Altruistic Animals: Compatible With Evolution? by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1409

Altruistic Animals: Compatible With Evolution?

by	Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

The humanistic sociologist Auguste Comte coined the term “altruism,” derived from the Italian altrui, which means “other” (Rhode, 2005). Under Comte’s definition, altruism signified an unselfish regard for the welfare of others (Rhode, 2005). People are not entirely self-interested. If they were, then families would be nonexistent. Yet, 90 percent of Americans marry (Coltrane, 44[4]:395). Modern instances of what we generally call altruism abound. For an example of obvious altruism on a grand scale, over $4.25 billion was raised for Hurricane Katrina-related relief and recovery (“Hurricane...,” 2006).

The animal world also is filled with animals that appear to help other creatures. Eduardo Porter noted in The New York Times, “altruism isn’t an exclusively human trait. Vampire bats are pretty altruistic, too, regurgitating blood for members of the group that haven’t eaten. Sterile worker bees, which are incapable of conscious thought, let alone moral behavior, are about as altruistic as a living creature can be: they give their lives so their queen may reproduce” (2005). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy reveals:

In numerous bird species, a breeding pair receives help in raising its young from other ‘helper’ birds, who protect the nest from predators and help to feed the fledglings. Vervet monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in so doing, they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked (Okasha, 2003).

As we ask of all relevant features of scientific data, we ask of the phenomenon of altruism in the animal kingdom: Does it best fit the creation model or the evolution model? Evolutionists categorize altruism as a product of genetic determinism (i.e., genetics explain all behavior), while Christians believe that God instilled altruism as an instinct in animals and a psychological, moral force in humans (see Thompson, 2004, pp. 23-24; cf. Jackson, 1992).

Of course, we are ignorant as to exactly what goes on inside the heads of animals and humans. We do not expect a dolphin to answer intelligibly when we ask, “Why did you help that other creature, even when it created the potential of danger to your own health?” Animal altruism troubled Charles Darwin, who popularized evolution in the 1800s. Darwin wrote that “[n]atural selection will never produce in a being anything injurious to itself, for natural selection acts solely by and for the good of each. No organ will be formed, as Paley has remarked, for the purpose of causing pain or for doing any injury to its possessor” (1859, p. 228). As Okasha well noted, “From a Darwinian viewpoint, the existence of altruism in nature is at first sight puzzling.... Natural selection leads us to expect animals to behave in ways that increase their own chances of survival and reproduction, not those of others” (2003).

Indeed, traditional evolutionary theory has emphasized the individual, to the neglect of any social obligation. McFadden commented, “Altruism—helping others at our own expense—puzzled Charles Darwin, whose theory predicted that individuals should act selfishly to serve their self-interest. Why should wolves share their kill; or sparrows draw attention to themselves by issuing a warning call when they spot a hawk” (2004)? Major observed, “If a bird helps a breeding pair build its nest and feed its young, without breeding itself, then it would seem to be a loser in the struggle for life. While this individual is busy helping others, it is missing out on the opportunity to produce heirs of its own” (1999). How, then, do evolutionists account for altruism in animals?

EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATIONS

Group Selection

Evolutionists have suggested that natural selection involves “group selection,” whereby a member of a group of animals would do something for the biological benefit of its entire group. In this way, evolutionists argue, the fittest group will survive, and natural selection will have met its obligation. Of course, there are severe problems with natural selection (Thompson, n.d.; Thompson and Harrub, 2003, pp. 227-270). Problems with group selection theory further illustrate the flaws in natural selection as a mode of evolution. As evolutionist Bryan Appleyard observed, “[Group selection theory—CC] makes no sense in the context of the selfish gene because all the gene can possibly see is the survival of its own particular organism” (1998, p. 112, emp. added). The selfish gene is Dawkins’ notion, reflective of Darwin, that the individual gene will do whatever it takes to ensure that the individual in which they are stored produces additional copies of the gene (1989; cf. Thompson, 2004).

Even if we were to admit that group selection occurs, however, it would not prove that genetic determinism is responsible for altruism in animals. Major explained:

[Group selection theory—CC] does not explain how the gene for altruism can survive over the long term. If an individual carrying this mutation behaves unselfishly and, as a result, leaves fewer or no offspring, then the mutation will die out. Also, the group needs to discourage cheaters—individuals that take advantage of altruists to further their own selfish interests, and thus neutralize the benefits of altruism for the species as a whole (1999).

By attempting to account for legitimate altruism by introducing a faulty hypothesis that maintains dependence on the genetically selfish individual, evolutionists have moved right back where they started.

Kin Selection

Dawkins (1989) proposed a solution to the problems with the group selection idea: “kin selection” (i.e., since close relations share genes, a gene may prompt its organism to help others who are closely related). The theory of kin selection is responsible for much of the development of sociobiological research. McFadden objected: “Altruism isn’t always restricted to kith and kin. When a female vervet monkey is attacked, non-relatives will often come to her aid. Studies show that the likelihood that a non-relative helps depends on how recently the distressed monkey groomed the helper” (2004).

Even if we were to suppose that some animal altruism occurs due to some “kin selection” mechanism, evolutionists “still have a gaping hole in an attempt to explain altruism. If, for example, I help a blind man cross the street, it is plainly unlikely that I am being prompted to do this because he is a close relation and bears my genes. And the animal world is full of all sorts of elaborate forms of cooperation which extend far beyond the boundaries of mere relatedness” (Appleyard, 1998, p. 112).

Furthermore,

cheating still is possible. A mutation could arise that mimicked the identifying features of individuals that carried the gene for altruism. This introduces the need for some sort of policing strategy.... The problem now is that the difficulties have multiplied. The evolutionists sought to explain a highly complex social behavior in biological terms, and ended up having to explain other complex behaviors, such as cheating and policing (Major, 1999).

Again, if evolutionists merely repackage selfishness and call it “altruism,” they fail to explain how real altruism fits in evolutionary theory. They may insist that altruism is only apparent. But such a notion is untenable, particularly in the wake of such a generous, altruistic outpouring of support to those devastated by Katrina. Evolutionists are forced to dichotomize aspects of beings, artificially separating the biological from the psychological/moral. The fact is, we differentiate between selfish human acts and altruistic acts, because we can identify altruism when we see it. Altruism is real, and even in the light of kin selection theory, remains biologically inexplicable.

Game Theory

A more recent evolutionary explanation involves attributing even more psychological human qualities to biological features of animals that “help”: game theory. “Game theory seeks to make sense of competition by analyzing different moves in as clear a mathematical way as possible” (Appleyard, p. 111). When applied to animal altruism, game theory suggests that various organisms play an instinctive, mathematical “game” to determine what is best for the group. When some lions share a zebra corpse, for example, they are playing a sharing game that involves “subtleties of calculation and...a remarkable distillation of all the complexities in any confrontation” (p. 111). In short, game theory is the idea that organisms cooperate because it is beneficial (p. 112).

Observe that reductionist, evolutionary game theorists again have reduced a discussion of altruism to an explanation of survival tactics. In order to prove that game theory accounts for the altruism exhibited in nature, evolutionists would be forced to prove that animals are capable of solving very complex mathematical equations about which advanced college students study regularly (see “Certificate...,” 2006). Such proof is—and will be—unavailable. Furthermore, evolutionists would need to explain why, on occasion, some members of a particular “kind” of animal help members of another “kind,” which would seem to be excluded from the “game.” For example, dogs occasionally “adopt” orphaned kittens (“Mother Dog...,” 2006).

Game theory cannot explain why animals, with no prior training, occasionally appear to help humans. For example, a group of New Zealand swimmers had to depend on a group of dolphins, which formed a protective circle that kept a great white shark at bay (McFadden, 2004). Moreover, proof that all animals coexist by playing these types of “games” would fall woefully short of proving evolution and disproving the biblical creation account. The Creator endowed animals with instinctive dictates that allow them to live together.

CONCLUSION

Having demonstrated that the major evolutionary explanations of altruism fail, we reach the conclusion that evolution logically implies that altruism, as an instinctive motivation in animals, or as a psychological/moral factor in humans, is imaginary (cf. Lipe, n.d.). However, we observe altruism in nature and in the clear teaching of the Bible (John 15:13; Philippians 2:2-4). Altruism embarrasses evolution, but makes perfect sense in light of the biblical creation account.

REFERENCES

Appleyard, Bryan (1998), Brave New Worlds: Staying Human in a Genetic Future (New York: Viking).

“Certificate Program in Mathematical Modeling in Political Science and Economics,” (2006), University of Rochester, College Center for Academic Support, [On-line], URL:http://www.rochester.edu/College/CCAS/certificates/cert_mathmodel.html.

Coltrane, Scott (2001), “Marketing the Marriage ‘Solution’: Misplaced Simplicity in the Politics of Fatherhood: 2001 Presidential Address to the Pacific Sociological Association,” Sociological Perspectives, 44[4]:387-418, Winter.

Darwin, Charles (1859), The Origin of Species (New York: Avanel, 1979 reprint).

Dawkins, Richard (1989), The Selfish Gene (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press), second edition.

“Hurricane Katrina One Year Later: Where Did the Money Go?” (2006), Charity Navigator, [On-line], URL: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/katrina.article/cpid/452.htm.

Jackson, Wayne (1992), “The Blind Bookwriter,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1213.

Lipe, David L. (no date), “The Foundations of Morality,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Foundations-of-Morality.pdf.

Major, Trevor (1999), “Ethics and Darwinism [Part II],” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/73.

McFadden, Johnjoe (2004), “The Kindness of Animals,” The Hindu: On-line Edition of India’s National Newspaper, [On-line], URL:http://www.hindu.com/2004/12/14/stories/2004121401511000.htm.

“Mother Dog Adopts Litter of Kittens” (2006), WNBC, [On-line], URL:http://www.wnbc.com/news/9927844/detail.html?rss=ny&psp=news#.

Okasha, Samir (2003), “Biological Altruism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, [On-line], URL: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/.

Porter, Eduardo (2005), “Putting Charity Through the ‘What’s in It for Me?’ Test,” The New York Times, [On-line], URL: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10814FF3B540C718C DDA90994DD404482.

Rhode, Debora L. (2005), “Altruism and Hurricane Katrina: Lesson For and From the Public’s Response to Social Needs,” Stanford Center on Ethics, [On-line], URL:http://ethics.stanford.edu/newsletter/December%2005/Altruism.htm.

Thompson, Bert (no date), “Neo-Darwinism: A Look at the Alleged Genetic Mechanism of Evolution,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/NeoDarwinism.pdf.

Thompson, Bert (2004), The Many Faces, and Causes, of Unbelief (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), second edition.

Thompson, Bert, and Brad Harrub (2003), Investigating Christian Evidences (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Can a Gay “Christian” Rock Star Follow Jesus? by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1002

Can a Gay “Christian” Rock Star Follow Jesus?

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Because God is love (1 John 4:8), He has allowed humans to choose their own eternal destiny. Jesus Christ made this fact plain when He said, “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction and there are many who go in by it, because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life and there are few who find it” (Matthew 7:13-14). Joshua made a similar statement when He declared to ancient Israel, “choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve” (Joshua 24:15). Throughout the course of human history, there have always been those who claim to be choosing God’s way, but in reality choose the exact opposite. Of course, this has never fooled God, and it should not fool His followers. The Israelites could not bow down to graven images and honestly claim that they were “choosing” Jehovah as their God. Jesus’ listeners could not continue their lives of selfishness and disobedience to God and successfully maintain that they were choosing the narrow road.

This idea of choosing sin but calling it God’s way is not new, but it is being seen in our culture in more obvious and perverse ways than ever before. Take the case of Trey Pearson, the lead singer of the contemporary Christian rock band Everyday Sunday. He recently explained to his fans that he has been gay for 20 years. He married and had children, but will no longer live a heterosexual lifestyle. He hopes that his fans will continue to follow him and buy his music. He claims that his homosexuality is perfectly in-line with Jesus and His teachings. He stated, “There is absolutely no conflict with accepting who I am and following Jesus. God wants me to be healthy, authentic, whole, integrated, and my truest self” (Weber, 2016).¹

Trey Pearson is correct about one thing. God does want him to be healthy, authentic, whole, and his truest self. He is sadly mistaken in making the sinful, perverse claim that leaving his wife to fulfill his homosexual lusts is somehow the fulfillment of God’s plan for his life. Jesus and the New Testament writers absolutely did, in no uncertain terms, confine God-approved sex to a monogamous marriage between one man and one woman.² By defining marriage as between one male and one female, Jesus condemned all other arrangements, including but not limited to, one man and two women, one woman and two men, three men and one woman, three men and three women, one man and another man, one woman and one animal, etc. You can see the overwhelming logic of such. When He defined marriage between one man and one woman, He clearly showed that such an arrangement is the only one authorized by God.

Now to the main point. Homosexuality is a sin that people can choose if they so desire. They can even claim that their behavior is completely in-line with Jesus and His teachings. But the fact that they claim this to be the case, does not make it so. In truth, Trey Pearson and all others who claim to be following Jesus, but continue to practice their sinful, unnatural, perverse sexuality outside of a God-approved marriage are just like those to whom Jesus’ said, “Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: ‘These people drew near to Me with their mouth, and honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me’” (Matthew 15:8). Again, Jesus cut to the heart of such illogical thinking when He said, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven” (Matthew 7:21).

The only possible way for any of us to be true to ourselves and spiritually healthy is to repent of our sins, fall at the feet of our Lord, and obey His commands from the heart. Would to God that our culture would wake up to the reality and truth of the inspired apostle Paul’s statement, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodimites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the Kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). No adulterer, homosexual, liar, or the like is beyond the power of Jesus’ blood to forgive if that person will repent and turn from his or her sin. If our culture continues to cling to such sinful lifestyles as homosexuality, claiming that Jesus approves, then Jesus’ bold words will echo from the pages of the New Testament as a haunting reminder of God’s love and justice, “I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3). People can choose to practice homosexuality, but they cannot be following Jesus if they do.

ENDNOTES

¹ Weber, Peter (2016), “Christian Rock Star Comes Out, Sees ‘Absolutely No Conflict’ in being gay ‘And Following Jesus,’” http://www.theweek.com/speedreads/627453/christian-rock-star-comes-sees-absolutely-no-conflict-being-gay-following-jesus.

² Butt, Kyle (2012), “Jesus Didn’t Condemn Homosexuality,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1627&topic=36.

"Calling on the Name of the Lord" by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=775&b=Joel

"Calling on the Name of the Lord"

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Considering how many people within “Christendom” teach that an individual can be saved merely by professing a belief in Christ, it is not surprising that skeptics claim that the Bible contradicts itself in this regard. Although Peter and Paul declared, “Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:21; Romans 10:13; cf. Joel 2:32), skeptics quickly remind their readers that Jesus once stated: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven” (Matthew 7:21; cf. Luke 6:46). Allegedly, Matthew 7:21 clashes with such passages as Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13 (see Morgan, 2003; Wells, 2001). Since many professed Christians seem to equate “calling on the name of the Lord” with the idea of saying to Jesus, “Lord, save me,” Bible critics feel even more justified in their pronouncement of “conflicting testimonies.” How can certain professed followers of Christ claim that they were saved by simply “calling out to Christ,” when Christ Himself proclaimed that a mere calling upon Him would not save a person?

The key to correctly understanding the phrase “calling on the name of the Lord” is to recognize that more is involved in this action than a mere verbal petition directed toward God. The “call” mentioned in Acts 2:21, Romans 10:13, and Acts 22:16 (where Paul was “calling on the name of the Lord”), is not equated with the “call” (“Lord, Lord”) Jesus spoke of in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7:21).

First, it is appropriate to mention that even in modern times, to “call on” someone frequently means more than simply making a request for something. When a doctor goes to the hospital to “call on” some of his patients, he does not merely walk into the room and say, “I just wanted to come by and say, ‘Hello.’ I wish you the best. Now pay me.” On the contrary, he involves himself in a service. He examines the patient, listens to the patient’s concerns, gives further instructions regarding the patient’s hopeful recovery, and then oftentimes prescribes medication. All of these elements may be involved in a doctor “calling upon” a patient. In the mid-twentieth century, it was common for young men to “call on” young ladies. Again, this expression meant something different than just “making a request” (Brown, 1976, p. 5).

Second, when an individual takes the time to study how the expression “calling on God” is used throughout Scripture, the only reasonable conclusion to draw is that, just as similar phrases sometimes have a deeper meaning in modern America, the expression “calling on God” often had a deeper meaning in Bible times. Take, for instance, Paul’s statement recorded in Acts 25:11: “I appeal unto Caesar.” The word “appeal” (epikaloumai) is the same word translated “call” (or “calling”) in Acts 2:21, 22:16, and Romans 10:13. But, Paul was not simply saying, “I’m calling on Caesar to save me.” As James Bales noted:

Paul, in appealing to Caesar, was claiming the right of a Roman citizen to have his case judged by Caesar. He was asking that his case be transferred to Caesar’s court and that Caesar hear and pass judgment on his case. In so doing, he indicated that he was resting his case on Caesar’s judgment. In order for this to be done Paul had to submit to whatever was necessary in order for his case to be brought before Caesar. He had to submit to the Roman soldiers who conveyed him to Rome. He had to submit to whatever formalities or procedure Caesar demanded of those who came before him. All of this was involved in his appeal to Caesar (1960, pp. 81-82, emp. added).

Paul’s “calling” to Caesar involved his submission to him. “That, in a nutshell,” wrote T. Pierce Brown, “is what ‘calling on the Lord’ involves”—obedience (1976, p. 5). It is not a mere verbal recognition of God, or a verbal petition to Him. Those whom Paul (before his conversion to Christ) sought to bind in Damascus—Christians who were described as people “who call on Your [Jehovah’s] name”—were not people who only prayed to God, but those who were serving the Lord, and who, by their obedience, were submitting themselves to His authority (cf. Matthew 28:18). Interestingly, Zephaniah 3:9 links one’s “calling” with his “service”: “For then I will restore to the peoples a pure language, that they all may call on the name of the Lord, to serve Him with one accord” (emp. added). When a person submits to the will of God, he accurately can be described as “calling on the Lord.” Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13 (among other passages) do not contradict Matthew 7:21, because to “call on the Lord” entails more than just pleading for salvation; it involves submitting to God’s will. According to Colossians 3:17, every single act a Christian performs (in word or deed) should be carried out by Christ’s authority. For a non-Christian receiving salvation, this is no different. In order to obtain salvation, a person must submit to the Lord’s authority. This is what the passages in Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13 are teaching; it is up to us to go elsewhere in the New Testament to learn how to call upon the name of the Lord.

After Peter quoted the prophecy of Joel and told those in Jerusalem on Pentecost that “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:21), he told them how to go about “calling on the name of the Lord.” The people in the audience in Acts 2 did not understand Peter’s quotation of Joel to mean that an alien sinner must pray to God for salvation. [Their question in Acts 2:37 (“Men and brethren, what shall we do?”) indicates such.] Furthermore, when Peter responded to their question and told them what to do to be saved, he did not say, “I’ve already told you what to do. You can be saved by petitioning God for salvation through prayer. Just call on His name.” On the contrary, Peter had to explain to them what it meant to “call on the name of the Lord.” Instead of repeating this statement when the crowd sought further guidance from the apostles, Peter commanded them, saying, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (2:38). Notice the parallel between Acts 2:21 and 2:38:

Acts 2:21	Whoever	Calls	On the name of the Lord	Shall be saved
Acts 2:38	Everyone of you	Repent and be baptized	In the name of Jesus Christ	For the remission of sins

Peter’s non-Christian listeners learned that “calling on the name of the Lord for salvation” was equal to obeying the Gospel, which approximately 3,000 did that very day by repenting of their sins and being baptized into Christ (2:38,41).

But what about Romans 10:13? What is the “call” mentioned in this verse? Notice Romans 10:11-15:

For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, who bring glad tidings of good things!” (emp. added).

Although this passage does not define precisely what is meant by one “calling on the name of the Lord,” it does indicate that an alien sinner cannot “call” until after he has heard the Word of God and believed it. Such was meant by Paul’s rhetorical questions: “How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?” Paul’s statements in this passage are consistent with Peter’s proclamations in Acts 2. It was only after the crowd on Pentecost believed in the resurrected Christ Whom Peter preached (as is evident by their being “cut to the heart” and their subsequent question, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”) that Peter told them how to call on the name of the Lord and be saved (2:38).

Perhaps the clearest description of what it means for an alien sinner to “call on the name of the Lord” is found in Acts 22. As the apostle Paul addressed the mob in Jerusalem, he spoke of his encounter with the Lord, Whom he asked, “What shall I do?” (22:10; cf. 9:6). The answer Jesus gave Him at that time was not “call on the name of the Lord.” Instead, Jesus instructed him to “arise and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all things which are appointed for you to do” (22:10). Paul (or Saul—Acts 13:9) demonstrated his belief in Jesus as he went into the city and waited for further instructions. In Acts 9, we learn that during the next three days, while waiting to meet with Ananias, Paul fasted and prayed (vss. 9,11). Although some today might consider what Paul was doing at this point as “calling on the name of the Lord,” Ananias, God’s chosen messenger to Paul, did not think so. He did not tell Paul, “I see you have already called on God. Your sins are forgiven.” After three days of fasting and praying, Paul still was lost in his sins. Even though he obviously believedat this point, and had prayed to God, he had yet to “call on the name of the Lord” for salvation. When Ananias finally came to Paul, he told him: “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (22:16). Ananias knew that Paul had not yet “called on the name of the Lord,” just as Peter knew that those on Pentecost had not done so before his command to “repent and be baptized.” Thus, Ananias instructed Paul to “be baptized, and wash away your sins.” The participle phrase, “calling on the name of the Lord,” describes what Paul was doing when he was baptized for the remission of his sins. Every non-Christian who desires to “call on the name of the Lord” to be saved, does so, not simply by saying, “Lord, Lord” (cf. Matthew 7:21), or just by wording a prayer to God (e.g., Paul—Acts 9; 22; cf. Romans 10:13-14), but by obeying God’s instructions to “repent and be baptized…in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins” (Acts 2:38).

This is not to say that repentance and baptism have always been (or are always today) synonymous with “calling on the name of the Lord.” Abraham was not baptized when he “called upon the name of the Lord” (Genesis 12:8; cf. 4:26), because baptism was not demanded of God before New Testament times. And, as I mentioned earlier, when the New Testament describes people who are already Christians as “calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 9:14,21; 1 Corinthians 1:2), it certainly does not mean that Christians continually were being baptized for the remission of their sins after having been baptized to become a Christian (cf. 1 John 1:5-10). Depending on when and where the phrase is used, “calling on the name of the Lord” includes: (1) obedience to the gospel plan of salvation; (2) worshiping God; and (3) faithful service to the Lord (Bates, 1979, p. 5). However, it never is used in the sense that all the alien sinner must do in order to be saved is to cry out and say, “Lord, Lord, save me.”

Thus, the skeptic’s allegation that Matthew 7:21 contradicts Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13 is unsubstantiated. And, the professed Christian who teaches that all one must do to be saved is just say the sinner’s prayer, is in error.

REFERENCES

Bales, James (1960), The Hub of the Bible—Or—Acts Two Analyzed (Shreveport, LA: Lambert Book House).

Bates, Bobby (1979), “Whosoever Shall Call Upon the Name of the Lord Shall be Saved,” Firm Foundation, 96:5, March 20.

Brown, T. Pierce (1976), “Calling on His Name,” Firm Foundation, 93:5, July 20.

Morgan, Donald (2003), “Biblical Inconsistencies,” [On-line], URL: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.shtml.

Wells, Steve (2001), Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, [On-line], URL: http://www.Skepticsannotatedbible.com.

Psallo and the Instrumental Music Controversy by Wayne Jackson

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Jackson/Boyd/Wayne/1937/psallo.html

Psallo and the Instrumental Music Controversy

For more than a century the advocates of the use of instrumental music in Christian worship have contended that one of the stronger arguments in defense of that practice is to be found in the Greek word psallo. This term, found only five times in the New Testament, is rendered by the English terms “sing” (Rom. 15:9; 1 Cor. 14:15; Jas. 5:13), and “make melody” (Eph. 5:19).

It has been alleged, however, that psallo embraces the use of a mechanical instrument. In classical Greek the word meant “to strike,” as, for instance, “striking” the strings of a harp. And so, it is claimed, this concept is transferred into the New Testament.

The History of Psallo

Words have histories, and linguistic history often reveals that terms are altered in their meanings as they pass through the centuries. So it was with psallo.

The history of the Greek language extends back about fifteen centuries before Christ. The era called the “classical” period was from around 900 B.C. (the time of Homer) to the conquests of Alexander the Great (c. 330 B.C.). During this time psallo carried the basic sense of “to touch sharply, to move by touching, to pull, twitch” (Liddell, p. 1841).

Aeschylus (525-456 B.C.), the Greek playwright, used the word of “plucking hair” (Persae, p. 1062). Euripides (480-460 B.C.?), another Greek writer, spoke of “twanging” the bowstring (Bacchae, p. 784). Psallo was used of “twitching” the carpenter’s line so as to leave a mark (Anthologia Palatine, 6.103). Finally, in Plutarch the verb also could convey the sense of “plucking” the strings of an instrument (Pericles 1.6).

Surely it is obvious that in these various passages the object of what is “touched” was supplied by the context.

Scholars are aware, however, that languages change with time. In 1952, F.F. Bruce wrote: “Words are not static things. They change their meaning with the passage of time” (Vine, 1997, p. vi). This concept must be understood if one is to arrive at the meaning of psallo as used in the New Testament.

The Septuagint (LXX) is a Greek translation of the Old Testament that dates from the 3rd century B.C. In this production, psallo is used to represent three different Hebrew words. The term may be used to denote simply the playing of an instrument (1 Sam. 16:16). It may bear the sense of singing, accompanied by an instrument (as certain contexts reveal – cf. Psa. 27:6; 98:5 – Eng. versions). Or, the word may refer to vocal music alone (cf. Psa. 135:3; 138:1; 146:2).

After a detailed consideration of the use of psallo in the Greek OT, Ferguson affirms that “what is clear is that an instrument did not inhere in the word psallo in the Septuagint” (p. 7 – emp. orig.). He contends, in fact, that the “preponderance of occurrences” of psallo in the LXX refer simply to “vocal music.”

In a study of the transitional uses of psallo across the years, one thing becomes apparent. The task of the conscientious Bible student must be to determine how the verb is used in the New Testament. This is the only relevant issue.

Incidentally, if one is going to quote the classical usage of psallo, or that conveyed in the LXX (as defenders of instrumental music commonly do), then he could well argue for the playing of instruments as a pure act of worship – with no singing at all – because that sense is clearly employed at times in those bodies of literature.

Language Authorities

J. H. Thayer (1828-1901) was Professor of New Testament Criticism and Interpretation at the Divinity School of Harvard University. He also served on the revision committee that produced the American Standard Version of the New Testament.

In 1885 A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament was published, which reflected Thayer’s translation, revision, and enlargement of an earlier work involving the labors of C.G. Wilke and C.L.W. Grimm. In its day, Thayer’s work was the finest lexicon available, and still is of considerable value.

In discussing psallo, after commenting upon the word’s use in classical Greek, and in the Septuagint, he notes that “in the N.T. [psallo signifies] to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praises of God in song” (p. 675).

The first edition of W.E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words was issued in 1940 in four volumes. In 1952 a one-volume edition was published. F.F. Bruce, Head of the Department of Biblical History and Literature at the University of Sheffield, wrote the Foreword for that production. Therein, Prof. Bruce praised Vine’s work. He stated that the “Greek scholarship was wide, accurate and up-to-date.” He noted that the author had a “thorough mastery of the classical idiom,” a “close acquaintance with the Hellenistic vernacular,” and an awareness of the influence of the Septuagint upon the New Testament.

In his popular work, Vine, in commenting upon psallo (under “Melody”), notes the classical sense, the Septuagint usage, and then says: “in the N.T., to sing a hymn, sing praise” (1997, p. 730).

In another book, Vine explained the matter more fully.

“The word psallo originally meant to play a stringed instrument with the fingers, or to sing with the accompaniment of a harp. Later, however, and in the New Testament, it came to signify simply to praise without the accompaniment of an instrument” (1951, p. 191 – emp. added).

In 1964. the prestigious Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (edited by Kittel, Friedrich, and Bromiley) issued from the press. The article which dealt with psallo was written by Gerhard Delling. Relative to Ephesians 5:19, Delling contended that the literal use of psallo, as “found in the LXX, is now employed figuratively” (Kittel, et al., p. 499).

In an abridgement of this work, published in 1985, Bromiley expressed it this way: “psallontes does not now denote literally playing on a stringed instrument” (p. 1226).

In the revised edition of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, David Howard of Bethel Theological Seminary, commented upon psallo.

“Psallo originally meant to play a stringed instrument; in the LXX it generally translates zimmer and ngn. In the New Testament it refers to singing God’s praises (not necessarily accompanied by strings)” (p. 314).

In the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Balz and Schneider write: “In the NT psallo always refers to a song of praise to God” (p. 495).

In his popular work, Word Meanings in the New Testament, Ralph Earle comments on psallo in Ephesians 5:19.

“‘Making melody’ is one word in Greek, psallontes. The verb psallo meant first to strike the strings of a harp or lyre. Then it meant to ‘strike up a tune.’ Finally it was used in the sense ‘to sing’” (p. 333).

It is important to remember that these men were affiliated with denominational groups that employ instrumental music in their worship. They have no motive for misrepresenting the facts of this issue. Their testimony, therefore, is compelling indeed.

On the other hand, we must acknowledge that a few scholars have set aside the historical evidence, being swayed by their own theological prejudices. They assert that psallo in the New Testament embodies the idea of “playing” a musical instrument. Liddell & Scott, as well as Edward Robinson, in their respective works, listed the term “play” as the significance of psallo in Ephesians 5:19.

The best example of unwarranted lexical liberty in recent times is the Baur-Arndt-Gingrich production. In the first edition (1957), William Arndt and F.W. Gingrich defined psallo as follows: “in our literature, in accordance with OT usage, sing (to the accompaniment of a harp), sing praise … Rom. 15:9… Eph. 5:19”

What most did not realize at the time, however, was that the phrase “to the accompaniment of a harp” was not in Baur’s original work. It was added by the subsequent editors. Following the death of Arndt, Frederick Danker joined with Gingrich for yet another revision (2nd Ed.). At the time, Danker apparently was unaware of the “tampering” by Arndt & Gingrich. When he learned of it, he admitted that the earlier editors had made a “mistake” in their rendition. He promised to try to remedy the error in a future revision.

Gingrich later acknowledged that the added phrase was only his interpretation. In the 2nd edition (1979), the phrase was deleted. However, this comment was added — obviously to placate someone.

“Although the NT does not voice opposition to instrumental music, in view of Christian resistance to mystery cults, as well as Pharisaic aversion to musical instruments in worship … it is likely that some such sense as make melody is best here [Eph. 5:19]” (p 891; see McCord, pp. 390-96).

One might have hoped for something better in the 3rd edition, over which Danker had control. But such was not to be. The editor initiated a “departure” from earlier formats by offering an “expanded definition” of words. And so the “sing, sing praise” of the 2nd editon becomes “to sing songs of praise, with or without instrumental accompaniment” in this latest edition.

However, both 2nd and 3rd editions suggest that those who render psallo by the word “play” in Ephesians 5:19 “may be relying too much on the earliest meaning of psallo [i.e., the classical meaning].” And yet, this is precisely what Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker have done. They imported the classical sense into the New Testament, when their lexicon was supposed to define words according to the “New Testament and other early Christian literature” usage.

People need to realize that Greek lexicons are not inspired of God; they can be flawed at times. J.H. Thayer summed-up the issue rather candidly.

“The nature and use of the New Testament writings require that the lexicographer should not be hampered by a too rigid adherence to the rules of scientific lexicography. A student often wants to know not so much the inherent meaning of a word as the particular sense it bears in a given context or discussion … [T]he lexicographer often cannot assign a particular New Testament reference to one or another of the acknowledged significations of a word without indicating his exposition of the passage in which the reference occurs. In such a case he is compelled to assume, at least to some extent, the functions of the exegete” (p. VII).

Some scholars have clearly set aside the true significance of certain words and allowed their theological bias to flavor their definitions. This has happened with baptizo (immerse), when some suggest that “sprinkling” is encompassed in the verb’s meaning. Some theologians manipulate the meaning of the preposition eis (for, unto, in order to obtain) in Acts 2:38 in an effort to avoid the conclusion that immersion in water is essential to salvation. This is a sad but tragic reality within the theological community.

Translations

It must be a matter of some consternation, to those who argue that psallo necessarily includes the instrument, that virtually no standard (committee) translation of the English language (e.g., KJV, ASV, RSV, NEB, NIV, NASB, NKJV, ESV) provides a hint of instrumental music in any of the five texts where the verb is found in the New Testament. This should be dramatic testimony to the fact that the cream of the world’s scholarship has not subscribed to the notion that psallo inheres a mechanical instrument of music.

Post-Apostolic Testimony

In a thorough discussion of the topic, Prof. Everett Ferguson has shown dramatically that the writers of the first several centuries of the post-apostolic period employed psallo simply to denote the idea of “singing,” or else they used the term in its classical sense only metaphorically, e.g., in Ephesians 5:19, plucking the strings of one’s heart in praise to God (pp. 18-27). (Note: In his translation, Hugo McCord rendered this passage as “plucking the strings of your heart,” thus giving the “plucking” a figurative thrust.)

At this point we must add this testimony from McClintock & Strong’s celebrated Cyclopedia:

“The Greeks as well as the Jews were wont to use instruments as accompaniments in their sacred songs. The converts to Christianity accordingly must have been familiar with this mode of singing; yet it is generally believed that the primitive Christians failed to adopt the use of instrumental music in their religious worship. The word psallein, which the apostle uses in Eph. 5:19, has been taken by some critics to indicate that they sang with such accompaniments … But if this be the correct inference, it is strange indeed that neither Ambrose … nor … Basil … nor Chrysostom … in the noble encomiums which they severally pronounce upon music, make any mention of instrumental music. Basil, indeed, expressly condemns it as ministering only to the depraved passions of men … and [he] must have been led to this condemnation because some had gone astray and borrowed this practice from the heathen … The general introduction of instrumental music can certainly not be assigned to a date earlier than the 5th or 6th centuries” (p. 759).

An Ad Hominem Observation

An ad hominem (“to the man”) argument is designed to show the fallacy of an illogical position. It appeals to an erroneous proposition being defended, and demonstrates that, if followed to its logical conclusion, the idea manifests an unreasonable viewpoint. That this is a valid method of dealing with error is evidenced by the fact that Jesus himself occasionally employed it to expose false teaching (cf. Mt. 12:27). There is certainly a legitimate usage of this type of argument in the music controversy.

Several writers, who have argued the psallo position, have contended that an instrument of music is unavoidably inherent within the term. O.E. Payne alleged that if the Christian fails to employ the instrument in worship, he “cannot conform to the divine injunction to psallein” (p. 172). Others (e.g., Dwaine Dunning and Tom Burgess) have argued similarly (see Bales, pp. 97ff).

In view of this, let us consider Ephesians 5:19, where the inspired apostle commands the saints in Ephesus to practice “speaking one to another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody psallontes with your heart to the Lord.”

If the participle psallontes retains a literal, classical sense (to pluck), and therefore inheres the instrument, then the following conclusions necessarily result.

This command cannot be obeyed without the employment of the instrument.

Since each Christian is under the obligation to psallo, each person must play an instrument.

The instrument must be one capable of being “plucked” (e.g., the harp), which would eliminate organs, pianos, trumpets, etc.

This writer has never encountered an advocate of the use of instruments in worship who will stay with the logical demands of his argument in defense of psallo. That speaks volumes.

Recent History

Perhaps the most telling thing of all in this controversy over instrumental worship is the fact that in the recent history of our exchanges with those of the Independent Christian Church (with whom we’ve had most of our discussions), the psallo argument has been virtually abandoned.

One of the last major debates on instrumental music was between Alan E. Highers (churches of Christ) and Given O. Blakely (Independent Christian Church) in April, 1988. During the course of that encounter, Blakely never attempted to introduce the psallo argument. In fact, he “broke new ground” in that he argued that “authority” for what one does in worship is not even needed; worship is a wholly unregulated activity — a position wholly absurd!

Instrumental music in Christian worship is indefensible.

Interesting Quotations

“Although Josephus tells of the wonderful effects produced in the Temple by the use of instruments of music, the first Christians were of too spiritual a fibre to substitute lifeless instruments for or to use them to accompany the human voice” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 651).

“There is no record in the NT of the use of instruments in the musical worship of the Christian church” (Pfeiffer, p. 1163).

“Whatever evidence is forthcoming, is to the effect that the early Christians did not use musical instruments” (Smith, p. 1365).

“The foregoing argument [of this book] has proceeded principally by two steps. The first is: Whatsoever, in connection with the public worship of the church, is not commanded by Christ, either expressly or by good and necessary consequence, in his Word is forbidden. The second is: Instrumental music, in connection with the public worship of the church is not so commanded by Christ. The conclusion is: Instrumental music, in connection with the public worship of the church, is forbidden” (John J. Girardeau, Professor, Columbia Theological Seminary (Presbyterian), p. 200).

Sources/Footnotes

• Bales, James D. 1987. Instrumental Music and New Testament Worship. Resource Publications: Searcy, AR.
• Balz, Horst & Schneider, Gerhard. 1993. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 3. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI.
• Baur, W., Gingrich, F. W., Danker, F. 1979. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. University of Chicago: Chicago, IL.
• Bromiley, G.W., Ed. 1985. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament — Abridged. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI.
• The Catholic Encyclopedia. 1913. The Encyclopedia Press: New York, NY.
• Earle, Ralph. 2000. Word Meanings in the New Testament. Hendrickson: Peabody, MA.
• Ferguson, Everett. 1972. A Cappella Music. Biblical Research Press: Abilene, TX.
• Girardeau, John J. 1888. Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church. Whittet and Shepperson: Richmond, VA.
• Howard, David. 1986. “Melody,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia – Revised. Vol. 3. G. W. Bromiley, Ed. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI.
• Kittel, Gerhard, et al., Eds. 1964. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. VIII. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI.
• Liddell, Henry and Scott, Robert. 1869. A Greek-English Lexicon. Clarendon: Oxford, England.
• McClintock, John & Strong, James Baker: 1969 Reprint. Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. Vol. VI. Grand Rapids, MI.
• McCord, Hugo. n.d. Fifty Years of Lectures. Vol. 2. Church of Christ: Atwood, TN.
• Payne, O. E. 1920. Instrumental Music Is Scriptural. Standard: Cincinnati, OH.
• Pfeiffer, C. F., Vos, Howard and Rea, John. 1998. Wycliffe Bible Dictionary. Hendrickson: Peabody, MA.
• Smith, William and Cheetham, Samuel. 1880. A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities. Vol. II. John Murray: London, England.
• Thayer, J. H. 1958. Greek-English Lexicon. T. and T. Clark: Edinburgh, Scotland.
• Vine, W. E. 1951. First Corinthians. Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI..
• Vine, W. E. 1997 ed. Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Nelson: Nashville, TN.

Copyright © 2013 Christian Courier. All rights reserved. Used by permission.

Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

A few words for Gary by Gary Rose

Sometimes pictures do not have to say a lot to have meaning. This picture fits into that category perfectly. Consider the following....

Matthew, Chapter 5 (World English Bible)

  ¹ Seeing the multitudes, he went up onto the mountain. When he had sat down, his disciples came to him.  ² He opened his mouth and taught them, saying, 

  ³  “Blessed are the poor in spirit, 

for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. 

  ⁴  Blessed are those who mourn, 

for they shall be comforted. 

  ⁵  Blessed are the gentle, 

for they shall inherit the earth. 

  ⁶  Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, 

for they shall be filled. 

  ⁷  Blessed are the merciful, 

for they shall obtain mercy. 

  ⁸  Blessed are the pure in heart, 

for they shall see God. 

  ⁹  Blessed are the peacemakers, 

for they shall be called children of God. 

  ¹⁰  Blessed are those who have been persecuted for righteousness’ sake, 

for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. 

  ¹¹  “Blessed are you when people reproach you, persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely, for my sake.   ¹²  Rejoice, and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven. For that is how they persecuted the prophets who were before you. 

  ¹³  “You are the salt of the earth, but if the salt has lost its flavor, with what will it be salted? It is then good for nothing, but to be cast out and trodden under the feet of men.   ¹⁴  You are the light of the world. A city located on a hill can’t be hidden.   ¹⁵  Neither do you light a lamp, and put it under a measuring basket, but on a stand; and it shines to all who are in the house.   ¹⁶  Even so, let your light shine before men; that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. 

Christian, be what Christ wants you to be; you can summarize it anyway you want, but after seeing the dog picture, I say....

Bark less, WAG MORE!!!