves and in our actions to either possess happiness and holiness, or by sloth and negligence to fall from happiness into wickedness and ruin…” Origen (c. 225, E),4.260.

    “There is no rational creature that is not capable of good and evil. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.265.

    “A man may possess an acquired righteousness, from which it is possible for him to fall away.” Origen (c. 225, E), 4.265).

    “Certain men who hold different opinions [i.e., heretics] misuse these passages. They destroy free will by introducing ruined natures incapable of salvation and by introducing others as being saved in such a way that they cannot be lost. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.308.

    “Let us use the following illustration from the gospel. There is a certain rock with only a little surface soil. If seeds fall upon it, they quickly spring up. But not having root, when they spring up, they are burned and withered when the sun rises. Now, this rock is  human soil, hardened on the account of its neglect. It has become a stone because of its wickedness. For no one receives from God a heart created of stone. Rather, it becomes such a heart because of wickedness. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.314.

    “We, however, who know of only one nature in every rational soul, maintain that no one has been created evil by the Author of all things. Rather, many have become wicked through education, perverse example, and surrounding influences.” Origen (c. 248, E), 4.491.

    “Nobody can be born vicious. Instead, if we make a bad use of the affections, they become vices. If we use them well, they become virtues. Lactanius (c. 304-313, W), 7.181.

    “The Son clothed Himself with flesh so that – the desires of the flesh being subdued – He might teach us that to sin was not the result of necessity, but of man’s purpose and will.” Lactanius (c. 304-313, W), 7.127.


    What do you think? I am sure there will be many people that disagree with the conclusions that I have come to from my study of scripture. I look forward to hearing any thoughts you may have. All I have attempted to do in this study is show what I have gotten from the scriptures in my own studies. I did not reference any commentaries from either side of the issue as I wrote this article. I just looked at each verse in its context and interpreted it. If you disagree, I would love to hear from you so I can test these conclusions that I came to.

     

    1. all early Christian quotes from A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David W. Bercot, Editor

    The God of the Suffering

    Here is a sermon I preached this past Sunday on why God allows Christians to suffer.

    The God of the Suffering      MP3      PowerPoint

    I also preached a lesson a few weeks ago that is part one to this lesson on answering the skeptics about the “problem of evil.” You can listen to it or see the PowerPoint on my sermons page or click  here.

    Is Islam From God? Tract

    This tract shows how Muslims contradict what their own scriptures say when they claim that the Bible has been corrupted in its teachings about Christ.

     

    Is Islam From God? (Click on card)

    Is Islam From God

    Back of Card:

    Muslims believe that the Christian Bible is the word of God. They also believe it has been corrupted over time, introducing many false things about Jesus. This Muslim belief contradicts what the Qur’an teaches about the Bible; that the Bible is from Allah (Surah 2:87; 2:136; 4:163; 3:3; 5:46), and that His word cannot be corrupted or changed by any man (6:34; 6:115; 10:64). Why do Muslims disagree with these passages in the Qur’an? Because the Qur’an contradicts many Bible passages about who God is, and it teaches a different Gospel than the Bible does. The Bible says Jesus is God (John 1:1), and that He is the only way to eternal life (John 14:6). This excludes any other religion, including Islam. The Qur’an disproves itself by contradicting the Bible, which it claims is from God. This also disproves the religion that comes from it. You are dead spiritually and are deserving of God’s wrath because of your sin against Him. But this is not what God desires for you. God sent His Son (Jesus) to this earth to be a sacrifice for your sins. He died for you and was raised from His tomb by God so you can have the hope of eternal life. If you believe this message (the Gospel), and submit to Jesus Christ as Lord and God, He will raise you out of the hopeless state of death you are in, wash away your sins, and give you new life (Ephesians 2:1-10; Colossians 2:11-14).

     

    Atheism vs Theism Tract

    Is the Theory of Evolution science or fact? Does someone who believes it have answers to the most important questions of life? This tract gives the answer.

     

    Atheism vs Theism (Click picture for FREE files)

    Atheism vs Theism

    Back of Card:

    Are we really the product of blind, random chance over millions of years, or was an Intelligent Creator behind it all? If you are an atheist and believe in macro-evolution, ask yourself these questions: How did life come from non-living matter? Why is there uniformity in nature? Where do universal, unchanging, immaterial laws of science, mathematics, logic, and morality come from? All of these important questions in life do not have answers from an evolutionary, atheistic worldview. Only from a Biblical worldview can these questions be answered. These laws come from the God who is immaterial (John 4:24) and unchanging (Malachi 3:6); the God who will be your Judge. Have you ever lied? Looked with lust? Hated someone? Stolen? If you have done these things, then you are a lying thief, an adulterer (Matt. 5:28), a murderer (1 John 3:15). Because of your crimes, you are deserving of God’s wrath. But this is not what God desires for you. God sent His Son (Jesus) to this earth to be a sacrifice for your sins. He died for you and was raised from His tomb by God so you can have the hope of eternal life. If you repent and submit to Jesus Christ as Lord, God will give you the gift of eternal life, and will forgive your sins.