Why Seven Days? by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=933

Why Seven Days?

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Have you ever wondered why, all over the world, in civilization after civilization, we find people scheduling their lives based on a seven-day week? The origins of other units of time are easy to understand. For instance, a year is the amount of time it takes for the Earth to orbit the Sun. A day is the amount of time it takes for the Earth to make a complete rotation on its axis. A month is the approximate time between new moons. And seasons are determined based on an equinox or solstice. But no celestial, lunar, or planetary movement or system accounts for our seven-day week.

A brief look back into history shows that the seven-day week has prevailed as the paramount routine for humanity in general as far back as historical records can go. Although some societies and cultures did use weeks other than the seven-day week, it still has stubbornly maintained its preeminence. Today, the seven-day week is universally accepted, even though the French attempted a ten-day week during the French Revolution in 1791, and the Soviet Union, as late as the early 1900s, attempted a five-day week—to no avail.

Where did the seven-day week originate? The most plausible explanation comes from the book of Genesis. The first chapter of Genesis explains that God created the entire Universe is six, literal twenty-four hour days. The beginning of chapter two states, “And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done” (2:2).

Exodus 20:8-11 gives an explanation as to why God framed His creative activity according to a seven-day week. This passage teaches us that God worked six days and rested the seventh day in order to provide a pattern for the Jewish workweek. Because God worked six days and rested on the seventh day, the Jews were instructed to do the same.

In truth, an all-powerful God could have created the Universe in seven seconds, seven years, seven decades, or seven million years. God’s week of seven days, however, was given purposefully to man as a pattern to follow. This pattern has prevailed for several thousand years. The Sun, Moon, and stars were given “for signs and seasons, and for days and years” (Genesis 1:14), but not for the week. The week was instituted specifically by God, based on His creative activity. The seven-day week is yet another testimony to the truthfulness and accuracy of the Genesis account of Creation.

Wrong Must Be Explained by Brad Bromling, D.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=387

Wrong Must Be Explained

by	Brad Bromling, D.Min.

Lyle and Erik Menendez brutally killed their mother and father. The evidence is plain; no one denies it. So, why is it so hard to find them guilty? Their defense attorneys argued persuasively that the brothers endured a nightmarish childhood of sexual and physical abuse, and that they were thus acting out of a kind of insanity that excuses them from first-degree murder charges. The arguments on both sides reduce to the same basic premise: wrong was committed.

The prosecution accused the brothers of murder and appealed to the public’s sense that murder is evil. Likewise the brothers, in claiming they had been mistreated, appealed to a society that abhors child abuse. This was not a matter of arbitrary human laws being violated, it went much deeper. It was a matter of “right and wrong”—a concept that is universal and unique to humanity.

No matter where people are found, they recognize that some things are wrong. Although human groups differ on what they prohibit, they all censor something. C.S. Lewis articulated this point well:

Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to—whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked (1952, p. 5).

This also is personal. When I look inside myself, I find this moral sense that I did not invent. I can find no explanation for it in the world—it must derive from beyond that realm. If there is nothing but matter in the Universe, and matter is the only eternal reality—then how do you explain this moral sense in humanity? Did it arise from rocks, trees, or animals? No, this moral sense is one of the clearest and most personal reminders that there is a God.

REFERENCE

Lewis, C.S. (1952), Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan).

Will Those Who Have Never Heard the Gospel Be Lost? by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. Jim Estabrook

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=423

Will Those Who Have Never Heard the Gospel Be Lost?

by	Bert Thompson, Ph.D. Jim Estabrook

We live on a planet populated by approximately six billion people. Six billion! And most of those, it probably would be safe to say, never have been afforded the opportunity of hearing the gospel message about the salvation that comes through Jesus Christ. Therefore, obviously, they cannot respond in obedience to that saving message—even though they might be willing to do so if presented with the prospect. What will happen to these people? Will they be lost eternally? Or will God make some kind of “special allowance” so that they can be saved and thereby enjoy eternity in heaven with Him and His Son?

As we examine these kinds of questions, it is vitally important that we remember two points. First, “the Judge of all the Earth” will “do right” (Genesis 18:25). God is every bit as infinite in His mercy and His grace (Hosea 6:6; Matthew 9:13) as He is in His justice and His severity (Hebrews 10:31). Second, since it is the Word of God that instructs us regarding man’s eternal destiny, and since all men eventually will be judged by that Word (John 12:48), it is to God’s Word that we must go to find answers to inquiries concerning mankind’s ultimate destiny. Fortunately, in His wisdom, God has not left us to our own devices concerning matters that relate to our salvation. As Jeremiah wisely observed: “It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (10:23).

WILL A “LOVING GOD” CONDEMN PEOPLE
WHO HAVE NEVER HEARD THE GOSPEL?

There are those who suggest that surely God would not banish from His presence for eternity those who never had an opportunity to hear and obey the gospel message in the first place. Consider the following examples. In his 1909 volume, Systematic Theology, A.H. Strong wrote:

Since Christ is the Word of God and the Truth of God, he may be received even by those who have not heard of his manifestation in the flesh.... We have, therefore, the hope thateven among the heathen there may be some...who under the guidance of the Holy Spirit working through the truth of nature and conscience, have found the way to life and salvation (p. 843, emp. added).

Approximately fifty years later, popular evangelical theologian Karl Barth defended such a concept via what he called his “biblical universalism.” He wrote: “We have no theological right to set any sort of limits to the lovingkindness of God” (as quoted in Dyrness, 1983, p. 105). In commenting on Barth’s viewpoint, apologist Cornelius Van Til wrote:

For Barth, man, as sinner, is, to be sure, under the wrath of God, but this wrath is, itself, a form of the all-overreaching grace of God. There is no eternal punishment for those who are in Christ [because] there are no men who are not in Christ (1965, p. 38, emp. added).

Another modern-day evangelical, Neil Punt, invoked Barthian ideas in his book, Unconditional Good News, wherein he rejected the idea that sinners actually must believe and obey the gospel in order to be saved because “It is an error to think that there is anything that must be done to inherit eternal life” (1980, p. 135, emp. added). In What the Bible Says about Salvation, Virgil Warren wrote:

Even some two thousand years after the Great Commission, more people in the world have not heard the gospel than have heard it. The secret things do belong to God, but Christians and non-Christians alike cannot help wondering about the justice as well as the compassion of a God who assigns to eternal torment people who, for reasons beyond their control, never heard about fellowship with him through Jesus Christ.... Our opinion is that scripture does not automatically assign the unevangelized to endless hell (1982, pp. 104-105, first emp. in orig., last emp. added).

In their book, Answers to Tough Questions, Josh McDowell and Don Stewart stated:

Although the Scriptures never explicitly teach that someone who has never heard of Jesus can be saved, we do not believe that it infers [sic] this. We do believe that every person will have an opportunity to repent, and that God will not exclude anyone because he happened to be born at the wrong place and at the wrong time (1993, p. 137).

Statements such as these certainly could cause some to conclude that God simply will not judge the lost, but instead will deem them worthy of eternal salvation merely (or solely!) because they never had an opportunity in their lifetimes to hear the “good news” made available to humankind through the gospel of Christ. While at first glance such a notion may appear comforting, and may appease our human sensitivities, the truth of the matter is that it has monstrous theological and spiritual implications. Consider these facts.

CHRIST’S GREAT COMMISSION AND MAN’S
ALIENATION FROM GOD BECAUSE OF HIS SIN

First—in light of the commands inherent in the Great Commission given by the Lord Himself prior to His ascension back into heaven—how can we entertain any suggestion that the “unevangelized” will be saved? Christ’s instructions were crystal clear: “Go ye therefore, andmake disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you...” (Matthew 28:19-20). If the view is correct that the unevangelized peoples of the world will be redeemed without ever having been exposed to (and obeying) the gospel, then potentially we could be doing them great harm if we carry out the Lord’s command and teach them the truth. By introducing them to the gospel, we might well be condemning those who otherwise would have been saved. When R.C. Sproul wrote his book, Reason to Believe, he expended considerable effort in explaining why such a position is unscriptural. He prefaced his discussion with the following statements:

The unspoken assumption at this point is that the only damnable offense against God is the rejection of Christ. Since the native is not guilty of this, we ought to let him alone. In fact, letting him alone would be the most helpful thing we could do for him. If we go to the native and inform him of Christ, we place his soul in eternal jeopardy. For now he knows of Christ, and if he refuses to respond to Him, he can no longer claim ignorance as an excuse. Hence, the best service we can render is silence (1981, p. 50).

Ponder the situation of a person who never has the opportunity to hear the gospel. If the ideas expressed in some of the above quotations are correct, then that person will be saved necessarily. But what about the person to whom we present the gospel message, and who then, of his or her own personal volition, chooses (for whatever reason) to reject it? Having spurned God’s offer of salvation through His Son, can such a one then be saved? Not according to God’s Word!

The writer of the book of Hebrews noted: “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins” (10:26). In Luke 13:34-35, Christ Himself lamented the rejection of the gospel message by His own Jewish brethren (who had been presented with the gospel message, but had rebuffed it repeatedly).

Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem,...how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her own brood under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until ye shall say, “Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord” (Luke 13:34-35, emp. added).

Consider, too, the important spiritual principle set forth in Hebrews 6:4-6, which, although admittedly speaking about people who once had accepted Christ as their Savior and then had abandoned their faith in Him, nevertheless mentions those who at one time were “enlightened” about Who He was and the salvation He offered—only to reject both Him and that salvation. Would it not, then (if the views discussed above are correct), be better simply to keep the Word of God “a secret” from the heathen and the unevangelized so that they—as a result of their ignorance—can be saved and not be put in the position of knowing the gospel message and possibly rejecting it? In their book, I’m Glad You Asked, authors Kenneth Boa and Larry Moody correctly observed:

Those who have heard the Gospel and rejected it are doubly guilty—they have rejected not only the Father but also the Son. And the Scriptures are clear about the judgment which awaits those who have refused God’s offer of salvation. The wrath of God abides on them (John 3:36; cf. Heb. 2:3; 10:26-31) [1982, p. 160].

Second, those who suggest that the heathen and unevangelized will be saved “as a result of their ignorance” of God’s law have failed to realize that such people are lost, not because they are ignorant of God’s law, but because they have sinned against Him. Almost all humans recognize (albeit begrudgingly, at times) that ignorance of the law does not excuse us from the law’s penalties and/or punishments. [“But officer, I didn’t know the speed limit was 15 miles per hour in the school zone.” “Yes, sir. The courthouse is open 8 to 5, Monday through Friday. You may pay the $150 speeding citation at any time during those hours. Have a nice day.”] One must distinguish between knowledge of a law and the existence of a law. If one must know the law before he can transgress the law, then there would be no such thing as a “sin of ignorance.” Yet the Bible speaks plainly of that very thing (Leviticus 4:2,22, 27; Acts 3:17; 17:30-31). Ignorance of the law is neither a legitimate excuse nor an effective guarantee of salvation.

Paul wrote in Romans 2:12: “For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law.” In his commentary on the book of Romans, R.C.H. Lenski discussed Paul’s statement about those who “perish without the law” when he wrote:

The only difference will be that those without the law will merely perish without the law, while those with law will be judged by means of law—two routes that lead to the same goal. Justice will be prominent in both instances; for the Judge will not apply law to those who ended as nothing but sinners without using anything like real law—that would be unfair. Nor will he need law in the case of these—they merely perish as the sinners that they are. The only fair thing in the case of others who made law their boast will be that the Judge uses this means when he pronounces judgment on them; and the fact that this judgment will be one of condemnation is plain: “they did sin” exactly as those “did sin” of whom Paul just said “they will perish” (1961, p. 158, emp. added).

When people are lost, it is due to their having sinned against God. Isaiah wrote:

Behold, Jehovah’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: but your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, so that he will not hear (59:1-2).

Boa and Moody commented:

Sin is a universal human condition (1 Kings 8:46; Ps. 51:5, Romans 3:9,23; 1 John 1:8), and it causes a breach between man and God (Isa. 59:2). Sin leads to death (Romans 6:23), and the wrath of God abides on all who are separate from Christ (John 3:18,36). All have sinned, and those who have not been “justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:24) are under divine condemnation (Romans 3:10-20; 5:16-19) and must stand before God in judgment, because apart from Christ we are enemies of God (Romans 5:10).... People are not lost because they have not heard. They are lost because they are sinners. We die because of disease, not because of ignorance of the proper cure (1982, p. 147, emp. added).

Man is lost as a result of being afflicted with the horrible “disease” of sin—a condition that, unless treated, always is fatal (Romans 6:23). Because God is depicted within Scripture not only as loving (2 Corinthians 13:11; 1 John 4:7-16) and merciful (James 5:11), but also as holy (Psalm 22:3) and just (Psalm 89:14; Isaiah 45:19; Revelation 16:7), He cannot (and will not!) overlook sin. It must be (and will be!) punished. But is there a remedy for this terminal disease known as “sin”? And if so, what is it?

Yes, fortunately there is a remedy for mankind’s otherwise lethal condition. He can have his sins forgiven. The great Old Testament prophet Isaiah wrote: “Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool, if ye be willing and obedient” (Isaiah 1:18-19). The key phrase, of course, is “willing and obedient.” But willing to do what? And obedient to what command? To be washed in the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ as God has decreed! The blood of bulls and goats never was able to take away man’s sins, no matter how unblemished the sacrificial animal(s) may have been. But the blood of Christ can (Hebrews 10:4-18). And it is the only thing that will! The Scriptures speak clearly to this fact when they state that Christ shed His blood on the cross for our sins (1 Corinthians 15:3; Romans 5:8-9), and that He is the “lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world” (John 1:29). Furthermore, it isonly through Christ that a person can be saved from the wrath of God (cf. Romans 5:1, 8:1, and Hebrews 10:31).

The inspired writers of the New Testament placed great emphasis upon the necessity of being “in Christ.” In the American Standard Version of the Bible, the phrase “in Christ” appears 89 times in 88 verses. The New Testament makes it clear that it is only when a person is “in Christ” that he has “redemption” (Romans 3:24), “eternal life” (Romans 6:23), “every spiritual blessing” (Ephesians 1:3), “forgiveness” (Colossians 1:14), and “salvation” (2 Timothy 2:10). Those who have been baptized “into Christ” (which is how the Bible tells us we get into Christ—Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:3-4) will not be condemned (Romans 8:1). What is the logical implication? Those outside of Christ will not have forgiveness, salvation, or eternal life, but will be condemned for their sins. Whether a person has never heard of Christ or whether he simply has heard of Him but not obeyed Him, that person is outside of Christ. According to the apostle Paul, any person who fits into either category will be lost eternally. He said that Jesus will render “vengeance to them that know not God” and to those who “obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus” (2 Thessalonians 1:8). He further described these unbelievers as those “who shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might” (2 Thessalonians 1:9).

While it is true that knowledge of both God’s existence and His “everlasting power and divinity” may be gleaned from the general revelation He has provided of Himself in nature (cf. Romans 1:19-20, Psalm 19:1, Acts 14:17, and Hebrews 3:4), that revelation is limited, and cannot explain to man what to do to be saved. As impressive, as powerful, and as pervasive as general revelation is, it nevertheless is deficient in and of itself. For many, nature has ceased to be a perspicuous revelation of God. It may have been so before sin entered the world, but even if it were, man’s nature now has become so polluted that he steadfastly refuses to read the divine script around him. General revelation simply is not enough. It never was intended to be. It does not afford man the reliable knowledge of the nature of God, of his sin against God, of his need for Jesus Christ as his Savior, and other important spiritual information that he absolutely must know in order to be saved. It therefore is inadequate (by itself) as the sole foundation of a person’s faith. From nature alone, man never would be able to infer the need for a personal Savior.

That fact—that from nature alone man never would be able to infer the need for a personal Savior—is critically important in the present discussion. As J.I. Packer noted: “The Bible says that God’s general revelation, even when correctly grasped, yields knowledge of creation, providence, and judgment only, not of grace that restores sinners to fellowship with God” (1973, p. 115, emp. added). This assessment is correct. If a person does not know that he stands in need of a personal Savior; if he does not know Who that Savior is; if he does not know how to be “willingly obedient” to that Savior; and if he does not know how to appropriate the salvation that comes only through that Savior, then how can he possibly know how to get rid of his sins in order to stand sanctified before God? Jesus Himself said in John 14:6: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me” (emp. added). In a discussion of this verse, Gene Burgett noted:

The phrase “no one cometh unto the Father, but by me” is clearly a universal negativewhich states in positive terms, “all men who come to the Father, come by me.” If the only ones who come to the Father are those who come by way of Jesus Christ, then it is apparent that all who do not know Jesus will be lost. There can be no salvation in Buddha, Mohammed, Hari Krishna, or any other name other than the name of Jesus (Acts 4:12) [1993, p. 176, emp. in orig.].

If people could be saved in times past—and can be saved today—without the sacrifice of God’s Son (and they cannot—cf. Hebrews 10:4-10 and Acts 4:12), then why would God have sent Him to Earth in the first place?!

The fact of the matter is, God promised salvation only to those who hear the gospel message (Romans 10:17), believe on His Son (John 3:16), confess Christ’s name (Matthew 10:32-33), repent of their sins (Luke 13:3), have those sins remitted through baptism (Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21), and remain faithful (Revelation 2:10). Subsequent to the Day of Pentecost, Peter called upon his listeners to: “Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19). The word for “blotted out” derives from a Greek word meaning to “wipe out, erase, or obliterate.” The New Testament uses the word to refer to “blotting out” the old law (Colossians 2:14) and to “blotting out” a person’s name from the Book of Life (Revelation 3:5). One of the great prophetical utterances of the Old Testament was that “their sin will I remember no more” (Jeremiah 31:34).

There was no happy solution to the justice/mercy dilemma. There was no way that God could remain just (since justice demands that the wages of sin be paid) and yet save His Son from death. Christ was abandoned to the cross so that mercy could be extended to sinners who stood condemned (Romans 3:23; 6:23). God could not save sinners by fiat—upon the ground of mere authority alone—without violating His own attribute of divine justice. Paul discussed God’s response to this problem in Romans 3:24-26 when he stated that those who are saved are

...justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood...for the showing of his righteousness...that he might himself be just and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus.

Mankind’s salvation was no arbitrary arrangement. God did not decide merely to consider men sinners, and then determine to save them via a principle of mercy and grace. Sin had placed men in a state of antagonism toward God that was so severe, men were referred to by inspiration as God’s “enemies” (Romans 5:10). Mankind’s sin could be forgiven, and men once again could become God’s friends, only as a result of the vicarious death of God’s Son.

CONCLUSION

Some have suggested that Christians are narrow-minded when they suggest that mankind’s salvation can be found only in Jesus Christ. Truth, however, is narrow! In addressing this point, Kurt DeHaan wrote:

Would you call a nutritionist narrow-minded if he said that a human can’t survive very long without food or water? Is an aerospace engineer pigheaded to propose that the only way to fly to the moon is by spacecraft, not by hang glider? Is it scientific bigotry to say that gasoline can burn but water cannot? Is it mathematical prejudice to claim that two plus two equals four, not three, five, or twenty-two? The issue is a matter of truth, not a matter of bigotry or prejudice (1988, p. 4).

Truth is a precious and priceless commodity—which no doubt explains why the Proverbs writer admonished: “Buy the truth, and sell it not” (23:23). Jesus Himself said: “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32, emp. added).

But what about sincerity? Does it count for nothing? While sincerity certainly is important in a relationship with God, the fact of the matter is that God does not want just sincerity; He wantsobedience. Saul (who later would be called Paul) was “sincere” in his persecution of Christ’s church, and even did what he did to oppose it “in all good conscience” (Acts 23:1; 22:19-20; Galatians 1:13; 1 Corinthians 15:9), yet God struck him blind (Acts 9:3-9). Paul later would admit in his own writings that he was sincere, but sincerely wrong. DeHaan observed:

Isn’t it enough to be sincere? No, it’s not. Sincerity is important, but it’s not an adequate substitute for knowing the truth. Sincerity doesn’t pass a college entrance exam. Sincerity doesn’t win an automobile race. Sincerity doesn’t repair a broken washing machine. Sincerity won’t bake the perfect cake. And sincerity won’t pay your rent or mortgage. Sincerity will not fill the gap when there is a lack of skill or knowledge, nor will all the sincerity in the world transform error into truth (1988, p. 8, emp. added).

While the Lord certainly wants us to be sincere, He also requires something else, which is why He instructed: “If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments” (John 14:15).

The truth of the Lord is narrow, as Jesus made clear in His beautiful Sermon on the Mount (read specifically Matthew 7:13-14). In fact, Christ observed: “Not everyone that saith unto me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 7:21). Jesus later commented on the attitude of the people of His day when He said: “This people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men” (Matthew 15:8-9).

Consider, for example, the account related in 2 Samuel 6 about Uzzah. God had given the Israelites explicit instructions about the construction of the Ark of the Covenant (see Exodus 25:10-22). It was to be made of acacia wood and covered with gold. It was to have two gold-covered, acacia-wood rings on each side, through which two gold-covered, acacia-wood staves could be placed in the event that it had to be moved (Exodus 37:1-5). But He also had given the Israelites explicit instructions about the transportation of the Ark. It was to be carried only by those from the priestly tribe of Levi, specifically the Kohathites (Numbers 7:9). [The Kohathites descended from Kohath, the second son of Levi; the other two groups were the Gershonites and Merarites (cf. Numbers 3:17ff.). The members of the tribe of Levi also were charged with carrying other items of religious significance, including the altars, lampstand, sanctuary vessels, etc., associated with the Tabernacle (see Numbers 3:31).] The Ark was to be moved only after it had been appropriately covered by a blue cloth. And the Israelites (even the Kohathites) were commanded—upon penalty of death—never to touch the Ark (Numbers 4:15,19-20).

King David had ignored each of God’s commands in regard to the transportation of the Ark. God had not commanded that the Ark be moved, and it certainly was not being moved in the manner prescribed by His law. The Ark had been placed on an ox cart being tended by two brothers—Uzzah and Ahio (the latter of whom, apparently, was driving the cart). The text says simply: “the oxen stumbled.” Uzzah—no doubt believing that the precious cargo was about to tumble from the cart and be dashed to bits—reached up to steady the Ark. And the moment Uzzah touched the Ark, God struck him dead!

Was Uzzah sincere in his attempt to protect one of the Israelites’ most priceless and treasured possessions? Undoubtedly he was. But his sincerity was for nought because he disobeyed. Note specifically the Bible’s statement that “God smote him there for his error” (2 Samuel 6:7). God’s commands were explicit; His truth was narrow. Uzzah ignored that truth—and died for having done so.

Will those who never have heard the gospel be lost—even though they might be “sincere”? Indeed they will be! Their separation from God throughout eternity will have been caused by two factors: (1) they sinned against God; and (2) they had not been taught—and thus were not able to take advantage of—the gospel plan of salvation that was offered to all men as the free gift of God (Romans 5:15-21; 6:23b) to restore them to a covenant relationship with Him.

For those of us who do know the truth regarding what men must do to be saved, the burden to share that truth with those who do not know it presses down with unrelenting fury. When Philip stood in the chariot of the Ethiopian eunuch who had been to Jerusalem to worship, he asked: “Understandest thou what thou readest?” That Ethiopian gentleman’s response still burns in our ears over two thousand years later: “How can I, except some one shall guide me?” (Acts 8:30-31). That is the Christian’s job—to gently guide the lost into “the way of salvation” (Acts 16:17). In 2 Corinthians 4:5-7, Paul wrote:

For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.... But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the exceeding greatness of the power may be of God, and not from ourselves.

A chapter earlier, the apostle had reminded those first-century Christians at Corinth: “Ye are...an epistle of Christ...written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in tables that are hearts of flesh” (2 Corinthians 3:2-3).

What a blessed opportunity—and onerous responsibility—to be the “earthen vessel,” the “living epistle,” used by the Lord to bring another soul back into His fold. Realizing that “he who converteth a sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins” (James 5:20), and knowing the “goodness and severity of God” (Romans 11:22), dare we countenance failure? No! Speaking on God’s behalf, the prophet Ezekiel warned:

I have made thee a watchman.... Therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me. When I say unto the wicked, “Thou shalt surely die,” and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thy hand. Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul (Ezekiel 3:17-19, emp. added).

Those who never have heard—and thus never have obeyed—the truth of the gospel message willbe lost! And if we do not do our utmost to get that message to them—so will we! While the unevangelized may be lost, they do not have to remain lost. And we may be all that stands between them and an eternity of separation from God.

REFERENCES

Boa, Kenneth and Larry Moody (1982), I’m Glad you Asked (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books).

Burgett, Gene (1993), “What About Those Who Have Never Heard?,” Whatever Happened to Heaven and Hell?, ed. Terry M. Hightower (San Antonio, TX: Shenandoah Church of Christ).

DeHaan, Kurt (1988), What About Those Who Have Never Heard? (Grand Rapids, MI: Radio Bible Class), [a tract].

Dyrness, William (1983), Christian Apologetics in a World Community (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press).

Lenski, R.C.H. (1961), The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).

McDowell, Josh and Don Stewart (1993), Answers to Tough Questions (Nashville, TN: Nelson).

Packer, J.I. (1973), “Are Non-Christian Faiths Ways of Salvation?,” [Part IV of a series titled, “The Way of Salvation”], Bibliotheca Sacra, April.

Punt, Neil (1980), Unconditional Good News (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Sproul, R.C. (1981), Reason to Believe (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Strong, A.H. (1909), Systematic Theology (Philadelphia, PA: Judson Press).

Van Til, Cornelius (1965), Karl Barth and Evangelicalism (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed).

Warren, Virgil (1982), What the Bible Says about Salvation (Joplin, MO: College Press).

"My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?" by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=622

"My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?"

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Imagine trying to live in a world where every person decided for himself or herself how long an inch should be. One person’s inch might be as long as a pencil, while another’s might be as short as a penny. Further imagine trying to buy lumber or carpet, or trying to calculate any kind of geometry. In truth, trying to measure things without a standard is impossible.

The same is true of religion and spiritual matters. If everyone made his or her own “measurements” about what is right and wrong, then mass confusion would rule the day—which is exactly why God gave us the Bible. It is the standard by which all of our actions are to be measured. Because the Bible claims to be the only true standard, most people insist upon evidence proving that it is from God. If a person has an open Bible and an honest heart, such evidence is available.

BACK TO THE FUTURE

On Tuesday, September 11, 2001, a horrible tragedy shocked the United States when terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Amidst the tragedy, a rumor circulated that Nostradamus, a supposed fortuneteller, had predicted the turn of events. Web sites with information on Nostradamus received thousands, even millions of hits. After all was said and done, the rumored prediction had been fabricated and misunderstood; Nostradamus had no more predicted the future than you or I. But it was obvious from the public’s response that anyone whocan accurately predict the future is more than just a little special. The prophet Jeremiah wrote: “Who is he who speaks, and it comes to pass, when the Lord has not commanded it?” (Lamentations 3:37). The prophet’s point was clear: nobody accurately foretells the future unless God informs him of it. Therefore, when the Bible accurately predicts the future, we can know that it is from God.

“MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?”

If you were a Jew standing in the crowd watching Jesus hang on the cross, you would have seen and heard many astonishing things. For one, you would have seen the only totally innocent man ever to live being tortured, mocked, and spit upon. In addition, you would have sat in complete darkness for three straight hours. But some of the most amazing things that happened on that day were the things Jesus said while He was on the cross.

As Jesus was nearing His death, He cried out, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?,” which being translated means “My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34). Many of those around Jesus did not understand what He had said. But any Jew familiar with the Old Testament should have immediately recognized Jesus’ lament as a direct quote from the first line of Psalm 22. King David wrote that psalm about 1,000 years before the death of Jesus. Yet verses 16 through 18 describe in minute detail what was happening at the crucifixion: “They pierced My hands and My feet; I can count all My bones. They look and stare at Me. They divide My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots.”

Could you imagine having the twenty-second Psalm in your hand (or mind), and watching the soldiers at Jesus’ feet actually casting lots for His clothing (Matthew 27:35)—exactly as the psalmist predicted? With one of Christ’s last breaths on the cross, He tried to get people to understand that He was the Messiah.

As we today look back upon the situation—almost 2000 years after the fact—we see that Jesus proved the Bible had accurately foretold the future, thereby verifying its inspiration. As Isaiah said: “Declare unto us what shall happen: declare ye the former things, what they are, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or show us things to come” (41:22). The very thing the pagans could not do (41:22-24), God’s Word could (see Isaiah 42:8-9).

Zero Energy Balance and Universes Popping Into Existence by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4587

Zero Energy Balance and Universes Popping Into Existence

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Perhaps it seems like common sense to you that universes do not create themselves—popping into existence all over the place, but many naturalistic scientists are latching on to such bizarre ideas due to their lack of a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the Universe. Famous atheist, theoretical physicist, and cosmologist of Cambridge University, Stephen Hawking, said, “Bodies such as stars or black holes cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can…. Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing” (2010, p. 180, emp. added). Is there any empirical evidence suggesting that universes can pop into existence? Absolutely not. Is there evidence that anything can pop into existence from nothing? Nope. We have a law of science that prohibits it—the First Law of Thermodynamics (cf. Miller, 2013). Does the idea that something could pop into existence from nothing remind you of a magician’s trick? Probably. But to many in the scientific community today, naturalism must be true. They will not consider God.  He is not allowed in the discussion. “Creation is unacceptable, but witchcraft? Now that…we’ll consider.”

THE PROBLEM FOR THE NATURALIST

According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, “energy can be neither created nor destroyed; it can only change forms” (Cengel and Boles, 2002, p. 166). This poses a problem for the atheist, since the energy and matter of the Universe had to come from somewhere. Hawking said:

The idea of inflation could also explain why there is so much matter in the universe. There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeros after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from (1988, p. 129, emp. added, parenthetical item in orig.).

Evolutionary physicist Victor Stenger, in his book, God: The Failed Hypothesis, said:

[W]here does the energy come from? The law of conservation of energy, also known as the first law of thermodynamics, requires that energy come from somewhere. In principle, the creation hypothesis could be confirmed by the direct observation or theoretical requirement that conservation of energy was violated 13.7 billion years ago at the start of the big bang (2007, p. 116, ital. in orig., emp. added).

THE NATURALIST’S RESPONSE

Hawking believes he has an answer to this problem for the naturalist—one that is in keeping with the First Law:

The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity…. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero (1988, p. 129).

Stenger concurs:

The first law allows energy to convert from one type to another as long as the total for a closed system remains fixed. Remarkably, the total energy of the universe appears to be zero (2007, p. 116).

So, in essence, these physicists assert that there would have been zero energy in the Universe before the alleged big bang (a theory which we do not support, cf. Thompson, et al., 2003), and then there would have been zero energy in the Universe after the big bang, since “matter energy” can be considered to be positive and “gravitational energy” can be considered to be negative. According to Hawking and Stenger, these two amounts cancel each other out, leaving zero energy in the Universe—zero energy before the bang, and zero energy after. Sound reasonable to you?

THE EVIDENCE FROM SCIENCE AND SENSE

First of all, notice that Hawking boldly proclaims two significant assumptions that cannot even remotely be verified. (1) The Universe must be “approximately uniform in space”; and (2) The “negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero” (1988, p. 129, emp. added). How, pray tell, could Hawking know such things about this vast and infinitely complex Universe without being omniscient? Not only can he not know such things, but he cannot even claim such things with the meager evidence about the entirety of the Universe he has at his disposal. It is quite a leap to hold to such unverified assumptions. It is a blind faith in a proposition that cannot be established scientifically. The rational man’s beliefs are based on the evidence—not baseless speculation.

Second, notice that he says, “in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy” (1988, p. 129, emp. added). The words, “in a sense,” are significant, because they highlight the fact that gravitational energy is not really inherently “negative.” We call it “negative” from a certain viewpoint when we have such a thing as a directional axis to compare its effect with; but, in actuality, gravitational energy is simply energy—regardless of its sign. Hawking, himself, used the term “energy” to describe gravity. Whether or not it is considered “negative” is not the question. The question in light of the First Law is, where did it come from?

Third, this line of reasoning implies that things could and should be popping into existence all around us all the time, as long as those items have enough negative gravitational energy to offset them. Particles, rocks, and infinitely complex Universes should be popping into existence, since such occurrences—according to these physicists—would not violate a natural law. But wait. That does not happen. It has never been observed to occur even once. And our common sense verifies that it will not happen. Science does not support such a hypothesis. The hypothesis isunscientific.

Fourth, consider: is there energy in the Universe today that would not have been in existence before the supposed big bang? Yes. If I were to ask Hawking and Stenger if energy exists in the Universe today, what do you suppose they would say? To ask is to answer. But the First Law prohibits the creation of energy. So, the question is not whether the energy balance before and after the big bang is still zero. The important question in light of the First Law is whether or not there is energy in the Universe today that was not there before the big bang. The answer would have to be, “yes.” In fact, there are, by Hawking’s own admission, “negative” and “positive” energies in existence. According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, they could not have created themselves. Therefore, God must exist.

In essence, Hawking and those who hold to his position are playing word games with “zero.” It is like the man who holds out an empty fist and asks a child, “What am I holding in my hand?” The child responds, “Nothing.” The man continues, “What is stronger than God?” The child responds, “Nothing.” The man then concludes, “So, what I’m holding in my hand is stronger than God.” In logic, this is known as a “fallacy of equivocation,” which the Collins English Dictionary defines as “a fallacy based on the use of the same term in different senses, esp. as the middle term of a syllogism, as the badger lives in the bank, and the bank is in the High Street, so the badger lives in the High Street” (2003, ital. in orig.; cf. Baum, 1975, pp. 477-478). While there is a Universal energy balance of zero in Hawking’s model, it does not mean that there is actually zero energy in the Universe. On the contrary, the exorbitant amount of energy in the Universe calls for an explanation that can only be given by the Creation model.

CONCLUSION

In the words of Stenger:

Conservation of energy [i.e., the First Law of Thermodynamics—JM] and other basic laws hold true in the most distant observed galaxy and in the cosmic microwave background, implying that these laws have been valid for over thirteen billion years [NOTE: we do not hold to this deep time supposition—JM]. Surely any observation of their violation during the puny human life span would be reasonably termed amiracle…. In principle, the creation hypothesis could be confirmed by the direct observation or theoretical requirement that conservation of energy was violated 13.7 billion years ago at the start of the big bang (pp. 115-116, emp. added).

It is truly ironic that Stenger, himself, while attempting to dismiss the necessity of the supernatural in explaining the origin of the Universe, “confirmed” the existence of God through the “theoretical requirement that conservation of energy was violated” in the beginning of time. It is sad that Stenger’s admission on this point illustrates that, prior to Hawking’s development of this argument, Stenger recognized the need for the supernatural in explaining the origin of energy, since no “scientific” argument was available. Why, sir, did you not accept God before that point? And why, sir, do you not accept Him now, since He alone can account for the existence of the awesome Universe in which we reside?

REFERENCES

Baum, Robert (1975), Logic(New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston).

Cengel, Yunus A. and Michael A. Boles (2002), Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach (New York: McGraw-Hill), fourth edition.

Collins English Dictionary (2003), (New York: HarperCollins Publishers),http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Logical+fallacy%2FEquivocation.

Hawking, Stephen (1988), A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes (New York: Bantam).

Hawking, Stephen (2010), The Grand Design (New York, NY: Bantam Books).

Miller, Jeff (2013), “Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article= 2786.

Stenger, Victor J. (2007), God: The Failed Hypothesis (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books).

Thompson, Bert, Brad Harrub, and Branyon May (2003), “The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique [Part 1],” Reason & Revelation, 23[5]:32-34,36-47.

Year of the Frog by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2868

Year of the Frog

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article was written by A.P.’s staff scientist. He holds M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Texas at Arlington and Auburn University, respectively, with emphases in Thermal Science and Navigation and Control of Biological Systems.]

I recently went to a zoo with my family. While in the amphibian building, we noticed a dated video that was playing on the television monitors located throughout the facility. The video spotlighted a campaign to “save the amphibians,” many species of which were reported to be going extinct. The goal was to raise 50 million dollars for the conservation effort. Amphibian conservationists all over the United States are running to the rescue for our little slimy, hopping friends, even having formally declared 2008, “Year of the Frog.” Several zoos have “jumped” on board this effort. The Nashville Zoo’s Web site says that

Earth is facing the largest mass extinction since the disappearance of the dinosaurs. After thriving for over 360 million years, 1/3 to 1/2 of the world’s approximately 6,000 known amphibian species could become extinct in our lifetime. In response to this epidemic, scientists and conservationists formed an Amphibian Conservation Action Plan (ACAP), including research, assessment and conservation in nature. For species that cannot be saved in nature, the plan is to rescue them before they are gone and protect them in captive facilities until the threats to the wild populations can be controlled. Nashville Zoo and other organizations supporting ACAP are participating in a global public awareness campaign, Year of the Frog. The goal of Year of the Frog is to raise awareness among media, educators, corporations, philanthropists, governments and the general public about the vulnerability of amphibians and the extinction crisis they face as well as generate much-needed funds to implement ACAP (“Year of the...,” 2010, emp. in orig.).

Amphibian Ark Communications says that their fundraising goal is to raise 50 to 60 million dollars to save several amphibian species (2010).

Now to the point: Imagine what could be done for the Lord’s cause if people contributed that money to Him instead of the frogs. How many souls could be reached if the conservationists declared 2008, “Year of the Human Soul” instead? Imagine how many missionaries could be sent out with one million dollars, much less 50 to 60 million. How many kingdom-advancing books and tracts could be published? How many television/radio programs could be aired? Imagine what could be done with the man-hours that are being poured into this effort.

Are the amphibians, as well as all living creatures, important to God? Yes. God feeds the birds of the air (Matthew 6:26) and clothes the grass and flowers of the field (Matthew 6:28-30). However, are animals more important than human beings, or even equal to human beings? No. Jesus said in Matthew 6:26 and 12:12 that human beings are “much more valuable” than them. Humans were made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26), unlike the animals. This is why humans were given a position of superiority over the created order, to have “dominion” over the animals and “subdue” them (Genesis 1:26,28).

Is it true that God would have us to be good stewards of the blessings that He has given us, including the Earth and its contents? Certainly. The parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30) teaches this principle, and the Old Testament gives specific examples of how God expected the Israelites to be good stewards of the land and wildlife around them. For instance, Deuteronomy 25:4 indicates that oxen were not to be muzzled while stamping out the grain from the chaff (Barnes, 1997), that they might enjoy the fruits of their labor (1 Timothy 5:18). Exodus 23:12 indicates that one of the reasons for the weekly Sabbath day was to give the animals a day of rest. Leviticus 25:1-7 and Exodus 23:10-11 indicate that every seventh year the land was not to be sown or reaped for food, but was to be given a year to recuperate and to provide food for, among others, the animals of the land. So, God expected the Israelites to consider the well-being of the animals, trees, and fields of the land. We are to be good stewards of what God has given us. We should not waste or be destructive with what God has given us. However, note one of the primary rationales for why we should be good stewards of the land. Deuteronomy 20:19 discusses the protocol that the Israelites were to follow in besieging the cities that they would be coming up against in their conquest of Canaan: “When you besiege a city for a long time, while making war against it to take it, you shall not destroy its trees by wielding an ax against them; if you can eat of them, do not cut them down to use in the siege, for the tree of the field is man’s food” (emp. added). Notice that trees that bore fruit were to be left alone in the making of siege equipment. However, what was the rationale for this? They were to be spared due to their role in sustaining human life. Plants, animals, and the Earth are only important insofar as their value to humanity. They are instrumentally good—not intrinsically good (Warren, 1972, pp. 38ff.).

Many in the animal rights, environmental, and conservation movements simply do not have their priorities straight on what should be the appropriate use of time and money. To pump millions of dollars into saving the animals or the environment rather than souls is to miss the point of our existence. When people sacrifice more of their time and money to try to save the world and the creatures of the world rather than to help the cause of Christ in the world—spreading the Word and serving humanity—then those things have become their idol. Regarding unrighteous men, Paul wrote

because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen (Romans 1:21-25, emp. added).

The rationale of the extremist elements of the conservation, animal rights, and environmental movements is based on a lack of faith in God as the Protector and Sustainer of life—Who is “upholding all things by the word of His power” (Hebrews 1:2-3) and in Whom all things hold together (Colossians 1:17). It is based on faith in the Earth as our savior, serving Mother Nature, instead of Father God. This worldly, faithless rationale says, “We cannot count on God! We need to save the world.” It is based on panic and anxiety, rather than on the peace that we can have through faith in God to care for us (Philippians 4:6-7). It is based on human arrogance, confidently asserting that we have the knowledge to save the world when, even if such were possible, we could hardly have the power to do so. Perhaps God in His infinite knowledge desiresthat some species cease to exist at certain points in history. Who are we to claim we could know such things?

The extremist rationale is carnally minded. We should not treasure the Earth or its contents by dwelling on them or prioritizing them above other more important matters (Matthew 6:19). We should, rather, “lay up for [ourselves] treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matthew 6:20-21). The infallible principle of entropy treks onward. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that it will win every battle and implies that it will ultimately win the war, regardless of what we as humans do to fight it. Simply put, the “earth will pass away” (Luke 21:33). So, we should set our minds “on things above, not on things on the earth” (Colossians 3:2).

The Lord told us how this Earth will come to an end. Ironically, it will be a form of global warming. However, it will not be man-made global warming:

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless (2 Peter 3:10-14, emp. added).

REFERENCES

“Amphibian Ark Communications and Fundraising Plan” (2010), Slideserve, [On-line], URL:http://www.slideserve.com/presentation/4878/Amphibian-Ark-Communications-and-Fundraising-Plan.

Barnes, Albert (1997), Barnes’ Notes (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Warren, Thomas (1972), Have Atheists Proved There Is No God? (Ramer, TN: National Christian Press).

“Year of the Frog” (2010), Nashville Zoo at Grassmere: Education, [On-line], URL:http://www.nashvillezoo.org/education_year_of_the_frog.asp.