Getting Rid of God

Fig. 1.1

What is the cause of all the trouble in the world? Some purport that "religion" causes all trouble and that without religion everyone would get along perfectly.  Is this true? Does all "trouble" come from religion? Would the world be peaceful without God? 

The other day, I came across this image in a discussion concerning religion.  There are, of course, multiple ways to take it: 1.) While there is a Bible in the image, it could mean all religion and that Christianity merely epitomizes those religions, or 2.) Christianity is the only religion that needs to be done away with.  Are these new ideas? Is there any validity to such arguments? While the Bible actually presents us with numerous examples in which similar sentiments were express (through words or actions), let us first examine whether this makes sense given what we know about the world.

In a world full of dispute, it is obvious that claiming that getting rid of religion will bring peace is an absurdly illogical argument.  Are arguments concerning Global Warming based on religion? Gun control? Issues of race? Oil? Drugs? If all religion were done away with tomorrow, would these issues (some of which have caused the deaths of many people) magically disappear? What about violent international disputes over economic systems? How peaceful have nations without religion been in the past? 

Relatively recently, the lead singer of a band posted a photo of his full-size truck on his own Facebook page.  If, as some claim, religion causes all the strife in the world, then this one post should have had no negative impact, but that simply wasn't true.  "Fans" of this singer began commenting on the photo in the most vile manners possible (on both sides of the issue); there was name calling, cussing, swearing, and many other unspeakable things presented in the "discussion".  Remember, this was over a man's truck. He wasn't discussing religion, nor was he making a political statement...he was only showing a picture of his truck.  How would getting rid of religion cure such rantings and ravings? 

Unfortunately, many generations in America have fallen prey to the misconception that they are smarter and more "enlightened" than any generation that has preceded them.  The Bible is "outdated" and "antiquated", which is generally established by false claims that the Apostle Paul was a chauvinist (or similar argumentation).  Religion, many claim, is the manifestation of a weak, undeveloped mind.  Enlightened minds do not need a "dusty old book" to tell them what is right and what is wrong, and the enlightened mind is able to accept differing viewpoints (except, of course, viewpoints predicated upon religious principles).  No one, in the entire history of the world, has been so enlightened as our current society; remember, of course, that many who make such claims believe the world to be millions, billions, or trillions of years old, so this is a rather large claim to make. 

Mankind is able to determine morality separate and apart from God; we do not need God to inform us as to what is right and wrong...or at least some make such a claim.  Can we logically conclude what is and what is not right by ourselves? Can our system of laws determine such for us? Let us take a moment to examine such a claim using America as a case-study:

It is illegal for someone of "consenting age" to have sexual relations with someone not of "consenting age".  Depending upon state, "consenting age" is 18, while other states are 16. A female who is 12, 13, 14, or 15 (and, of course, younger than 12) is not deemed cognitive enough to make the decision to have sexual intercourse.  However, that same child can, in many states, have an abortion without involving her parents or the father  in any way.  Now, a child as young as 2 or 3 can choose their "gender preference".  Let us follow the logic: a 2 year old can choose their gender, a 15 year old girl can choose to murder  her child, but neither can make the cognitive decision to have sex.

Yes, it is clear that mankind can establish morality apart from God and that religion is the cause of all the problems in the world.  Sadly, many will defend the "agenda" no matter what the cost; in other words, they would argue that the only thing out of sorts in the paragraph above is that children aren't deemed cognitive enough to have consensual sex.  

The problems in the world are not caused by religion, nor are they caused by the existence of morality (as given by God).  Rather, they are caused by mankind and the wickedness participated in by mankind.  While each generation purports to be the most "enlightened" ever, they spew the same wickedness of the generations that came before them.  Remember that King Ahab claimed that it was Elijah that had caused all the trouble in Israel: "Is that you, O troubler of Israel?" Was it Elijah who troubled Israel? Or had he simply made the Israelites feel guilty in their disobedience? Elijah responded to Ahab by saying that he had "not troubled Israel, but you and your father's house, in that you have forsaken the commandments of the Lord and have followed the Baals" (1 Kings 18:17-18).  

Shouts of bigotry and intolerance are directed at those who stand up for God and for His word and they are meant to intimidate.  They are agenda driven and they are argued from emotion rather than from an objective viewpoint.  Man is not "enlightened" apart from God.  Man cannot find the correct path without God.  Too many Christians are falling prey to the empty rhetoric of this world and are accepting sin as being fine with God.  Forget what the world purports as being "right"; the world cannot discern right from wrong without God! 

"O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps" (Jeremiah 10:23).

"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death" (Proverbs 14:12). 

Heart Rather Than Politics

So far, I've tried to refrain from entering into political discussions too much on Facebook (at least regarding the presidential campaign). As a whole, my individual perspective isn't going to alter who is going to be president (as proven by the last two presidential elections...).  That being said, the following does pertain at least in part to politics.

However, here is something we, as Christians, ought to think about: how did Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders become the top runners for the most powerful position in the world?

Generally speaking, the "leader" reflects the people; while there are cases throughout history where the opposite was true ( Josiah - 2 Kings 21-23; 2 Chronicles 33-35), it more often than not is true.

First up, we have Donald Trump. Why is he even being considered? He's loud, he's obnoxious, he's rude, he's a bully, and he goes whichever way the wind blows. Now, look at our society: we're great at screaming down those who disagree with us rather than having rational discussions, we call people "stupid" if they don't agree with us, we rarely listen to actual arguments and instead attack the person, we bully people by telling them that if they don't agree with us then they are "hating" us or others, and we rarely, if ever, spend time thinking through an argument when it is so much easier to go with whatever sounds good at the moment (Proverbs 18:17). But hey, he's rich, so he'll be great for our economy...but let's not look too closely at his shady business deals.

Second, we have Hillary Clinton. She is a known liar, likely a murderer, known advocate of abortion, and yet she is still the front-runner in the Democratic party. She clearly lacks integrity, but we are a society in which integrity doesn't matter because we "do what we want". This is 'Merica. Just capture the West Virginia vote...we've elected incarcerated criminals to office.

Third, we have Bernie Sanders. Sanders is probably the most "likable" of the three, but does that qualify him for the position? His socialist "principles" fit with everything fought against in World War II and the political "Cold War", and yet we have a generation coming out in droves to support him. Why? Because we have generations of spoiled people in this nation who have no clue how they got the freedom to be spoiled. They're told by society that reality doesn't matter when their individual feelings are "hurt" and that reality is whatever they "identify" as. Society teaches them them that they are entitled rather than teaching hard work. Promise them free stuff, and they will vote for you. This generation has been given a trophy every time that they've sneezed in life and told how much of a genius they are. Sanders clearly does not understand economics, and neither do his supporters.

Where does this leave us? Do politics matter to Christians? While our eternal home and our goal is to be heaven, we do still have to live in this world (1 Cor. 5). If we are given the freedom to voice our concerns openly about the detrimental impacts such front-runners can have on the spiritual well-being of our society, then ought we to use it? Unfortunately, I've followed numerous discussions among Christians this go-around and many, in their efforts to support their chosen candidate, have shown the same short-comings their candidate does: bully tactics, mocking, entitlement, and lack of integrity.

The problem(s) in America isn't politically related, it is heart related. How can we expect to alter a person's politics without first altering their hearts? There are many things, like the economy, that do not matter in the grand scheme of things; Christians can easily disagree with one another one what the best economic system is and it doesn't impact either of their abilities to reach heaven. However, if we teach that we are entitled to have things for which we have not worked, is that appropriate? Is that compassionate (2 Thess. 3:10)? If we advocate monetary gain by shady methods, is that appropriate (Matthew 6:24; 1 Timothy 6:10)? Greed and covetousness can apply in a capitalist society, and it certainly applies to socialist societies (no matter what the rhetoric states). They are wrong under both systems.

The example of Josiah (already mentioned), and in the example of his grandfather in the preceding chapters of each respective book, shows that a society can be "legislated" into obedience without their hearts having been changed (as evidenced by the book of Jeremiah). No matter who the president is, our job as Christians remains the same: change the hearts of the people.

This is not a post that is meant to discourage Christians from voting for legislation that will, even temporarily, halt immoral things from happening in our country. However, for us to be able to combat such immoral issues in our society, we have to avoid being drawn in by the empty rhetoric spewed by an ungodly society, and we have to strive to change their hearts. Changing hearts will NEVER be accomplished by "accepting" people in sin AS THEY ARE (a very unscriptural "principle"...again, 1 Corinthians 5).

We cannot complain about our presidential candidates when they simply reflect our society perfectly.

"The prophets prophesy falsely, And the priests rule by their own power; And My people love to have it so. But what will you do in the end?" (Jeremiah 5:31)

Peace, Peace...When There is No Peace

While at the Exton Study, Chad Lynn (Huntington church of Christ) asked me to summarize my material on the book of "Jeremiah" (which we are currently studying in our Wednesday evening Bible class here in Montana). My joking response was: "Repent or die." While this was a quip, it is essentially true; God's message to Judah was that their wickedness had reached new levels of degeneration and their departure from God was obvious.

Throughout "Jeremiah", there is evidence that the people of Judah were attempting to keep the law (ex. - offering sacrifices to God) while pursuing their own desires (ex. - offering human sacrifices to idols [2 Chron. 33:6]). How should we apply the principles expressed throughout "Jeremiah" to our lives today?

There are (at least) two ways that we can read through "Jeremiah", and both are applicable. One method is to pull out the principles and apply them to the world at large, which means that when Jeremiah discusses the murder of children (Jeremiah 32:35), we can apply that to abortion in our own culture. This is a fair comparison, and both show a lack of natural affection in each respective society.

However, we must ask to whom the prophecies of Jeremiah were directed; while the prophecies did impact cultures other than the Israelites, they were primarily FOR the Israelites in Judah. The Israelites, according to the Law of Moses (given by God), were the chosen people of God (Deuteronomy 7:6); likewise, Christians are the chosen people of God under the new kingdom (1 Peter 2). Therefore, perhaps we should make application of the principles within Jeremiah to ourselves, which is infinitely more difficult to do (which is the second method of looking at "Jeremiah").

In the last few days, there have been numerous posts concerning the transgender bathroom debate that have elicited responses from both sides. It is to be expected that those of the world will advocate such "progressiveness" since there is no objective truth that guides their lives, but the real concern comes when purported Christians (some that are even "preachers" or "preacher's wives") argue that these things are "real" now and therefore we, as Christians, must accept them without comment or objection. Such comments show more faith in the "science" of men who claim that these perversions are "natural" or are somehow "genetic" than it does in the Scriptures.

How do these two topics tie together? In the book of Jeremiah, there were numerous false prophets and rulers that advocated a false peace, thereby deceiving the people by giving them a false sense of salvation. In our society, very similar things happen; we have "evangelists" who claim that God's grace covers all sin and that He requires no obedience. We also have many who claim that sin is natural, and therefore we should not oppose it. If we have the natural disposition towards sin, then it must be natural, and therefore acceptable.

Jeremiah 6:13-15 states, "Because from the least of them even to the greatest of them, everyone is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even to the priest, everyone deals falsely. They have also healed the hurt of My people [FALSE HOPE] slightly, saying, 'Peace, peace!' when there is no peace. Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? No! they were not at all ashamed; nor did they know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among those who fall; at the time I punish them, they shall be cast down,' says the Lord."

It is sad when there are many Christians who support the world's view of "tolerance" rather than objecting to sin as it is (note: there is a difference between objecting to sin and mistreating a person, although the world, for sinful gain, does not acknowledge this difference). Christians too often declare "Peace, peace!" in order to placate the feelings of those in sin. Is this fair to the person in sin? Is it an acceptable stance before God above? Our job as Christians is to live acceptably before God and to declare the truth of HIS will, not our own subjective opinion. If we declare "Peace, peace!" when there is no such peace, does that alter the eternal outcome of those living in sin? No, but it WILL impact our own salvation. In "Jeremiah", the false prophets continually placated the people, but did they alter the outcome? Did they save the people by simply declaring peace?

As Christians, we need to cease accepting sin and allowing the humanistic/"scientific" views of the world alter what the truth of the Bible clearly states. While the world constantly argues that sins such as homosexuality and transgenderism are a genetic predisposition and therefore are not wrong (amazingly enough, they do not accept that a pedophile is genetically predisposed), we need to view sin as God sees sin. When the people of Judah had forsaken Him, God said: "For My people have committed two evils: They have forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters, and hewn themselves cisterns - broken cisterns that can hold no water" (Jeremiah 2:13). Do we dare forsake God for that which has no profit? Consider Jeremiah 2:8, "The priests did not say, 'Where is the Lord?' and those who handle the law did not know Me; the rulers also transgressed against Me; the prophets prophesied by Baal, and walked after things that do not profit."

If we place our faith in the "progressive" "reasonings" of men, then we believe in that which has no profit. God, through Jeremiah, stated to the people of Judah: "Behold, you trust in lying words that cannot profit" (Jeremiah 7:8). If we support sin, degrade those who oppose it, and yet call ourselves Christians, then we are certainly backsliding as those in Judah had done. In Jeremiah 2:19, God told the people of Judah this: "'Your own wickedness will correct you, and your backslidings will rebuke you. Know therefore and see that it is an evil and bitter thing that you have forsaken the Lord your God, and the fear of Me is not in you,' Says the Lord God of hosts."

Further references:

2 Peter 2:18-22

Romans 1 & 2

Jude

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

More for Less

In today’s society, everyone wants more for less; we want more house for less money, more car for less buck, free healthcare, and free education.  This is not a new concept, nor is it isolated to our own modern society.  If you follow the current political debates, you’ll notice that some platforms include “free” products and services, and they are gaining a lot of ground from the younger generations who too often lack a valuable work ethic.

It is no surprise, then, that this attitude/perspective bleeds over into religion.  The predominant “religious” view is that IF God exists, then He will not or does not require us to “work” for our salvation.  If He required us to “work” for our salvation, then that somehow means that we have “earned” our salvation, and since we cannot “earn” our salvation, then God must not require us to “work”.  It is, as you can plainly see, a very self-serving argument; through such arguments, we can have our salvation and yet be free of any action contrary to what we want to do.

Are these arguments new? Are we the first generation to come up with such? Can God ever get salvation correct? Will we ever be satisfied with God’s plan?

History distinguishes clearly between those who truly loved God (those who obeyed) and those who were selfish and thought only of themselves (those who disobeyed).  The Israelites, from the time that they departed from Egypt, wanted God to work on their own terms and constantly complained against both God and His servants.  Consider it this way for a moment: God frequently provided for the Israelites and required very little effort on their part.  For instance, only two months out of Egypt, the Israelites began to complain against God and said, “Oh, that we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the pots of meat and when we ate bread to the full! For you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger” (Exodus 16:3).  It is clear that this generation of Israelites had very poor short-term memories; they were enslaved in Egypt and Pharaoh had increased their workload to unbearable levels to keep them docile (Exodus 5).  How much easier did the Israelites want their lives to be? God had promised them great things, including a glorious land that they would simply walk into and take over by the hand of God.  After their complaint in Exodus 16, God provided “bread from heaven” (16:4) for them and required very little from them in return. 

What did God require of the Israelites? Did God require too much of them? The account in Exodus informs us that the Israelites were to gather a certain quota every day for five days, then an extra quota on the sixth day, gather nothing on the seventh day (Sabbath Day), and, except for the night of the sixth day, they were to leave none of the bread overnight (Exodus 16:15-31).  However, the Israelites violated these very simple commands; they left Manna over until the morning (16:19-20) and some attempted to gather on the Sabbath Day (16:27-30).  Couldn’t God get it right? Perhaps, if God truly existed, He should have made the bread appear inside their tents for their convenience? How could God be so inconsiderate as to implement rules governing the Israelites concerning the bread for which they did not have to cultivate soil, plant, water, weed, harvest, process, and bake? And yet, what attitude did the Israelites have? One of disobedience, selfishness, and ungratefulness, for they said “our soul loathes this worthless bread” (Numbers 21:5). 

When we complain about what God requires us to do today or claim that there are no stipulations placed upon salvation, we are telling God that “our soul loathes this worthless bread”.  Why are we so arrogant and self-righteous as to insist that the almighty God bend to our wishes? Why do we pretend that God ought to be grateful of us for whatever service we decide to “bless” Him with?

In our society, entertainment reigns supreme, which naturally leads to the attitude mentioned earlier that many people want more for less (or for nothing, in most cases).  Our society desires freebies; we want to have fun all the time and not be bothered with work.  This concept is clearly defined for us in 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15; Paul’s command for those who were refusing to work and were busybodies was that they should not eat.  However, we want to take that a step further; while it is clear that Paul’s immediate context concerned physical needs, is there a spiritual application we can make? If we refuse to do the commands of God (work), should we be able to have salvation (eat)?

Salvation does not come on our own terms.  Our fulfilling the commands of God does not negate the grace of God, although some attempt to make these concepts mutually exclusive.  Did the Israelites somehow “earn” their Manna (miraculously given) because they picked it up off of the ground? Could they have had their Manna if they had not picked it up off of the ground? In reality, it is a ridiculous argument to claim that we earn salvation because we adhere to the commands of God; both parts of the equation are necessary or salvation will not be obtained (reference also 2 Kings 5).  As Jesus stated in John 14:15, “If you love Me, keep My commandments.” 

The Seed

In Mark 4, Jesus presented His audience with the parable of the sower.  Often, when Christians discuss the sower and spreading the Gospel, they talk about how to alter the methods of the sower so that the soil will accept the seed.  Too often, this translates into altering the message with the hope that the soil will receive what humans and society perceives as a kinder, gentler message.  Is there a “one size fits all” method of preaching the Gospel? Examples provided for our learning within the Scriptures indicate that the method of teaching depends upon the circumstances in which the Gospel is being taught, but the message is never to be changed; note that in the parable of the sower, the message (the seed) is exactly the same for all different kinds of soil and, in this case, the sower even sows the seed in exactly the same manner. 

Many Christians and evangelists today advocate the preaching of a “kinder, gentler” Gospel and purport that if the soil rejects the seed then the message was not presented in a kind or gentle enough manner.  What did the sower do wrong? Was his tone or words too harsh? Did he talk too much about the cost of discipleship and not enough about the benefits? Many people assert that because Jesus had compassion and taught in a gentle manner in some instances that this is the only method of teaching; further, they too often condemn other Christians who do not adhere to this conclusion. 

Consider the example of the following teacher: like most evangelists, this man received mixed reactions to his teachings.  Some people welcomed both the man and the message, while others rejected both.  Still others would initially welcome both the man and the message, only to reject both later.  To this point, he clearly fits what Jesus taught via the parable of the sower in Mark 4.  In one particular instance, this man had a prospective convert “on the line,” but thwarted the opportunity by telling his student what the gospel would mean specifically to him.  What did this sower do wrong? How could he be so harsh? Did he lack compassion? In yet another instance, this same teacher used physical force to establish his point.  Another time, this teacher used derogatory terms to describe an entire group of people to whom he was lecturing.  By this point, it ought to be clear who this teacher was: Jesus the Christ. 

What would happen today if a Christian had enough zeal to drive out the unrighteous? Would we claim that they are too harsh? Would we claim that they would drive individuals from God rather than to Him? Would we claim that they have an anger problem? In John 2:13-22, Jesus physically drove the money changers and merchants from the Temple using a whip.  Was it anger that caused Him to do this? John 2:17 states that it was zeal that caused Jesus to do this.  Was this a rash decision on the part of Jesus? John 2:14-15 tells us that Jesus saw the merchants and money changers in the Temple, He then went and made a whip of cords, and then went to the Temple to drive them out.  It appears that if Jesus had initially been acting out of rashness or anger, He would have calmed down while He created the whip.  Likewise, what would happen if a Christian used derogatory terms to describe an entire group of people that they are addressing? In Matthew 23, Jesus calls His audience hypocrites, blind guides, fools, whitewashed tombs, and murderers.  Would we dare use such harsh terms in our own politically correct society?

Many Christians today are worried that prospective converts will be driven away if we do not present the message in a kind or gentle enough manner.  Too many evangelists assert that Christians are only to teach the good things contained in the Bible, such as salvation, the resurrection, and eternal life.  If a Christian implies that there is a cost to discipleship and that an individual must alter their lifestyle, they are deemed even by fellow Christians to be “un-Christ-like” and “un-Christian-like.” 

While the parable of the sower established for us that the message is to always be the same, are we granted a certain amount of leeway in how that message is presented? The Scriptures through multiple examples indicate that this leeway is granted.  It is clear that there is not a single, one size fits all method for teaching lost souls the Gospel.  Did Jesus always use derogatory terms towards His audience as He did in Matthew 23? Absolutely not! Did He always use physical force to establish His point? Absolutely not! Jesus had both compassion and great zeal when it came to completing the tasks that God the Father had set before Him (John 2:17).  In Matthew 9:35-38, we see the compassion of Jesus in two different ways; first, Jesus was aiding the people by “healing every sickness and every disease” that was among them (9:35) and second, “He was moved with compassion for them, because they were weary and scattered, like sheep having no shepherd” (9:36).  The compassion of Jesus truly showed through when He observed the spiritual destitution of the multitudes; Jesus said to His disciples that the “harvest truly is plentiful, but the laborers are few.  Therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest” (9:37-38).  Were these laborers intended to care for the physical needs of the harvest or the spiritual needs? Matthew states that Jesus was moved by compassion because the multitudes “were weary and scattered, like sheep having no shepherd” (9:36).  Is the job of the shepherd to make the sheep feel safe even when there is a wolf amongst them, or is the shepherd’s job to warn the sheep of impending doom?

It is to be noted that our attitudes while teaching the Gospel do matter and we can establish this principle by examining the book of Jonah. It is clear that Jonah had a horrible attitude and that God showed His disapproval of Jonah’s attitude by dealing with it.  That being said, modern Christians need to stop seeking to lay the blame for the soil’s rejection of the seed at the feet of the sower.  If the soil is good, it will accept the seed, but if it is bad, then it will reject the seed; this principle is also established in the book of Jonah.  In spite of the fact that Jonah had the worst attitude a teacher could ever have towards his pupils, his pupils accepted the message and responded to it.  Clearly we are not to have the attitude of Jonah, but Jonah’s attitude did not alleviate the responsibility of the Ninevites to respond obediently to the message of God.  In other words, God held the Ninevites accountable to the message even though Jonah did not proclaim it with a nice enough attitude; God also held Jonah accountable for his attitude. 

Compassion and zeal should drive every Christian to teach the entire Gospel to lost souls.  Rather than determining to utilize only a single method of teaching, those same characteristics should dictate to us what method of teaching best suits the circumstances in which we find ourselves.  The message should never be altered, a principle which is also established in Mark 4; same seed, different soils.  Jesus, the Apostles, and the inspired writers of the New Testament used multiple methods of teaching; from kind, gentle, encouraging words (1 Thessalonians 4:1-2; 2 Thessalonians 1:3-5) to harsh rebukes and descriptions of destitute false teachers (Jude; 2 Peter 2).  We even have examples of nearly identical wording producing two entirely different outcomes (Acts 2:1-47; Acts 7:1-60), which indicates that the reaction depends more upon the hearer than the speaker.  Did Stephen have less compassion than Peter, or was his audience composed of the wayside soil (Mark 4:4)?

Whether we like it or not, acceptance or rejection of the Gospel depends upon the individual and what kind of soil they are.  As Christians, our compassion and zeal should drive us to ensure that they have received the entire message of God; this means that we need to show them from Scripture that there is a reward for obedience (James 1:12; 2 Timothy 4:6-8), consequences for disobedience (2 Peter 2:18-22; Matthew 7:22-23), and what the cost of discipleship may be while they linger here on earth (John 15:18-25; Matthew 10:32-39). 

Too often, we accept “it isn’t what you said, but how you said it” as a viable reason why an individual rejects the Gospel and we are successfully distracted from the real problem of sin in the life of that individual and condemn the teacher for their method of teaching.  Again, we must ensure that our attitude in teaching is in adherence with the Scriptures, but the attitude of the teacher is rarely the reason a person accepts or rejects the Gospel.  As Jesus emphasized with the parable of the sower, the message (seed) is the same, but each person (soil) is different.  We cannot control whether an individual will accept or reject the Gospel, but we can control whether or not they have had the chance to hear it in its entirety.  

First-Generation Christians

The terms “second generation” and “third generation” are often used to describe Catholics, Baptists, Mormons, and even some Christians in the religious world today.  More often than not, these terms are intended to be harmless and to simply express that an individual’s parents and grandparents were of the same religion.  Unfortunately, too many of the people who use these terms are a “second” or “third” generation simply because their parents or grandparents were of that religion and not because they have sought out and grounded themselves.  If questioned as to why they are a Christian rather than a Baptist, Mormon, or a Catholic, could they give a definitive answer that is supported Scripturally?

Every parent is to bring up their children “in the training and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:1-4), but every Christian needs to be a “first generation” Christian in the sense that we have personally evaluated the evidence found in the Bible and developed our own faith.  While Christian parents are to teach their children about God and what to do, we are also to teach why we obey God.  Consider how in 2 Peter 1:16-21 Peter used the fulfillment of prophecy as evidence of faith and the reason righteous men spoke as the oracles of God.  In this manner, Peter showed through evidence why he had faith in Christ and why he was obedient.  Peter, like the rest of the Apostles (except, perhaps, for Judas), had made his faith his own; he had to examine the evidence and to adhere to the gospel of his own volition, not only because someone else in his life had believed. 

In order to develop our own faith, we must be willing to question, and we need to teach our children to question conclusions, demand Scriptural evidence for a conclusion, and to accept conclusions that are founded only in Scripture.  In Acts 17:10-12, there was a group of Jews who were considered “fair-minded” because they questioned the teachings of the Apostle Paul.  While Paul could have been offended by this questioning, he was not; rather, Luke records positive words concerning them.  Like Paul, every modern day evangelist and Bible teachers should welcome those who question their conclusions and test them against the Scriptures to ensure validity.  Parents, likewise, should strive to maintain a true Scriptural grounding and teach their children how to establish authority from the Scriptures as well. 

There is an abundance of evidence in the Bible that proves its validity; in Romans 15:4, we are informed that the things written in the Old Testament were written for our learning, and that we can gain faith and hope from these writings.  From the Old Testament, we learn of those who had great faith, we learn principles of obedience to God, and we learn about the power of God to bring about His plan(s).  Throughout the Old Testament, we are provided with numerous prophecies; some of these prophecies were fulfilled within the times of the Old Testament and some were fulfilled in the New Testament.  Both stand as evidence of the power and omnipotence of God. 

God’s promise to Abraham that his descendants would be a great nation stands as a wonderful example of a prophecy that was both given and fulfilled in the Old Testament (Genesis 22:15-19; Exodus 1:1-10).  In addition to this example, we have other prophecies which are specific in nature, such as the one concerning King Josiah found in 1 Kings 13:1-5.  The prophecy, given in approximately 930 B.C., provided the name of the king, the king’s tribe, the place where the prophecy would be fulfilled, and particulars about what would happen during the fulfillment.  From an examination of the prophecy and its fulfillment in 2 Chronicles 34:1-5, we see that it was not a generalized prophecy; some purported “psychics” today make generalized prophecies and they make them in bulk in hopes of getting one or two correct.  The prophecy concerning Josiah was specific in nature and the fulfillment came approximately 300 years later in 630 B.C.  How can this not stand as evidence for the validity of the Bible?

In addition to the prophecies like the one mention above, we also have numerous prophecies in the Old Testament that are fulfilled in the New Testament.  Many of them directly relate to the coming of the Christ, life of Christ, or His death and resurrection, and there are too many of them to fully explore here.  We will, however, take a look at one such prophecy.  Few people think about the fact that King David (who lived approximately 1000 years before Christ) was also a prophet, and yet there are multiple prophecies in the book of Psalms pertaining to the Christ.  One such prophecy is located in Psalms 22:16-18 where we read, “For dogs have surrounded Me; the congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me.  They pierced My hands and My feet; I can count all My bones.  They look and stare at Me.  They divide My garments among them, And for My clothing they cast lots.”  The fulfillment of this prophecy is located in Matthew 27:33-36 where Jesus has been nailed to the cross, the guards divided His garments and cast lots, and they stared at Him as He died. The fulfillment of prophecies is powerful evidence that proves the validity of the Bible and our faith in God. 

Belief and faith are absolutely necessary for salvation; Hebrews 11:6-13 states that it is impossible to please God without having faith.  Therefore, we cannot simply go through the motions and hope to be saved.  Likewise, Jesus stated in John 8:24 that we must believe in His deity if we desire salvation; denying His deity will result in our own condemnation.  Faith can be established through a variety of methods; Thomas required physical proof (John 20:24-31), but the Centurion required no such evidences (Matthew 8:5-13).  We fall somewhere in between because we are unable to see the miracles of Christ and the Apostles firsthand, but we have been provided with records of “infallible proofs” (Acts 1:1-3; 1 John 1).  Our faith is to be established by the hearing of the word and these proofs contained therein (Romans 10:14-17).  In addition to the “infallible proofs” referred to by Luke, we have numerous examples of great faith in the Bible that were shared for our learning (Romans 15:4).  The Hebrew writer provided many such examples in Hebrews 11, and both the Old and New Testaments give us examples such as Johnathan and his armor bearer (1 Samuel 14:1, 6-23), Elijah (1 Kings 18:22-39), Stephen (Acts 7:54-60), and so many more. 

In Philippians 2:12-13, Paul encouraged the Philippian brethren to “work out” their “own salvation with fear and trembling”.  Was Paul suggesting that the Philippians could dictate their own methods for salvation? From the context, Paul was actually showing his confidence in the Philippian brethren for their ability to maintain their faith and obedience even without his physical presence.  Paul wrote that they had always obeyed, not only in his presence, but much more in his absence.  In essence, Paul established in this passage the principle we are driving at with this brief article; these Christians had their own faith and were not dependent upon Paul’s physical presence to drive them to obey the commandments of God.  Like them, we need to ensure that our faith is our own and firm up our foundation in the Lord.  Great examples, like those mentioned previously, can aid us in the establishment of our own faith, but that simply makes us first-generation Christians! 

Designed

Recently, my brother Kris made the observation that in wildlife documentaries the narrator will invariably state that an animal is "designed" for their habitat.  This statement generally falls among multiple references to how these animals developed via evolution.  Like with documentaries, non-fiction books on wildlife make the same "observations."  The last few weeks, I've read a couple of books on Bighorn Sheep (Ovis Canadensis) where similar statements were made, and currently I am reading The Wolf: Ghost Hunter by Daniel LeBoeuf.  

In one section, LeBoeuf writes that after "millions of years of evolution and adaptation, wolves have become skilled hunters" (pg. 68), but in another section he writes that a "wolf's legs are strong but slender-boned.  While large cats have thick legs that enable them to make short bursts of speed and to hold and crush prey, wolves' legs were designed for speed and endurance" (pg. 56).  

According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, design is defined as: "to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan", "to conceive and plan out in the mind", "to have as a purpose", "to devise for a specific function or end", "to conceive or execute a plan", and "to draw, lay out, or prepare a design".  In which of these definitions does chaos or happenstance appear? Can evolution "have as a purpose" the design of a wolf's leg? Can evolution "create" anything "according to plan"?

Also according to Merriam-Webster, the applicable definition of evolution is the "historical development of a biological group (as a race or species)", a "theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations".

Question: What animal or group of animals decides what needs to be modified? How do they survive long enough to be modified? It literally makes no logical sense, although the predominant number of scientists today will use complex language to muddy the waters; when broken down to the simplest form, does evolution make sense? 

Note also that the number one definition in the Merriam-Webster dictionary for evolution is "one of a set of prescribed movements."  One set of "prescribed" movements? Prescribe means "to lay down as a guide, direction, or rule of action", "to specify with authority", and "to lay down a rule". 

How can evolution, which is treated as the sheer happenstance of circumstances, be guided? Who sets the guide? Another sub-definition of evolution is "a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state."  This definition was applied indirectly to society, but it is often applied to "scientific" evolution as well (think of terms like "evolved higher beings").  Why do we assume that if evolution is purely by happenstance and that there is no intelligence involved that it would automatically go from simple to more complex, or "worse" to "better"? How often do societies actually do so? 

It seems that even in the evolutionist's overwhelming desire to explain away God, some still logical part of their brain realizes the reality of an intelligent designer and they subconsciously understand that for something like the legs of a wolf to operate correctly a design must have taken place.