5/29/17

The Foreknowledge of "I AM" by T. Pierce Brown


http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Brown/T/Pierce/1923/iam.html

The Foreknowledge of "I AM"

Most of us are aware of, and perhaps have meditated upon the answer God gave to Moses in Exodus 3:14 when Moses wanted to know what he should say when he was asked who had sent him. Part of the verse reads, "Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, 'I AM hath sent me unto you.'" We have probably come to the conclusion that regardless of what other wonderful things may be involved in that answer, it suggests that God is eternal -- timeless. There is neither past nor future with God, but everything is now. He can thus "declare the end from the beginning" (Isa. 46:10).

It has long been a problem for philosophers, theologians and even for brilliant Christian scholars to explain how, if God foreknew that a thing would happen and thus it had to happen, could man have any freedom to choose. It appears to me that the problem becomes relatively simple, although fantastically profound, if one recognizes that the word "foreknew" is merely a word that applies to man, not to God. From God's standpoint, God knew a thing because to Him it was as if it was happening at that moment, for God is not subject to time as we are. He could say to Joshua, in Joshua 6:2, "I have given into thine hand Jericho," because to Him it was a present reality, though to Joshua it was future. He could say to Abraham in Genesis 17:5, "A father of many nations have I made thee," for it was done, as far as God was concerned, though to Abraham it was future.

Many astute philosophers, theologians, scholars and those who have wrestled with the problem, even those who deny the false assumptions of Calvin, have reasoned like this: "If God knows anything that will happen in the future, then those things are unchangeable and the effect is the same as if God had predestined that they happen." But we may fail to realize that it is not a matter of God "knowing what will happen in the future" for there is no "future" in God's experience, for God is timeless. He only speaks of "future" to accommodate man's understanding. It is what is called an "anthropomorphism," or using human language to accommodate man's perspective. This is common in the Bible. For example, in Isaiah 59:1 we find, "Behold, the LORD's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear." Surely most of us understand that God does not have a hand or ear as man has, and when "his eyes run to and fro throughout the earth" (Zech. 4:10) we understand the metaphorical language. Surely most of us do not think that in Genesis 18:21 where God says, "I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know" that God had to literally go down and find out personally if Sodom and Gomorrah were sinful. In Genesis 22:12, when God says, "Now I know that thou fearest God" surely few of us would assume that God did not know this before the event. The language is simply adapted to man's way of thinking and speaking, as when a teacher has solved a math problem on the board and says, "Now we know that x equals 6." She knew that x was equal to six before she worked the problem. So, when God says, "It will happen" it is not a matter of his making a decision that it will happen and man therefore has to abide by his decision. It is a matter of his ability to see what IS happening (for the future and the past are all present with him) and simply saying so.

It is presumed that if God foreknows (or knows) everything, we are but pawns in his hand. This is not so, for God knows that man has freedom of choice, for he made us that way, and God can know that man is freely choosing to do what he does. A good question for those to answer who assume that God's knowledge leaves man no freedom of choice is this: Did God know before the foundation of the earth that he would send Jesus to redeem mankind? If so, he knew that mankind would sin, but in no case does the Bible suggest that God was the cause of man's sin, or predestined that he had to sin. 1 Peter 1:20 states that not only was it known, it was "foreordained." Then he must have known that man would sin, and need redemption. Calvin and his followers then assume that since God foreknew that man would sin, man had to sin and that every act of man was foreordained of God. That is not so, as we have pointed out, not because God did not know that man would sin, but because God knew that man would, of his own free will, choose to sin. Let us repeat: It is not that God knew man would do it, so man had to do it. It is the case that God sees Adam choosing to sin as a present reality (from His perspective), and plans for his redemption. He foreordained that Christ would come to redeem man, and what God foreordained could not be changed by any act of man, and would not be changed by any act of God. God did not foreordain that Judas would betray him, but God "foreknew" that Judas would, of his own free and wicked will choose to betray him. In Ezekiel 3:18, God is represented as saying to the wicked, "Thou shalt surely die." Did God know that some of those would not surely die? Of course, for he tells what will happen so they would not die. He was not lying when he told what would happen, but there is not the remotest indication that he made it happen, or that it had to happen because he said it would. He simply knew that some would repent, and when they did, God is represented as repenting. He is not represented as repenting because he changed his mind and did not know what would happen.

1 Samuel 15:29 says, "And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent." So when the Bible says that God did repent (Ex. 32:14, Jonah 3:10) it is not teaching that God did not know what was going to happen, and changed his mind because he had made a mistake. He had already told us in Ezekiel 33:8-18 that when the wicked changed, God would change, relative to him. God did not change in himself, or in his essence, nature or purpose. He did not need to say, "I am sorry for what I did, for I did not really know what would happen," for God is always sorry when man sins, and is always glad when he repents. So when the Bible says that God does repent, it is not contradicting the statement that says God does not repent. God does not repent in the same sense that man does, but only repents relative to man. God knew (foreknew from man's viewpoint) that he would destroy Israel (Deut. 9:14) and Nineveh (Jonah 3:4) if they did not repent. He told Jonah to preach "Forty days and you will be destroyed." Was God lying? Of course not, although they were not destroyed after forty days. And when he "repented of the evil that he would do, and did it not," was God sorry because he was going to do evil and decided he had made a mistake? Surely not. He already knew what would happen, but from man's viewpoint, he repented or changed relative to man. God is an unchanging God in himself, but is represented as changing toward man because when man acts properly God is pleased, and when man does not, God is displeased. "In him is no variableness, nor shadow of turning" (James 1:17) yet he is represented as turning when man turns.

Then when we find in the case of Judas as recorded in Acts 1:16 that "the scripture must needs have been fulfilled" it is often assumed that since God had prophesied before that Jesus would be betrayed, Judas was forced to do it, for God had already decreed that he would. If we can look at it from God's standpoint, so to speak, we can see that God is looking at Judas, long before Judas was born, and sees Judas of his own free will, because of a covetous heart, deciding that he would betray the Lord. So it is not a situation where God determined that it had to be that way, and foreordained it, but that He sees what is happening and tells it like it is, when from man's standpoint it has not yet happened. So in various passages like John 17:12, where it seems to imply in the King James Version that the son of perdition (Judas) had to be lost in order to make sure that the scripture was fulfilled, the truth would be better served to realize that the expression should be translated "with the result that the scripture was fulfilled." The idea that God had to make people wicked whether or not they chose to be wicked in order to make one of his predictions come to pass is totally out of harmony with the whole tenor of the scriptures.

When we read in John 18:31-32, "The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death: That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die," surely we do not need to assume that in some way God made the Jews say something in order to make sure that what the scriptures had said would come to pass. Rather it is as Thayer indicates on page 304 "with the result that the scripture was fulfilled." There are several such passages that in most versions may sound as if the event had to be that way because God ordained that it be that way in order to fulfill what He had said would happen. But the truth is that God did not ordain that it be that way and thus had to overrule the will of some person or persons. God merely saw the event taking place as if it were what we would call "present time" and said so. When it happened as a result of the free will of man, the result was that the scripture was fulfilled.

This realization will help us to understand many things that may be a mystery to us. For example in Acts 2:23 we find, "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain." If one wonders how or why one can accuse a person of having wicked hands when he does what God had already determined that he do, the answer is relatively simple, although profound. God had determined long ago that Christ was to die for our sins. The Bible teaches that many times, and the first hint of it is given in Genesis 3:15. However, at no place in the Bible are we taught that God had determined that some specific person would do the wicked deed. God knew who would, of their own free will, do the wicked deed, for all future events (from man's standpoint) were present events from God's standpoint. Remember that God can declare the end from the beginning, but that does not say nor mean that God predestinates the end from the beginning. This is why predestination and foreknowledge are not the same thing, though many have assumed they have to be for they reason that if God knew that a thing would happen, He must make it happen. Again the simple explanation is that God knows a thing will happen because from His viewpoint it is happening. For God to be able to see the future (from our viewpoint) as present (from His viewpoint), does not necessitate his determined purpose or plan that it happen. God does have some specific fixed purposes, and all that man can do will not change those. But not everything that happens is because God had a fixed purpose that it happen that way, as John Calvin and his followers assumed. For example, God does not have a fixed purpose that any should perish (2 Pet. 3:9) but many will, and God knows that and has said it will happen. When it does it could be written, "These are lost that the scriptures might be fulfilled that said, 'Broad is the way that leadeth to destruction and many there be that go in thereat.'" But the expression, "that the scriptures might be fulfilled" would be better understood if it were stated, "thus the scriptures were fulfilled," for that expression does not suggest that God decreed that certain persons be lost and at the same time other scriptures said that he did not so decree, nor was it his will. Remember that the primary key to your ability to grasp that which seems so hard for many brilliant persons and great scholars to grasp is the realization that God said, "I AM." He is eternal, and sees everything that has been or will be as a present reality. Do not be disturbed if when you read this, you think, "I simply can't understand that." Of course you cannot understand infinity, or eternity, or omnipresence. You cannot understand how God can see any future event as certain, nor how God can be everywhere in the universe, although he is represented as "coming down" to some mountain or other place.

Someone may say, "I believe that God has the ability to foreknow some things and the ability to choose not to foreknow some other ones." The main problem with that concept is that in order for God to choose not to foreknow some specific thing, He would have to know what he chose not to foreknow before he could choose not to foreknow it. That is simply a contradiction that cannot be resolved with man's words. If one can comprehend the idea that whatever is going to happen (from man's viewpoint) is now happening from God's standpoint, he can at least grasp the idea I am trying to present. To state it another way, all events, past, present and future have already happened from the standpoint of an eternal God. There is a great deal of difference in the fact that we cannot understand an eternal God for whom time means nothing, and who can be everywhere (omnipresent) at the same time and our not believing in those realities that the Bible reveals. That man freely acted and is responsible for his actions God has always known. The fact that God knew that Adam (or any part of mankind) would sin does NOT involve the idea that God predestined that Adam, or any other man, would sin. But God had to know that or he could not have foreordained that Christ would come and redeem mankind from sin. From His timeless perspective, God simply sees Adam (and us) sinning as we choose to do so. Adam is responsible for his sin, and we are responsible for ours. God did not foreordain us to sin, although He did foreknow that we would.

We will continually be confused if we do not differentiate between what God knew (foreknew is the way we put it), and what God determined would take place. The whole idea of Calvin and those who follow his assumptions, even when they do not realize they are doing it, is contrary to God's will and His revelation. Man does have freedom of choice, and if God predestined him individually to be saved or lost, he would not have it. Man's freedom of choice cannot change that which God predestined. He predestined that Christ would die for the sins of the world, and regardless of who did what, Christ would have died for the sins of the world. He was "slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev. 13:8) and no power in the universe would change that. Man's salvation depends on his submission, but the fact that God knew that man would rebel and that He would provide a way for man to be saved in spite of that rebellion did NOT mean that God predestined man to rebel and made certain that he would, so that he could gloriously save his specific predetermined elect. "Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden" is still God's message, even if He knows some will not. He knows beforehand that some will not, but he has not predestined every thing he knows beforehand, for he is not willing that any should perish.

T. Pierce Brown


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

God says what he means! by Gary Rose

 

There are many ways to love; familial, romantic, erotic, a close friendship and selfless love.  I believe that this sign is referring to the last one- selfless love. The Greeks had a word for it - "agape". Selfless love at its finest; the sort of love that God has for man. As far as that "neighbor thing"(true, selfless love) goes, Jesus had something to say about that!

Consider the following...



Luke, Chapter 19 (World English Bible)
 25 Behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 

  26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you read it?” 

  27 He answered, “You shall love (true, selfless love, or agape. GDR) the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.”

  28 He said to him, “You have answered correctly. Do this, and you will live.” 

  29 But he, desiring to justify himself, asked Jesus, “Who is my neighbor?” 

  30 Jesus answered, “A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead.   31  By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side.   32  In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side.   33  But a certain Samaritan, as he traveled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion,   34  came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him.   35  On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave them to the host, and said to him, ‘Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.’   36  Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbor to him who fell among the robbers?” 

  37 He said, “He who showed mercy on him.” 

Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.” 



Love for God is easy for me to understand, love for man is more difficult. Why? Because truly loving your fellow man often involves sacrifice and if the person is, say, less that socially acceptable (i.e. the homeless, a drug addict, a convict, sex-offender, member of a religious cult, habitual liar, a thief,  etc.) most of us think twice before helping. In the parable of the "Good Samaritan", Jesus shows us that sometimes "religious" people may not exhibit their "love" for both God AND MAN. When a hated Samaritan does the good that they (religious people like a Priest and a Levite) should have done, it gives a lesson to all that anyone can love another human being.

In fact, loving God and loving man are linked together, for you can't truly love God without loving your fellow human being as well. The apostle John puts it this way...

1 John, Chapter 4 (WEB)
 20 If a man says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who doesn’t love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?  21 This commandment we have from him, that he who loves God should also love his brother. 

Somehow that sign takes on a new meaning, doesn't it?

5/26/17

"THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS" Finding A Way In The Will Of God (1:10) by Mark Copeland

                      "THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS"

                Finding A Way In The Will Of God (1:10)

INTRODUCTION

1. "What is God's will for my life?"
   a. What devout person has not asked a question like this?
   b. Often asked even pertaining to mundane things like one's career,
      where to live, etc.
   -- How can we live in harmony with the will of God?

2. Paul mentioned his desire to live in harmony with God's will...
   a. As he made plans to visit his brethren in Rome
   b. As he prayed regarding such plans - cf. Ro 1:9-10
   -- He sought to "find a way in the will of God" to come to them

[Paul's comments provide an opportunity for us to consider some thoughts
related to the will of God, especially on how to determine God's will
for our lives.  It might be of benefit to first review some...]

I. FACETS  OF GOD'S WILL

   A. THERE IS GOD'S PROCLAIMED WILL...
      1. God has made His will known in many respects - e.g., 1Th 5:18;1Pe 2:15
      2. This He has done through revelation
         a. By sending inspired prophets in the past - He 1:1
         b. By sending His own Son - He 1:2
         c. By having the Spirit guide the apostles - Jn 16:12-13; e.g.,1Co 14:36-37
      3. It is this proclaimed will of God that we must do to be saved - cf. Mt 7:21
      -- That which is essential to know, God has revealed through
         Scripture - 2Ti 3:16-17

   B. THERE IS GOD'S PROVIDENTIAL WILL...
      1. God acts providentially in our lives, as implied in our text
         - cf. Ro 1:10; also 15:32
      2. For such reason we are to pray regarding our plans - cf. Jm 4:13-15
      3. Our requests are answered as it may suit God's will - cf. 1Jn 5:14
      -- We may not have certainty as to what is God's providential will for us

   C. THERE IS GOD'S PERMISSIVE WILL...
      1. God allows things to happen that are not necessarily according
         to His desired will
      2. He permits people to sin and even hurt other people
         a. He is not pleased, and will one day render judgment - Ac 17: 30-31
         b. He is able to fulfill His own will, despite such rebellion- cf. Isa 10:5-7
      3. God permits people to do things that are indifferent to Him
         a. There are some matters of indifference to God - e.g., Ro 14: 5-6
         b. Likewise, some decisions we make might not really matter to God
      -- Thus not all choices please God, nor are they necessarily required by God

[With these thoughts in mind, let's now consider some thoughts on...]

II. FINDING GOD'S WILL

   A. FOCUS ON THE PROCLAIMED WILL OF GOD...
      1. I.e., study diligently to learn what God has revealed
         a. If you don't embrace and practice the revealed will of God...
         b. ...what difference does it make to seek areas of God's will unknown to you?
      2. The value of focusing on the proclaimed will of God
         a. We will not be ignorant of what is essential for us to know and do
         b. We can avoid choices that are clearly contrary to God's will

   B. SEEK ADVICE FROM OTHERS...
      1. Discuss your alternatives with older, mature Christians
          - Pro 11:14; 12:15
      2. Consult the wisdom found in the Bible (especially in books like Proverbs, Ecclesiastes)

   C. ASK GOD FOR WISDOM...
      1. I.e., pray diligently for the ability to discern wisely - Jm 1: 5-8
      2. Wisdom is that spiritual insight that enables you to evaluate
         situations clearly, and helps utilize what options and abilities you have
      3. Use such wisdom to eliminate what appears less acceptable

   D. COMMIT YOUR WAY TO THE LORD...
      1. Whatever you do, do it for the Lord's sake - cf. Ps 37:5-6, 23-26
      2. Make your plans subject to God's will, both proclaimed and providential - Jm 4:15
         a. Give God permission to close the door on your choice if that is His will
         b. If He closes the door on your choice, look for alternatives

   E. OTHER THINGS TO REMEMBER...
      1. God is not like a train; he is able to run on more than one track
      2. A choice may not be between good and bad, but between good and better
      3. God can use us in many different ways
      4. If need not choose right away, wait; that will give you time to grow and gain wisdom
      5. Whatever your hands finds to do in your existing circumstances,
         do it with all your might

CONCLUSION

1. Our goal should be to "stand perfect and complete in all the will of
   God" - cf. Col 4:12
   a. Especially as it pertains to the proclaimed will of God
   b. Even as much as possible in the providential and permissive will of God

2. Epaphras' desire for his brethren serves as a good example; as does
   that of our Lord...
   a. Who taught us to pray, "Your will be done on earth as it in heaven" - Mt 6:10
   b. Who Himself prayed, "Not as I will, but as You will..." - Mt 26:39-42

Are you seeking to "find a way in the will of God" as it pertains to the
plans in your life?
 
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

Babylon the Great Has Fallen by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=821

Babylon the Great Has Fallen

by  Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Babylon was one of the richest cities in the world during the years 740 B.C. to 680 B.C. During these “glory days,” the city prospered like it had the Midas touch; everything it touched seemed to turn to gold. It was located between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers—a strip of land so agriculturally productive that today it is known as the “fertile crescent.”
But its agriculture and well-watered plains were not the reason it was famous. Babylon gained its reputation because of its high, massive walls and its strong defensive battlements. In fact, ancient writers described walls that were 14 miles long on all four sides of the city and that reached heights of over 300 feet—taller than most building today. Not only were the walls long and high, but in some places they also were 75-feet thick. But the wall was not the only form of defense. The Euphrates River surrounded the city, making a perfect moat that ranged anywhere from 65 to 250 feet across. This wall/moat combination appeared to make the city unconquerable.
Yet in spite of the strong military and defensive strength of the city, God’s prophets foretold its destruction. In Jeremiah 50:9, the prophet declared that God would “raise and cause to come up against Babylon an assembly of great nations from the north country.” This prediction probably seemed unfounded at the time it was made, because none of the countries in the north came close to having enough strength to defeat Babylon. But years after the prophecy, Cyrus, king of the Medo-Persian Empire, mounted a huge force of many different nations and marched southward against Babylon.
The details of the fulfillment are amazing. Jeremiah recorded that God had declared: “I will dry up her sea and make her springs dry” (51:36). Again the prophet foretold: “A drought is against her waters, and they will be dried up. For it is a land of carved images” (50:38). Also, the prophet promised that the Lord had spoken: “I will prepare their feasts; I will make them drunk, that they may rejoice, and sleep a perpetual sleep and not awake” (51:39).
Now listen to the story as history unfolds. The Euphrates River ran underneath the great walls of Babylon. After a siege of two full years, Cyrus was able to divert the river to make it flow into a huge marsh on the western side of the city. By doing this, he “dried up the rivers” of Babylon and provided an easy way for his soldiers to enter under the city walls where the water used to flow. But the Babylonians inside the city had no idea what was taking place. They could have defended the city, but instead they were feasting and getting drunk. Cyrus ordered his men to act like drunken revilers, and by the time the Babylonians knew what had hit them, the city was filled with enemy troops and who ultimately conquered it.
Even though the above circumstances would be enough to prove the accuracy of the prophecy of Jeremiah (and thus the Bible), the prophet’s predictions do not stop there. Chapters 50-51 of Jeremiah’s book are filled with more futuristic condemnations of Babylon, all of which were fulfilled in the smallest detail. Truly, the words spoken by the prophet did come to pass.
Time after time, the Bible has been “dead on” when it has predicted the future. Secular records document the facts about Babylon. So what does this prove? It proves one simple thing—that God Himself inspired the words written between the covers of the Bible. And because that is the case, every human being should welcome the Bible “not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God” (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

Why is Belief in God Natural to Mankind? by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4655

Why is Belief in God Natural to Mankind?

by  Kyle Butt, M.Div.

On  June 18, 2012, well-known and much-read atheistic blogger Leah Libresco put out a blog post titled: “This Is My Last Post for the Patheos Atheist Portal” (Merica, 2012). In the post, Libresco explained that she was no longer writing for the atheist portal because she is no longer an atheist. During the months prior to the post, her mental struggles and rational investigations led her to the conclusion that God exists (Libresco, 2012).
What was the primary factor that forced Libresco to this theistic conclusion? She explained that morality was the key. Throughout her time as an atheist, she struggled to come to grips with how humans can adhere to a morality that seems objective if there is no God. As she searched for answers among atheistic thinkers and writers, she admitted that their answers were inadequate.
In an interview with a CNN news reporter, Libresco noted that her conversion from atheism to theism was “kinda the same thing with any scientific theory, almost, that it had more explanatory power to explain something I was really sure of. I’m really sure that morality is objective, human independent; something we uncover like archaeologists not something we build like architects” (Merica, 2012, emp. added).
Libresco’s intellectual honesty regarding morality is refreshing to see. [NOTE: A.P. does not endorse Libresco’s affiliation with Catholicism. See Pinedo, 2008.] Her conversion highlights an important aspect of the process of searching for truth: explanatory value. With an ever-increasing number of skeptics, unbelievers, atheists, and agnostics in the United States and around the globe, it is important for Christians to look for ways to teach them about God, and then Jesus Christ. One effective way to do that is to show that the concept of God maintains much more powerful explanatory value than atheism for the realities that we see around us. Thus, when approaching a reality upon which both theists and atheists agree, the question would be: “Which idea, theism or atheism, explains this particular phenomenon the best?” To frame it in a more positive way, “If there really is a God, what would we expect the world to look like?” Leah Libresco recognized the reality of objective morality and concluded that if atheism were true, there would be no objective morality; but if there is a God, then objective morality is exactly what we would expect to find.
That principle can be extended to a host of realities that are present in our world. The one that this article addresses is the fact that mankind has an inherent predisposition to recognize a supernatural, intelligent Creator. This article establishes the fact that this reality is generally recognized by both atheists and theists. It will then address which of these two ideas, atheism or theism, most adequately accounts for this fact. The purpose of such an endeavor is to reach the unbelieving community with powerful evidence that has the ability to bring them to a belief in God, and one step closer to a saving faith in Jesus Christ.

Humanity’s “Intuitive Theism”

It might surprise the reader that both atheists and theists overwhelmingly admit that humans are predisposed to believe in an intelligent creator of some sort. Richard Dawkins, arguably the world’s leading atheistic thinker, lecturer, and writer, asked the question: “Why, if it is false, does every culture in the world have religion? True or false, religion is ubiquitous, so where does it come from?” (2006, p. 159). His assertion that religion is false is inaccurate, but his statement highlights the fact—the reality—that religion is universal to mankind, and has been in every human culture ever studied.  He went on to say, a few pages later: “Though the details differ across the world, no known culture lacks some version of the time-consuming, wealth-consuming, hostility-provoking rituals, the anti-factual, counter-productive fantasies of religion” (p. 166). So deeply religious are humans, Dawkins refers to their desire to recognize some type of creator as a “lust for gods” (p. 169). The late atheistic writer Christopher Hitchens wrote: “Sigmund Freud was quite correct to describe the religious impulse, in The Future of an Illusion, as essentially ineradicable until or unless the human species can conquer its fear of death and its tendency to wish-thinking. Neither contingency seems very probable” (2007, p. 247).
Renowned atheist Sam Harris was forced to admit the truth that the concept of God is an inherent human predisposition. He wrote: “Similarly, several experiments suggest that children are predisposed to assume design and intention behind natural events—leaving many psychologists and anthropologists to believe that children, left entirely to their own devices, would invent some conception of God” (2010, p. 151).
The research to which Sam Harris refers is extensive. Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg have written an article, titled “Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science,” which was published in Science magazine in May of 2007. They suggest that children tend to attribute purpose and design to virtually everything, a tendency the authors call “promiscuous teleology” ([316]:996). Bloom and Weisberg noted: “[W]hen asked about the origin of animals and people, children spontaneously tend to provide and prefer creationist explanations” (p. 996).
In an article titled “Are Children ‘Intuitive Theists’?” Deborah Keleman documented research which led her to conclude that “the proposal that children might be intuitive theists becomes increasingly viable,” and “together, these research findings tentatively suggest that children’s explanatory approach may be accurately characterized as intuitive theism” (2004, 15:299). In an extensive 49-page article in Cognitive Psychology, Margaret Evans wondered aloud: “Why is the human mind (at least the Western protestant mind) so susceptible to creationism and so comparatively resistant to naturalistic explanations for the origins of species?” (2001, 42:252).
In light of the current research, Bloom admitted: “There is by now a large body of research suggesting that humans are natural-born creationists. When we see nonrandom structure and design, we assume that it was created by an intelligent being” (Bloom, 2009, pp. 16-19). He opined: “Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins was right to complain, then, that it seems ‘as if the human brain were specifically designed to misunderstand Darwinism’” (pp. 16-19). Some atheists, like David Mills, writing for a more popular audience, assert that we “should recognize that all children are born atheists. There is no child born with a religious belief” (2006, p. 29). But that assertion misses the point that humans are born with the predisposition to theistic conclusions. Overwhelmingly, the atheistic community recognizes the reality that humans are born with a “lust for gods,” a “promiscuous teleology,” and a penchant toward “intuitive theism.”
Theists likewise concur that humans have an inherent predisposition to conclude an intelligent Creator exists. Theistic apologist Paul Copan describes mankind’s tendency toward creation as a “religious impulse” that is “deeply imbedded” in the universal human thought process (2011, p. 30). We could supply scores of similar statements from creationists that would underscore the obvious conclusion that, by and large, the creationist community agrees with the atheistic community that there is a universal, built-in, in-born, intuitive human tendency to believe in an intelligent creator. The question then arises, which understanding of origins, atheism or theism, best explains why humanity exhibits “intuitive theism”? One key to arriving at the answer to this question is to understand the problems this reality poses for atheistic, naturalistic explanations of the Universe.

Theism and Religion are “Costly” Concepts

According to naturalistic, atheistic assumptions for the origin of the Universe and the evolutionary assumption for the origin of mankind, everything that exists must have a naturalistic cause. By that, it is understood that atheistic evolutionists must present a reason to explain why humans are “intuitive theists” that corresponds with their atheistic beliefs that the material Universe is all there is. The problem that the atheistic community runs into in this regard is that the ideas of religion and theism run counter to what one would expect to find if atheism and naturalistic evolution were true. According to evolution [by this we mean atheistic, naturalistic evolution in which no intelligent designer played any part], natural selection eliminates physical structures and mental states that are costly in terms of their survival value. For instance, if there developed in a certain sub-group of humans the intuitive idea that rabid Kodiak bears made good pets, that group would soon be killed by such bears, and whatever aspect of the brain that housed the belief would be eliminated from the human population as a whole.
To illustrate further, if a certain group of humans tended to spend lots of effort on religious ceremonies that had nothing to do with their physical survival, and another group did not “waste” their resources on anything but their physical survival, natural selection would suggest that those “religious” people who “wasted” their resources would eventually lose out in the race for physical survival. And the “non-religious” group would be selected by nature to become more prevalent and replace the “wasteful” religious group. Yet, we see just the opposite.
Richard Dawkins acknowledged this problem facing atheistic ideas. He stated: “Religion is so wasteful, so extravagant; and Darwinian selection habitually targets and eliminates waste” (2006, p. 163). Atheistic philosopher Daniel Dennett stated: “Whatever else religion is as a human phenomenon, it is a hugely costly endeavor, and evolutionary biology shows that nothing so costly just happens” (2006, p. 69). What do these atheistic writers mean when they say that religion is “wasteful” and “so costly”? Dennett expounded on the idea when he said that when people look at humanity all over the world
what they see today is a population of over six billion people, almost all of whom devote a significant fraction of their time and energy to some sort of religious activity: rituals such as daily prayer (both public and private) or frequent attendance at ceremonies, but also costly sacrifices—not working on certain days no matter what looming crisis needs prompt attention…and abiding by a host of strenuously observed prohibitions and requirements (p. 75).
Dawkins expanded his ideas of “wasteful” as well, when he said:
Religion can endanger the life of the pious individual, as well as the lives of others. Thousands of people have been tortured for their loyalty to a religion, persecuted by zealots for what is in many cases a scarcely distinguishable alternative faith…. Devout people have died for their gods and killed for them; whipped blood from their backs, sworn themselves to a lifetime of celibacy or to lonely silence, all in the service of religion. What is it all for? What is the benefit? (pp. 164-165).
In their discussions and writings, atheists have sometimes suggested that religion possibly has such overwhelming health benefits that it is “worth” the expense. They note such things as the results of some research to suggest that prayer can lower stress levels or blood pressure. Or they comment on the emotional benefits of fitting into a community, which religious rituals would foster and encourage. Virtually across the board, however, they have rejected the idea that religion is actually beneficial for the physical survival of mankind. They contend that such minor advantages as lower stress levels or lower blood pressure certainly cannot justify the massive expenditure of resources on religion. [NOTE: It is easy to see why they have rejected those explanations. If religion actually provides benefits that would be greater than any negative consequences, then it would be better for humanity to hang on to religious ideas regardless of their factuality or validity. Since most modern atheists are calling for the eradication of religion, they are forced to downplay its benefits and look for another answer that could compel people to want to eliminate religion. While we certainly are not suggesting the idea that religion is beneficial and that is why it “evolved,” it is plain to see why the current atheistic community has forsaken it.]
Sam Harris contended, “And even if tribes have occasionally been the vehicles of natural selection, and religion proved adaptive, it would remain an open question whether religion increases human fitness today” (p. 151). The current atheistic consensus is that religion does not bestow upon humanity enough physical benefit to “increase human fitness.” How, then, do atheists respond to the two facts that (1) humans are intuitively theistic and (2) such religious theism is extremely costly and does not bestow physical survival fitness on our species?

The Current Atheistic Answer: Religion is a Virus or By-Product

What naturalistic explanation can be given to account for the ubiquitous and extremely costly nature of religion? In their attempt to show that theism is unnecessary and ultimately harmful, the atheistic community has concocted the idea that theistic ideas are analogous to mind-viruses that infect a person, not for the benefit of the person, but for the benefit of the mind-virus. In other words, theism is a mind-virus that has been passed from host human to host human for its own survival, and not for the benefit of the human organisms it inhabits. Dawkins explained: “The fact that religion is ubiquitous probably means that it has worked to the benefit of something, but it may not be us or our genes. It may be to the benefit of only the religious ideas themselves, to the extent that they behave in a some-what gene-like way, as replicators” (p. 165).
Dawkins has expounded upon this idea and used the term “memes” to describe ideas that he asserts behave in ways similar to genes. He contends that theism is a “meme” that acts as a mental virus, infecting people and forcing them to replicate the meme by teaching others about it and expending vast resources on it. Along these lines, Dan Dennett has suggested that “the common cold is universal to all human peoples in much the same way as religion is, yet we would not want to suggest that colds benefit us” (p. 165). Dennett, using the meme idea, asserted: “The meme theory accounts for this. According to this theory, the ultimate beneficiaries of religious adaptations are the memes themselves…” (p. 186).
Atheist Darrell Ray wrote an entire book, The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture, based on this idea. He opened by saying:
It was not until Richard Dawkins’ idea of  “viruses of the mind” that we gained a ready-made way to examine religion as closely as we look at the epidemiology of the flu virus. This book will show how religions of all kinds fit in the natural world, how they function in our minds and culture and how similar they are to the germs, parasites and viruses that inhabit our bodies (2009, p. 13).
To build his case for the “religion-as-a-virus” idea, he mentioned numerous things that he perceives as validating evidence of his assertion. He wrote: “Once a person has converted to a religion, it is difficult to have a rational conversation about the irrational aspects of his religion. It is as though something invaded the person and took over a part of his personality” (p. 20). He went on to discuss the situation in which a friend lost his father to cancer. Before the loss, the friend was “non-religious.” But after the father’s death, the friend “got a severe case of religion that changed his personality dramatically.” Ray says “there was no way to have a conversation with him on any subject without religion creeping in” (p. 19). He further asserted that “stress can activate the chicken pox virus in adults, leading to the condition known as shingles. Similarly, stress tends to reactivate the god virus in many people” (p. 25).
Other alleged symptoms of the “god virus” include the idea that “religion always functions to ensure its own survival,” just as a virus does (Ray, p. 36). To undergird this assertion, Ray said: “Go into any Christian bookstore, and you will find books about living in a secular world, living with a spouse who is not saved or how to convert friends and relatives. The god virus is always concerned with protecting and expanding its territory—that is what these books are all about” (p. 176). Ray has taken Dawkins’ meme/mental virus idea to its logical conclusion.

The Simplest Response to the God Virus Idea

One very simple idea clearly manifests the flaws in the God virus concept. If thoughts or ideas were self-sustaining, self-replicating “memes” that were simply out for their own survival, that would mean that the idea of atheism would fall under the same condemnation as a “selfish meme” ensuring its own survival to the potential detriment of its host. By what criteria could anyone discern between “real” ideas and those dastardly memes infecting the brain. If someone did propose a set of criteria, who is to say that such criteria are not, themselves, a menacing meme that is infecting the mind of the person trying to weed out memes? And how would we know that the concept of a meme is not merely a meme in and of itself infecting the minds of atheists who present the idea? The reader can see how quickly such a discussion would digress into intellectual chaos. Furthermore, how could people be held responsible for anything they think or do? “My memes made me do it!” would become the mantra for all kinds of malicious crimes. And while atheists have attempted to provide answers to such problems, if memes really do exist as individual entities, who is to say that such “answers” are more than memes?
In fact, when analyzing the writings of those who present the “meme/virus” idea, the reader can quickly ascertain the flaw in their reasoning. For instance, Ray said that when the religious virus took over his friend after his father’s death, the friend mentioned religion in virtually every conversation. But the same could be said for any number of individuals who have become outspoken atheists, who insist on inserting their unbelief in virtually every conversation they have.
Ray stated: “In viral terms, it means that people are so deeply infected that they are immune to influence and generally ignore any evidence that contradicts their beliefs” (p. 39). Yet it can be shown that the available scientific evidence contradicts major tenets of atheistic evolution, a fact that is generally ignored by the atheistic community (see Miller, 2012; Miller, 2013). In addition, we mentioned that Ray said: “Go into any Christian bookstore, and you will find books about living in a secular world, living with a spouse who is not saved or how to convert friends and relatives. The god virus is always concerned with protecting and expanding its territory—that is what these books are all about.” What, pray tell, are the books, tracts, DVDs, and pamphlets about atheism designed to do? Are they not written for the very purpose of protecting and expanding the “territory” of atheism?
Listen to the atheists themselves as they describe their “religious” efforts. Prolific atheistic writer and debater, Dan Barker, likened his teaching about atheism to “evangelism” and he stated: “Representing the Freedom From Religion Foundation, I get to engage in similar atheist ‘missionizing’ all across the American continent….” At one point he said, “Atheist ‘evangelism’ doesn’t just happen in front of an audience” (2008, p. 325).
Notice the irony of the fact that the first chapter of Dawkins’ book The God Delusion is titled “A Deeply Religious Non-Believer.” In that chapter, he quotes Carl Sagan’s writings from a book titled A Pale Blue Dot. Sagan wrote: “A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.” Dawkins then stated: “All Sagan’s books touch the nerve-endings of transcendent wonder that religion has monopolized in past centuries. My own books have the same aspiration. Consequently I hear myself often described as a deeply religious man” (p. 12). Additionally, Ray rails on “religion” as a destructive meme/virus, and yet throughout his book, he capitalizes the terms atheist and atheism consistently. One example is when he states: “In fact, the only thing you can get some Atheists to agree upon is that there is no god” (pp. 51-52). Is it not the “religious” concept “that there is no god” that could easily be put forth as the meme that has infected so many minds to the detriment of the host human and in spite of a vast amount of evidence to the contrary? Such is the double-edged sword of the meme/virus concept. If it cuts at all (which it does not), then it cuts both ways.

The Existence of God Provides the Logical Answer

Up to this point we have established that both atheists and theists admit that humans are “intuitive theists.” That is, the belief in an intelligent Creator comes naturally to humans. This idea poses a serious problem for the atheist because the concepts of God and/or religion are extremely costly to the human species. Thus, in an attempt to explain why theism is so prevalent, they liken it to a mental virus that is out for its own survival and not for the benefit of the “host organism.” This explanation, and others like it, fail since arguments used to dismiss the validity of theism and religion would be equally effective to demote all concepts—including atheism—to “by-products” and “memes.” Thus, we are forced to conclude, as Paul Copan did: “Attempts by these New Atheists to explain away theology as a useful fiction, or worse, a harmful delusion, fall short of telling us why the religious impulse is so deeply imbedded. If God exists, however, we have an excellent reason as to why religious fervor should exist” (p. 30).
In other words, if there really is a God, Who is an intelligent, supernatural Creator Who loves mankind and desires that mankind should know the truth, what would we expect to see? We would expect to find humans “pre-programmed” for a belief in God. Of course, we would not expect all humans to come to the proper conclusion that God exists, since a loving God would equip humans with the capacity to choose what to believe and how they choose to behave. We would, however, expect God to have so designed humans that to dismiss the concepts of creation or theism would be unnatural and would require some type of reverse programming. That an intelligent Designer exists is the answer which maintains the most powerful explanatory value.
In fact, further reading into the atheistic literature makes known the fact that atheism is “unnatural” in the sense that it is not how the human mind is designed to perceive the world. Let us refer back to the Bloom and Weisberg article titled “Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science.” It is important to understand their definition of the term “science.” Their research was done in order to show why many Americans reject atheistic evolution. Thus, the term “science” is equated with “atheistic evolution” in their writing. Understanding this to be the case, notice that they said: “The main reason why people resist certain scientific [read that atheistic evolutionary—KB] findings, then, is that many of these findings are unnatural and unintuitive” (2007, 316:996). Keleman concurred when she wrote: “The implication is that children’s science failures may, in part, result from inherent conflicts between intuitive ideas and the basic tenets of contemporary scientific [atheistic evolutionary—KB] thought” (2004, 15:299). In Dawkins’ discussion of the situation, he includes the fact that Bloom says that humans are “innately predisposed to be creationists.” Dawkins then comments that “natural selection ‘makes no intuitive sense.’” Thus, he concludes that children are “native teleologists, and many never grow out of it” (pp. 180-181).
Notice the admission by these atheistic writers. They are forced by the evidence to admit that humans are naturally inclined to believe in an intelligent Designer. They are further forced by the evidence to conclude that the various tenets of atheistic evolution are counterintuitive and unnatural. Yet, in spite of the evidence, they cling to the idea that somehow this situation can be reconciled with the belief that God does not exist. Notice that a presumption of atheism could never have predicted the situation that humans would be “intuitive theists.” Nor do the purported atheistic answers to the problem provide adequate explanatory value. The simple and most powerfully supported conclusion is that God exists, and that is why humans are “innately predisposed to be creationists.”

The Next Step

Once God’s existence is established using humanity’s “intuitive theism,” the next step would be to see how God expects His creatures to use this preprogrammed disposition. If we can establish that the Bible is God’s Word (and we can, see Butt, 2007), then we can go to it to determine the proper human response. First, we can see that God expects everyone to use this predisposition to accurately assess the evidence He has provided to come to the conclusion that He exists. Romans 1:19-21 bears this out:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 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 (emp. added).
Notice that the biblical text makes it clear that these men “suppress the truth” even though “what may be known of God is manifest in them.” Furthermore, unbelievers will be “without excuse” because they are equipped with the evidence, and the inherent predisposition and ability to arrive at the proper conclusion.
In his sermon on Mars Hill to the Athenians, the apostle Paul explained that the Creator “has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the Earth…so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:26-27). Paul’s statement corresponds perfectly with the idea that God has so designed humans that they naturally “grope” for Him. This would also fit perfectly with the fact that “many psychologists and anthropologists [are led] to believe that children, left entirely to their own devices, would invent some conception of God” (Harris, p. 151). Humans are “groping” for God.
Notice, then, the divine program for salvation. First, a person gropes for a Creator. That person is able to find the Creator Who designed humans and instilled within them the ability to know Him. Their knowledge of this Creator should lead them to the conclusion that humans are His offspring and not the product of a naturalistic, chance process (Acts 17:29). This truth was sufficiently verified by the life and death of Jesus Christ, Who will ultimately judge all mankind based on the plenteous evidence God has supplied and their inherent ability to assess that evidence correctly (Acts 17:31).

References

Barker, Dan (2008), Godless (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press).
Bloom, Paul (2009), “In Science We Trust: Beliefs About the Natural World that are Present in Infancy Influence People’s Response to Evolutionary Theory,” Natural History Magazine, 118[4]:16-19.
Bloom, Paul and Deena Skoinick Weisberg (2007), “Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science,” Science, 316 [5827]: 996-997.
Butt, Kyle (2007), Behold the Word of God: Exploring the Evidence of the Inspiration of the Bible (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Copan, Paul (2011), Is God a Moral Monster? (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Dawkins, Richard (2006), The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin).
Dennet, Daniel (2006), Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (New York: Viking).
Evans, Margaret (2001), “Cognitive and Contextual Factors in the Emergence of Diverse Belief Systems: Creation versus Evolution,” Cognitive Psychology, 42:252.
Harris, Sam (2010), The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (New York: Free Press).
Hitchens, Christopher (2007), God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (New York: Twelve).
Kelemen, Deborah (2004), “Are Children ‘Intuitive Theists’? Reasoning About Purpose and Design in Nature,” Psychological Science, 15[5]:295-301.
Libresco, Leah (2012), “This is My Last Post for the Patheos Atheist Portal,” http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unequallyyoked/2012/06/this-is-my-last-post-for-the-patheos-atheist-portal.html.
Merica, Dan (2012), “Atheist Becomes Catholic,” http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/22/prominent-atheist-blogger-converts-to-catholicism/.
Miller, Jeff (2012), “The Law of Biogenesis [Part I],” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-5,9-11, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018.
Miller, Jeff (2013), “Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/2786.
Mills, David (2006), Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press).
Pinedo, Moises (2008), What the Bible Says About the Catholic Church (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Ray, Darrel (2009), The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture (Bonner Springs, KS: IPC Press).

Questions and Answers: "Their Worm does not Die" by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=29

Questions and Answers: "Their Worm does not Die"

by  Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Q.
What does “their worm does not die” mean in Mark 9?

A.

At the end of the chapter in Mark 9, Jesus began a brief discourse with His disciples, explaining that their spiritual well-being should be the paramount concern in their lives. In order to illustrate this point, He commented that if their hand offended them, it should be cut off, or if their foot made them sin, it, too, should be amputated. This figurative language stressed the point that whatever stood in the way of faithfulness to God should be discarded. Jesus concluded that it was better to be rid of stumbling blocks than “to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched—where ‘their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched’ ” (Mark 9:43-44,46,48).
The word “hell” in this passage is actually the Greek word Gehenna, meaning “Valley of the Son(s) of Hinnom,” which was the name given to the valley south of the walls of Jerusalem. This valley was notoriously connected to the sinful, horrific practice of child sacrifice associated with the pagan god Molech. Josiah, the righteous king of Judah, in his efforts to restore true worship, ransacked the pagan worship arena and “defiled Topheth, which is the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter pass through the fire to Molech” (2 Kings 23:10). As a result, the valley became a refuse dump for discarding filth, dead animals, and other garbage (see Jeremiah 7:32). By the time of Jesus, the Jewish community associated Gehenna with spiritual death (Lenski, 1946, p. 407).
Interjected into Jesus’ explicit description of Gehenna, was the statement that in this horrid place, the “worm does not die.” The worms—described in Isaiah (66:24), and pictured by Jesus in Mark 9—are maggots, which would be associated quite naturally with the rotting filth of a refuse heap. The twist to Jesus’ phrase is the fact that the worm in hell “does not die.” Concerning this, Lenski wrote: “The fact that it does not die means that its work is eternal. ...The bodies of the blessed shall shine with glory and eternal bliss, but the bodies of the damned shall be like rotting, putrid corpses that have the worm within...” (p. 408).
This passage surely must represent one of the most graphic mental pictures ever painted by our Lord—which should cause each of us to reflect seriously on the possible stumbling blocks in our own lives, and what we can do on a daily basis in order to avoid them.

REFERENCE

Lenski, R.C.H. (1961), The Interpretation of Mark’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).

Was Jesus Married? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=4519

Was Jesus Married?

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The parade of alleged gospels that purport to alter the foundational doctrines of the Christian religion is endless. Most recently, a papyrus fragment written in Coptic that dates to the fourth century has created a stir. Among its eight badly faded lines are two phrases, “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife...’” and a second provocative clause that is believed to say, “she will be able to be my disciple” (Goodstein, 2012). No matter how tentative and flimsy the evidence, liberal scholars and atheists glory in any item that might discredit Christ and Christianity. Yet, even the lead expert on the fragment, historian at the Harvard Divinity School, Karen King, repeatedly cautioned that it “should not be taken as proof that Jesus, the historical person, was actually married. The text was probably written centuries after Jesus lived, and all other early, historically reliable Christian literature is silent on the question” (Goodstein, emp. added).
Many Christians and non-Christians fail to grasp the fact that the legitimacy and credibility of Christianity does not finally depend on archaeological discovery. If the Bible can be proven to possess the attributes of inspiration, demonstrating its divine origin, then no artifact will ever be discovered that will contradict that truth. If any manuscript or artifact appears to do so, it is being misinterpreted and misconstrued. Since we know that the Bible is the inspired Word of God (based on a careful and thorough analysis of its internal attributes—see the category “Inspiration of the Bible” at apologeticspress.org), then we know that Jesus never married just as the New Testament represents. [NOTE: That is not to say that the Catholic notion of celibacy finds biblical support—it does not. See Pinedo, 2008, pp. 60ff.]
Furthermore, the truth of the matter is that the textual basis of the New Testament was settled and fully authenticated many years ago. The longstanding discipline of Textual Criticism has yielded abundant evidence for the trustworthiness of the text of the New Testament. Over the last two centuries, the manuscript evidence has been thoroughly examined, resulting in complete exoneration for the integrity, genuineness, and accuracy of the Bible. Prejudiced university professors refrain from divulging to their students that the vast majority of textual variants involve minor matters that do not affect salvation nor alter any basic teaching of the New Testament. Even those variants that might be deemed doctrinally significant pertain to matters that are treated elsewhere in the Bible where the question of genuineness is unobscured. No feature of Christian doctrine is at stake. When all of the textual evidence is considered, the vast majority of discordant readings have been resolved (e.g., Metzger, 1978, p. 185). One is brought to the firm conviction that we have in our possession the Bible as God intended.
The world’s foremost textual critics have confirmed this conclusion. Sir Frederic Kenyon, longtime director and principal librarian at the British Museum, whose scholarship and expertise to make pronouncements on textual criticism was second to none, stated: “Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established” (Kenyon, 1940, p. 288). The late F.F. Bruce, longtime Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism at the University of Manchester, England, remarked: “The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice” (1960, pp. 19-20). J.W. McGarvey, declared by the London Times to be “the ripest Bible scholar on earth” (Brigance, 1870, p. 4), conjoined: “All the authority and value possessed by these books when they were first written belong to them still” (1956, p. 17). And the eminent textual critics Westcott and Hort put the entire matter into perspective when they said:
Since textual criticism has various readings for its subject, and the discrimination of genuine readings from corruptions for its aim, discussions on textual criticism almost inevitably obscure the simple fact that variations are but secondary incidents of a fundamentally single and identical text. In the New Testament in particular it is difficult to escape an exaggerated impression as to the proportion which the words subject to variation bear to the whole text, and also, in most cases, as to their intrinsic importance. It is not superfluous therefore to state explicitly that the great bulk of the words of the New Testament stand out above all discriminative processes of criticism, because they are free from variation, and need only to be transcribed (1964, p. 564, emp. added).
Noting that the experience of two centuries of investigation and discussion had been achieved, these scholars concluded: “[T]he words in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part of the whole of the New Testament” (p. 565, emp. added).
Think of it. Men who literally spent their lives poring over ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, devoting their lives to meticulous, tedious analysis of the evidence, conversant with the original languages, without peer in their expertise and qualifications, have concluded that the Bible has been transmitted accurately. No scrap of papyrus written 200+ years after the fact can overturn the last two centuries of scholarly investigation and validation—let alone the Bible’s own inspired testimony to the contrary.

REFERENCES

Brigance, L.L. (1870), “J.W. McGarvey,” in A Treatise on the Eldership by J.W. McGarvey (Murfreesboro, TN: DeHoff Publications, 1962 reprint).
Bruce, F.F. (1960), The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), revised edition.
Goodstein, Laurie (2012), “A Faded Piece of Papyrus Refers to Jesus’ Wife,” The New York Times, September 18, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120919&moc.semityn.www.
Kenyon, Sir Frederic (1940), The Bible and Archaeology (New York, NY: Harper).
McGarvey, J.W. (1956 reprint), Evidences of Christianity (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
Metzger, Bruce M. (1978 reprint), The Text of the New Testament (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), second edition.
Pinedo, Moises (2008), What the Bible says about the Catholic Church (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), http://apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/wtbsatcc.pdf.
Westcott, B.A. and F.J.A. Hort (1964 reprint), The New Testament in the Original Greek (New York, NY: MacMillan).